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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Saltarello

So this asimetric basement structure, wich was at street level, right? Helped to produce a simmetrical collapse due to uneven damage, got it...


More incredulity.

Zero references to engineering and physics that include maths to make your point.

FAIL


As said before, we must be doing something good, shills are on full force.


Nope. Just getting over a back injury and bored.

Felt like shooting a few few fish in a barrel.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello

Lets see, he has been given a simple answer


I must have missed that maths filled post somewhere then.

All I see is incredulity and non sequiters.


People have pointed out thousant times why the towers should have not taken 10 secs to fall, but much longer, apparently he ignored these as well


Again, see the all caps part? That's nowhere in sight.

Fail.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


What plane's where they meant to be protected against? Because you know, they could have been hit by a bigger plane than they were designed to withstand
edit on 27/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Um, no offence, but I started this thread. We're discussing the WTC towers 1 and 2. If you don't think they were destroyed by demolition then fine, we're agreed.

If you do think they were the show me your evidence. But I have a feeling you can't


Okay. Show me evidence that a plane can take down a 100 story building into its own footprint without citing any reference to WTC 1 & 2, NIST reports, or anything dealing with 9/11. I'll be patiently waiting. Thank you for your circle logic thread.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
come on, someone must be able to do this!


amazingly enough, someone already answered. But since their answer was too complicated (truth sometimes is) it was ignored

.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


This thread does a pretty good job of that. I don't feel like transcribing 3 posts worth of that thread, so I'll just give you a little teaser


The top of the South Tower, on the other hand, falls with an angle of 22* as seen here:
How can it crush the building symmetrically if it's falling off center? As seen in the following video, as well as the clip at 1:20:10 in the main video, the damage pattern is symmetrical:



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
If the government really behind 911, why dont they just allow the building to fall sideways possibly damaging more building beside killing more civilians creating more anger from americans and adding more support for war in Iraq



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
most notably that i remember is that the spindle at the top started falling before the exterior, which means that there was a central explosion or more likely multiple explosions that weakened the central part of the structure.

also the fact that both collapse vertically instead of tipping over is about a million to one.


Theres a lot to be said about that. The vertical collapse seems as though it would be acceptable to the powers that did cause the destruction, verses a sideways fall that could have taken out several more buildings, at a substantial additional $ cost. I really don't believe that Osama was responsible for the towers, at least not outright.... I believe there was complicity with certain persons in the political structure of the United States government that allowed it to happen and Osama was really a patsy, or played as a tool. I kinda believe that somewhere in there the Bush administration had it as a sacrificial plan to further the Gulf War agenda and a reason to attack Iraq. I think it was discussed in board rooms as how to sway sentiment and the acceptable amounts of destruction while not stepping on the toes of property owners surrounding the towers.

At any rate, someday the whole plot will be discovered and the particulars released, and one way or another, the public will find out what really happened. And in that day, it will be an embarrassment for the US. I also think it will expose that the Bush administration was responsible and likely somewhere in Great Britain things won't set well either. There will be disgrace, enormous disgrace for the powers involved, and hopefully they will also be prosecuted and made to pay and also shamed.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?

WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.

I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


So your answer is basically no, you don't know why. You say it never happened before but since no hundred storey building had been hit by a massive jet at that speed you're still unable to explain why they could't have collapsed in that manner.

Keep trying.

building seven didn't get hit by a plane



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WinnieDaWho
If the government really behind 911, why dont they just allow the building to fall sideways possibly damaging more building beside killing more civilians creating more anger from americans and adding more support for war in Iraq

because then the really rich men who own the surrounding buildings would be pissed off too. They might use their resources to rub their noses where they don't belong.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser

Originally posted by WinnieDaWho
If the government really behind 911, why dont they just allow the building to fall sideways possibly damaging more building beside killing more civilians creating more anger from americans and adding more support for war in Iraq

because then the really rich men who own the surrounding buildings would be pissed off too. They might use their resources to rub their noses where they don't belong.



Hmmmm maybe you have a point



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
most notably that i remember is that the spindle at the top started falling before the exterior, which means that there was a central explosion or more likely multiple explosions that weakened the central part of the structure.

also the fact that both collapse vertically instead of tipping over is about a million to one.


So the roof collapes in and the spindle fall first, how does that prove an explosion?

In many video's of the collapse, the tower upper floors are not falling straight down, they are leaning as they go down.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Does your Python program re-accelerate - due to gravity - the falling mass during the 12' of air space between floors?


YES!

So you haven't studied or run the program apparently. Coding that is so easy it would be stupid not to.

OH, can you program or do the math at all?

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You seem to be the only truther who gives it an actual try. Although you are wrong about a couple of things, and your model is missing some vital aspects of the actual collapse, I gave you a star for it
.

I numerically checked your collapse time when ignoring the resistance of the supports. I get about 10.8 seconds for the collapse front to reach the ground when the initial mass consists of 15 floors. It seems to me that realistic estimates of the collapse time are between 14 and 16 sections.


Are you using a SOLID BLOCK of 15 stories? I used 15 separate masses.

Part of the problem is that the falling block would crush itself on impact. There would be a speed differential between the top and the bottom of the block. My physical model with the paper loops is more realistic but then it arrests the falling block.

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Psikeyhacker is well aware of the findings from a couple of guys that go by the handles femr and Major Tom over at another forum. They have documented that it wasn't accelerating at all near the end, but rather falling at a constant speed.


I am aware of femr and Major Tom but do not pretend I read most of the stuff they write. femr has been using a SOLID BLOCK that does not crush itself to fall on his simulation for years. My physical model shows that is absurd. I really don't recall what Major Tom says. There are too many people to keep track of.

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


They could not have fallen like that because......:- The columns in the building at the top are only 1/4 inch thick and taper to 6 inches thick at the bottom this would have slowed the drop.....plus bending columns would push the outside further out.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:17 AM
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.


I disagree in that this has been shifted from physics to conspiracy and psychological bullsh# within days of 9/11/2001. It should have been entirely a physics problem until it was clearly determined whether or not planes could do that.

All of the steel from WTC 1,2 and 7 should be under tents in a field somewhere to this day.

The 9/11 Decade is a Ten Year Psychological and Scientific Travesty

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The reason I think modeling the top like a block is more accurate than modeling each floor as a separate mass is that the failed floors act as a buffer between the top and bottom. This buffer prevents the top section from failing at the same rate as the lower section.

The reason your physical model is flawed has been explained many times. The most important flaw is that each paper ring is carrying the load off all mass above it. In the WTC the floors only carried the mass of the floor itself.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   


Obviously you are unable to do so
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Obviously you are unable to do any work yourself. You obviously have conclusive evidence to the contrary so why not come out with it? Why the game?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


One thing about your program, maybe you should present an analytical solution instead of a numerical one. Most of the time I hate to look at someone else's code, especially in a syntax I am not familiar with. If you are doing it numerically then I would suggest to use Matlab (or similar) instead of Python or another programming languages. It seems to me thats a more mainstream way communicate this sort of thing.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Because both buildings imploded and fell at a speed that would imply there was nothing beneath them, whereas there was a tremendous mass of building beneath them which should have provided resistance.

And again, it was both buildings that happened to fall this way. Not just one, but both.

That's the main point dealing with the physics you were inquiring about.. beyond that, there were also a multitude of witnesses who had reported hearing explosives, there was nano-thermite found in the dust of the remnants, and the fire, by any logical assertion, wasn't anywhere near large or hot enough to cause such a uniform failure of steel.


edit on 27-9-2011 by bacci0909 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join