Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why would they? Holloywood also tells you you can blow up a fuel tank by riddling it with bullets. Dont believe everything hollywood says. Depending on the explosives used its very well possible that fire destroys them rather than to set them off.


Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building (if we ignore the ke). That is 9 times the weight of the buildings themselves. With so much weight, you don't even need to ignite the explosives, the building would collapse because it can't hold all that weight.

Or to give a short summary, your OP is total complete utter nonsense. One example of how truther sites spread lies and falsehoods, like we were discussing in the other thread.


The buildings weighed 450.000 tons each (roughly). 1 Ton equals 1000 kg, so 450.000 tons equals 450 Million KG. 8.5 Million KG is a fraction of the weigt of the building, not a mutliple. I cant believe I have to type this. I started by sticking to sites like A&Efor911truth to begin with. Why the hell did I come to a conspiracy site to debate conspiracy people and their terrorist boxcutter theories or others?

However I will admit that there is no evidence that ALL of the concrete turned to dust. So the 8.5 Kiloton figure is very generous. However a figure well above 0.1 is more realistic.


The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building

Nope.... that's 8.5 *THOUSAND* tons of explosives.... not million.

Kilo = Thousand
Mega = Million

8.5 kilotons of TNT equivalent would weigh approximately 8.5 thousand tons, give or take 20%, depending upon the type of explosive (Assuming non nuclear, of course)


You are wrong as well. You have times a thousand for Kilo and times a thousand for tons. So you get 8.5 KILO tons which translate to 8.500.000 Kilograms.

Ill chalk it up to you guys having been tired. But I am starting to think I am better off going someplace where I am more likely to come across actual Architects or Engineers when I have a question related to that field.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The buildings weighed 450.000 tons each (roughly). So 9 times the weight is greatly exaggerated. Its a fraction of the weigt of the building, not a mutliple. This is the kind of debunking I come across frequently. However I will admit that there is no evidence that ALL of the concrete turned to dust. So the 8.5 Kiloton figure is very generous. However a figure well above 0.1 is more realistic.


You are right, I was mistaken about the weight ratio. Difference is though that I do not publish what I say on a website presenting it as the truth. Still my point stands, the amount of explosives is just completely insane, it has absolutely no basis in reality. It is a complete fantasy, not even worth considering. I don't understand why you make a thread like this to begin with.

And no, a figure well above 0.1 is completely unrealistic. That is more truther nonsense from truther websites. The amount of explosives used in a regular controlled demolition is minimal. It only destroys the vital supports, not the concrete floors. Especially in a demolition that has to be as discrete as possible you are not going to blow up totally useless parts of the building that have absolutely nothing to do with the supports. It is just a totally insane theory. But like I said, convicted people like you are not capable to see past these kind of lies and falsehoods. You accept theories like this because it fits so good in your conspiracy theory.

The reality of course is, whether explosives were used or not, that the concrete was pulverized as result of it smashing against other concrete and steel as result of gravity pulling it down.
edit on 17-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why would they? Holloywood also tells you you can blow up a fuel tank by riddling it with bullets. Dont believe everything hollywood says. Depending on the explosives used its very well possible that fire destroys them rather than to set them off.


If they were destroyed by fire, the collapse would not have initiated at the point of impact, as there would have been no explosives in place to make it happen.

It just makes no sense. Why bother with the explosives at all? It's such a high risk thing for TPTB to have done, such ridiculous overkill. You mention Hollywood. As far as I am concerned, such a ridiculous idea as rigging a building with explosives then ramming a plane into it to cause a controlled demolition, is something we could only talk about in fiction, not in reality. Simple plans work, complex plans usually fail, the plan you are implying is far too complex to be reasonably suggested.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


It didnt

reply to post by -PLB-
 


I am no expert with explosives. C4 could have been 5 times as strong as TNT or 100 Times. That would have knocked out 2 zeroes of the requierd material right there. Of course it isnt necessarry to blow up each square foot of a building to bring it down, thats why tons and tons of explosives are not requierd for a demoliton. Explosives are used for demolitions and when you have 2 "collapses" that resemble controlled demolition, whintesses to bombs and explosions, explosions on audio and video, then it is the most likely scenario.

Of course if political factors weigh heavily on what you consider to be the most likely scenario (Our goverment would never do this) then its harder to be objective.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Sure, you can't know everything, though this information is pretty easy to find on the Internet. But still, even if other explosives have a much higher energy density, the blast from it would blow away halve of Manhattan. How can you both claim that the explosives were nearly invisible and inaudible, and claim that such a huge amount of energy was released? Can't you really not figure out what kind of nonsense this is? And if you can't, shouldn't you question all your other ideas about 911?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
...so, what some are saying is that photon torpedoes were used to take down the buildings?

*second facepalm of the day*

Why cannot people understand we were attacked by terrorists using planes?
edit on 9/17/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Of course if political factors weigh heavily on what you consider to be the most likely scenario (Our goverment would never do this) then its harder to be objective.


My position is not "would never do it" but it is "could never do it". Governments screw up about anything they do. They are very inefficient and very incapable. Power hungry people screw their "friends" whenever the get more power because of it. It is completely unreasonable to think that a government could do something like this.

So we are left with a secret group of people with a lot of power, secretly manipulating everyone. And a bunch of people on the Internet have figured them out. They are "awakened" and see the truth, in contrast to all those sheep who believe whatever they are told. Bravely they dare to oppose the establishment. Well, you know the standard thuth talk, it is very sect like. Not so much motivated by facts or science.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I never knew people were this caliber of ignorant.

Kay, I'm sure nobody here is exactly a lumberjack, but let's say you cut down a tree. When you hack away at the bottom with force, what happens? Does it fall straight down and crush the stump it is sitting on? No, it falls over, and there is usually at least 20 times the weight at the top of the tree compared to the bottom. To suggest that the towers' collapse was legitimate is like saying if you chopped the top 1/5th of a tree and placed it back on top of the other 4/5ths of the tree, the weight of the top 1/5th would be enough to take down the other 4/5ths of the tree.

This really isn't rocket science, people. Give me a break.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?


someone will just say the "planes" were holograms that appeared to hit the buildings and timed with the explosions.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partisanity
I never knew people were this caliber of ignorant.

Kay, I'm sure nobody here is exactly a lumberjack, but let's say you cut down a tree. When you hack away at the bottom with force, what happens? Does it fall straight down and crush the stump it is sitting on? No, it falls over, and there is usually at least 20 times the weight at the top of the tree compared to the bottom. To suggest that the towers' collapse was legitimate is like saying if you chopped the top 1/5th of a tree and placed it back on top of the other 4/5ths of the tree, the weight of the top 1/5th would be enough to take down the other 4/5ths of the tree.

This really isn't rocket science, people. Give me a break.


You can't be serious?

There is so much different in the construction/structure of a tree to a high-rise building. Get real.

Jeez, truther reality is f*cking surreal.

That's about the most bat# insane comparison I have ever seen. Guess what, if you rig a tree with explosives right the way down the trunk, and set them off in rapid succession, it won't be a controlled demolition into its own goddamn footprint, either, Sherlock, cause it's a fecking TREE.
edit on 17-9-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


i know. if the world worked like that, then the earth would split in two with everyone stepping on it.

it does not get more simple than "the little thing doesn't destroy the big thing". if the equation is reversed, no one has a problem saying that the bottom floors falling on the upper floors would crush the upper floors, but they then think it is possible for the upper floors to crush the much larger mass of the bottom floors and survive.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?


If the buildings were not rigged with explosives, then how do you explain the physics anomalies we keep pointing out?

You can't, no one since 2001 has been able to.

None of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.
edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?


If the buildings were not rigged with explosives, then how do you explain the physics anomalies we keep pointing out?

You can't, no one since 2001 has been able to.

None of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.
edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the general description of the collapse as documented in the NIST report.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKNone of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.
edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Getting back to this statement, I don't know what you mean by their needing to be an outside force.

What do you think the plane was, and the fire?

It's a simple concept. Steel supports the floors, when steel is heated it weakens. When the steel weakens the floors sag, and the force of the floor above is forced directly onto the floor below. The floor below cannot support the full force of the floor above, so it gives way and the force of the top two floors combined is forced onto the next floor down...and so on, and so on.

What in the lwas of physics is being defied in such a scenario?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the general description of the collapse as documented in the NIST report.


You haven't huh?


And what is your educational background to make such a claim?

Can you explain the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, in context with the collapses please?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


really, well let me help you, since i have found no one who is able to explain something. i'm copying this from another thread because i've typed it many times.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
you say "steel didn't melt". i showed how the color of metal = temperature, and the temperature we see based on that is well over 1300 C. that is hotter than jet fuel can burn by a long shot, and even the source you linked to says temperatures in the tower were around 750C.

see that piece of rebar sticking up that is orange? if that were aluminum, it would be a puddle of liquid, as would the steel that is being picked up. granted, you can see steel dripping off, but aluminum at that temperature is completely melted.

and howabout this picture? where would you say it falls on

because the topmost orange on that picture is 1371C.
www.blksmth.com...

there is simply no denying that temperatures above and beyond what the OS says occurred. i've had enough dishonesty from the OS'ers
**********************************************************************************************************************************
show me where NIST accounts for those temperatures. here's a hint, they don't.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?


If the buildings were not rigged with explosives, then how do you explain the physics anomalies we keep pointing out?

You can't, no one since 2001 has been able to.

None of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.
edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the general description of the collapse as documented in the NIST report.


Well the NIST report just says that global collapse was inevitable and never explains now it was possible so you are just admitting that you don't understand, don't need facts and believe what you are told.

The collapse can't even be explained without accurate distribution of mass.

A simulated magical collapse with no supports for 109 identical masses floating in space and only gravity and the conservation of momentum to slow them TAKES 12 SECONDS. So how is it that Dr. Sunder of the NIST says the north tower came down in 11 seconds?

9/11 is SO STUPID calling anything about it scientific is....

I can't think of a sufficiently derogatory but funny word.


psik



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

What do you think the plane was, and the fire?


Neither of those caused the collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.

According to NIST trusses heated up and sagged, pulling in columns and initiating the collapse. A hypothesis easily proven wrong. They did not explain how the collapses continued through the path of most resistance, while mass and Ke was being lost.


What in the lwas of physics is being defied in such a scenario?


Equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, would both cause the collapse to slow and arrest long before it could be complete. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, without extra energy. There are plenty of post that explain this so please do some reading so I don't have to repeat myself for every poster.

It may seem simple to you, but if you understand physics and structures you will realise that a building simply can not collapse as we've been told, and the simple answer is another energy must have been acting on the collapses that was not investigated for. That is simple. If the government had nothing to hide it would have investigated every angle, and would not be trying to cover anything up.






top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join