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: 53
135
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
explain it to me,


Simple experiment:

Take a broom, balance it upright on your hand, allow it to tip sideways, as it's tipping remove your hand.

You will see that its rotation stops the second you remove your hand.

The reason for this is wile the broom is tipping most of the gravitational force acting on it is focused on your hand and all rotation will be around this point. As soon as you remove your hand the gravitational force will move from the end of the broom handle to the brooms center of gravity, the point where broom balances, and now all rotation will be around that point.

To sum it up as simply as I can. As soon as the hinge point of the upper block broke, the center of mass became it's new hinge point and the old hinge was no longer relevant.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne




You will see that its rotation stops the second you remove your hand.



The structure below the impact point was still intact, wasn't it?



Didn't mean to interrupt your discussion but I found that example quite vivid with regards to "the hand". Who removed it and how did they do it?
Explosives or an Alien Ray could offer an explanation for this riddle. Pancakes anyone?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: hellobruceBecause the floors underneath it could not hold it up, so it collapsed down - this is just basic physics, something truthers appear to have no knowledge about!


I'm aware of the term "truthers" but find it confusing. We all try to find the truth, of course.

By simply stating that I am not aware of basic physics you wave the red flag of referral to authority instead of evidence. You can't know whether or not I'm aware of basic physics. I might be a nitwit, I might be a professor that teaches physics. All you can do - if you want to, which costs time and effort and is much appreciated here - is explain it to me, prove it. Which may be quite difficult - even NIST had just theories, not much proof and that bit of proof that was left was carried away in a hurry before the official investigation even really started - I believe it was 18 months before the commission started its work.

Now, about that toppling. Let's refer to the say 20 floors above the point of impact as "the block" (I like suggestive names too). Let's call the lower portion of the building (below the point of impact) "the pillar". Note that I am aware that it was not a real block, no more than the lower pillar was a pillar; I know it was a construction of partially aluminium clad steel beams, window panes and concrete. I also will refer to 'left' and 'right' according to what can be seen in the picture I posted before.


  • Now, 'the block' clearly toppled do we agree?
  • This to me indicates that its structure was in tact (at that moment) do we agree?
  • So, the center of gravitation was NOT in the middle of the block anymore - it shifted slightly to the left - do we agree?
  • Now, given that you seem to assume an equal resistance / force applied from "the pillar" against "the block" over the entire width of the block / pillar we can (for now) ignore this force, agreed?
  • Now, movement tends to continue (Newton's first law: "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force." - do you agree that Newtons first law applies here?
  • So, a 'leftward' motion was set in, and it should have continued "unless acted upon by an external force." - do we agree?


So, the leftward motion was stopped by an external force, do we agree?
Since we established that the external force of the pillar working against the block was a) relatively weak (given the speed of collapse that set in immediately and remained almost constant) - I ask: what external force was that?

Alien ray. Told ya.


Why does it have to be an external force? Why can't you consider the possibility that some parts of the structure were still providing resistance.

You also state the the block moves as a whole. Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps only the facade is moving and the inner sections are all a flutter.

There is no hard evidence of what happened. There is only best fit scenarios and working from previous examples. Unfortunately we are looking at many very very unique events in a unique building. So this absolute proof you seek, you won't find it. You'll find a most likely case. If you don't like that or the explanations then fine, keep on with your alternative.

I doubt anyone will ever have their mind changed by Internet debate. It's an echo chamber. We seek opinions that verify ours and ignore those that don't. So that's what we have here.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Curtain wall down and the camara set up to record the sound.
The sound is the same rythym just lower volume because
of height and curtain wall. Yep there were bombs in the buildings.
Next ?
edit on Ram72915v54201500000059 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
How did they turn concrete into dust??? Better yet, what was the resonance frequencies of the towers?

My theory is advanced technology from a satellite. They tapped into the towers' resonance frequencies, and turned up the dial, until the atoms and molecules vibrated enough to make them break apart.


In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a given system is driven by another vibrating system or external force to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.

Resonance phenomena occur with all types of vibrations or waves: there is mechanical resonance, acoustic resonance, electromagnetic resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), electron spin resonance (ESR) and resonance of quantum wave functions. Resonant systems can be used to generate vibrations of a specific frequency (e.g., musical instruments), or pick out specific frequencies from a complex vibration containing many frequencies (e.g., filters).

Resonance occurs widely in nature, and is exploited in many manmade devices. It is the mechanism by which virtually all sinusoidal waves and vibrations are generated. Many sounds we hear, such as when hard objects of metal, glass, or wood are struck, are caused by brief resonant vibrations in the object. Light and other short wavelength electromagnetic radiation is produced by resonance on an atomic scale, such as electrons in atoms.


And THIS is what that looks like. Does it LOOK FAMILIAR???


The pieces drop in it's own footprint.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




My theory is advanced technology from a satellite. They tapped into the towers' resonance frequencies, and turned up the dial, until the atoms and molecules vibrated enough to make them break apart.




That's a good one!

But no, I guess that was not the case if your sat-beam doesn't produce heat with temperatures at roughly 2760°C.


The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15].

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
(Page 10)



edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Here, just READ THIS, and ask yourself........What dafuk?

The two towers were unable to survive the effects of a direct hit by two hijacked commercial jetliners during terrorist attacks on the morning of September 11, 2001. Although they were in fact designed to withstand being struck by an airplane, the resultant fires weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the upper floors and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear. Shortly after the attack, both towers collapsed. www.pbs.org...

So, they designed these buildings to "withstand being struck by an airplane", but

the resultant fires weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the upper floors and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear
I did not know jet fuel burned hot enough or long enough to weaken steel??? hmmmmmm.....


Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength


Compare this.

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced." pilotsfor911truth.org...



From FEMA/NIST (I think both stated that) we know that "most of the jetfuel was consumed by the explosion of the initial impact". NIST states in 2005 (read or watch Kevin Ryan therefore please) that from 16 steel columns tested in burning with jetfuel and interiors only 3 reached a maximum temp. over 250°C. NIST also states that there`s no evidence that anyone of the steel columns near fire reached ever 600°C. This temp. is the critical temp. for the guys claiming steel will loose half its strength at. No way. NIST says that all test units withstood the fires more 2 hours easily. Compare it to that: NIST states that the fires initiated by jetfuel inside the WTC on 9/11 burned each approx. for 20 minutes with a heat of 1000-1100°C and after that it burned "500°C or below". Not roughly 2 hours, but failing. pilotsfor911truth.org...

Other Skyscraper Fires



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




My theory is advanced technology from a satellite.



And THIS is what that looks like. Does it LOOK FAMILIAR???

Another hair brained theory.
Those glasses due to sound waves.
Satellites operate in the vacuum of space. Hint: No sound
Evvvven if sound traveled through space, How would it target the impacted floors and not the roof?
And why wasn't all the windows in NYC not broken?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: JuJuBee


My theory is advanced technology from a satellite. They tapped into the towers' resonance frequencies, and turned up the dial, until the atoms and molecules vibrated enough to make them break apart.




That's a good one!

But no, I guess that was not the case if your sat-beam doesn't produce heat with temperatures at roughly 2760°C.

Who said anything about heat? HAARP bounces frequencies off of the ionosphere, causing it to expand. Heat has nothing to do with the Twin Towers, nor does fire! I'm talking FREQUENCIES...and there are a wide variety, for different applications.

Frequency is an important parameter used in science and engineering to specify the rate of oscillatory and vibratory phenomena, such as mechanical vibrations, audio (sound) signals, radio waves, and light.





posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire

And it wasn't struck by a plane first.

You are new here.
Google the real facts before you get too wrapped up in made up facts from conspiracy sites.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: JuJuBee




My theory is advanced technology from a satellite.



And THIS is what that looks like. Does it LOOK FAMILIAR???

Another hair brained theory.
Those glasses due to sound waves.
Satellites operate in the vacuum of space. Hint: No sound
Evvvven if sound traveled through space, How would it target the impacted floors and not the roof?
And why wasn't all the windows in NYC not broken?
Sound is ONE part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Simple experiment

Turn on your radio. Turn down all the frequencies on your EQ. Observe what happens. Next, max your bass frequencies. What happens??? Now, turn down your bass frequencies and turn up the treble. What happens? Now, that's on a radio wave frequency level. Try doing that on a Gamma Ray frequency level, and tell me what you think would happen? You can't see frequencies unless you have a program like Sound Forge or an oscillator, so how do you not know they weren't vibrating those towers, using something like HAARP?

The most prominent instrument at the HAARP Station is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a high-power radio frequency transmitter facility operating in the high frequency (HF) band. The IRI is used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere
When atoms and molecules get "excited" they start bouncing off of each other, causing a vibration. If an object vibrates enough....IT WILL EXPLODE!

Simple physics!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
1. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a plane impact.
2. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel.
3. Physics doesn't lie!

It was the "fire" that caused the steel to weaken, remember? Unfortunately, the fire only burned for 20 minutes. It wasn't the plane that caused the damage, remember. It was that raging fire, remember?

I may be "new", but stupid or ignorant i'm not.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




Unfortunately, the fire only burned for 20 minutes. It wasn't the plane that caused the damage, remember.

I don't know what 911 you are talking about but in the one I experienced:
Planes crashed into both WTC 1&2
One fire lasted 53 minutes before collapse and the other 102 minutes.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




When atoms and molecules get "excited" they start bouncing off of each other, causing a vibration. If an object vibrates enough....IT WILL EXPLODE!

Simple physics!

And where would a satellite get the power needed to essentially microwave the towers into submission?
Why weren't other buildings affected at the same time?
Your theory doesn't stand the simplest tests.




1. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a plane impact.

A smaller plane, going slower with little fuel left on board.
I posted a video of one of the WTC designers stating exactly what I just posted.

But like clockwork the same bullet points keep being brought up every 6 weeks as if they have just been discovered.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruceOne side started collapsing.


Aren't you confusing cause and result? Whatever the cause - you suggest it's a collapsing side - it is the result that counts: the top part ("the block") toppled over. It started to tilt to the "left". Do you agree that the top 20 or so floors, as a whole, tilted to the left?


No, it (the leftward motion - ForteanOrg) obviously could not continue.


That's not obvious at all. Again: by calling my uncle my aunt she does not grow a beard. There was nothing to stop that 'leftward' motion! So, it should have continued. Why do you think it should NOT?


You seem to ignore the weight of those 20 floors, and expect one corner of the building to stop the downward movement of all 20 floors.


I haven't stated that I thought these floors had no weight. I haven't stated that I believe that one corner of the building can stop downward movement. I merely asked how it is possible that "the block" starts a leftward motion - it tilts - which can be seen in the picture I posted - and then somehow stops that motion, hence: defeats Newtons first law. That can't be, so there MUST be a force to stop the movement. What force stopped that leftward motion?


So what happened is one corner collapsed first, then the remainder of the building followed - no aliens, no silent explosives, no mini nuclear weapons, no nanoo thermite.


I did not mention nanoo thermite and mini nuclear weapons. Such silly theories

Whatever caused the collapse - in as far as I can see (and we have video's and photo's to prove it) the result was a 'leftward' motion of the building. We clearly see that the entire upper 20 floors were still tightly connected and these floors fell as a whole ("the block"). That's a lot of mass, indeed. But that mass moved to the left and should have continued that movement - it did not.

I can't explain this unless some external force was applied, presumably to the left (bottom) side of the block. Or perhaps because the right side was pushed on somehow. Or perhaps because the right side was removed / dissolved while the left side still 'lingered'. I don't know, do you?

You seem to think that inertia disappears in an object that is falling down, but it does not: the "block" started a movement to the left and should have continued that movement, hence reducing the force applied to the 'right' side of the building - which should have resulted in a far less symmetrical "collapse", IMO.

So, how come that in this specific case it stopped? Do you suggest that the crumbling exoskelet temporarly regained some of it's strength and pushed the block back (and only on the left side then)?

Or do you now see .. it was a an..

Alien ray. Told ya.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvneTo sum it up as simply as I can. As soon as the hinge point of the upper block broke, the center of mass became it's new hinge point and the old hinge was no longer relevant.


Helpful, thank you


I will try the experiment with the broom, of course, may even make a video of it

But - it does not quite match up yet.

You seem to suggest that I have to remove my hand completely to make the broom fall - actually, that is more or less what I think IS the explanation I'm looking for: that yes, the entire lower "pillar" was somehowe loosing it's strength and so applied a neglible upward force. The pillar hand" was taken away, so to say - by, of course that alien ray! (Told ya).

But also the mass of the block is substantially bigger than that of a broom, so the force created by the momentum of such a large block is much more significant. The block should have continued its toppling, I persist (for now).

What say you?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbruI doubt anyone will ever have their mind changed by Internet debate. It's an echo chamber. We seek opinions that verify ours and ignore those that don't. So that's what we have here.


I'm not ignoring you at all, rest assured. I'm simply enjoying a very pleasant discussion in which you and a number of others try to convince me that I'm wrong. I might be - you might be - we both might be. We both have surreal theories that we both think are quite plausible. I don't swear, yell or whatever, nor do you, nor do the remaining partners in our discussion. I'm enjoying all this



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkentBut like clockwork the same bullet points keep being brought up every 6 weeks as if they have just been discovered.


Well, okay, perhaps. But that's probably because the public is simply told a story they find hard to believe - which I totally undestand as it is indeed totally berserk, not fit to be used as the scenario of even the worst B-movie. Man, Samkent, we don't have to go over it again, do we? Its ridiculous. It made America's defense system look like a joke. It caused the war on terrorism - but failed to cause a war on bad building practices. Bah, humbug.

About the resonance theory of jujubee - yes, it is possible to shatter large objects like buildings by finding their resonance frequency and apply it such that the standing waves strengthen each other. You can actually do that with a limited amount of energy. Tesla - yes, he existed - is said to have experimented with devices that could do just that, and even has claimed - but it was on a party, admittedly - to have caused an earthquake using it.

So, perhaps..



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




So, perhaps..


Just curious... would it produce heat with roughly 2600°C? Friction on atomic level... hmm...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruI doubt anyone will ever have their mind changed by Internet debate. It's an echo chamber. We seek opinions that verify ours and ignore those that don't. So that's what we have here.


I'm not ignoring you at all, rest assured. I'm simply enjoying a very pleasant discussion in which you and a number of others try to convince me that I'm wrong. I might be - you might be - we both might be. We both have surreal theories that we both think are quite plausible. I don't swear, yell or whatever, nor do you, nor do the remaining partners in our discussion. I'm enjoying all this


I'm extremely disappointed that you have been allowed to spam this site with idiocy for days now. Bravo, mods. Bravo.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join