It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

page: 27
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Gando702
reply to post by wardk28

Not many. But I also don't know of too many 110 story buildings with multiple basement levels that were hit by fully fueled passenger airplanes that collapsed, either. That's the point that really made me realize that by comparing what happened to the twin towers to any other building fire, or demolition was comparing apples and giraffes. They're really nowhere near the same thing/

All the more reason there should be a legitimate effort to build a building, and then fly a plane into it

Unfortunately that may never happen, but I think it can be agreed that it would be at least be a good experiment, on either side of the debate. Additionally it's not as abrasive as calling the victims vicsims, instead it would be just an experiment on the structural integrity of tall buildings. Additionally you could test out the remote control of large airplanes if you wanted to as well (since I do not recommend a suicide pilot for this experiment)

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr

We just need to get people to understand the square cube law.


Please help me understand.

If we were to build an exact duplicate of the north tower at 1/10th scale of the exact same materials it would be 136 feet tall and 20 feet wide. So being 1/10th as tall and long and wide it would weigh 1/1000th as much.

But the strength of a column is related to the cross sectional area which is two dimensional. So every column would have 1/100th the strength of the real tower but it has 1/1000th the weight so the model would actually be TEN TIMES AS STRONG in relation to it's weight. So it could not possibly collapse like the real tower due to its greater strength. So actually the design of the model would have to be changed to keep the strength to weight ratio the same as the full size building in order to duplicate the physics. Perhaps the columns could be made of copper instead of steel. Or maybe thinner steel. But that would change the weight in addition to the strength.

So getting the model's behavior to be the same as the real building's should have been if the plane could cause the collapse would take significant effort. Of course all of the people who BELIEVE in the collapse would find some objections if the model will not do what they expect.

This is why my tiny model uses PAPER FOR SUPPORTS. So I use paper to make the supports as weak as possible relative to the weight they must support under static conditions. But my model still arrests. Skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible relative to their weight. So any accurate model should not collapse. Curious how no engineering school discusses building one.

edit on 12-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:56 PM
New recruit I take it?

Are you serious with this thread?!

Of course there would be more concrete stacked up, and no the concrete was not a weak mixture as some shills claim, the concrete mixture was created with strength in mind!

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:05 AM
What, no complaints about my square-cube law description two posts up?

But then complaints would bring it to people's attention.


posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:56 AM
I don't obsess about it anymore like I used to.
I know 1 thing the government OS is bunk.
Beyond that I am not 100% sure.

But I know this, 9/11 was/is used as a false flag event
Similar to either the Reichstag fire in 1933 or Pearl Harbor in 1941.

new topics

top topics
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in