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 Larry B.The toppling swing back you speak of could just be spring-back inherent to steel.
Originally posted by Larry B.There are many things not ever mentioned like the fact that the Aircrafts fuel and fluids combined with the onboard oxygen for emergencies would have created a very hot fire. Also many of the plastic/synthetic items in the building may have altered the fire properties.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Please could you be more precise and give some direct quotes from these sites in relevance to laws of physics. That would be much appreciaited. Thankyou.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
I have not calculated Fam or Fg because I don't have the mass of the upper section handy, but it is very safe to assume Fg will be much stronger than Fam because the lateral acceleration of the upper portion is certainly much lower than accleration due to gravity based very simply on the vector components.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
7. Horizontal Ejections: But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Here's a pretty good video showing what looks to me like the continuing tilting/rotation of the upper section. The onset of the collapse occurs around 1:58. Watch as the fabric of the building itself disappears into the debris cloud. The cloud swells at the point where the building would be predicted to be, almost embossed.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Originally posted by coughymachine
Here's a pretty good video showing what looks to me like the continuing tilting/rotation of the upper section. The onset of the collapse occurs around 1:58. Watch as the fabric of the building itself disappears into the debris cloud. The cloud swells at the point where the building would be predicted to be, almost embossed.
[
That is a very good angle to see the initial toppling, thanks for posting that one. Its just a shame that you can only see the side corner of the building through amount of dust. Thats another thing, there is no way that the dust would have been that fine and dispersed without there being a very large amount of energy there.
Think about it, if you drop a concrete brick, say from 200 metres, it will certainly smash on impact and you get some big parts, lots of pebble sized pieces, and a small fraction of dust; but you definately do not get a dense cloud of smoky texture dust created. Early in the collapse, say the first three seconds, the very fastest anything would have been moving (acceloration = 9.81) is 29.4 m/s, and i should point out thats with no resistance (somehow ). That means it has fallen just 44 metres, making it very hard to explain how this huge cloud of dust which engulfs the building is actually produced at this early stage. The actual speeds involved should not be enough to significantly break concrete, or fireproofing, at all; yet the building completely disappears into this cloud.
(sorry for English spelling of metres, if that annoys anyone :roll
Actually, I think that video shows the incorrectness of your illustration.
Watch it again and notice what the left side does. It rotates INSIDE the building, since the side we don't see - probably edited out - was acting as the hinge point, meaning that the cog never really moved laterally very much at all.
Your illustration has the top portion sliding horizontally on the bottom piece. Now, I don't know what you propose would have the kind of force to do that in a way that would prevent the top piece from collapsing straight down once the columns weren't aligned anymore, but I'd like to hear.......
Originally posted by scientist
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
7. Horizontal Ejections: But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.
i agree with many of these points, but this one just seems wrong. i can't see how that is valid. Imagine a toothpick, pointing straight up. if you push down on it, it will bend a little. push harder, it will break, and splinters will fly out horizontally. wouldn't this be the same effect with a building?
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
(cont)
A lot of the dust you saw was drywall and spray-on fireproofing. Some was concrete, but the majority was your standard drywall (sheetrock) and spray-on fireproofing.
So what? You would still need sufficient energy to break the ‘drywall and spray-on fireproofing’ so you point is irrelevant.
Originally posted by SantaClaus
I hope this hasn't been brought up yet, I only scanned the second page.
My only questions left about this situation are:
How could they have timed the full collapse right with the top floors giving out? Even in CD 's switches are very delayed.
Also, is it possible that large buildings like this have pre-installed bombs in the supports so that when the structure is compromised they blow to limit devastation of the rest of the city? I mean, with gov't structures I could see this being a consideration, and I don't think anyone can watch B7 fall without thinking it was controlled. Its obvious.
Other than that, I was completely unimpressed by all the data until recently, when I began reading the stuff. There are plenty more pieces of empirical evidence showing a controlled demolition than a couple of planes destroying three buildings probably millions of times larger.
Originally posted by SantaClaus
How could they have timed the full collapse right with the top floors giving out? Even in CD 's switches are very delayed.
Originally posted by SantaClaus
Also, is it possible that large buildings like this have pre-installed bombs in the supports so that when the structure is compromised they blow to limit devastation of the rest of the city?
Also, you talk about all this pulverized concrete... In even a controlled demo, wouldn't there still be large chunks? I don't know, just want some input.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
If you look at the rubble there are hardly any large bits of concrete, and there certainly should be some, at least.
[edit on 12-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]