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.
Originally posted by plube
as the structure uses energy in the destruction of the lower and upper blocks simultaneously the collapse would fail to progress.....
This is not what physics dictates. Energy does not get 'used up'. It can be converted in terms of destruction, but there seems to be a critical misunderstanding here.
Where do you think Bazant introduces additional energy? Nothing in his paper is added other than the gravitational potential of the floors. Whether they're broken into rubble or fully intact, their momentum remains the same.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
It is clear what plube is saying and he is not inaccurate in using physics terminology. You are exploiting semantics to rubbish a structured and reasoned argument.
According to plube's argument and excellent drawing, the top portions above the areas of collapse should have continued to drop until the kinetic energy was used up through transference to friction and resistance and until an equilibrium was reached from a build up of an opposing force (resistance); therefore, a portion of the WTC should have remained intact.
Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.
Originally posted by plube
The additional energy is inherent in the Bazant report as he states there is sufficient energy to successfully complete the crush down phase...and as was shown in the vid that was introduced in this thread...even with a building where 90% of the structure falls one to two floors there is not enough energy due to gravity alone to complete even the crush up phase in a concrete structure.
now for you to come back with not understanding the previous shows you do not have the slightest idea what is being said here......that is my personal opinion.....I have written so much on Bazants failings.....and this vid shows the failure in all it's glory.....so...please tell me my friend...where this energy came from to successfully bring down the towers...which by the way travel through the path of greatest resistance.
Bazants model fails....completely....totally....undeniably....and the vid previous proves it without a doubt.....and if his model did work.....guess what...demolition companies would be all over it...as they could save a fortune in explosives.,..and placing said explosive charges......
Mind adding a citation? That would really help with making you sound more credible than being a guy who says, "I don't like their conclusion, so they're not just wrong, they're liars." I believe the firefighters. They documented the fire and the damage, and they considered it enough to be too dangerous to keep firefighters within two or so blocks of the building.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Varemia
It's quite convenient how firefighters are an impeccable source of info/evidence....until they start reporting explosions/molten steel.......then they're confused/mistaken.
Originally posted by maxella1
I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL
Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GenRadek
Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.
I've been arguing with you for weeks that you are the one who thinks that you know better than the firemen on scene.
Show everybody how the buildings were slowly falling apart from fire... but try to do it without adding your personal feelings about what the firemen was saying while they were at ground zero Okay?
Originally posted by maxella1
What are these firemen describing?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You believe them too right?
Originally posted by plube
you tell me where this extra energy came from where 10% of the structure can crush down 90% of the lower structure.....It requires energy...simple as that....so please how about you yourself go read the papers....all three....plus go to 911 journals and read a bit.
Now this is my field of work.....If you delight in making yourself look foolish please do so....because...did i say extra energy....no i said the energy available
Now i was nice enough to reply even though you try to misrepresent what was being said...TYPICAL
if you for one single second believe what he says...then you will know that it does not just apply in one instance for one particular building....it applies to buildings in general....it cannot just apply in one circumstance.
You don't think there's a pretty significant difference between the two? There are no racial or ethnic motivators here, there's not even any possible pretense of ethical behaviour.
It's not that engineers are held to higher standards, it's that I expect people to have learned from history. The last people I would try and convince to murder in cold blood would be those who have willingly signed an ethical agreement to protect life.
They lied! We know they lied because it took almost no time at all for their lies to become public and be made clear. Can you name a single whistleblower that presented evidence that say CTBUH is part of a cover up?
It would be the most foolish plan in the world, having to convince a bunch of engineering companies not to criticise the NIST report. Far better to ensure that the report is plausible and that its conclusions are acceptable, than to make it as poor as some truthers would have you believe.
Oh sure, I have no problem with this whatsoever. My feelings are that the evidence for controlled demolition is flimsy at best, and you can't even get a group of 10 conspiracy theorists to agree even on the most generic details. If it comes to a LIHOP or an incompetence scenario then of course I'd be fully willing to believe this. The US government is hilariously incompetent. That's why a malicious super efficient conspiracy seems so laughable to me.
The only way to prove it would be to find some evidence. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think it is impossible
Originally posted by kidtwist
OS upholders, why don't you address the Barry Jennings situation? Is it because it will shatter everything you have ever written?
Where is all the physics data from the OS upholders? The people that don't believe the OS are a clever bunch, not to be underestimated, and can very easily provide accurate physics data.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
Try searching the archives. Mr Jennings has been discussed here many times.
Signed,
The Official Story
Originally posted by maxella1
lol. Be honest now.... we are not talking about convincing engineers about murdering in cold blood, are we? I'm really trying to be nice but you're pushing it a little.
All you got to do is read NIST and check what was happening that day to know that anybody approving NIST is part of a cover up. You can't change reality even if you are an engineer.
You still don’t understand that no matter how many times you say “conspiracy theorists” in your replies it won't change reality.
For that we would need an investigation. Keep doing what you're doing. You don't understand it but you are waking up a lot of people with your nonsense.
Dang.. I was planning on being nice, oh well.
Where is all the physics data from the OS upholders? The people that don't believe the OS are a clever bunch, not to be underestimated, and can very easily provide accurate physics data.