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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Ask yourself this, if i dropped a brick of steel on an egg, would the very real resistance the egg offered actualy meaningfully slow the brick?


Ask the same question without qualifying it with the word "meaningfully" and the answer is yes, the egg would slow the the brick. The amount it slowed the brick could be calculated by a physicist/mathematician with the relevant data, but let's use a thought experiment instead.

Let's suppose that instead of dropping your brick through one egg you drop it through a thousand eggs, and if that isn't enough for you to get the point then make it a million. Drop another brick from the same height as the first but not over any eggs. Which do you think would fall the fastest? An egg doesn't offer much resistance but it offers some.

If you measure the amount of time it took each brick to fall and the subtract and divide by a thousand (or a million, or the number of eggs the brick had to pass through) you'd have your answer.

There were 110 stories in the twin towers and the fall took 10 seconds. That's 11 stories per second. Even suspended by the slightest support each massive floor would have taken more than one tenth of a second to accelerate. Another analogy that might help you see that impacting a mass absorbs energy and does not contribute to velocity but rather subtracts from it would be a row of parked cars impacted from behind by even a massive semi-trailer. Each car will absorb some of the truck's energy, and the truck will slow to a stop. That is exactly what would have happened to the upper floors of the Twin Towers had the only energy involved been gravitational potential energy converted to kinetic energy.

This addresses the energy necessary to accelerate the mass of the buildings without even considering the massive amount of added energy necessary to turn thousands of tons of concrete into fine powder. Where did that energy come from?




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
i know for a fact the towers were brought down by the nwo type people, you know who...bankers and whatnot the Humans who think they run the show...

lol


i still love you...

please choose love

thank you

it is a much more grand mission to nurture and spread life and to raise consciousness throughout the universe...


i choose life and love...thank you, i'll thank myself
lol

learn, forgive, evolve



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

And the firemen..?


How convinient that they never show the letters completely, or the names of the people who wrote them to ASK THEM what they meant by explosions and if they think they were caused by explosives...

Not to mention the fact that if there were large explosions they should have been heard outside the building clearly, but the buildings also had chemicals and materials, such as what you can find inside janitor closets that would sound like explosions to people inside if you set them on fire.

BTW, explosions doesn't necesarily mean "explosives" were the cause. Try setting on fire all the chemicals that can be found in a janitor's closet and see what happens.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
And the fact that no steel-reinforced skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire, before or after - until 9/11 when three did - strains credibility.


Yes, but no other steel reinforced skyscrapers have been hit by a Boeing 767 before have they?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Some of the firemen were blown right off their feet and covered in white powder.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazmeister

Originally posted by Praetorius
And the fact that no steel-reinforced skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire, before or after - until 9/11 when three did - strains credibility.


Yes, but no other steel reinforced skyscrapers have been hit by a Boeing 767 before have they?



Exactly. I feel like we can't say one way or another because we don't have enough data to establish the "Laws of the Boeing 767 vs the 110 story building."

Until that happens... well, round and round we go.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sailiraq
 


You only saw PARTS of the tower collapse after 10 seconds, but the whole thing did not collapse in 10 seconds...
Most of the collapse was hidden by the clouds of dust, but it can be seen that they did not collapse in 10 seconds...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.


As the way the towers fell was the defining point for me to have some serious suspicion I will tell you WHY I think they couldn’t have fell that way…or rather its not that they couldn’t have fell that way, its that it would be the equivalent of a MIRACLE for 100% of 3 towers 3/3 to ALL fall symmetrically from asymmetrical damage…

As many claim the “heat” from fires weakened the support columns in WTC 1 and 2 and that’s what caused them to fall. However the heat/fire distribution would have to be symmetrical and effect ALL columns equally to cause a symmetrical collapse as we all saw, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!

WTC7 didn’t receive impact from a jet and thus no jet fuel to weaken its support columns. I would say the OS concensus but WTC7 wasn’t addressed in the report…why I have no idea…anyway, the NON-conspiracy view is that the damage from the falling WTC1&2 hitting WTC7 caused fires and significantly enough damage to cause it to collapse. AGAIN we need symmetrical failure from ASYMETRICAL damage…

The damage that occurred to WTC7 from falling debris from WTC1&2 was predominantly on 1 side of the building…asymmetrical…

So we have three instances of Asymmetrical damage causing a symmetrical collapse.
We have 2/3 similar damage types (jets crashing) and 1/3 different damage type (falling debris) yet the end result of those different types of damage was EXACTLY the same. Symmetrical Collapse…

The odds are on par with “miracle” for 3/3 buildings to fall symmetrically like they did…unless of course there is a more full-proof method of causing symmetrical collapse 3/3 that’s odds are very predictable and repeatable and no where near miraculous…and that’s controlled demo of some kind.



edit on 27-9-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by sailiraq
 


You only saw PARTS of the tower collapse after 10 seconds, but the whole thing did not collapse in 10 seconds...
Most of the collapse was hidden by the clouds of dust, but it can be seen that they did not collapse in 10 seconds...


So.. you were there with a timer? pics or it didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Some of the firemen were blown right off their feet and covered in white powder.


I wonder what would happen when millions of tons would fall above you in the same building you are close to, or you are escaping?

Not to mention the explosion from the second plane which would have swayed both buildings and anyone within violently.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

So.. you were there with a timer? pics or it didn't happen.


We, members of ATS, have counted the seconds several times over the years.

Just because you see some parts hitting the ground doesn't mean the whole thing fell in 10 seconds...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



You're right that the top section didn't remain in tact. In fact, it blew apart right away, while the fountain of cascading debris was explosively ejected, as the debris wave moved all the way down the remaining structure to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall.

What you are asking us to believe is impossible and violates the three laws of motion.


No, it really doesn't. If it did you would be able to show me numbers. But all I ever get is the same "violation" rhetoric over and over and over again. Lots of words, let's see some numbers.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

So.. you were there with a timer? pics or it didn't happen.


We, members of ATS, have counted the seconds several times over the years.

Just because you see some parts hitting the ground doesn't mean the whole thing fell in 10 seconds...


I understand that. But before you said it was not visible due to clouds of dust. Which means if WE can't see it... you can't see it either - that is my point. Your argument could work both ways.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

So.. you were there with a timer? pics or it didn't happen.


BTW, how exactly would a picture show you how long it took for the towers to collapse? You have to watch the videos.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta


I understand that. But before you said it was not visible due to clouds of dust. Which means if WE can't see it... you can't see it either - that is my point. Your argument could work both ways.


But you can hear the rest of the debris still collapsing and hit the ground.

edit on 27-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Again, tell us, if that was caused by explosives WHY WEREN'T THEY HEARD?... and please, no nonsense about "silent explosives"...




WHY WERENT THEY HEARD?!
Oh wait.. they were.
Jesus christ, do some research.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

YES!



Super.

Now, what about the other points I raised?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by sailiraq
 


You only saw PARTS of the tower collapse after 10 seconds, but the whole thing did not collapse in 10 seconds...
Most of the collapse was hidden by the clouds of dust, but it can be seen that they did not collapse in 10 seconds...


Dr Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

There were remnants of the core still standing but the fact that it was visible means that the perimeter and the floors were all gone so most of the tower was certainly down in less than 15 seconds. The remains of the core called "the spire" was down in 25 seconds.

The precise number of seconds is an unimportant issue. How did most of it come down in less than 18 and all of it in less than 30 when it had to be strong enough to support all of that mass for 28 years? But then we have EXPERTS that don't want exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

But then we are supposed to spend millions of dollars duplicating an experiment over 1/400th of 1% of the speed of light when our so called physicists won't settle a problem over a skyscraper when people have gone to war over it?

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am aware of femr and Major Tom but do not pretend I read most of the stuff they write.
psik


Have you read their documentation about ROOSD?

Cuz that reality pretty much destroys your Python probram's assumptions such as crushing and accelerating core and ext columns.

As does the visual evidence of the spires.

Only a maroon would include them...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sailiraq
 





There were 110 stories in the twin towers and the fall took 10 seconds. That's 11 stories per second. Even suspended by the slightest support each massive floor would have taken more than one tenth of a second to accelerate. Another analogy that might help you see that impacting a mass absorbs energy and does not contribute to velocity but rather subtracts from it would be a row of parked cars impacted from behind by even a massive semi-trailer. Each car will absorb some of the truck's energy, and the truck will slow to a stop. That is exactly what would have happened to the upper floors of the Twin Towers had the only energy involved been gravitational potential energy converted to kinetic energy.

This addresses the energy necessary to accelerate the mass of the buildings without even considering the massive amount of added energy necessary to turn thousands of tons of concrete into fine powder. Where did that energy come from?


11 stories per second is an average. Closer to the ground it was much more than that. After 8 seconds its 25 floors persecond. At that speed it doesn't take 1/10 of a second to accelerate the floor. Plus the accumulated mass hitting the next floor would pulverize the concrete. Remember it was light weight concrete not the same stuff you have in your driveway.




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join