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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned
then I try my best to imagine it 'collapsing' vertically down... (try it yourself... just imagine)

I can't see it. It's not possible etc.


For it to topple over the supports must be strong enough to support the dynamic load. With the WTC, after it started falling for it to topple over some magical force would have had to stop the thousands of tonnes falling, then act as a pivot point for it to topple over.

What part of the building was strong enough to do that?


edit on 6-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

Your flag pole is one contiguous uniform piece of material which allows it to flex considerably safely because the forces are uniformly distributed. The core columns of the WTC were assembled sections about 3 stories high which were welded together so those welds were the weak spot where they snapped under stress beyond what they were designed to take. After snapping at those welded joints, the column springs back to where the base is no longer sitting on anything so the section can then fall straight down like a spear (as observed)

There are a lot of pics on the net of those massive core columns that snapped apart and the welds are only penetrating about an inch in from the surface. Was that adequate is the question.

Seems it was quite ok unless it gets hit by 200 000kg traveling at 200+ m/s

Might have been a much better outcome if those columns were all single pieces like the flagpole but no steelworks would have the ability to produce them.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not talking about anything toppling over I'm talking about the impossibility of something rigid and vertical and supported vertically (Both laterally and by the ground), 'collapsing' VERTICALLY.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned
impossibility of something rigid and vertical and supported vertically (Both laterally and by the ground), 'collapsing' VERTICALLY.


So if it does not collapse vertically it must topple over... what else can it do?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That sounds right until you realize it didn't topple over either!




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

The lateral support was removed when the floors were smashed by the falling mass. The floor trusses stabilised the core via connection to the outer wall columns. With the 'hat' in place on those core columns they might have stood a chance of remaining intact without the floors but that was part of the mass that fell to smash through the floors leaving the individual columns to fend for themselves.


edit on 6/1/2016 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The sounds are not important. We all know that media microphones are made to drown out background sounds.


Yes they are important since explosions can be heard for miles and you can plainly hear good clear sounds from other background noise sources as well.



It is the visual of watching something that the government, the media, and NIST purposely ignored.


The way the WTC buildings collapsed is not indicative of controlled demolition. First of all, the WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed and secondly, they did not fall within their own footprints.

Demolition explosions are captured on seismographs, which was not the case as the WTC buildings collapsed. Look at the following photos and notice the widespread destruction, which is not indicative of controlled demolition operations.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Ok, back to my question.

If the WTC just fell all by themselves without any help, just from office fires that weekended the steel. Then someone please explain why we see thousands of tons of steel support beams blowing upward and outwards in every direction over 600 feet at a speed of 60 miles an hour and impaling some of the thousands tons of beams into other buildings?

If the WTC just fell down, on it's lease resistance as all buildings do from fire or earth quakes, then how come we do not see chunks of concrete or parts of the lower floors still intact.

What all the videos do show, is a powerful annihilation of both WTC, it is disintegration in mid air, buildings do not do this when collapsing from fires or earth quakes.

What we are witnessing is a powerful energetic form of energies that should not be there.
edit on 6-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned




That sounds right until you realize it didn't topple over either!

For the building to topple over the outside wall would have to be able to support substantially more weight at a non-vertical angle.
Clearly it couldn't.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Then someone please explain why we see thousands of tons of steel support beams blowing upward and outwards in every direction over 600 feet and impaling some of the thousands tons of beams into other buildings?

Go outside and break some dry branches without holding both ends.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Are you suggesting that over 500 credible eyewitness were all lying, their testimonies are on an historic record stating they saw explosions, flashes going around the WTC as they were coming down, some Survivor were caught in these explosions with serous burns and spent weeks in the hospital all claiming there were multiple explosions.

What about the people who were in the basement of the WTC who went on the historical recorded as being in some of the explosions before the WTC fell?

Why would the basement have explosions? These questions have never been address property. All I ever get are opinions and more OS propaganda for answers.
edit on 6-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



If the WTC just fell all by themselves without any help just from office fires that weekended the steel.


And, it has happened on other occasions as well.


.. Then someone please explain why we see thousands of tons of steel support beams blowing upward and outwards in every direction over 600 feet and impaling some of the thousands tons of beams into other buildings?


The fact that debris are flung outwards is not indicative of a controlled demolition operation. First of all, cutter charges are used to cut the steel columns and then, other explosives are used to push the steel columns in the desired direction, but the explosives are not powerful enough to fling huge steel columns hundreds of feet, only enough to facilitate the collapse.

The fact there is no seismic data for explosives proves that explosives did not take down the WTC buildings and for explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns and detonated whereas, shock signals will be generated and the signal will detected by seismographs, which didn't happen during 9/11 because the data depicts the impacts and collapse, but nothing that depicts demolition explosions as stated by the seismograph operators.


If the WTC just fell down, on it's lease resistance as all buildings do from fire or earth quakes, then how come we do not see chunks of concrete or parts of the lower floors still intact.


I wouldn't expect much to be left of the lower floors with the huge amount of mass of the upper floors crashing down from above.

.


edit on 6-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
they saw explosions, flashes going around the WTC as they were coming down,


Yes, a collapsing building will break windows and crush concrete. If it was a demolition the explosions would have caused the building to collapse, not happen as a result of the building collapsing...


What about the people who were in the basement of the WTC who went on the historical recorded as being in some of the explosions before the WTC fell?


You "forget" the burning fuel that traveled down the liftshaaft, and the lifts faalling down the liftshafts...


Why would the basement have explosions? These questions have never been address property.


Yes they have, see above.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


The fact that debris if flung outwards is not indicative of a controlled demolition operation.


I have to disagree.

We are talking about thousands of tons of steel traveling at 60 miles an hour upward and outward. This is a very powerful energy that is lifting thousands of tons upward and outwards, this does not happen when building just fall down.


First of all, cutter charges are used to cut the steel columns and then, other explosives are used to push the steel columns in the desired direction, but the explosives are not powerful enough to fling huge steel columns hundreds of feet, only enough to facilitate the collapse.


I am fully aware of how buildings are set up for demolition.

You say explosions are not powerful to fling steel columns hundreds of feet, but that is whats on all the videos from the News media when you watch them, this is something that cannot be denied.


The fact there is no seismic data for explosives


LaBTop already debunked you about the seismic data, and there is credible evidence that seismic did record explosions.

I have seen LapTop proof in another 911 thread where he brought real science to the seismic data and it does exists.


they must be firmly attached to the steel columns and detonated whereas, shock signals will be generated and the signal will detected by seismographs, which didn't happen during 9/11 because the data depicts the impacts and collapse, but nothing that depicts demolition explosions as stated by the seismograph operators.


This is your opinion and not a fact. I have seen the real reports and they are on many 911 threads.



I wouldn't expect much to be left of the lower floors with the huge amount of mass of the upper floors crashing down from above.


Perhaps, but please explain why there were explosions in the basement before the WTC fell?

And you still have not addressed that over 500 credible eyewitness who went on the historic record of being in some of the many explosions and many witness saw flashes going around the WTC as they were coming down.



edit on 6-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958 The part that confounds you is that it would take an enormous amount of explosives to move steel up and out. The glazers union would have been in work for years replacing all the windows blown out by the blasts. No good conspirator would have used that much explosive to no advantage and announced to the world that it was a demolition.



edit on 1/6/2016 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




This does not explain how these thousands of tons of WTC support beams were traveling at 60 miles an hour and flying over 600 feet in every direction including upward.


You know what a collapse zone is....???

It is area around a building collapse which has been cleared of personnel /equipment

A collapse zone is 1.5 times building height to account for debris being thrown outward as building falls

WTC towers were 1362 ft high - collapse zone around them would be 2000 ft in ALL DIRECTIONS !!

Debris being thrown 600 feet is completely in realm



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: NWOwned

The lateral support was removed when the floors were smashed by the falling mass. The floor trusses stabilised the core via connection to the outer wall columns. With the 'hat' in place on those core columns they might have stood a chance of remaining intact without the floors but that was part of the mass that fell to smash through the floors leaving the individual columns to fend for themselves.



What falling mass?

Oh you mean the whole tops of the buildings coming down vertically right? Across entire floor square footage all at once successively right?

Well I negate that.

There's no way the floor truss attachments to the central cores would've substantially damaged vertical steel in a unified matrix with sub-basement to hat reinforcement resting on the ground.

No the floors would have sheared off at the cores, there's no way the whole area of the top fell as a complete mass. That would go against the sheer strength of the vertical core attached to and resting on bedrock. The floors would've sheared away from the vertical steel cores long before the cores would be compromised. The floors were only light trusses weighed down with concrete etc. Nowhere near as strong as core vertical steel.

Of course no one proposes this and the videos don't show this and everyone keeps saying 'collapse' like the towers were some concrete and rebar concoction of any regular 50 year old hi-rise apartment building.

Why would the roof, the 'hat' collapse? It's on top of the core tower of steel. For it to move down the core matrix of vertical steel must not be there, and if you watch the 'collapse' it isn't. But that just shows the buildings being destroyed (the videos). Hardly anyone thinks or questions them. Didn't they say the truss attachments sagged then let go? Well, there you have it. The trusses 'let go' before the vertical core melted or was compromised at all.

Why then would floor trusses failing affect the matrix of heavier vertical steel? Answer: It wouldn't.

What we should've seen in the videos IMO was floors peeling away from the cores but only mainly from where the impacts were down from there, crashing, twisting, pancaking, but only so far, it would slow and slide off in large weighted chunks and pancaked slabs. Would surf off lower floors and this would reduce their mass/force. Eventually the descending floor shearing would cease probably 30 floors down because the mass would slide off all sides at an angle as it fell. The falling trusses and floor pans would fall vertically at first but as they'd pancake and accumulate the mass would slide off.

This would leave a tower possibly even standing, with hat truss only on top or perhaps 20 floors (Tower 1) with a missing gap of 30 or so floors and then the rest of the tower below still intact. Imagine an apple half eaten all the way around the center standing on its end, the stem would be the tv antenna etc., the missing bit where the floors came loose then the intact bottom.

Don't think this plausible? No?

Ok imagine I am a developer and I build a flag pole set of condos, round floors around a round pole 110 units, stacked like coins, airplane hits it but it don't topple over but fire breaks out and burns some upper units badly. So bad the bolts holding the floors to the pole break.... some floors succumb to gravity - SOME FLOORS - not the pole. Pole remains with flag on top, doesn't topple over, doesn't fall or 'collapse' vertically.

It easy to visualize no?





posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


The part that confounds you is that it would take an enormous amount of explosives to move steel up and out. The glazers union would have been in work for years replacing all the windows blown out by the blasts. No good conspirator would have used that much explosive to no advantage and announced to the world that it was a demolition.


No, I am not confused.

However, the videos that show the collapse of the WTC do show exactly what I am saying and that cannot be denied.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue


WTC towers were 1362 ft high - collapse zone around them would be 2000 ft in ALL DIRECTIONS !!


This is your opinion, and if it was not you would have showed us proof?

When any building is falling due to fire, they do not fling heavy objects out, no they just fall down and that a fact.

edit on 6-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
However, the videos that show the collapse of the WTC do show exactly what I am saying and that cannot be denied.


Care to show us the video, following the upward path of one of these beams?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join