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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ground Zero Footage

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.


Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.



And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.


It's frustrating, isn't it?

The "controlled demolition" crowd are generally just a bunch of people with no clue about physics and load-bearing structures.

Anyone who watches the multiple videos of the collapse and can't see that the building collapsed onto itself because of the impact of the upper floors onto each subsequent floor just isn't wrapping their head around the sheer mass involved. When the upper structure made that initial fall, it built enough momentum to crush the floor beneath, which then crushed the next floor and so on to ground level. When you watch a close slow-mo shot of the collapse, you can literally see it collapsing floor by floor at a high rate of speed.



Another O.S.Truster who thinks there was NOTHING in between those floors, and that they basically collapsed as a whole ring around the inner core, onto each other. Even NIST doesn't think so.!

Good explanation of conservation of energy and momentum, potentional energy, gravitational energy, kinetic energy, equal opposite reactions and mass, by an Engineer, Azp420; and ANOK plus psikeyhackr :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
etcetera

For the hard-headers :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Esdad71 :the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.

psikeyhackr : A potential energy calculation is only valid if the distance is EMPTY SPACE otherwise it is just a delusional.

If there is solid mass in the way and the falling mass has to push it or crush it then energy is lost and that supposed potential energy DOES NOT BECOME KINETIC ENERGY.
Computing the potential energy of the WTC straight down through its own mass is a mathematical delusion.


[snip]

This is HOW those tower tops really collapsed :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pay especially attention to the animated gif with the two red lines in it.
There you see the top of the North tower collapsing in on itself, WITHOUT ANY collapsing of the floor under its lower red line.
THIRD LAW, people. The lower part is ROCK solid during all that 15 floors top part demolition going on.
For your own education, read those above three thread links-etcetera.
edit on 15/9/14 by masqua because: Removed OT comment




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Some pictures are worth thousands words :


originally posted by: LaBTop

An animated-gif from the video of the North Tower collapse :



An animated-gif from the video of the South Tower collapse :




Click this Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
Observe calmly and concentrated all those 18 frame-photos from the North Tower collapse,



the various animated gifs on that page for the South and the North Towers collapses,





and then read this evidence why a pancake theory is outrageous wrong, since the visual evidence proves it immediately wrong :

The above animated graphic alternates the first and 67th frames. It shows a classic controlled demolition of a 12 story building (the top 12 stories of the North Tower). Strange how the roofline collapses so evenly, I guess, that all the central core columns and all the perimeter wall columns collapsed simultaneously. Some coincidence eh ?

The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor (just above the lower red line) with large flashes of hot gas from the explosions, clearly visible. Initially, the second line's detonation is obscured by the dust cloud of the first. However, being much more powerful detonations, the second line's dust cloud quickly bursts into view.

A close look at the video/photos shows that the collapse begins at the 98th floor, then the 99th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 100th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 101th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 102th floor collapses onto the 98th, etc until the second line of detonations initiates the final collapse. So once again, we have the disintegration of the tower above the impact floors, before the collapse of the tower below the impact floors.

Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor, which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc.

These very strange circumstances, mentioned above, have a very simple explanation: The twin towers were deliberately demolished. Occam's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation, a deliberate demolition, is probably also the correct explanation.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
The secret service officer at the 7:55 ish mark says his name is Bennett was he one of the two Bennett s -Bryan Craig Bennett, Eric L. Bennett killed on 9/11?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm not an expert in physics nor am I an expert in demolitions, are you? What are your qualifications?

Anyway a lot of folks that are experts say it just couldn't happen like that... We have demolitions experts because taking a building down in it's own footprint is quite the challenge and has to be carefully planned.

Also note how and where the planes hit, especially the second, it was on a corner one would assume this area would be the weakest and thus make the top fall that way under the load...

3 buildings on 1 day all falling in their own footprint from 2 planes hitting them... Hmmm there must be some rather large odds against that no? If even one of the towers had collapsed sideways or toppled over I don't think anyone would be asking questions... But all 3, I mean it has to raise an eyebrow no?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
taking a building down in it's own footprint is quite the challenge and has to be carefully planned.......
all falling in their own footprint


What makes you claim they fell into their own footprint?

If hat happened how do you explain the severe damage to all the other buildings?



If even one of the towers had collapsed sideways or toppled over I don't think anyone would be asking questions


Actually if that had happened questions certainly would be asked, as that would defy the laws of physics!
edit on 15-9-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
www.google.co.uk... d=0CCMQsAQ&biw=640&bih=335

Like these you mean? XD

As for the damage to nearby buildings well, some of the plane and debris came out the other side... Also explosions could cause that too no? And when a building collapses on it's own footprint debris is spewed out of the bottom no? In built up areas don't demolitions experts wrap the buildings in sheets to prevent that? But I would assume there can still be some residual damage to nearby buildings. The demolitions experts job is to reduce that as much as possible...

Want me to find some video of bildings toppling though? Of course I don't mean the whole thing falling sideways but like from the impact point I would assume that area is the weakest right? And I would assume it would fall that way due to this... Like when a lumberjack weakens 1 side of a tree by cutting out a wedge.

With my very limited knowledge I would assume the building would take the path of least resistance... No?

a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
With my very limited knowledge I would assume the building would take the path of least resistance... No?


Please explain how you expect one floor of the building to stop all the above floors from falling, then one corner of that one floor somehow hold all the floors above to allow it to fall sideways...

The path of least resistance is straight down, there is no force acting on it to allow it to topple.
edit on 15-9-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I already did bud, maybe you didn't read it XD

Like lumberjack when he weakens 1 side the tree falls that way... And so you think a fully intact base is less resistent than a gaping hole? XD... With colums taken out... So what happens is it starts to fall in that direction (as with the tree) and then gravity does the rest...

I mean I also provided images of buildings that have toppled over... But I guess you didn't look at those did you lol... Gravity is the force bud.

edit on 15-9-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)


EDIT: Have a game of jenga and remove blocks from only one side... See how it falls XD
edit on 15-9-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.


Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.



Personally I don't know what to believe as far as the official story, but you're totally misunderstanding physics and structural dynamics here.

The lower part of the building being intact means NOTHING. Once just one SINGLE level in the upper section failed, it would drop it's weight onto the level below and has the potential to cause a cascade or 'domino' effect.

Now the one level below might be able to hold TWICE it's rated load, but once compromised, who knows. In a fire, the steel will generally be compromised by about 30% of yield strength, and if we have two layers burning, then all it takes is for the upper layer to collapse on the one below it, which is compromised already so it collapses also and we now have the mass of THREE floors resting on trusses designed for ONE FLOOR. That floor then fails and collapses onto the one below it, which now has the mass of FOUR floors on it. This continues and gets faster until the floors are nearly falling in freefall, only being affected by the friction of ripping the trusses from the inner and outer supports.


The inertia would be INCREDIBLE.

Further more, to address the collapse of the buildings mostly in a contained area (it was hardly in their own footprint), I would cite the fact the buildings were constructed in almost a COAXIAL fashion (google coaxial structure). Basically there was an inner structure, and an outer sort of exoskeleton structure. Each floor section was essentially SUSPENDED between the inner backbone and outer skin. To me this is a very questionable way to design a building simply because of the domino effect you're setting up when a single floor fails. I think the WTC' may have been specifically chosen because of this structural deficiency. And as far as the collapse, the outer skin of the buildings would have acted as a guide, or a tube as the floors collapsed within. Plus Newtons first law: [an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force]. There was no significant wind to move the upper section of many millions of kg, plus as the collapse accelerated, it was gaining inertia, making it harder and harder for the falling mass to do anything but go STRAIGHT down.

Qualification: UCF School of Mechanical Engineering, and a lifetime of building/designing steel structures.
edit on 15-9-2014 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
m.youtube.com...

Here is one... You notice the bottom? Like there is an overhang? Yup it's off balance and takes that path, but I guess this defies physics to you? As you said it is impossible XD



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

m.youtube.com...

Here be another go to near the end, notice how it topples... Yup open air with nothing in the way seems to be the path of least resistance XD Funny that...



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm not an expert in physics nor am I an expert in demolitions, are you? What are your qualifications?

Anyway a lot of folks that are experts say it just couldn't happen like that... We have demolitions experts because taking a building down in it's own footprint is quite the challenge and has to be carefully planned.

Also note how and where the planes hit, especially the second, it was on a corner one would assume this area would be the weakest and thus make the top fall that way under the load...

3 buildings on 1 day all falling in their own footprint from 2 planes hitting them... Hmmm there must be some rather large odds against that no? If even one of the towers had collapsed sideways or toppled over I don't think anyone would be asking questions... But all 3, I mean it has to raise an eyebrow no?


BOTH TWIN TOWERS collapsed crooked!! I won't touch on WTC7 because I find that one to be very suspicious.

But it's a joke to say that either twin tower collapsed in it's own footprint, because they simply didnt.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: hellobruce
m.youtube.com...

Here is one... You notice the bottom?


How many floors fell straight down before falling over in your video? None, so that video has zero relevance to the WTC' collapse.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: hellobruce
m.youtube.com...

Here is one... You notice the bottom?


How many floors fell straight down before falling over in your video? None, so that video has zero relevance to the WTC' collapse.


XD Okay bud sure sure... lmao



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Jet fuels open burn temp is 1,890F, steel gives at less then 1,200F. It's liquid point is 2500 to 2750. The fuel carry amount on a 767 is 23,980 gallons.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
The secret service officer at the 7:55 ish mark says his name is Bennett was he one of the two Bennett s -Bryan Craig Bennett, Eric L. Bennett killed on 9/11?


Nope all Bennets killed were below the age of 30 this guy looks over 45.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero
Jet fuels open burn temp is 1,890F, steel gives at less then 1,200F. It's liquid point is 2500 to 2750. The fuel carry amount on a 767 is 23,980 gallons.


I have to ask this question. Mainly because I can.

How long did the jet fuel burn while the steel beams were expose to the flames? I would think there should be some "time of exposure" to any heat source for a major effect to be shown.

I once watched a demonstration where a man passed a lighted cutting torch over an ice cube but it did not melt because he moved the torch to fast to transmit enough heat to the ice for it to melt.
edit on 15-9-2014 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Although I have seen this before, I am reminded that somehow paper survived better than concrete this day ???

And I didn't know the footage was building 7, interesting. We don't have footage in 3,4,5,6 but seven how ironic.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander

originally posted by: ObjectZero
Jet fuels open burn temp is 1,890F, steel gives at less then 1,200F. It's liquid point is 2500 to 2750. The fuel carry amount on a 767 is 23,980 gallons.


I have to ask this question. Mainly because I can.

How long did the jet fuel burn while the steel beams were expose to the flames? I would think there should be some "time of exposure" to any heat source for a major effect to be shown.

I once watched a demonstration where a man passed a lighted cutting torch over an ice cube but it did not melt because he moved the torch to fast to transmit enough heat to the ice for it to melt.


Well that comes down to what was covering the steel. Drywall sucks up fuel really well but it fiddles with the burn time and temp. Also all 23,980 gallons wouldn't spill out. A lot would be lost on impact as seen from the resulting fire ball on impact. There is also the fact that the plan wouldn't likely have a full 23,980 gallons that's just it's max fuel load.

To weaken the steel the temp would have to rise to about 800F. But it would have to hold that temp for a while. Jet fuel has a very quick burn time, like most liquid fuels. The very reason when running a forge I'm using coal or a gas supply, I couldn't hammer steel by dumping jet fuel on steel to heat it up, it's burn off too quick. If I put it under pressure and controlled the flow I could but then it's be just be like using a gas forge, just cost me a lot more.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

That is funny. You do not know what to believe, yet all you did was reiterate the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation for the events.

And claiming mechanical engineering as a qualification?? Doesn't that mean you deal with plumbing and HVAC?

what does that have to do with structural engineering? They are not even on the same blue-print.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join