It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 14
34
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

This paper by a University for Engineering may disagree:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Maybe we can agree to disagree on this matter.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The mass of the top of the building and gravity are the acting force. The lower part of the building is the resisting force.

During the collapse gravity remained constant (as it always does) the top part gained mass and the lower part lost mass, resistance (truss seats) remained the same.

f=ma

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:51 AM

the first line of that paper:

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions.

typical of building demolitions, eh?

look. the top part of the tower remained intact all the way down, dispite there being greater resistance in what it was impacting. the equation i gave shows that it would have suffered an equal amount of damage to the amount it inflicted. it didn't. this means the amount of resistance it came into contact was much less than its own resistance. how is that possible when it is causing damage to the same structured materials that it is made of?

it isn't possible without resistance being removed. lots of resistance being removed.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The mass of the top of the building and gravity are the acting force. The lower part of the building is the resisting force.

During the collapse gravity remained constant (as it always does) the top part gained mass and the lower part lost mass, resistance (truss seats) remained the same.

f=ma

no. they are both acting on eachother and both resisting eachother with equal force. the amount of force you exert is exerted on you. the top part suffered no damage, as it would if it collided with something of the same material. those 13 odd floors suffered less damage than 96 floors of the same material. this isn't possible.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it isn't possible without resistance being removed. lots of resistance being removed.

That is opinion, and we'll leave it at that.

Regardless of whether it was demolitions or fire-caused progressive collapse, they still collapsed, and the US is living with the consequences.

Still, why isn't there any evidence for the explosives? Where are the traces of explosive material and charges, and where are the people responsible for placing them and making sure that all the math was in place to allow them to go off on time and in the right places? Where is the evidence for them?

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:05 PM

it isn't! i just made a formula that demonstrated it. it isn't opinion, its fact and numbers. show me how i'm wrong.

Still, why isn't there any evidence for the explosives? Where are the traces of explosive material and charges, and where are the people responsible for placing them and making sure that all the math was in place to allow them to go off on time and in the right places? Where is the evidence for them?

the evidence is the equation i posted. it shows the collapse couldn't have progressed as it did without removing resistance from the floors below. so what did remove the resistance?

nist didn't look for evidence of explosives, and all the evidence that still exists is barred from the public in a warehouse. 80% of the steel was never examined, and was carted off and melted down. in other words, the evidence was destroyed.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

But surely at least a single person would have seen something during cleanup? You are essentially stating that the evidence exists because it doesn't exist.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:28 PM

i'm stating that the evidence was never seen because no one looked for it. planes hit towers, end of story. what about the video evidence where you can clearly hear explosions going off one after the other?

you're ignoring the obvious evidence that resistance was removed from the bottom floors. a very large, substantial amount. nothing in the OS accounts for it. this evidence, combined with the metal color/temperature and detonation sounds caught on camera and eye witness reports further affirms the controlled demolition hypothesis.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i'm stating that the evidence was never seen because no one looked for it. planes hit towers, end of story. what about the video evidence where you can clearly hear explosions going off one after the other?

you're ignoring the obvious evidence that resistance was removed from the bottom floors. a very large, substantial amount. nothing in the OS accounts for it. this evidence, combined with the metal color/temperature and detonation sounds caught on camera and eye witness reports further affirms the controlled demolition hypothesis.

I have never heard explosions start prior to the collapse. Every "sound" that is similar to an explosion occurs while steel and concrete is crashing down through the tower.

And no, I'm not ignoring obvious evidence for removal of resistance, because there is no evidence! It is your opinion that there had to be resistance removed, but I showed you a paper that determined through physics and the application of math that the collapse could have progressively continued through the whole tower. But let me guess, you refused to look at the paper after the first sentence. That's typical, I suppose.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM

on this last video, fast forward to 2:10, and you'll hear boom, boom, boom, boom. all the way down.

And no, I'm not ignoring obvious evidence for removal of resistance, because there is no evidence! It is your opinion that there had to be resistance removed

it isn't my opinion. there are two possibilities, either the top 13 floors of wtc 1 were made of something atleast 7 times more resistant than the rest of the tower, or resistance was removed from the bottom floors. the falling floors survived all the way down, which is impossible, as i demonstrated with a formula. it is my opinion that the resistance was removed with explosives of some kind, backed up with audio and corroborating evidence of metal color.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Ok, I'll try this again. How about showing explosive noises "before" the collapse begins. Two or three of your videos had falsified sound bits, and still don't make sense in light of no explosive sounds BEFORE the collapse starts.

Also, a number of the clips were from talking about WTC 7.

I know that the one is fake, because on the video where you had me skip forward to 2:10, I have heard the original clip without the boom, boom, boom, boom. Also, why was the giant chunk of stuff silent hitting the ground? And why did the people screaming and such only start after the booming had ended?

It is just a whole bunch of crap, in my opinion. Fancified and embellished to make the Truth Movement sound more credible. Really, it degrades credibility for me. The more incorrect information and false videos and assumptions I see, the more I lean towards the official story, which has the math, the tests, the science, and the peer review.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:18 PM

Are you really trying to pull this? You shills used to atleast be hard to argue with, now i feel like im arguing a 12 year old ignorant brat.

Yes collisions and explosion are two separate idead. That is why there is two different words to describe the 2 ideas. If they were the same thing, then why would there be a different name?
Honestly do you peopke not know how to use google:define?

A collision is an isolated event which two or more moving bodies (colliding bodies) exert forces on each other.

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases

Now i know it may be confusing for someone like you, but they are different things.

An explosion can cause collisions. And collisions can cause explosions. But a collision is not an explosion and an explosion is not a collision.

Did you get that or do i need to dumb it down even more?

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:20 PM

can you provide some evidence of this, or is that just your opinion?

I know that the one is fake

so i guess the testimony of these firefighters was all audio-edited in?

this one too. definetly fake. those are paid actors

"it was almost like...detonators..like they had planned to take down the building"

It is just a whole bunch of crap, in my opinion. Fancified and embellished to make the Truth Movement sound more credible.

the truth movement didn't exist when these videos were shot. so we have the sounds of explosions going off. you say fake. then we have firefighters and witnesses all saying they heard the explosions, which you said were fake and edited in (and you provide no evidence of tampering, all you have is your denial).
edit on 18-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:25 PM
my facebook friend jeff prager can prove scientifically that nuclear bombs took down the wtc on 9/11

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Technically, all you have against the official story is your denial. We are on the same page then.

The building was collapsing. Things were collapsing. Steel and concrete was collapsing. Collapsing. A collapse is not silent. A collapse makes noise. Things were crashing and making explosive impacts. Crashes make a lot of noise. The collapse was happening when these guys were talking about the booms.

You see my point yet?

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne
In Thruther World is boot straping possible using Truther Physics ? Can you reach down, grab ahold of your boot straps, apply a lifting force greater than your weight, and lift your self off the ground ?

Just curious still trying to figure out the laws of Truther Physics.

What?

Sorry but I fail to understand what that has to do with collapsing buildings and the laws of motion?

Can you make 15 concrete slabs drop on 95 concrete slabs and crush them all to the ground? Can you do that and video it for us all to see? Can you put your money where your mouth is? Can you prove us all wrong once and for all?

No you can't.

edit on 9/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne
In Thruther World is boot straping possible using Truther Physics ? Can you reach down, grab ahold of your boot straps, apply a lifting force greater than your weight, and lift your self off the ground ?

Just curious still trying to figure out the laws of Truther Physics.

What?

Sorry but I fail to understand what that has to do with collapsing buildings and the laws of motion?

Can you make 15 concrete slabs drop on 95 concrete slabs and crush them all to the ground? Can you do that and video it for us all to see? Can you put your money where your mouth is? Can you prove us all wrong once and for all?

No you can't.

edit on 9/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Why do you keep using concrete as your example? Jenga might be more accurate, but with thinner pieces.

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM

first, i want to see some evidence of those videos above being fake, and the witness testimony being edited/faked/actors. then i want you to show me how my formula i posted a page back is wrong, because if it is right (it is) then it makes the OS impossible. also, you need to show how the observed temperatures of steel (over 1371C) happened, because nothing in the OS burns near as hot.

no, i don't see your point, because there is plenty of evidence supporting my position, and the best you can do to disprove it is cry "fake, edited, that's your opinion, evidence supports me, etc".

you first say "all those videos are fake", then after witnesses confirmed it all, you say "well those were just floors collapsing" really? explosions in the lobby BEFORE the tower collapsed, and explosions AFTER they both had collapsed is just the floors impacting eachother.

Are you really trying to pull this? You shills used to atleast be hard to argue with, now i feel like im arguing a 12 year old ignorant brat.

very, very true. though it is kind of hard to argue against evidence

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

This paper by a University for Engineering may disagree:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Maybe we can agree to disagree on this matter.

That paper is a crock of bull their formula relys on the notion that the top half of tower 1 remains intact all the way to the ground. From video evidence we know thats incorrect.

image from the paper

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

I have explained so many times to you that conservation of momentum does not apply to building collapses that is it no longer funny. You just don't understand the physics.

How can you make that claim? You have not showed anything mate.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Isolated Systems

The previous part of Lesson 2 focused on the Law of Conservation of Momentum. It was stated that ...

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Total system momentum is conserved for collisions occurring in isolated systems. But what makes a system of objects an isolated system? And is momentum conserved if the system is not isolated? This is the focus of this part of Lesson 2.

A system is a collection of two or more objects. An isolated system is a system that is free from the influence of a net external force that alters the momentum of the system. There are two criteria for the presence of a net external force; it must be...

www.physicsclassroom.com...

The collapse was an isolated system according to your hypothesis. You claim there was no external force acting on the towers, and please quit saying gravity. Gravity is a given and not considered an 'outside force'. It is a constant force that acts on all objects in any system isolated or not. If gravity was the outside force then there wouldn't be such a thing as an 'isolated system'.

Once the collapses were initiated there was no other force acting on the collapse other than gravity, fire and other damage is now in the past, and no longer effect collapse itself. So NO outside forces according to YOUR hypothesis.

An outside force would be explosives of some kind, not gravity. That is the point we keep trying to make.

You are reading this stuff on the net and simply misunderstanding what you are reading. You claimed to be an electrical engineer, and yet you explain this stuff like a layman who has just come across it for the first time.

top topics

34