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 SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 20
66
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne
Thats very nice.... but LaBTop is claiming " 72 miles/sec" which is 337 times the speed of sound.


Your right. I was figuring on meters not miles.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Yess, slip of the tongue, at least you both pay good attention. It was of course meant to be meters per second.
The m/s let me hastily type miles/second, which waypastvne correctly saw, and MALBOSIA explained what it had to be.
Thank you both for peer reviewing my sometimes too hastily typed texts.
Please proceed doing that, I highly appreciate it. We are not perfect, not at all, we, and of course also I, make mistakes.
Not with the WTC's, however. I'm damn sure I'm right, after 13 years of research.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
Yess, slip of the tongue, at least you both pay good attention. It was of course meant to be meters per second.
The m/s let me hastily type miles/second, which waypastvne correctly saw, and MALBOSIA explained what it had to be.
Thank you both for peer reviewing my sometimes too hastily typed texts.
Please proceed doing that, I highly appreciate it. We are not perfect, not at all, we, and of course also I, make mistakes.
Not with the WTC's, however. I'm damn sure I'm right, after 13 years of research.


Ha, I was kind of right!!

I had a feeling you made a typo. That would have been crazy fast otherwise.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

It's a simple fact, when something moves through the air, the air has to move out of the way. The faster it's moving, the faster the air has to get out of the way.

As an example here we have a natural rock fall which produced a 78 meter / sec wind. This wind was strong enough to blow over 10 acres of trees.

seismo.berkeley.edu...

Can you explain how a building can suffer an internal collapse without the air inside being compresses and coming out the windows ?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Waypastvne, thank you for this opportunity to set this subject straight at last. I forgot to address this air pressure subject already for far too long.



After detaching from the cliff, the rock mass slide down a rock shelf for 600 feet at an angle of 50 degrees from vertical and acquired sufficient speed to free-fall ballistically an estimated 1800 feet ( 550 m ) prior to impacting about 200 feet (60 m) from the base of the cliff in the Happy Isles area of the valley floor
--snip--
The estimated granite rock mass which fell is 80,000 tons. Ballistic calculations show that the rock impacted on the talus slope at the base of the cliff with a velocity of approximately 117 m/s (260 mph). The component of the rock's velocity tangential to the slope at impact was 78 m/s or 174 mph. It is this 174 mph wind blast which blew over the trees.


We were examining the first 3 seconds of the N.Tower collapse.
Over about the height of 15 stories.
About half of these 15 stories first impacted on the other half, crumbling them. The very top of that top mass did reach 67 % of FFA over this 3 secs period, only then the first of the rest of the 95 stories started to collapse. Which of course slowed that value further down.
Let's call that 67 % of FFA then, 2/3 of FFA.(free fall acceleration)

This 80,000,000 kg (80 million kg) massive rock mass fell/glided first 600 feet (183 m), and then more than half a kilometer (550 m), then impacted bottom ground levels and broke up. It thus reached 100 % FFA already in the first stage of the total height of its fall (183 + 550 meters).

INTERMEZZO.
You want to smack a fat, blue, manure-fly sitting on a slice of your precious fluffy cake.
You want to preserve as much of your cake as can be, so you can take out, between thumb and indexfinger, the smashed dead fly and a piece of underlaying smeared by fly fluids, contaminated fluffy cake. You definitely don't want your precious fluffy cake to get smashed to smithereens, i.o.w., to kingdom come.
Which fly-smasher would you choose for that job?
1. A netted-framed fly-smasher from thin plastic (a square net)
2. A full-framed fly-smasher from thin but thus heavier plastic (a square plate)


Watch out for the culprit, you want to smash the fly, not the cake.
The scientific explanation of what happens in case 1 will be more complicated than you at first thought will think. Preservation of momentum of the fly or of the cake, my dear Watson. Only when you film it with a high-speed camera, you see what happened.
END.

Explain thus also the many visible squibs that spat out from ONE, or at most a FEW windows, ten or more stories below the roughly ring-formed collapse fronts.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
If you intend to come up with the only explanation I ever saw from OS (official story) believers, for those far-below collapse-fronts squibs, namely AC air vents channels, then I ask you at forehand to consider the following facts :

They are made of thin sheet metal. Which will break up/petal-open at their rivets if exposed to > 70 m/s air blasts.
They also have the same diameter at the source of a floor wide air blast as at the end, so there's only a very small air blast front diameter that bleeds off its speed very fast over some length of that air vent because of friction with the walls, if not earlier by a splitting open of that air vent channel.
They also have 90 degrees corners. They also do not extend over more than ten floors without any bend from vertical to horizontal. They will break open at such bended corners when exposed to such pressure fronts.

Imagine a large 40 by 60 cm AC air vent channel. How can a very small PART of an WTC floor-wide air blast build up to > 70 m/s, channeled through such a small opening, and still blast-out a reinforced WTC window glass more than 30 meters further down?
And then I give you the benefit of the doubt, and propose that that AC air vent ended perpendicular in front of such a window. ( window . )
It did of course not, see these two video links below :

www.youtube.com...=4m20s


Go to 4 min and 20 secs (4:20/58:08), to see those vertically upwards-aimed WTC air vents UNDER those windows.

www.youtube.com...=4m6s


Go to 4 min and 6 secs (4:06/15:00), to see those WTC air vents UNDER those windows, blowing air-conditioned air UPWARDS. And there was solid steel under those glass windows, so those OS-believers their invented "174 mph air-condition vents air bursts" could not shatter that horizontally. And they could be maximally 116 mph, if they would have ever reached those spots with those speeds. Which they of course did NOT.

It were definitely explosive squibs. PERIOD


edit on 16/10/14 by LaBTop because: ADMINS : a window. , does not show the word window. However, window . does. (with a space between window and . )



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Those windows their specially reinforced glass could withstand prolonged winds up to 150 mph.
The writer of the rock piece calculated that the component of the rock's air pressure velocity, tangential to the slope at impact was 78 m/s or 174 mph.
Where the rock "shard" of course had reached the full 100 % FFA (free fall acceleration) long before it reached the end of that more than 1/2 a km, in fact 733 meters, height of its fall.
A floor in the WTC fell about 3 meters, before it impacted another floor its office furnitures, cubicles etc....By far not enough to reach FFA.

2/3 Or 67 % of FFA (174 mph in the rock example) is 116 mph, far under the 150 mph safety specs of the WTC window glass.
And later than 3 seconds in its collapse, the WTC North Tower slowed down even further than 67 % of FFA.

See also again Matt Nelson's PDF, page 119 / 176 :


More about the glass: “Powerful gusts can shatter windows, so for the sake of safety, tempered glass eight times stronger than needed was specified. Planners designed the towers to withstand prolonged winds of 150 miles per hour.” (Angus Gillespie, Ibid., p. 81.)
“The twenty-two-inch spaces between the columns are for the windows, which are recessed ten inches in order to shade them from all but direct sunlight. The architect specified a bronze-tinted, heat-reflective glass for the 43,600 windows.” (Gillespie, Ibid., p. 108.) The glass itself was eighteen and a half inches wide. The 107th floor of the north tower had 30-inch wide windows, for the Windows on the World restaurant. Likewise, “extra-wide windows” were needed for the interior observation deck of the South Tower. (Ibid., p. 216.)
The windows spanned from just above the floor to the ceiling. The foot-high air vents ran the length of the floor. (See them in this video [mirror], source: NIST FOIA, 911datasets.org release 30, 42A0353 – G30D7.)


See also again Matt Nelson's PDF, page 120 / 176 :


Silicate, or SiO2, is mixed with other materials to lower the melting point of glass to about 1500 C (2700 F) – see en.wikipedia.org... – so if the NYPD Museum and the above photo are correct and the glass did melt, then there were some extraordinarily hot temps going on. WTC fire temperature: 1000 C (NIST faqs [7]).


See also again Matt Nelson's PDF, the photo of glass shards and that text on the little attached card, at page 119 / 176, from the New York City Police (PDNY) Museum :

"" Glass Shards.
Glass was a rare find at Ground Zero, where these shards were recovered. The collapse and fires pulverized and melted most of the glass from the Twin Towers' 43,600 windows. The attacks also shattered the windows of surrounding buildings like the Winter Garden's 2,000 panes of glass
.""

Silica glass starts melting only at 1500 Celsius.!
NIST : WTC fires reached max 1000 Celsius......?
They found no steel that was exposed to temperatures above 600 Celsius......?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Where the rock "shard" of course had reached the full 100 % FFA (free fall acceleration) long before it reached the end of that more than 1/2 a km, in fact 733 meters, height of its fall.



You appear to be confusing gravitational acceleration with terminal velocity.

A falling object will accelerate at 32 ft per sec per sec , and will continue to accelerate until its aerodynamic drag equals its weight.

The falling rock had a mass of 80,000 tons. Given enough time to reach it, its terminal velocity would have been supper sonic



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
You're right.
Do the orders still stand?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Waypastvne : As an example here we have a natural rock fall which produced a 78 meter / sec wind. This wind was strong enough to blow over 10 acres of trees.


seismo.berkeley.edu...

I expect a LOT of knife sharp huge rock splinters and boulders having been launched laterally too, with a lot more mass than compressed air, when that 80 million kilos hit the foot of that rock formation. I suppose that added quite some mass to the tree felling event.... If I look at that photo of the aftermath of that rock slide, I see an AWFUL lot of huge boulders laying around in that clearing.! (7x CTRL+ = max zoom) One big pool billiard. And a lot of long tree trunks.
That was probably the main component of that tree felling event.


The component of the rock's velocity tangential to the slope at impact was 78 m/s or 174 mph. It is this 174 mph wind blast which blew over the trees.


Such a wind speed bleeds off very fast, by friction with the other air, ground and trees it meets on its way out.

You can see that effect quite well in the photos and videos I posted in my sig links, of those squibs at the WTC demolitions. They never reach out, more than about twenty to thirty meters. And you may assume that the velocity of that expelled air INSIDE the WTC towers was MUCH HIGHER, it had to pass the whole floor space, then break the window(s) first, before it spat out in open air.
Air speeds of far over 150 mph occur after ignition of HE-cutter charges or TB's (thermobaric bombs) in the vicinity of them. Close to them, those air speeds are MUCH higher. From 8,000 m/sec upwards. But that air speed bleeds off very fast, over tents of meters only already, by friction.
Those first slowing influences would have slowed it considerably down already, and thus you know that those squibs their air speeds were much faster/stronger at their originating points (core columns) than when cameras video-graphed them at the outside of the towers their perimeters.

Those rock slide main remnants lay at least fifty to hundred meters from the former woody perimeters of that tree-cleared area in that photo.

PS : The Tunguska ice-meteorite explosion in Siberia, early 1900th, a few hundreds of meters above ground, that had some real huge maximum air/steam speeds. And some very widespread devastation. That icy thing came in with something like 30,000 km/hr. Then exploded, a huge "thermobaric" steam explosion.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Note that there are two envelop maxima in the recorded waveforms approximately 13.6 seconds apart, with the amplitude of the second maxima approximately four times the amplitude of the first maxima.
The implication is that there were two prominent rock impacts, 13.6 seconds apart and that the second one contained about 80 percent of the total rock mass.


The diagram above that text belongs to that above excerpted text.
Now view that diagram under that text.

Now go and check my WTC 7 seismic diagram where I put in all my additions, in my signature LINKS.
As you can see, the amplitude of the two maxima in that graph are contra indicative of what you see in the two "rock" graphs.

Which means, IF the collapse of WTC 7 was a naturally caused one, that most of the mass fell first, 2 secs BEFORE we saw ANYTHING move in NEW York in ANY video of WTC 7 shot at that moment.
Then the global collapse followed, BUT showed a far lower amplitude, meaning that a smaller leftover from the total mass of WTC 7 fell then down.

Not one logical thinker will believe that.
Thus, that first huge amplitude peak that appears in the WTC 7 collapse seismogram, TWO seconds before we saw the first sign of movement in Manhattan, on the roof of WTC 7, namely the east penthouse roof that started to sink down, MUST have been caused by a HUGE EXPLOSION (see and hear it in the nr 5 video I hinted at in my last posts).

EVERY explosive attached to main loadbearing steel members of a steel high-rise, show up in seismograms as MUCH higher peaks than even the whole global collapsing building peaks after the ignition of those explosives shows.

Professor Brown from the Geology department of the University of Oklahoma established that simple FACT after he measured the seismic effects of the clean-up of the concrete/steel-rebars remnants of the OKC bombing. Thank you again, professor, for being so honest.

EVERY ignited cutter-charge attached to concrete/re-barred leftover/still-standing columns, showed a much higher amplitude peak in his seismogram, than the whole leftover building MASS when it at last collapsed chaotically and totally and the remnants impacted the ground one after another.

Also note the seismic times accuracy in 1996 already for the times of the 2 rock impacts.


-- the times of the impacts were 01:52:28.0 UT and 01:52:41.6 UT, respectively.


Expressed in parts of seconds. Not with an accuracy of 2 seconds, as LDEO from Columbia University gave for the WTC collapses in their 9/12/2001 seismograms.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

I expect a LOT of knife sharp huge rock splinters and boulders having been launched laterally too, with a lot more mass than compressed air, when that 80 million kilos hit the foot of that rock formation. I suppose that added quite some mass to the tree felling event.... If I look at that photo of the aftermath of that rock slide, I see an AWFUL lot of huge boulders laying around in that clearing.! (7x CTRL+ = max zoom) One big pool billiard. And a lot of long tree trunks.
That was probably the main component of that tree felling event.




Huh?

Experts go to the site to see what caused this unusual thing, and you decide by looking at a few picyures that they're wrong, and it MUST have been caused by boulders......

If this is how you've convinced yourself that all your other musings about 9/11 is correct, then I can see why no one of any importance gives your claims any credibility....



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


I am really confused


Yep.


In every collapse, there's an initiation moment.

Which is it?
1. Floors starting to collapse?
2. Core columns tipping over, falling on floors and then the floors are failing?


Still confused about what I endorse?

It's neither of these.



It means in your thoughts, they were NOT buckling, but must have NATURALLY broken loose, at their bolts, at BOTH ends, at the initiating floors,


Nope. You're still confused. Or lying.


and then some mysterious force must have pushed them 180 degrees over,


180? Did you mean 90?

Either way, I'm still lolling....



Do you realize how strange that sounds as an explanation,


Yes, the strawman you're attempting to set up is indeed a strange one.




Do you understand at all what it means; the fact that we see the top 7 floors and the WHOLE INTACT ROOF LINE sink vertically, still mainly INTACT, in those first three seconds of the collapse of the North Tower?


yep.


It means that there must have been immense VERTICAL progressing forces being applied to the tops of ALL core columns and perimeter columns in the NEXT 8 floors, if it was a naturally induced event.


Yep. Gravity is a natural occurring event,


Which Beck proves mathematically impossible for a NATURAL collapse, using the known facts about the structural steels used in that North Tower.


Yep, so earthshattering was his paper that it shook the engineering community into a tizzy back in 2008 when it was published. /sarcasm


Only severing all core columns on the initiating floors by means of huge explosive forces (TB's)


No evidence of that.


that displaced/uplifted these core columns f.ex. a foot high,


LMAO....

A foot high, eh?

Pure fantasy...


He found no PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING resistance.


Correct. Cuz stuff was at that point falling on the floors, and the floors didn't get progressively stromger, but were in fact equal strength.



It was mainly the core that delivered the bulk of resistance. When that was eliminated, the floors plus perimeter could NEVER slow or halt the inevitable collapse.
And got helped on the way down with some additional exploding TB's. To be sure of a total collapse.


Nope.

Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot
Nope.

Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors


It is almost as if they do not know how the building was actually constructed...... or know but ignore it as it destroys their conspiracy!



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: lexyghot
Nope.

Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors


It is almost as if they do not know how the building was actually constructed...... or know but ignore it as it destroys their conspiracy!


Pot calling kettle black.

It's almost as if they do not know physics and how Steel Buildings can't be destroyed by Fire like the Windsor building!



And ignore the fact that the Official Story is Bull! Maybe they are just there to keep the Lie Alive?!



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: lexyghot
Nope.

Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors


It is almost as if they do not know how the building was actually constructed...... or know but ignore it as it destroys their conspiracy!




really...please explain to all of us your sky scraper building experience bruce....you love to mock others yet put forward nothing ....

other than a copy and paste can you provide me details on how the building was actually constructed ?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
EDIT PROBLEM


edit on 20-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tedgoat

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: lexyghot
Nope.

Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors


It is almost as if they do not know how the building was actually constructed...... or know but ignore it as it destroys their conspiracy!


Pot calling kettle black.

It's almost as if they do not know physics and how Steel Buildings can't be destroyed by Fire like the Windsor building!



And ignore the fact that the Official Story is Bull! Maybe they are just there to keep the Lie Alive?!


The Windsor tower was not the same construction as the Twin Towers


he Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
Building Type: 106 m (32 storeys). Commercial.




The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.



The steelwork DID fail only due to fire and NO aircraft impact!!!

IT WOULD HELP IF YOU GUYS CHECKED FACTS INSTEAD TRUSTING CONSPIRACY SITES FOR YOUR INFO!
edit on 20-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: LaBTop

I expect a LOT of knife sharp huge rock splinters and boulders having been launched laterally too, with a lot more mass than compressed air, when that 80 million kilos hit the foot of that rock formation. I suppose that added quite some mass to the tree felling event.... If I look at that photo of the aftermath of that rock slide, I see an AWFUL lot of huge boulders laying around in that clearing.! (7x CTRL+ = max zoom) One big pool billiard. And a lot of long tree trunks.
That was probably the main component of that tree felling event.


Huh?

Experts go to the site to see what caused this unusual thing, and you decide by looking at a few pictures that they're wrong, and it MUST have been caused by boulders......

If this is how you've convinced yourself that all your other musings about 9/11 is correct, then I can see why no one of any importance gives your claims any credibility....


No, I am still open to discussion. And did not conclude decisively anything, I added some doubt.
You missed again some words indicative of doubt :
1. expect
2. suppose
3. probably

Selective reading problems indication.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0609/0609105v8.pdf
Charles M. Beck; Title : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse.

Lexyghot, your words and non-existing calculations in this post don't impress, nor convince me.
Your first try at refuting Beck's conclusions was based on ridiculous interpretations of his texts. As I showed you.
Care to try a second time?

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.


lexyghot : Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.

Only the floors


Then you would have seen the radio-mast and roof line still standing IN PLACE in those first three seconds, held up by the hat truss and the underlaying 47 core columns structure, and the top 7 floors would also have been intact, while the next 8 floors were collapsing INSIDE the space between the still existing, INTACT 236 perimeter and 47 core columns.

Then you would not have seen the following :







top topics



 
66
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join