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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 22
135
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: waypastvne

Good grief, do you actually suggest that the very same trusses that NIST said were weak enough to simply break away from the core to create the pancake effect now all of the sudden are strong enough to tranfer kinetic energy in such amounts that he entire steel colums of the core simply vaporised?


Vaporised? I don't think you know what vaporised means.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: waypastvne

Good grief, do you actually suggest that the very same bolts that NIST said were weak enough to simply break away from the core to create the pancake effect now all of the sudden are strong enough to tranfer kinetic energy in such amounts that he entire steel colums of the core simply vaporised?



Good grief, do you actually suggest that the very same core steel columns that you claim simply vaporised... unvaporised after the dust settled on the ground ?

Core columns marked in red



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

If that's a bit too strong to your liking, substitute any word that you know that signifies something like "going from a concrete state into another (inconcrete) state". Crumble, pulverise, what you like.

I believe that what I meant was clear enough though: the WTC towers largely turned into dust. That takes HUGE amounts of energy. That energy could never be transferred to the core by these bolts, as they were - according to NIST at least - not strong enough to hold the floors and so gave way to allow for the "pancake effect" to happen.

Which of the two options is the one you think is true:


  1. the bolts were strong enough to tranfer the kinetic energy stored in the (thin) truss/floor construction - but how do you explain than that the floors fell in the first place, and how come this happened with almost free fall speed?
  2. the bolts weren't strong enough, the floors fell - which leaves the question how the kinetic energy you think caused the central column to crumble real time too transferred to the core to pulverise that?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

If that are core columns (I can't really tell), they clearly did not vaporise

So, am I to believe that the flimsy floors pulled on the flimsy bolts, transferring enough energy to make the core colums vaporise, crumble, break, or even - if you are right and that are indeed most if not all of the core colums - break apart? Or should I believe that the flimsy floors pulled on the rigid bolts - in which case the bolts never would have broken?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

If that's a bit too strong to your liking, substitute any word that you know that signifies something like "going from a concrete state into another (inconcrete) state". Crumble, pulverise, what you like.

I believe that what I meant was clear enough though: the WTC towers largely turned into dust. That takes HUGE amounts of energy. That energy could never be transferred to the core by these bolts, as they were - according to NIST at least - not strong enough to hold the floors and so gave way to allow for the "pancake effect" to happen.

Which of the two options is the one you think is true:


  1. the bolts were strong enough to tranfer the kinetic energy stored in the (thin) truss/floor construction - but how do you explain than that the floors fell in the first place, and how come this happened with almost free fall speed?
  2. the bolts weren't strong enough, the floors fell - which leaves the question how the kinetic energy you think caused the central column to crumble real time too transferred to the core to pulverise that?



No they didn't. Assume a floor slab thickness of 200mm and work out yourself how big the debris pile should be. For wtc7 that's 47 x 200. That's under 10m of actual solid floor now we can assume there is more than just that. And yup. That's what the pictures show. So even for 1 and 2 you are only looking at a 20m pile. Which seems quite small when you think about it. Doesn't it. It kinda makes your vaporised / pulverised / vanished statement look quite foolish. Go watch videos of concrete being crushed. Lots of noise and dust and stones and stuff all zipping about. Now I'll grant you that I've only personally crushed 150mm x 150mm x 150mm cubes so I'm just extrapolating upwards. If I was compressing many tonnes of concrete 400m in the air and at speed yeah, I'd expect a large cloud of dust. And even in that we are ignoring everything else which is being crushed.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

If that's a bit too strong to your liking, substitute any word that you know that signifies something like "going from a concrete state into another (inconcrete) state". Crumble, pulverise, what you like.

I believe that what I meant was clear enough though: the WTC towers largely turned into dust. That takes HUGE amounts of energy. That energy could never be transferred to the core by these bolts, as they were - according to NIST at least - not strong enough to hold the floors and so gave way to allow for the "pancake effect" to happen.

Which of the two options is the one you think is true:


  1. the bolts were strong enough to tranfer the kinetic energy stored in the (thin) truss/floor construction - but how do you explain than that the floors fell in the first place, and how come this happened with almost free fall speed?
  2. the bolts weren't strong enough, the floors fell - which leaves the question how the kinetic energy you think caused the central column to crumble real time too transferred to the core to pulverise that?



Ah you've set up a contradictory question but ignored the possibility of any other option. It's called loading, thermal expansion, the imposition of new uncalculated dynamic loads as columns and beams failed and loads shifted. It's beautifully simple if you wish to think about it. Ignore jenga physics of solid space. Think about kerplunk. The marbles stay on the first few sticks. Then you shift one and some fall. Then you move another and they all go. The loads moved and transferred their loadings to other beams and columns. This meant they were now outside their design loading and factor of safety. They failed. As expected. And then one failed. And This brought all rest down.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation

(where did all the thermal energy come from?)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Re: poster who said WTC explosion sounds just like an internal collapse.

Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to WTC Explosion on 911.



Have nice day.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

The lift shafts were not concrete in the towers.


When a hijacked airplane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center, six men, including Polish immigrant window washer Jan Demczur, found themselves trapped in an express elevator at the 50th floor. Thinking quickly, Demczur and the others pried open the elevator doors and used this squeegee handle to cut their way through the drywall of the elevator shaft. They squeezed through the hole in the wall, fleeing from the building just minutes before the tower fell.


People make to many assumptions.

Window Washer



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation

(where did all the thermal energy come from?)


using your alien ray theory what are the thermal differences between the various construction components used in the building? Considering metals expand and contract at different temperatures, depending on the metal composition, what metal components failed first and how did those failures affect the overall structural integrity?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation

(where did all the thermal energy come from?)


The fires. Jeez. Look at the pictures.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
There's a "newer" video of WTC 1 or 2 that shows the concrete core standing for a few seconds, it's creepy. You see how the floor trusses sheared and gouged the concrete to a barely recognizable pillar, all stripped and ready to further pull itself apart, with all the rebar ripping the concrete to shreds as it comes apart. This progressive force, with leverage TOOK the concrete apart, FAR different modlus than if I was to say....smash it with a sledge hammer and calculate energy based on it.

Anyone familiar with the demolition procedure understands that the least force to do the job is efficient. Look at what happens to a demo building from a few kg of explosives, it comes down and pulverizes concrete....not with explosives, but with the potential energy.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

The owner and the secretary of state both have said that they building was pulled and brought down in a controlled fashion.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

The owner and the secretary of state both have said that they building was pulled and brought down in a controlled fashion.


Yeah they have..You just don't read.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Insolubrious
Re: poster who said WTC explosion sounds just like an internal collapse.

Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to WTC Explosion on 911.



Have nice day.


That explosion is immense. I have heard some silly debunkers here claim that the boom was a sonic boom from a fighter even though the guy says the building will be coming down soon after hearing it. Watch vid.
edit on 4-7-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.


They have, you did not read them -

You are still unable to show how they managed to sneak in tonnes of explosives and spend man years installing the explosives, including knocking holes in the walls etc then cleaning up the remains before the investigation started!.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
I have heard some silly debunkers here claim that the boom was a sonic boom from a fighter


Care to provide a source for that claim?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: Insolubrious
Re: poster who said WTC explosion sounds just like an internal collapse.

Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to WTC Explosion on 911.



Have nice day.


That explosion is immense. I have heard some silly debunkers here claim that the boom was a sonic boom from a fighter even though the guy says the building will be coming down soon after hearing it. Watch vid.


Hey shadowherder fancy telling us how or why or who did this as opposed to ignoring the obvious questions?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Did the owners get an insurance payment for the loss of their building?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Did the owners get an insurance payment for the loss of their building?


I'd imagine they did. Seems like what you pay insurance for.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join