It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: [post=20953402]Informer1958
LaBTop put together a wonderful well researched presentation here, and none of you debunkers have attacked any of it with any "real science".
You also have not provided a motion tracking of any steel that exhibits the trait of being explosively hurled.
originally posted by: [post=20953942]LaBTop
Collapse zones are instigated in fear of TOPPLING OVER.
However, the Vierendeel facade plates that were launched from the explosive parts of the collapse initiation fronts ABOVE THEM, were clearly to see in the videos, expelled upwards
originally posted by: LaBTop
Desperately grabbing at excuses, while following your own Flapp's Law.
Show us the calculations to make it possible for the wall sections landing NATURALLY on the Wintergarden building and that piece of Vierendeel exterior that kept stuck in the southeastern corner of the WFC-3 building, without introducing extra energy.
Others have done that, and failed, see Major Tom's site :
Perimeter Wall Collapse Model - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research.
There are many more links to such work there, I just grabbed one of them.
originally posted by: [post=20973429]LaBTop
Well, do us a favor, and tell us how YOU easily explain that free fall period of collapse of WTC-7,
And yes, this FFA period, combined with the smooth descent of a seemingly intact outer shell, is one of the most important indicators that the collapse of WTC-7 was not a natural occurring one, and no ignorant JREF'er or ISF'er can change that.
Your above remark : ""I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation"" must be meant as a joke, I assume?
originally posted by: [post=20974923]LaBTop
Everyone with a tiny bit of logic left in his mind knows what that indicates.
FALSE FLAG operations.
Ref.1 : T. Inman, PAPD (Port Authority Police Dept.)
“As a roll call was being taken of the responding Detectives, Tower #2 began to collapse.
This occurred after a secondary explosion on the west side of the tower that appeared to take place in the area of the high 60’s. The area above the secondary explosion actually leaned to the west and then the collapse took place.”
Page 13/52 : FEMA’s investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Thus, neither he nor anyone else had conducted forensic analysis of the debris, nor had they interviewed eyewitnesses.
(FEMA Investigators: Lead : Gene Corley ; Ronald Hamburger, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE ; R. Shankar Nair, engineer ; William Baker)
Page 14/52 : ""The investigation was financed and given its authority by FEMA, with which lead investigator Gene Corley’s team had a shaky relationship from the start.
For months after September 11, the investigators were unable to persuade FEMA to obtain basic data like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Bureaucratic restrictions often kept the engineers from interviewing witnesses to the disaster, making forensic inspections at Ground Zero, or getting crucial information like recorded distress calls from people trapped in the buildings. For reasons that would remain known only to FEMA, the agency refused to let the team appeal to the public for photographs and videos of the towers that could help with the investigation.""
Most detrimental to the team’s ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings’ steel, which continued despite requests from the investigators — and outcry among the victims’ families and the fire safety community — for the steel to be saved.(Ref.3)
Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly all of the steel, including most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2, was destroyed before it could be inspected. (Ref. 4)
(Chapter 2, References :
2. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric: City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center
(2003), p. 330.
3. Ibid., pp. 330–332.
4. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science: Hearing: The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps (May 1, 2002), p. 27)
David Chandler : ""South Tower Smoking Guns."" :
This video narrates a collection of diverse phenomena in the debris cloud of the South Tower that point to explosive demolition. Particularly notable is one projectile (which I have not seen discussed previously) that is shooting to the east, then stops, midair, then turns a sharp corner and shoots straight down trailing white smoke. White smoke is characteristic of aluminum oxide which is a byproduct of the thermite reaction.
David Chandler : ""South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)."" :
After finding the projectile that turns a sharp corner while trailing white smoke (which I have dubbed the “Angle Rocket”) I looked for it in other videos and found it in several. The clearest is from a camera with a very similar perspective to the first, but in this video the trail can be followed to the bottom of the collapse. Here I explore the significance of this find.
David Chandler : ""South Tower: Exploding Projectile."" :
A close-up view of debris being ejected from the South Tower of the World Trade Center as the 30-floor top section falls to the east shows numerous smoking projectiles that look like comets. Several of them can be seen to explode. One such exploding projectile is followed here. It ejects two fragments, both of which undergo secondary explosions. (Note, the rising fragment to the left of the projectile under consideration appears to be a tumbling object that alternates from black to white to invisible. It passes behind one of the fragments described in the video.)
David Chandler : ""Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center."" :
Small explosive ejections focused on a corner column of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) are evidence of cutter charges used to cut the corner columns. One of these occurs at the 98th floor at the onset of the demolition of the building. The other occurs lower in the building at the instant the column enters free fall.
David Chandler : ""Acceleration + Serendipity."" :
This is a study of the overall downward acceleration of WTC1, the North Tower of the World Trade Center. During this investigation it was discovered that the one feature that kept pace with the original acceleration of the roof line was a wave of ejections on the west wall.
David Chandler : ""High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11."" :
I have revisited and extended some of my early measurements of high speed massive projectiles from the World Trade Center on 9/11. The results for the three projectiles measured: 56 mi/hr, 45 mi/hr, and 78 mi/hr. I don’t claim this is smoking-gun evidence of explosive demolition all by itself, but it is part of the puzzle and it is more compatible with the explosive demolition hypothesis than simple gravitational collapse.
(On a technical note, if you are looking at the numbers in the three measurements, the third measurement is taken while the video was zoomed in, relative to the calibration frame. The numbers shown have to be scaled down by a factor of 1.701 to give the stated results.)
David Chandler : ""Rockets at the World Trade Center."" :
Some of the debris from the South Tower at the World Trade Center shot downward faster than gravity. This is literal, visible proof of explosive materials painted onto perimeter wall units.
David Chandler : ""What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like."" :
The official story is that the North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed due to gravity. This has been critiqued in an analysis by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, and in a related analysis by David Chandler (both in the Journal of 9/11 Studies). The Balzac-Vitry demolition was a true gravity-driven collapse. The same analysis that was applied to the World Trade Center is here applied to this known demolition, with contrasting results. This analysis supports the conclusions of both papers referred to above: the North Tower of the World Trade Center was not a natural, gravity-driven collapse.
This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision.
An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the constraints of this paper.
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favor of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.
-- snip --
The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated, a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450 MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111 meters. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverization, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.
The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticeably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections, spandrels plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied.
-- snip --
The analysis would be justified in using the greater energy demand characteristics of a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the collapse, but I have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode has the lowest energy demand.
-- snip --
An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7 m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favor of collapse continuation.
This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.
This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrels plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.
Post in that thread by ozeco41 : Notice that the visible perimeter of the left side is dropping well inside the perimeter of the lower tower. That is one of four sides and it is my "elephant in the room".
Ozeco41 : So let's get the full scenario mapped out first.
Recall my targeted end point from the OP is:
Recall we are distinguishing an "initiation stage" which ends once the "Top Block" is "dropping bodily" and a "progression stage" which follows. And we will need to be clear as to the difference because that is one often repeated source of confusion. (POSC=points of some confusion)
Progression Stage Is Outside The Scope of This Explanation.
So let's be clear what I am not explaining.
I describe the "progression stage" mechanism as "Three Mechanisms".
Major_Tom and his colleague femr2 coined the acronym "ROOSD" ["Runaway Open Office Space Destruction"]. Whatever terminology you prefer the key features of that progression stage mechanism were:
A) Material fell down the OOS ["Open Office Space"] (1) shearing off the floors allowing the Perimeter to peel off and fall away (2) and material falling in the core area sheared off the horizontal beams (3) allowing the core columns to also fall over; AND
B) The columns which are the main vertical load support parts of the structure were effectively bypassed. Did not provide much resistance to the progression. Were not involved in buckling failure other than some minor exceptions. (POSC)
C) Hence my description of "Three Mechanisms" based on (1), (2) and (3).
Let's Define Our End Point - "How ROOSD Started"
The topic has not been discussed much, AFAIK (as far as I know), but one common explanation presumes that somehow separating floor mass accumulated in sufficient quantities to shear off the floors below.
There is an elephant in that room which seems to go unnoticed.
Let's see why - watch this clip to refresh what bit of collapse we are discussing. It is WTC2 but the WTC1 mechanism involved the same factors- different balance but same factors:
What do we see?
Step P - At 1 second -Settling - early motion - mostly vertical as columns failing in some sort of sequence;
Step Q - By 4 seconds - significant tilt of the Top Block - Base of Top Block moves horizontally to the right - ensures column ends are out of line;
Step R - At ~5 seconds rapid downwards dropping with no obvious extra tilt;
Step S - At 6 seconds - disappears into dust.
Notice that the visible perimeter of the left side is dropping well inside the perimeter of the lower tower. That is one of four sides and it is my "elephant in the room".
Here is why (Graphic borrowed from one of Achimspok's animations - my addition of the arrows etc):
And by that Step P - that point in the process - all the critical failing has occurred. Ongoing collapse is inevitable. We do not need to explain Steps Q R S to "prove" the cascade mechanism. BUT we use them for explanation of some of the common POSC. ( = points of some confusion)
Virtually any type of electrical wiring can be utilized to initiate electronic detonators as shown at 4:47 in this clip. What you need to consider are the differences between a commercial demolition and a sabotage operation. Do you really think they are going to use readily identifiable demolition products?
Project Truth WTC : Anyone planning to destroy the towers with explosives would also know that the signatures of their usage would be indelibly etched into the very fabric of the steel and could be identified via micro-structure testing. Therefore any plan to demolish the towers would also involve operations to remove and destroy this evidence without such examination. That this is exactly what then occurred is down to simple incompetence or was it by deliberate design?
-- snip --
Rod Martin : But national safety regulations mandate the testing for explosives in such a collapse. They didn't follow regs. And because explosives had been used in 93, it seems obvious that explosives might have been used again. Not to check for explosives was wrong on so many levels. Throwing "pixie dust" into the argument is just plain dumb -- a nonsense tactic to distract from real issues.
Nano-thermite is not a secret explosive. One of the WTC tenants had a patent on demolition use.
-- snip --
At 9:51 'in this clip' you can also see the military version of shaped charges that are designed to be used in a very compressed time frame without any requirement for pre-cutting or other preparations.
-- snip --
Albury Smith : Your links only go to this page, but I'm quite familiar with the tower framing & office layout, and no honest video would alter the fact that there was no access to the perimeter columns except right through continuous 3/8" X 52" spandrels. It's also obvious that even if someone secretly accessed the ceiling voids on every floor at every column, explosive cutting there would have been impossible to miss in the debris. It's also fact that the joints were all at eye level behind plaster on steel.
Project Truth WTC : I have repeatedly offered to make an audio comparison clip but as yet you have yet to reference even one WTC clip with which to make a comparison...
Again you make this claim that the destruction of the WTC towers was "bang-free"... Where is the audio evidence that validates this claim?
If your going to keep repeating these same sort of statements then its about time you put some substance to your claim. All I ask is for you to reference just one WTC destruction audio clip. Just one!!! Please.
Albury Smith : Your video is about shaped charges. They're used in the controlled demolition of steel-framed buildings, so any video with audio would give viewers more information on them, and you could use that as your own reference point to make a comparison to the bang-free WTC hi-rise collapses.
Albury Smith : Google "ashley banfield wtc 7."
-- snip --
Albury Smith : Why didn't this video include audio of the explosions if you're so interested in the truth?
Project Truth WTC : If you watch the Detonators Season 1 Episode 7 (Fort William) it includes a number of different scenarios that demonstrate the use of kicker charges and the techniques used to apply them in demolitions. You can see that kicker charges don’t actually cut through the steelwork; they are normally used in conjunction with either pre cutting or shaped charges to assist with the displacement of cut sections of steelwork.
At best such charges may be used to shatter a steel column rather that cut it!
MrKoenig1985 (4 years ago) : But there's an alternative to cutting charges: kicker charges. Those charges do not cut steel but kick column sections out of the vertical alignment, so the structure above loses the support and crashes down to the ground.
I think the placement of an explosives pack just above the bolted connection of a wide-flange column would bend the lower end out the alignment and the column section falls down.
Again, in the clip I presented, the progression of blast ejections are clearly visible as they progress well in advance of the main debris cloud. That you continue to claim they are obscured when obviously they are not, is yet another indication of your inability to openly consider the evidence.
Notice also the blast ejections inside the structure can be observed keeping pace with debris canopy falling externally from the structure.
Project Truth WTC : I have already provided a video reference whereby the horizontal and diagonal progression of the blast ejections and the cap scatter pattern are CLEARLY visible, no x-ray vision needed. That your unable to see these is perhaps indicative of the same scotoma that keeps you from identifying explosions. Perhaps you should get that checked out.
The tower does not begin to move before or after the detonations, ejections and smoke displacement. It all happens simultaneously.
There can only be ONE explanation for the criminal hurry with which all the steel on top of the debris heaps was removed in those first weeks and some of the following months