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.

 

This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
Can someone explain to me why nobody saw or noticed the planes flying so low just before it hit the towers? There were no eyewitnesses of the planes heading toward the towers even though making more than enough noise to be spotted. Heads only turned seconds before the impact.


500Mph. That's over 8 miles a minute. Manhattan is 2 miles wide. Seconds is all there was. Its not like you knew they were coming and were standing on a plain waiting. Time = distance / speed. That's 10 year old student maths.




posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's not what I meant. Looking at the videos, there Was no doppler effect. Just one big boom and that's when heads turned and people noticed it.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I suppose you're of the " there were no planes" fantasy" ? Because anyone with eyes knows there were planes. I hope your not saying that but your the holes were not big enough makes me think otherwise.
Oh and before you ask. Yes I believe the official story. Like most thinking people around the world do. I'm in good company and don't even think about calling me a sheep. I used my own intelligent mind to make my decision.
We're you ever at the trade center to know first hand what the layout of the area actually was?

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter


edit on PM000000300000000993707302014-09-14T17:07:07-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
No because that blue sky is over a park and then the Hudson river. Dude trust me I was there many times. You don't get much view of the sky. a reply to: loam



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painfulhead

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: numberjuggler
pic at 16.30 nicely shows the top section tilting which (according to me) would have fallen sideways unless the base of the tower was removed. Therefor demolition.

But yeah, all this has been seen before, nothing earth shattering. I was hoping for a clear pic of the underside of the plane or something, oh well......


Or the top section tilted in the most-destroyed corner (which would be expected) and the floor beneath that corner couldn't hold the extra weight so it started to give way and created a vertical domino effect.

Physics: when the top section tilted at the destroyed gap, it exerted vertical and diagonal pressure on the floor just below the damage which caused the supporting structure of that floor to fail.

I'm not a structural engineer but I'm pretty good at analyzing why and how things work and I have a good understanding of physics, metal, and how support structures tend to fail. I've also played a lot of Jenga so I'm at least as qualified as 99% of the truther experts.

Once that floor collapsed, the whole thing was just a cascade of floors failing onto each other until it built up speed and came straight down.
so would this mean the fall would be slower 'until it built up' the speed needed?
could you show examples of other times where structures have come down in this way?
there are lots of examples of tall building burning hotter and longer yet they still stand. help explain this.
also if the top is tilted then how could it have "exerted vertical and diagonal pressure on the floor just below the damage which caused the supporting structure of that floor to fail". the tilt would mean an uneven weight was pushing down more on the side with the tilt. in this how would the falling floors not be unevenly failing?
thanks ..... Painfulhead


The change in speed happened in fractions of a second... it's barely an observable phenomenon. Look at the video of the collapse and you see that it started slightly slower at the top until momentum built up and the fall reached maximum velocity. I believe what you're seeing is the resistance of the upper floors up until the point that the combination of weight and momentum overcomes any resistance and the middle through lower floors instantly collapse under the ever-increasing pressure. Each floor was impacted with a greater force as the floors above fell onto it. Again, it's barely noticeable but you can tell that the upper floors gave a bit of resistance as the weight came down.

FIre wasn't the only cause of the collapse. Massive structural damage in addition to the heat weakening more of the structure is ultimately what caused the failure. You can't compare a normal high rise fire to a combination of fire and a 757's worth of structural damage.

The upper section failed at the corner with the most structural damage first, as it leaned, the corner of the floor beneath that area failed under the excess weight and at about the same fraction of a second, across the remainder of that floor, the support structures continued to fail because of the added stress which caused the entire floor to collapse onto the floor below it. Think about it... as each support beam failed, the beam next to it was forced to take on the extra load. At that point, I can imagine almost a wave effect of the first couple floors buckling which brought everything straight down. Just because the topmost portion of the building leaned to the side doesn't mean it would have toppled far away from the tower... it would have come down at an angle and that was impossible to see due to the dust and debris from the rest of the building collapsing. We're talking about a tremendous amount of material coming down so it's hard to know exactly how it would behave. If there were high speed cameras on each support beam of the tower, we'd know exactly how it occurred but alas... all we have is speculation based on the typical behavior of support structures.

Try to envision what was happening to the structure step by step at the moment of collapse and it doesn't take any extra explosions to bring it down. It took structural damage and heat combined with a tremendous amount of weight. Once the top portion came down onto the floor beneath it, the weight combined with the velocity of the fall was more force than the structure was designed to bear.

A couple videos I'd like you to look at... notice how in the controlled demolition, the building almost seems to collapse from the bottom up. The top stays mostly intact as the floors are taken out from the bottom up to make sure it doesn't topple. That's how a controlled demolition normally looks. Then watch the video of the WTC tower... it collapses clearly from the top down with the weight from above collapsing the floors below. You can also see the increase in velocity that I mentioned. You can also see large chunks toppling off to the left and right which addresses the statement that the top didn't fall far away from the tower. At 1:41 you can see exactly what I described... the building buckles at the point of the most structural damage and the top portion tips just before the rest of the structure starts to fail. Watch the entire second video... it's definitive. *Drops mic and walks off stage*






edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

thank you for this long and well typed reply. I am not sure we are seeing the same things in this. that happens sometimes when people have a firm opinion. you spoke of fractions of sec. yet this goes against what you state. floor on floor fail to me would be slower to start and that I don't see. also you may want to look up past events with similarity to this one. you may find this useful. good luck. keep digging and keep an open mind. steal is a great thing to build with because of its integrity.
Fun stuff, thanks again and keep at it...
Painfulhead
p.s. Would not the lobby be the most impacted by your line of thought? in other words all of the weight should have landed on the last floor.
edit on 14-9-2014 by Painfulhead because: added a p.s.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Excellent explanation.

It makes perfect sense.

Now, what about the third tower?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Painfulhead

The video clearly shows the building buckle at the point of greatest structural damage, the upper section tilts to that side, then the rest of the floor fails due to the stress and the whole top end comes down with the force of the impact crushing the building floor-by-floor all the way to the bottom.

When I say "floor by floor" I think you're failing to put that in high-speed terms. It's happening very quickly but the building is being crushed from the top down due to the force of massive amounts of falling matter. That much is very obvious in the video.

What past events have similarity to this one? When has a skyscraper the size of the WTC towers collapsed due to structural damage?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: Answer

Excellent explanation.

It makes perfect sense.

Now, what about the third tower?



Look at pictures of the damage caused to building 7 by the collapse of the North Tower. They aren't easy to find because everyone was so focused on the collapse of the other towers but building 7 was SEVERELY damaged by debris. There was a massive vertical gash taken out of the building and fires raged through more floors than those in the towers.

Firefighters even noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of the building around 2PM which was a clear sign that the structure was weakening and it was on the verge of collapse. Source: Wiki.

Building 7 was brought down by massive structural damage combined with weakening of the remaining structure by heat... same as the towers.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.


Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.
edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: Painfulhead

The video clearly shows the building buckle at the point of greatest structural damage, the upper section tilts to that side, then the rest of the floor fails due to the stress and the whole top end comes down with the force of the impact crushing the building floor-by-floor all the way to the bottom.

When I say "floor by floor" I think you're failing to put that in high-speed terms. It's happening very quickly but the building is being crushed from the top down due to the force of massive amounts of falling matter. That much is very obvious in the video.

What past events have similarity to this one? When has a skyscraper the size of the WTC towers collapsed due to structural damage?
I was unclear. sorry. i will ask you then.
have other tall building hand structural damage? if so what happened
have other tall building been hit by planes? if so what happened
how can this kind of fail, floor by floor, happen so fast? isn't gravity fixed and because of this how would the speed at the moment of fail be so hard to see at normal speed?
I like your reply's and thank you for them. as for 'obvious' I fail to see it so clear, but will keep looking.
you may want to keep looking also.
lastly if your (and NIST) floor by floor fail is the how and the plane and fire are the why. would you think that the two building where damaged in so much the same way that both came down the same? is this likely? would there not be slight changes do to the level of structural damage?
thanks... Painfulhead



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painfulhead

lastly if your (and NIST) floor by floor fail is the how and the plane and fire are the why. would you think that the two building where damaged in so much the same way that both came down the same? is this likely? would there not be slight changes do to the level of structural damage?
thanks... Painfulhead


The south tower was hit on the corner of the building which was a very bad spot, structurally. It was also hit lower so more weight was above the damaged portion. As would be expected, it fell in a shorter amount of time... 56 minutes after impact.

The north tower was hit almost dead center and took 102 minutes to collapse. The plane that hit the north tower was also more level so the damage was spread out more horizontally than the diagonal damage seen in the south tower. Had the plane hit at more of an angle, it's possible that the building might not have come down due to less weight above the damage but there are a lot of ifs in a scenario like this.

There are 911 calls from people in the buildings that reported floors collapsing beneath them. There are radio conversations from NYPD chopper pilots stating that the top of the tower was leaning and portions of the building were starting to buckle and bulge so they knew that the structure was weakening and collapse was possible. Source: Wiki.

Let me clarify for people who think I'm just spouting the official explanation: I don't trust the government one bit. I also don't deny that the government could have been involved in 9/11. What I'm addressing, specifically, are the mechanisms by which the towers could have collapsed without other factors being involved. If you look at the videos without bias and imagine what was going on inside the towers after the aircraft impacts, you don't have to come up with a complex conspiracy theory to explain the collapse. There may have been a lot of conspiracy surrounding the attack but I don't think the towers were brought down by anything other than those 2 aircraft and the subsequent fires.


edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
He was going to release the photos on Saturday...
Where's the pics?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

Where are these pics he is claiming he has....

pics or it didnt happen!



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: Answer

Excellent explanation.

It makes perfect sense.

Now, what about the third tower?





Firefighters even noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of the building around 2PM which was a clear sign that the structure was weakening and it was on the verge of collapse. Source: Wiki.

Building 7 was brought down by massive structural damage combined with weakening of the remaining structure by heat... same as the towers.


The bulge on the side of the building was a sign of the structure weakening alright, I just wonder what was actually causing it.

I mentioned the hydraulics engineer that questioned the spfx man on how to bring down a building.

Hydraulic rams could slowly weaken the structure and cause a bulge.

I wonder whether flight 93 was supposed to take it out and the hydraulics were a standby? Wiki says the collapse began with one critical internal column failing. A ram could do that.

The kerosene fed fires in the twins weren't present in WTC7.

I can't find any pics of the "vertical gash", even in the Wiki pic that supposedly shows it.

The "consultant" I knew, told me that the diesel fuel for the emergency generators was stored below the structural bulkhead floor and it catching fire is what brought the building down. Oddly, Wiki doesn't mention that part.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic


I can't find any pics of the "vertical gash", even in the Wiki pic that supposedly shows it.



You didn't look very hard. Google images.

www.infowars.com...

There are videos of the fire raging through most of the building, helping to weaken the structure.

The bulge was caused by a hydraulic ram? Try one side of the building bulging out as it started to collapse on the opposite side. When a structure starts to crumple, the opposite side of the structure generally bulges out. Refer to the crushing of a soda can once again. Buckling occurs inward or outward, depending on how the structure decides to bend.
edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.


Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.
Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.


Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.
Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?


That's what I thought. You've got nothing because the "controlled demolition" crowd has zero evidence that holds up under scrutiny.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.


Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.
Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?


That's what I thought. You've got nothing because the "controlled demolition" crowd has zero evidence that holds up under scrutiny.
LOL Well most all of the evidence was destroyed. So I guess I hear what you're saying.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join