It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 15
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


That image and paper is what this discussion all comes down to.

The OSers have to keep ignoring, and hand waving away the laws of motion, in order for that collapse hypothesis to work.

They are either woefully ignorant of physics, or they are just shills.

I have explained to them over and over again how the top can not stay whole while crushing the bottom. Equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws proves that could not happen.

Just ask any of them to explain the laws of motion...We should all be asking and pushing that question because it just shows them for what they are...




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


How about this for one:

www.youtube.com...



Notice how the booms aren't there at all?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

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




Are you seriously asking that question?

What were the WTC floors made of genius, Jenga blocks or concrete slabs sitting in steel pans? (where did the steel pans go?)

This dude thinks the WTC was built like this...





What a joke the OSers have become. You're making yourself a laughing stock.


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



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'm going to ignore ANOK being a jerk, and continue on with the thread.

I was looking at videos and did find this one. It includes rumbling taking place before the collapse, which could indicate a slow, progressive failure.

In my opinion, the booms aren't near loud enough to be bombs, but I'm not a Truther, so I don't have bomb-ears.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


i had to make a spanish video for a school project once, and my friend and i used live ammunition for one scene. the rounds we used were pretty loud, but do you know what happened? they weren't picked up by the camera. we were using a borrowed video recorder, and it couldn't pick up the sound of a rifle bullet going off.

what did the firemen hear? almost every witness says "multiple explosions, like firecrackers".

here. it is a common video recording problem where loud noises aren't recorded, especially if there is a constant noise in the backround, something like a building collapsing.


This is why we like to affectionately call AGC "Automatic Garbled Collection". A camcorder using AGC will make loud noises soft and soft noises loud. AGC causes one of the most common audio errors. The issue is that AGC does not maintain balanced volume control and can tend to over do the volume adjustments as it attempts to correct your audio.

www.video-editing-software-guide.com...

it was listed as one of the top 5 audio errors.
edit on 18-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Well, that does explain why the collapse seems so quiet compared to other sounds in the video. It doesn't explain why no cameras caught the booms though.

Surely something could have captured it?

Oh, and I'm not going to spend all the time disproving those videos. It has been done ad nauseum in plenty of other threads, and I'm tired of repeating it. With the guy on the phone, if you listen to it without sound, his reaction is oddly slow, as if he was reacting to someone yelling behind him. Hm, isn't it interesting that someone was behind him, asking him why he was on the phone when they needed to get out of the area?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
but we're getting off topic. we can argue back and forth on who heard what, and you will deny it. i like sticking to my formula and the temperature/color metal issue.

they're solid evidence that can't be ignored, and no one has ever tackled them head on.

ANOK, do you get the feeling that some of these accounts may be the same person? varemia sounds a bit like PLB with mannerisms and debate strategy. i'd love to have a mod post IP addresses of the people in this discussion, it would probably be very enlightening.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I assure you, I'm posting from a dorm room of a campus university, and I can't recall a single time when I have even exchanged PMs with other members who support the official story. Actually, there was one, when exponent thanked me for bringing attention to his well thought out and explained post on why WTC 7 collapsed.

But yes, this is off the topic. Back to the original thread of how outside energy was needed, I still stick behind the idea that gravity was all the outside energy that was needed. The towers were not made of solid blocks of steel and concrete. They were meant to have as much space as possible for offices and such. The design lacked a very well enforced core, leaving out much of the reinforced concrete most every other skyscraper uses.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   


It doesn't explain why no cameras caught the booms though.

ummm...because some cameras did...you know, the videos i posted just a short while ago, the ones you called FAKE? those videos.


Oh, and I'm not going to spend all the time disproving those videos. It has been done ad nauseum in plenty of other threads

this is THE most common argument i've seen used, and a sure sign of government shenanigans. "that video is fake (or that argument has been debunked), i'm not going to discuss that because it has already been debunked a billion times".

see all the dust in that video? the towers had already collapsed. it was done and over, plus, they're firemen. why would firemen be at the scene of a fire? oh, i don't know, maybe to help people?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


That is only correct when you include the whole mass of the earth in your system. Which you don't do with building collapses. Clearly, like anok, you do not understand the physics. Anything you have to say about it is pretty much irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
this is THE most common argument i've seen used, and a sure sign of government shenanigans. "that video is fake (or that argument has been debunked), i'm not going to discuss that because it has already been debunked a billion times".


It really has, though. I'm getting tired of repeating myself and re-doing the research every thread I go to. This is why I left this forum for a number of months, and I'm only back during my free time between classes and work. If you're not satisfied with what I'm comfortable doing with limited time and motivation, then that's not my problem.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   


Oh, and I'm not going to spend all the time disproving those videos. It has been done ad nauseum in plenty of other threads, and I'm tired of repeating it. With the guy on the phone, if you listen to it without sound, his reaction is oddly slow, as if he was reacting to someone yelling behind him. Hm, isn't it interesting that someone was behind him, asking him why he was on the phone when they needed to get out of the area?


So basically what you are saying is the videos which do not fit your belief in the Official Fairy Tale have been doctored and the ones which do have not been altered? Way to keep it real.




do you get the feeling that some of these accounts may be the same person?


For all we know, one person may be handling ten accounts...especially on a site like this. Why pay twenty people when you can pay a couple to pretend to be twenty people?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


well then, plug it into the formula:

Tx-Bx=
you can even put the mass of the floors in if you want, just do (T*F) where "F" is the mass of each floor, and "T" is the amount of floors. "x" is still constant, as the same materials and construction were used all the way up, which means the coefficient of durability is the same for both the floors that were falling, and the floors that offered resistance.

construction type doesn't influence the outcome of the equation. remember,a negative solution mean OS is bunk.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
ANOK, do you get the feeling that some of these accounts may be the same person? varemia sounds a bit like PLB with mannerisms and debate strategy. i'd love to have a mod post IP addresses of the people in this discussion, it would probably be very enlightening.


I've had my suspicions about a lot of posters over the years. It's really not hard to spot the obvious similarities between some members.

But then again they do all get their arguments from the same limited sources, and not one of them has an original thought between them.

911myths is one of their main sites, they repeat stuff from there like its gospel.

Prob with checking IP's is, if they have a dynamic IP all they have to do is reboot their modem before they log in with another name, right?


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



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia
 


well then, plug it into the formula:

Tx-Bx=
you can even put the mass of the floors in if you want, just do (T*F) where "F" is the mass of each floor, and "T" is the amount of floors. "x" is still constant, as the same materials and construction were used all the way up, which means the coefficient of durability is the same for both the floors that were falling, and the floors that offered resistance.

construction type doesn't influence the outcome of the equation. remember,a negative solution mean OS is bunk.


It isn't that simple...

I think I'm done for today. There's no way I can explain it to you.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


i've asked you time and again to show me how it is wrong. i've included all the variables that are needed to show that small thing cannot destroy big thing, provided they have the same durability.

"simple" doesn't mean wrong. what about E=mc^2? simple, but effective.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Here is some more related physics you should familiarize yourself with...


The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)

A collision is an interaction between two objects that have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Newton's laws of motion govern such collisions. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.



Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

What all that is basically saying is that MASS is the decider on the damage in a collision, not velocity.

So regardless of how far the top section dropped, it is not going to overcome a larger mass than itself. You argue that the connections failed, fine, but that does not remove the mass, all those floors are still there resisting the falling mass. The interaction between the colliding floors has to follow those laws.

If it fell as you claim then there would have to be floors still in the footprint. You can't lose energy, and gain energy at the same time. To overcome connections energy is lost. Again, if the floors simply dropped they would still be in the footprint, not in a 360d arc around the towers. The collapse can not both lose mass and energy, and continue as if energy was gained. You hypotheses needs it both ways to work.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sure gravity is a special kind of force that we should not count as external force. You are truly making this up while you type aren't you?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


In contrast, truthers all have original thoughts and come with some really refreshing viewpoints. Especially you and Bob. Well, I have to give it to you, discarding gravity as external force so you can continue saying "conservation of momentum" is rather unique. Although you two seem to share that trait.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I dont think anyone here, truther or not, has the ability to tell wether or not you can hear bombs in the videos(collapse vids)
I mean has anyone studied audio in relation to cameras at a professionsl level, for one. Secondly these cameras werent necessarily professional, and most likely were amateur quality. It would be next to impossible to discern wether the sounds were part on the collapse (steel/concrete hitting each other) or actually bombs since the sound would be fairly similiar, especially if they are happening at the same time.

Have you ever played with professional or HD cameras? I can verify from personal experience that even while using an hd camera that even just the wind hitting the microphone will sound extremely unrealistic when you play it back. My point being, these cameras are much much much better at recording video than they are at recording audio.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join