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.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
In other words, you seem to feel that the structural strength of a building is related entirely to its mass. Is this correct?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
And one more time, (just for the heck of it)
What they don’t show you in the “in plane site” video.
The exterior columns of WTC 2 bowing inward just prior to the collapse.
And thanks DaTerminator for backing me up, that north tower video shows exactly the movement of the camera before the tower collapses.
Or do you mean that was from the first tower falling ? Mere seconds before the second one ? I don't need to paste the timeline do I ?
You saw the towers burn. Therefore, Bush is not lying. Is that right ?
Nice logic dude: Did you see Kenny gettin shot too ?
Do you really believe they a lone Oswald did it ?
Come man, you SAW that too !!
Go watch: 9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut
You will soon sooon soooon become a true trueee belieeever.
Originally posted by DaTerminator
Oh my god! This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
I think you posted a link to the wrong clip, because that few seconds already into the collapse didn't seem to show, err, anything useful really
Originally posted by Shroomery
Originally posted by DaTerminator
Oh my god! This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.
Yeah it was earlier because that was the eplosion that apparantly happend in the basement. And it could be someone hitting the camera, altho the vibration appears to be too long for that.
And also notice that with the vibration, a piece of debris is knocked off the side of the building.
Could be coincidence.. yet another one.
I'm not ruling out an explosion at all just because you call it a gust of wind though.
Originally posted by DaTerminator
Originally posted by Shroomery
Originally posted by DaTerminator
Oh my god! This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.
Yeah it was earlier because that was the eplosion that apparantly happend in the basement. And it could be someone hitting the camera, altho the vibration appears to be too long for that.
And also notice that with the vibration, a piece of debris is knocked off the side of the building.
Could be coincidence.. yet another one.
I'm not ruling out an explosion at all just because you call it a gust of wind though.
Look, if it is possible and likely that the wind caused the picture to skew then why is it neccessary to claim that the "vibration" in the camera was do to some sort of underground explosion? That is illogical. I'm telling you, I work with cameras all of the time. I am an amateur filmmaker. The slightest gust of wind will cause the picture to skew if the camera is not balanced correctly.
See this is exactly the reason why you can't argue with someone like you.
Just because you're an amateur filmmaker doesn't mean you know what caused that shaking.
The falling debris shows it could very well be an explosion, however nothing points to wind, yet you're sure it is.
Just because you cry out harder about your amateur films doesn't make you more of an expert, you have no clue what I do.
The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at members.fortunecity.com... are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air [Ref. (6)]. The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail [Ref. (7)]. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pancaked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).
Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.
Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud [Ref. (8)]. By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.
Originally posted by Shroomery
Oh wait I have that one on my HD, anything specific I should look at ?
- Vibration looks too long to be wind related, in fact, the camera shows to be of such decent quality that you can expect a heavier model, therefor winds seems less reasonable, also the camera seems to be fitted, could be a tripod, wich would be another sign that wind is less likely to cause this vibration.
- There's debris knocked off the buildig, pointing to a movement/vibration at the tower.
Originally posted by Shroomery
It's funny though that all these "official" reports contradict Kevin Ryan's story where he says that head of fema(!) found out that the temperatures reached at the wtc would not have been higher then 250°C.
This important piece of evidence gained from the metallurgic analysis was then ignored by both the fema and the nist report.
Yet that is all they base their conclusions on.
A laminar diffusion flame is a candle. The fuel comes from the wax vapor, while the oxidizer is air; they do not mix before being introduced (by diffusion) into the flame zone. A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
education.jlab.org...
A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].