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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 22
4
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

You can also see smoke rising from the base of WTC1 in this video. Watch the bottom right corner as the camera swings around to the building. Also, if you fix your eyes on the building just below the level of the descending destruction, you'll see a squib or two pop out before they should.




Did you notice the one on that video below the dark bar on the WTC (service level i think they are)? Your captures only show the one above it but there's a little white puff which comes out and goes back in below the service level and at a position like this charactor / (the top of / being the one in your captures, the bottom / being where the other one is, the service level would be in the middle).

Of course, if that was air pushing out the windows from the levels 'pancaking', it would be happening at a position in which the levels had collapsed onto the next, forcing the air out at that level, not at a level that hasn't been reached yet.
If the levels were pancaking, the air would be pushed out evenly around the buildings and not selected levels and windows in a zig-zag fashion.
The only way for resistance to be less (without artificial help) in a pancaking fashion and allowing the buildings to come down that fast would be for the air between each floor to be removed evenly at a consistant rate before those levels have collapsed and reached that point, blowing out air, windows and office supplies, which doesn't happen. Rather, small puffs come out selectively in a way which supports artificial help in removing the buildings resistance.

Newtons law would move air and debris out sideways if the levels were pancaking on each other rather than turning each level to dust as it falls on the next and pushing it back upwards and out of the building which goes against the levels coming down without resistance at a speed of under 12 seconds (NIST).

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, an extreme force moving upward would blow the dust up and out as the opposite effect brought the building down but a force moving downward in a pancake fashion would push air and debris out the sides as that's where the opposite reaction to the force would have to exit as it wouldn't be able to escape upward without leaving the central core in place to funnel it out, which it doesnt. Everything turns to dust and blows out the roof.

If you drop a deck of cards flat onto a table with a space between each card in a pancake theory style, do they spread out over the table or does the air between each card bounce them back up evenly as it's being expelled from between each card?

The pancake theory tells you the air pushes them to the side, the area which is open for the air to escape which is true with the cards and they will go everywhere, but the WTC shows the air pushing the dust upward as the building comes down which goes against a downward force being the starting point for this transfer of energy. The explosions seen pushing air out the windows before the destroyed levels reach that part on the way down are cutting explosions keeping the building from toppling over from a base explosion forcing it's way up as it comes down. Molten Steel at the core base days later is not so surprising after all.

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure"

Mark Loizeaux, president,
Controlled Demolition Inc.


"A few seconds after 10:00 am", former Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes, "we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the [South] tower. The anchor gal on Fox 5 News video exclaims 'There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion! Another building in the WTC complex …'"
[Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Two: The Viper's Venom: p 50]

Anyway, i'm sure there's lots of numbers, stats and computer sims to disprove that explanation but frankly, you'll be wasting your time. If this were the ONLY strange thing surrounding the government and it's agencies in regards to 9/11 then i might be more understandable but it's only 1 piece of large puzzle anyway. The conspiracy lies way outside the visual aspects of the day, debating this is really just a distraction when it can always go in a loop with no end and evidence has been destoryed while other evidence is being suppressed or silenced.

The heros on the day would be the firefighters above all else, no one would disagree with that. So why they aren't being heard now is amazing, America of all countries usually put their hero's on pedastals and take everyword they say as gospel. Not in this case, instead we're listening to the people who were either in bunkers with instant communications to all agencies via the Secret Service and running war games or else they were in a school talking to children about Pet Goats.
Go figure.








[edit on 12-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

[edit on 12-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
okay.
i just built the twin towers out of mashed potatoes, based on an inspiration i had while piling shaving cream into my hand.
tomorrow, i'm going to buy some steel(maybe from china), and get some cardboard to represent the lightweight trusses, and then pour 4 inch(scale) concrete floors on the cardboard, and then i will get about half of the stuff that was actually holding the building together, cause we can pretty much make that stuff up, and then i will burn it at 500 degrees farkinheight for 12 hours, and i bet that there is no way it will undergo a 'typical 'historical' runaway collapse'.

i thought that might be a good future hobby for budding hobbiest. the name of the game is 'duplicate the runaway collapse' using the best approximated versions of the actual truth of the conditions, which is something that even in "LITERAL WORLD", (home of disinfo), is shaky, at best. the actual conditions are still, 'UNKNOWN'.

c'mon, puddycat, SS-cratch me. (this was a subtle hint at nazismness)

the single most important calculation in determining the collapse physics is total energy over total time.

no? can we not ALL agree on that, at least?

elvis is alive.

edited for lysdexia. evils is aevil.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Among other evidence is testimony from the grave.

A firefighting battalion chief was on the 78th floor of WTC2, on the south side, which is precisely where the plane hit. His radio communication was recorded and released before the government could suppress it.


Suppress it? Just like they "suppressed" over 1000 pages of Port Authority radio transmissions and statements?
The only thing the Port Authority was doing by not immediately releasing this stuff was trying to keep family members (and their own staff) from any additional emotional pain. They let the family members hear these recordings before releasing transcripts of any of it. The Port Authority isn't part of some grand government conspiracy and cover-up, they lost 37 people (including one Chief, one Superintendant, one Inspector, one Captain, one Lieutentant, one Sergeant and 31 police officers) when the towers came down, and they were lucky they didn't lose more.

You're stretching the truth. Stick to the facts and not your opinions and conjecture please, I know it's easy to do but it confuses the issue.




This testimony from seasoned firefighters debunks the NIST report. There was NO intense heat. There WERE many survivors. And the fires were nearly contained.


No, you're bending truths to arrive at a conclusion that suits you.

78 was the bottom floor not the middle floor of the impact (south tower, or WTC2). 78 was the first floor with fires that the firemen arrived at. (And there was internal structural damage on floors below 78, including damage to some stairwells below 78. There were fires raging above 78 and you can see them clearly in many videos (but not very well in a lot of the low-res small frame sized ones that I keep seeing links to in this forum as "evidence"). The highest point that firemen could reach in WTC2 (based on their radio transcripts) is under 81 (29 floors from the top).

I don't know how you can sit there and say there was no major fire. There were many of them; you can see by floor 80 there was a lot of fire. These are very large structures and not small 30 floor apartment buildings.

WTC1, on the other hand, had many more floors affected, including fires on 22 -- this is confirmed by multiple fire reports across multiple transcripts of port authority personnel trapped in various locations in WTC1. WTC1 also didn't have as many sides (exterior walls) damaged as WTC2, but WTC1 probably had more core damage based on the way the plane impacted the building.

I don't know how anyone can sit and say there definitely weren't lots of fires -- bad fires. I mean look at the videos and the photos and then account for the >100 people that choose jumping over staying on the floors that were burning and reflect on that for a few minutes - now, tell those people that there weren't any fires.

I took this photo that was taken about 2 minutes after the impact on building 2 according to the photographer. This photo is taken from the opposite side of impact: the plane impacted the side around the left corner --which is not visible in this photo-- and parts of it exited the right and front walls of the tower [relative to the angle of this photograph].


[click for large version]

Cropped out building 2 (left) and mapped out the floors. I didn't just arbitrarily assign lines and shove numbers on the image, I followed each floor joint wherever one was visible and approximated the rest (about 15% of the horizontal floor lines on the left section of the tower are approximated based on their apparent position relative to visible lines -- most of the approximated lines on the upper right portion of the tower are based on the floor level on the left segment of the tower, except for the bottom 20% of the right side where most floors were visible -- the upper floors were almost entirely covered by smoke).


[click for large version]
Includes original without lines and graphic overlay showing the floors

You can see floor 78 is almost the bottom floor on the right side of the building with a smaller fire evident. You can also see the larger fires are floors 80 and above. The fire that the chief encountered on 78 and said would take 2 hoses to knock down is the one on the bottom right on building 2 (floor 78). The much larger fires are evident on floors 80 and upward (as is the most smoke and physical damage). Remember, the holes in the building in this photo are exit holes, the plane hit on the side (left) that we can't see in this photo. That implies that the larger holes were made by plane parts (landing gear, engine, etc -- which were indeed found blocks away).

-
Area on floor 78 zoomed in --- and then same section --- without graphic.

This is one of the 2 fires on floor 78. If this was not the fire on floor 78, that would mean all those firemen managed to pass it without noticing a floor on fire. That is extremely doubtful. That leads to the conclusion that this is indeed the fire to which the radio transcript (and recording) is referring. (It would also mean that my gridlines showing the floors are all wrong, and I'm pretty confident that they are not all wrong.)


And here is another photo of WTC2, of the same sides of the building, taken a few minutes later from a closer location (slightly sharper angle); it shows floors 77 and up and you can clearly see the fire is now larger on 78 and 79 and is beginning to rage on 80. And here is another photo from a slightly different angle. I mean, how can somebody look at a photo like this and not see what a huge area is on fire? These buildings are massive and tens of thousands of square feet are burning... To view these photos, and then try to claim that the firemen on 78 were referring to the entire fire taking place on 8-10 floors as "two small fires only needing 2 hoses" and "NO intense heat" is rediculous.

I just wish everyone could stick to the facts when discussing this topic.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I really don't think the size of the fires is worth arguing about.

IMHO even if floors 78 all the way to the roof were engulfed in raging fire it would still not cause the building to pancake the way it did.

Why not write in response to the squibs? Or how all the floors, starting at the top, could have fallen perfectly evenly with no resistance from lower floors, that were not damaged? Or the many other unanswered questions that are relevant to a "pancake" collapse?

Quite re-hashing the irrelevant stuff and come up with an explanation for why not just one building, but 3 would fall perfectly the same way (2 hit by planes, one wasn't remember...WTC7) that doesn't require a drastic change in the laws of physics as we know them.

Interesting read on explosions in WTC 5&6;

www.thepowerhour.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   
i just watched the "wtcshake.mpg", and thought, WOW!
that building really fell down FAST!
it wasn't really a new thought, but it's nice to taste it once a while.
12 s? wow! that's FAST!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Suppress it? and they were lucky they didn't lose more.


Well the EPA suppressed the air quality reports of New York after the attacks didn't they.

And just how many people who were at ground zero on that day and now have permenant respitory damage........all of them including some that were not even at ground zero. Remember what the EPA said about the air in new york after the attacks.......Nothing to worry about, go back to work.......ooops forgot to tell ya, there was alot of aspestos in those buildings.

So yeah, they will loose ALOT more people. People that would not have had respitory problems if it wasn't for the towers collapsing.

peace


[edit on 12/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

[edit on 12/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

I really don't think the size of the fires is worth arguing about.

IMHO even if floors 78 all the way to the roof were engulfed in raging fire it would still not cause the building to pancake the way it did.


That's the truth.

There have been pictures posted of other skyscraper fires, much, much worse that did not even begin to collapse. The response? "You can't compare them!" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that those littles fires in the WTC buildings are what really don't compare.

No one here is yet to refute the fires being no hotter than 600 degrees Celsius. Again, the evidence behind this is threefold:

A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen. This specifically puts the fires at or below 600 degrees Celsius.

B) The fires did not spread to other floors on their own account (ie, after the initial impact, and the elevator shaft doesn't count
). Looking at other skyscraper fires that did reach such temperatures, the fires began feeding on various materials and spread throughout the buildings.

C) There was not a single piece of steel photographed or taped at the WTC that day that was glowing even a dull red, either inside either building during the fires, or during collapse, or after collapse, or at any other point on that day. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.

Until those things are refuted, there isn't even a case for fire-caused collapse, because the fires were simply not hot enough. It's impossible for 600-degree fires to bring down a steel skyscraper by themselves, and yet there's no evidence that the fires were ever otherwise. I've also shown that the fires cooled, as is apparent when you watch the smoke coming from either building on 9/11.


Why not write in response to the squibs? Or how all the floors, starting at the top, could have fallen perfectly evenly with no resistance from lower floors, that were not damaged? Or the many other unanswered questions that are relevant to a "pancake" collapse?


Because they can't. "Momentum" is the magic word we keep hearing, but never before in our history has "momentum" meant "making a building fall with little to no resistance to the steel columns that it's falling into." It just doesn't happen. The air could provide more resistance than the steel on 9/11, and air and steel aren't really comparable. And the demolition squids were just caused by air pressure magically teleporting to random floors.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   


I think this will be TOO MUCH to deney for those who think the Gov had nothing to do with WTC-9/11 www.911wasalie.com...


Here is a better website:

911physics.co.nr...


I have a question fro HR....I hope this isn't totally unrelated.

But you said that you think when Larry Silverstein said "PULL IT" he meant to evacuate the building, are you aware Mayor Giuliani said that he was told the Towers were going to collapse and that everyone was evacuated from Building 7 in the morning?

Why would they evacuate a building that has already been evacuated?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
catherder, you grid lacks perspective. only at the foremost corner is it accurate. when you look up at a tall building, the floors aren't parallel.

just sayin'.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Must say get great pictures on this thread
[Howard still d'a man...(the cat guy good 2) ]

But the perspective may not be perfect that's true...but dam to see someone do that...spend time for us....and help go through this...Thanx....for the Coreect perspective on the reason why d'a building fell.....even if the pictures arn't perfect (to some)


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Catherder: from your picture with the grid, its still clear that smoke (black smoke, pure indicator of cold, slow burning, air deprivated, fire) is comming out of 2 to maximum 3 floors. The smoke rizes, offcource, if it didn't, there wouldn't be chimneys in houses would there.

Then Sven, you care to bring some input to this thread instead of showing us all your massive and impressive experience in speleology of the human rectum?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Then Sven, you care to bring some input to this thread instead of showing us all your massive and impressive experience in speleology of the human rectum?


I tend to agree. Howard's images were pure BS and CatHerder's were questionable in their accuracy as well, and yet the fact that any pictures were posted at all seemed to have stimulated activity from the peanut gallery, causing the posting of butt-kissing. No offense man, but it's starting to get old when all your posts say is "Good job! KEEP GOING I THINK UR RIGHT LOL" whenever someone posts a picture in argument against demo.

It's become extremely apparent, Sven, that you're no less biased than a football fan supporting his/her team at a big game. This isn't a sport. If you don't have anything to add to the thread yourself, I don't see what the point is in posting. Send them private messages if you really feel the need to congratulate them on posting manipulative and conceptually flawed graphics.

Btw - since we're on the topic, how exactly did you determine where to draw in the floor markers on the building, CatHerder? They do appear to have the same width going all the way up the building despite the fact that the building is of a tilted perspective in the photo. But maybe that's an illusion?

[edit on 12-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then Sven, you care to bring some input to this thread instead of showing us all your massive and impressive experience in speleology of the human rectum?


I tend to agree. Howard's images were pure BS and CatHerder's were questionable in their accuracy as well, and yet the fact that any pictures were posted at all seemed to have stimulated activity from the peanut gallery, causing the posting of butt-kissing. No offense man, but it's starting to get old when all your posts say is "Good job! KEEP GOING I THINK UR RIGHT LOL" whenever someone posts a picture in argument against demo.


Why is my post in argument against the demo? I'm just responding to the disinformation artists on here who make up complete lies to support their demo theories. If you post something that is BS for either side of the story, I will be certain to point out your mistake or your twisting evidence to suit you.



It's become extremely apparent, Sven, that you're no less biased than a football fan supporting his/her team at a big game. This isn't a sport. If you don't have anything to add to the thread yourself, I don't see what the point is in posting. Send them private messages if you really feel the need to congratulate them on posting manipulative and conceptually flawed graphics.


Hey screw you pal. PROVE TO ME that my gridlines are manipulative or conceptually flawed. Far as I am concered, it's just another photograph that doesn't fit in nicely with your theories. The 1000+ pages of radio and telephone call transcripts also don't fit in neatly with your conspiracy theories so you guys discount them as if they didn't exist. The floors are marked accurately, check for yourself - then post your contradictions if you find any. Otherwise take your offensive and insulting comments and shove them up your ass.

I continaually see fact filled posts by members on this forum berated and insulted by tiny minded people who are either too stupid to do the work for themselves or by people who are too ignorant to be able to even form an opinion on a topic. It gets old quickly. The moment you post anything of value to counter my post I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.



Btw - since we're on the topic, how exactly did you determine where to draw in the floor markers on the building, CatHerder? They do appear to have the same width going all the way up the building despite the fact that the building is of a tilted perspective in the photo. But maybe that's an illusion?

[edit on 12-7-2005 by bsbray11]


Look at the photos... click on the large images supplied as links (the photos are clickable to larger images - if you're using IE the images will resize to fit your window, in that case, mouse-over the larger image (in the new window) until the image resize icon appears in the bottom right corner of the image -- click it and the image will then revert back to full size which will be scrollable on screens smaller than 1800x1600.

You can clearly see floor lines, you can clearly see where windows meet concrete, you can clearly see the joints all the way up the center column. My lines might be out by inches +/- relative to the building (not the image) but they are all within a pixel of the actual floors in the image.

The perspective is also correct (+/- 2% I'd say), I confrimed it by reviewing where floor lines lined up left to right and top to bottom. The floors are *not* evenly spaced in the photograph, the higher floors are closer together (as they should be, they are further away from the camera than the lower floors). Some floors between other visible floor lines were approximated based on their relative position in comparison to floors above or below.

Look at the original photograph and see for yourselves.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The smoke/dust in the second two photos has been confirmed via other video angles as being from the collapse of the South Tower. The smoke in the first photo however has not, and points to explosives either in WTC6 or WTC1 or 2 basement. After the events there was a massive hole in the roof of WTC6, although it may have been caused by falling debris.


"Points to explosives" ?!

Source? Photos? Transcripts? News reports? Reporter? Hmm... nothing?

Alas, once again I will do your work for you. It was a fire on the WTC stage which was started by falling debris (which included a couple burning people). It's mentioned by at least a half dozen different persons in transcripts from radio transmissions and in their reports. Again... this is all available online and has been for a very long time now for you to read and "discover" for yourselves guys...

The moment I find anything confirming a secondary device, a photo of a secondary explosion, a report (which is corroborated by a 2nd source, hopefully) by any personnel in the area of anything out of the ordinary other than 2 planes smashing into the towers (of course) I'll be sure to pass it along here.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
"Points to explosives" ?!

Source? Photos? Transcripts? News reports? Reporter? Hmm... nothing?


I meant to say "possibly points to". Sorry, my mistake. But I don't know why I'm apologizing when you are so vitriolic without provocation...


The moment I find anything confirming ...

I'll be sure to pass it along here.


Yes, we'll be waiting with bated breath.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
okay, you're just supposed to agree with me, catherder. the grid is not accurate. the perspective is off. you need to find the vanishing points to accurately draw the floors. just admit it. it's no big deal to be a little bit wrong once in a while.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hmmm once again those that support the official story can only reply to posts that don't ask questions they can't answer....

And ironically you accuse others of doing what you are doing yourself.

Instead of writing useless long posts berating posters because they don't buy the bull#, answer the questions I and others have asked.

Oh I forgot...You can't!

The answer is C

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

And believe me, I would rather you be right.

[edit on 12/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Well like I have said before it's just a mater of time, here is another WTC worker speaking out. A second Janitor in the basement of WTC1, "bomblike explosion in the Norht Tower basement"



Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement
Jose Sanchez, while working in a sub-level 4 workshop of the north tower on 9/11, heard a bomb-like explosion, had his hair burned and rescued a co-worker who had his leg and knee broken from the basement blast taking place at the same time the jetliner struck the top floors.
July 12, 2005
www.arcticbeacon.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
ok the pictures are GREAT....and def. would need to have a Vanishing point...but for a general discussion and general viewing they work for the purpose...we aint' taking it to the inch.

but to the point of explosions in the basement....could been many things besides TNT....

1. Pipe noises....and yes they make a lot of noise (pipe hammer...many diff. names for it)..esp. for the building size...not to mention planes took out all the services....could not imagine what noises you would hear "all over the building" esp. the basement w'r most of maj. of the equip. would be.

2. What about when the plane hits' the building....that noise would travel all down the building thru' shafts....pipes....the stucture...(that's why marble fell off the walls on the ground floor) .

Just overall don't feel or see "stronge" evid. that the 2 main WTC buildings y'r TNT'd....the others don't know. But since everyone is trying to "knock" the pictures presented....in truth none of us "hackers" can even begin to discuss this topit without the Plans Man.....ALL of em Architectural....Sturctural.....Mechanical....Electrical...etc. etc. to realy start to look at this...maybe we should all just step back a bit and take this as what it is just a "general" discussion on the topic...we "all" can't come to conclusion without the plans....and that the truth. And not to mention the "as-builts"


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven




top topics



 
4
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join