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 amfirst
www.911myths.com...
Originally posted by esdad71
Why is it that anyone who speaks for the official story is a neo-con or some such. I truly thinks this comes down ot most of you bieng jealous you do not have the niknd of money they do.
[...]
So does that mean that everything that Popular Mechanics posts is BS? What a joke....
WHO DO YOU Believe???????
Originally posted by dariousg
Originally posted by devildog832916
Well, we all know that if Rosie doesn't eat regularly she gets these crazy thoughts. Fire does melt steel, I mean what do you think they use to melt it in the first place.
The only thing I agree with is that the buildings fell awful neat.
People keep taking this statement out of context. What is OBVIOUSLY meant is that FIRE at the temperatures displayed in those buildings, especially in WTC 7, do NOT melt steel.
How hot do the temperatures have to be before steel is melted? Close to 3,000 degrees. Okay, it has been commonly stated that the temps of these fires (in the towers, not WTC 7) barely went over half that temp. Sure, the steel can begin to weaken but not all at once.
That is what she is saying.
Originally posted by esdad71
telenaut, how did you come with that quote for me? That looks like a bad paste job from CNN or something.
Popular Mechanics offered explanations for what happened based on the facts and evidence they had. Rosie stated 9//1 was to cover Enron. I mean, do people realize that?
Originally posted by amfirst
For the building to hold, the impacted floor would have had to catch 40 floors above, when it drop. I don't think that particular floor was made to catch a drop like that.
Originally posted by esdad71
God forbid anyone makes money, it must be illegal. Are you guys jealous?
Originally posted by amfirst
The buildings didn't fall at freefall rates. You guys once again been fooled by the truth movement.
Free fall would take under 9 secs. The building fell over 12 secs.
www.debunking911.com
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds (Ed: Note NIST said 9 secs for WTC2) to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
(Source)
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams. She is a media whore, and wanted more attention than Anna Nicole.
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams. She is a media whore, and wanted more attention than Anna Nicole.