"Truthers" and "Trusters" This may change everything!

reply to post by jthomas


I agree with you. AE911 actually ended up with the initial assumption that the buildings fell at or near free fall acceleration. It is true that they did in fact fall initially with that speed but then slowed significantly. They ended up proving themselves wrong on how the WTC's collapsed but then stumbled upon something else entirely.



This video proves without any doubt, IMO, that the ejections from the tower were not the result of air pressure, but rather timed explosions. Skip toward the end to watch the ejections.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by jthomas

 

This video proves without any doubt, IMO, that the ejections from the tower were not the result of air pressure, but rather timed explosions. Skip toward the end to watch the ejections.

Chandler does not actually demonstrate that they are not ejections of air. About all we get from him that it "defies common sense." I don't see any calculations from him or ae911truth that refutes that they are air ejections.

Also, I don't see where he addresses that the floors were collapsing ahead of the outer walls falling (peeling) away which, of course we cannot see

I am surprised that Chandler has not yet acknowledged that NIST DID address the free-fall component of WTC 7 that Chandler found. Chandler's findings confirm NIST's TOTAL time component in which the free fall component was found. In other words, nothing changed with NIST's calculation of the total time component.

I and others are skeptical of Chandler's claims without any supporting data or evidence to back up his claims.

But, if Chandler were right, and explosives were used, then I think people would be much more willing accept the evidence that large pieces of WTC 1 were hurled into WTC 7 and responsible for its damage, fires, and subsequent collapse, don't you?


[edit on 15-3-2010 by jthomas]

IMO speed of the collapses is irrelevant.

What shows control in the collapses is the fact that they fell symmetrically, which is impossible in a chaotic uncontrolled demolition.

If there was ANY resistance at all then the collapses would not have been symmetrical.

And by symmetrical I mean all four corners of all three buildings fell at about the same rate and time, and debris was ejected equally in all four directions.

Objects always fall to the path of least resistance, so for the buildings to fall symmetrically the resistance must have been removed equally all the way through the collapse wave. Any resistance anywhere, or anytime, during the collapses would introduce an asymmetry in the collapse and you would see the building fall away from the resistance to the path of least resistance.
How this would actually look in reality is not predictable, as the action of resistance is not predictable, but it would certainly be there. This is why no other building has EVER collapsed that way without it being controlled. You must admit it defies physics if you go by the governments explanation, or lack of...

THAT is the problem that NIST does not address. 'Free fall' speed is a distraction from the real physics that cannot be disputed.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
IMO speed of the collapses is irrelevant.

What shows control in the collapses is the fact that they fell symmetrically, which is impossible in a chaotic uncontrolled demolition.

If there was ANY resistance at all then the collapses would not have been symmetrical.

And by symmetrical I mean all four corners of all three buildings fell at about the same rate and time, and debris was ejected equally in all four directions.

First, none of the post-collapse photos and videos I've seen show anything remotely like the result of a symmetrical, controlled demolition collapse as we know them.

Perhaps you have seen aerial shots I haven't seen and you can map out the symmetry for us.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


" This video proves without any doubt, IMO, that the ejections from the tower were not the result of air pressure, but rather timed explosions. Skip toward the end to watch the ejections. "

This Video to me seems like the Best explaination i have ever come across when it comes to trying to understand the Physics of the WTC Collapse . Thank You !

Originally posted by jthomas
First, none of the post-collapse photos and videos I've seen show anything remotely like the result of a symmetrical, controlled demolition collapse as we know them.

Perhaps you have seen aerial shots I haven't seen and you can map out the symmetry for us.

You only have to look at the videos of the collapses to see they collapse symmetrically.

To argue against this fact is to ignore reality in favor of a incomplete explanation of the collapses from the authorities.

The only thing you can do is spin the definition of 'symmetrical' and my use of it, and play ignorant to the facts of the debris field. If you prefer another term to describe the visual evidence then I will be happy to use it.

You can't tell me you haven't seen this...



And just to verify visually the diagram above, this is WTC2 at about halfway through it's collapse, throwing debris equally in all directions while maintaining a symmetrical path of collapse, i.e. straight down with no deviation due to resistance. The path of debris alone proves symmetry, equal in all directions including up. Where did the energy come from to do that much work, and overcome it's own structural integrity completely?



Just so you understand, once again, if there were any resistance to the collapse from undamaged building structure the collapses would not have been symmetrical. The mass of the building would instantly move to the path of lesser resistance, not force the resistance to give way, because there would be nothing stopping the building taking the easiest path. There is no force keeping the building moving straight down, only gravity, which is the weakest natural force and will not make the building ignore resistance.

maybe I'm just seeing things,
but doesn't this pic show that a very large portion/part of the building has broken off and falling to the side away from the main structure.
If this is a large part of this building, and seemingly the last to fall, shouldn't then the time of fall include this in the calculations.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34cd0764bf24.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas
First, none of the post-collapse photos and videos I've seen show anything remotely like the result of a symmetrical, controlled demolition collapse as we know them.

Perhaps you have seen aerial shots I haven't seen and you can map out the symmetry for us.

You only have to look at the videos of the collapses to see they collapse symmetrically.

"As they collapse" is a separate subject altogether. In controlled demolitions, the goal is to collapse a structure so that the END result is a collapse which is contained so as to not damage adjacent structures. The actual collapse itself need not be "symmetrical" as we see in the majority of the time in videos of parts of buildings deliberately made to fall inward. Gravity is the main component of all demolitions. So "symmetry", in and of itself, is not evidence of controlled demolition.

And just to verify visually the diagram above, this is WTC2 at about halfway through it's collapse, throwing debris equally in all directions while maintaining a symmetrical path of collapse, i.e. straight down with no deviation due to resistance. The path of debris alone proves symmetry, equal in all directions including up. Where did the energy come from to do that much work, and overcome it's own structural integrity completely?

What you are claiming is that contrary to controlled demolitions, the walls were intended to be explosively shot outward, in other words, an extra expenditure of energy other than what controlled demolitions are meant to do: use gravity to collapse a structure.

Presumably, then, the additional intention of the "perps" was to do as much damage external to the towers structure, to the other buildings, requiring much more explosives to "push" those walls out. Is that what you are suggesting?

Just so you understand, once again, if there were any resistance to the collapse from undamaged building structure the collapses would not have been symmetrical. The mass of the building would instantly move to the path of lesser resistance, not force the resistance to give way, because there would be nothing stopping the building taking the easiest path. There is no force keeping the building moving straight down, only gravity, which is the weakest natural force and will not make the building ignore resistance.

What we are concerned with is the total energy available to collapse the structure. In the case of WTC 2, the top 25 stories fell one floor onto the bottom part of the structure, striking it at 9 meters/sec, hitting it with an equivalent of 8gs, eight times the force of gravity. So, all of a sudden the weakest links in the structure, the floor connections give way as the 25 stories falls on it moving 9 meters/sec.

All this is to say that symmetry in collapse is certainly NOT unexpected as the forces are overwhelming.

So, we can say that symmetry in it's collapse is not an indicator of controlled demolition and intentionally pushing the walls out requires far more explosives than needed to actually collapse the structure.

Seems to me that the debris falling out and away from the building is falling at "free fall speed", while the remaining structure is still collapsing 30 or so stories up. The notion of the building falling at "free fall speed" is therefore nonsense and those that buy into it are thorough dupes. I guess that settles THAT debate. QED

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Outside of you calling people names, free fall speed, and free fall acceleration are separate issues. The building did in fact fall at free fall acceleration initially. Then reduced it's descent as it encountered some resistance.

I'm not sure if you are interested in talking about the ejections continuing on at the 64% rate, while the upper portion fell slower than that speed. In this scenario, the ejections from the building cannot be air pressure blowing out. The reason they cannot be air pressure is that the ejections accelerate faster than the collapse.

I haven't read anything further than the OP, but I am commenting anyway.

The top section should not have fallen at freefall speed under any circumstance, and it should not have fallen without any pivot, or rotation about its axes.

If the building underneath of that section had provided any resistance whatsoever, then it would have slowed the acceleration drastically.

If the building underneath of that section had provided any resistance whatsoever, then it would have "torqued" the top section in a number of ways and that torque would have created pitch, yaw, and roll of that top section.

Therefore, IMO, it is entirely conclusive that the building underneath of that section DID NOT provide any resistance whatsoever, and the "freefall" was the result of all the supporting beams being non-consequential. This is only possible if they were destroyed simultaneously at the moment the top began its freefall, and such a simultaneous "liquefaction" of all that steel in all those different locations, at all those different amounts of heat, at precisely the same moment, is entirely impossible without some help.

Originally posted by getreadyalreadyall the supporting beams being non-consequential.

I agree. The slow down in acceleration of the top section after reaching free fall acceleration was not enough resistance to make the top section fall off the side of the structure. That does beg the question of if the mass of the top section didn't have enough resistance to warrant the top section falling sideways off of the building...how did it pulverize steal and concrete? That would take a tremendous amount of energy where falling to the side would take little. The path of least resistance seems to support that the supporting beams were non-consequential.

Originally posted by jthomas

"As they collapse" is a separate subject altogether. In controlled demolitions, the goal is to collapse a structure so that the END result is a collapse which is contained so as to not damage adjacent structures. The actual collapse itself need not be "symmetrical" as we see in the majority of the time in videos of parts of buildings deliberately made to fall inward. Gravity is the main component of all demolitions. So "symmetry", in and of itself, is not evidence of controlled demolition.

Hmmm the END result has nothing to do with the symmetry of the collapses.
I understand controlled demolition does not need to be symmetrical, you are missing the point completely. You seem to have a very narrow naive knowledge of controlled demolitions. Maybe we should use another term as to not confuse you again. Perhaps 'purposeful demolition', does that work better?

Please read through my post again, symmetry is impossible from a chaotic natural collapse, again due to uncontrolled resistance, which should have created asymmetry in the collapse as gravity is not a force that can overcome resistance. If it could the buildings would never have stood under their own weight in the first place.

What you are claiming is that contrary to controlled demolitions, the walls were intended to be explosively shot outward, in other words, an extra expenditure of energy other than what controlled demolitions are meant to do: use gravity to collapse a structure.

It's hard to understand what you're trying to say here. What walls were intended to be shot outwards? Look, again you are trying to compare to a convention controlled demolition, it wasn't. 'Controlled demolition' does not mean it had to have been done in the most common conventional way that YOU know of. I can bet there's ways you've never heard of e.g. They collapse tall towers sometimes by taking out sections of columns and filling them with wood, then set fire to the building, the wood burns and building collapses. Just an example to get your brain thinking out of the box.

For gravity to do it's work collapsing a building then the RESISTANCE has to be removed in some way. THAT is the issue we're concerned with, how did the resistance get removed from asymmetrical damage and fires on a few floors.

Presumably, then, the additional intention of the "perps" was to do as much damage external to the towers structure, to the other buildings, requiring much more explosives to "push" those walls out. Is that what you are suggesting?

No, tall skinny buildings CANNOT be imploded there is not enough room for the walls to fall into. THAT is why a conventional demo was not possible on the towers. WTC 7 btw caused minimal damage to other buildings, and was a conventional controlled demolition.

What we are concerned with is the total energy available to collapse the structure. In the case of WTC 2, the top 25 stories fell one floor onto the bottom part of the structure, striking it at 9 meters/sec, hitting it with an equivalent of 8gs, eight times the force of gravity. So, all of a sudden the weakest links in the structure, the floor connections give way as the 25 stories falls on it moving 9 meters/sec.

No it didn't, not even close. See this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All this is to say that symmetry in collapse is certainly NOT unexpected as the forces are overwhelming.

So say you. Now can you explain how this is possible please?
What forces were overwhelming? What force could possibly just overwhelm the resistance of thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel. Sorry but according the NIST report there was NO force acting on the collapses but gravity. The fires and damage had already done it's job and according to NIST an explanation of how the collapses became global and symmetrical was not necessary. In other words they did not give a complete explanation, they conveniently left out the most important part, the actual collapses.

So, we can say that symmetry in it's collapse is not an indicator of controlled demolition and intentionally pushing the walls out requires far more explosives than needed to actually collapse the structure.

So it would take more energy to push the walls out than needed to collapse the building? Do you realize what you're saying here? It doesn't even make sense. So if it would take more energy to push the walls out than was needed to collapse the building, then where the hell did all that energy come from when there wasn't enough energy to collapse the buildings to begin with? You are admitting it would take more energy to push the walls out than was need to collapse the building? Just think about what you said there for awhile...The walls WERE pushed out, so the energy WAS there to do the work. What was that energy?

[edit on 3/16/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ExPostFacto

how did it pulverize steal and concrete?

Yes, that is the nagging question - how did it do that?

Wait - it didn't do that?

Oh well, mystery solved.

reply to post by ANOK

Objects always fall to the path of least resistance

Really? Since when? Last time I looked gravity worked in a straight line.

Put a small box on the floor. Pick up an apple, drop the apple directly over the box.

What do you observe?

Does the apple try to make a right turn around the box on its way to the floor - preferring the "path of least resistance" or does the apple do its best to smash through the box in search for the floor?

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Outside of you calling people names, free fall speed, and free fall acceleration are separate issues. The building did in fact fall at free fall acceleration initially. Then reduced it's descent as it encountered some resistance.

I'm not sure if you are interested in talking about the ejections continuing on at the 64% rate, while the upper portion fell slower than that speed. In this scenario, the ejections from the building cannot be air pressure blowing out. The reason they cannot be air pressure is that the ejections accelerate faster than the collapse.

Calling a spade a spade for being duped by the "free fall" argument is not name calling. The "free fall argument" is a clever pitch and people are, have been and will be duped by it. Simple visual analysis reveals that the outer debris is in "free fall" while the building is not.

I don't care if it's not air pressure. It could be normal stress fracture. Either way, an armchair analysis of the collapse does not imply conspiracy, explosives or bombs in any way. For that you need hard, tangible evidence. To date there is absolutely none. Should you find some, let's talk. Otherwise I'm not likely to be swayed by spin arguments about free fall or a pseudoscientific mathematical argument based on videos and photos from 1000+ feet out.

reply to post by hooper


That is a terrible example...a box and an apple. Drop a cinder block on top of 4 stacked cinder blocks and watch what happens. I bet the dropped cinder block breaks and falls to the side.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by hooper

 

That is a terrible example...a box and an apple. Drop a cinder block on top of 4 stacked cinder blocks and watch what happens. I bet the dropped cinder block breaks and falls to the side.

But at no time does the object seek the "path of least resistance". It continues to its original destination in the most direct path, a straight line.

Straight lines. Things fall in striaght lines. Gravity works in straight lines.

Not on paths based on perceived resistance.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


This is not a courtroom. Bringing solid evidence is not possible without a new investigation. What we have here is theory. Which theory is more probable? Theory is based on facts that are observable. If you don't care to discuss these issues without hard evidence, why post? Why come to a website designed to discuss theories involved conspiracies if you intend to conclude lack of "solid evidence" means end of discussion?

Al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists can't even get their facts straight. It was WTC7 that the 9-11 scientific truth movement claims fell at near free-fall speed, and NIST was forced to admit it.