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 videos show the concrete was pulverized to dust.
There was barely any concrete left when the entire building hit the ground. A large majority of it became that dust cloud that poisoned everyone.
If heat was the issue that caused the column failure then how would the heat have been evenly dispersed across all columns. if heat did cause the column failure then it would have began with just a few columns that took the heat the longest and then the building would begin to tilt
So how did the tilting top section figure it was easier to smash its way through the building than just continue on its course off the side
Originally posted by FirstCasualty
I am not qualified to work out that math. Why don't you send that info to any of the engineering experts who's testimony I posted and ask them. It sounds like your trying to play a joke though.
15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.
Originally posted by FirstCasualty
reply to post by wmd_2008
If you watch some of those videos I posted you will see that highly qualified experts do not agree with you. Could you please post the name of more than a single expert that agrees with you like I did? Not some long drawn out video how to crush concrete but some that agrees with what you said pertaining to the WTC collapses .
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well so far what have we learned YOU have no idea what you are talking about so all you do is link to videos that support your belief of what happened, Tens of thousands of engineers/architects world wide HAVEN'T joined AE911 truth or does that SIMPLE fact escape YOU!
Why because they don't want associated with IDIOT'S.
As you can see a piece of angle iron on the wall columns and the same on the core side of the truss. So each floor truss is only held in place with 2 pieces of angle iron. Now that's why I gave you the 10kg mass dropping problem which wouldn't even make a guess at even with options given to YOU!
Once a floor slab failed the only way was down the floors at the top had exactly the same connections as the floors at the bottom that's why other engineers using there common sense will not join AE911 truth that's why people like myself with 30+ years in construction and 15 years testing items on/off site to see the loads they will take can see that it's not a CD.
Hm, you are all over the place with your deep knowledge, you seem to be very proud of it.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
So you think tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling is not a problem.
Lets see if you want to look at a 10KG weight falling?
(WARNING DON'T EVEN TRY IT)
If you had to stop the 10kg weight falling 3.3 mtrs (WTC floor height) within a 10cm or 0.1mtr distance then again in a 1cm or 0.01 mtr distance what would be the avg impact force.
I will give you some choices if stopped in 10cm or 0.1 mtr is the avg force
10kg 100kg or more
if stopped in 1cm or 0.01 mtrs is the avg force
100 kg 1000kg or more.
Now many of the angle cleats that the floor trusses rested on were sheared and were about 25mm thick or 0.025 mtrs many of the bolts were sheared they were about 16mm dia or about 0.016mtrs, all solid metal and many of them for each floor slab and they didn't stop the mass falling.
So lets us know what you think!
I will then give you the results and how to work them out yourself.
Originally posted by Akareyon
Firstly, you mix up force and mass, so I doubt you have any knowledge about physics at all
Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass.
Originally posted by Akareyon
Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass. How are you going to do that?
Yes.
Originally posted by -PLB-
dynamic load (a force) must be great enough to accelerate (forces accelerate?)
Source
As described by Newton's Second Law, acceleration is caused by a net force;
Is it really? This was the question I asked:
the 9 to 10-fold of its own mass (forces have mass?)
You seem to be mixing up force and mass (or something else, its always quite a cryptic puzzle to figure out what you "mean to say").
So It's more than clear from the context what I "mean to say".
if you have eleven 10 kg weights - which sums up to 110 kg - and have to displace ten of them (100 kg) but are only allowed to touch the eleventh (10 kg), what are you gonna do, except switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again?
Beautiful, thanks for that great video! Yes, that's - more or less - how the towers came down. Small input energy - huge energy output.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by Akareyon
Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass. How are you going to do that?
Gravity.
Here you will see a dynamic load great enough to accelerate 100+-fold of its own mass.
Originally posted by Akareyon
Yes.
Originally posted by -PLB-
dynamic load (a force) must be great enough to accelerate (forces accelerate?)Source
As described by Newton's Second Law, acceleration is caused by a net force;
Problem?
Is it really? This was the question I asked:So It's more than clear from the context what I "mean to say".
if you have eleven 10 kg weights - which sums up to 110 kg - and have to displace ten of them (100 kg) but are only allowed to touch the eleventh (10 kg), what are you gonna do, except switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again?
But thanks for switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again, which seems to be the only way to defend the official conspiracy theory when Newton, Euler, Galileo and Archimedes disagree.
I don't even....
Originally posted by -PLB-
Forces cause acceleration, like your source says, they do not accelerate themselves, like you wrote.
If that were the case, a hollow tower would be the result. However, the connections were strong enough to transfer the force to the core and perimeter columns and pull them down in the process as well.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now as the collapse started ANY of the falling mass which fell onto the floor slabs COULD ONLY BE RESISTED BY THE CONNECTIONS (ANGLE IRON/CLEATS) that held that floor slab in position, those connection were the same for floor 90 or floor 60 or floor 25 they were designed to resist a set loading plus a safety factor.
Originally posted by Akareyon
I don't even....
Originally posted by -PLB-
Forces cause acceleration, like your source says, they do not accelerate themselves, like you wrote.
I have a new theory: since you can't explain the buildings' compressions physically, they must have come down because sophistry.
Look, the discussions we had are there for everyone to read (1, 2) and if you think repeating your arguments in yet another thread will somehow help, I have some bad news for you.
Not long ago I explained to you
Have I given a correct solution to his problem or not?
So when you point out someone is using a wrong term its on topic
My counterargument is still the same: domino effects/chain reactions result from careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence. And even worse: a domino effect/chain reaction doesn't work if not everything is in the right place at the right time.
Consequently, the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the result of careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence.