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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
however, there were no high velocities to INITIATE the collapse, and, in the case of the first tower to fall, no noticeable leaning or gradual acceleration.


Noticeable buckling, though.




People, check this out:



And before you freak out with, "OH NO! SUPER BUCKLING!" realize that those are aluminum covers: not the steel columns. The steel is behind the aluminum. Just thought you might like to know.





they just went into near free fall. one floors worth of (remaining)support columns gave out in an instant. all of them. at the exact same instant.


That is usually the pattern with buckling failures.


You wouldn't know, Howard. No skyscraper has ever collapsed from "buckling failures."




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And before you freak out with, "OH NO! SUPER BUCKLING!" realize that those are aluminum covers: not the steel columns. The steel is behind the aluminum. Just thought you might like to know.



We have gone over this before, bs, and frankly I am getting tired of beating you over the head on this subject.

Look again at this photo:




Do you see the vertical black lines that have been superimposed on the picture? (the ones with the column numbers at the bottom of the picture)

Those lines show where the columns should be.

Now, do you see the superimposed, short black horizontal lines coming off the vertical lines?

Those are there to illustrate the extent of the INWARD displacement of the columns.

Once again, let me repeat this so that even someone as deliberately obtuse as bsbray11 will understand.

This displacement of the exterior columns is INWARD. Repeat: The columns are bowing inward, INTO THE BUILDING.

Do you follow me so far? good.

Now maybe bsbray11 would be so kind as to explain how the exterior column covers can buckle INWARD, into the building without the attached steel columns bowing inward also. Remember, these steel columns are behind the aluminum covers.

So how did the aluminum covers move inward, into the building without having the steel columns moving inward also?

Go ahead, I am really looking forward to reading your explanation of that one.

How did those columns covers move inward without the steel columns behind them moving inward also?



[edit on 21-12-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne

Originally posted by St Udio

Is someone claiming that the blast of smoke/debris
some levels below the collapse
was caused by planted, demolition explosives??

? could be that a stairway door (or elevator terminus) was opened and the accellerated debris blew out like a cannon, taking out the window glass!?

sorry, i don't see proof or demolition evidence

thanks,
i await reports & analysis from ats posters on the link which
wecomeinpeace has shared ....
(as i am not quite adept at all these downloading maneuvers with various
programs that need to be added to my PC Machine)


That's not even close to what the website says. There's videos that show a missle being fired from under the plane just before impact.


There are no missiles being fired from the planes that hit WTC North and South Tower. The flash you see is indicative of laser sighting, also known as painting the target. The so called pods are not missiles but napalm bombs to get the dramatic fireball effect you saw in the explosions.

As far as typical demolition charges bringing down a structure that is 110 stories tall. Never in the history of professional demolitions of structures has there been such a building brought down with that kind of precision. More than likely there are probably many demolition companies wondering how in the hell they did that.

It sure is nice to not be cluttered with the prideful "expert" syndrome many engineers, physicists, professional debunkers and challengers run up against each day in their life. Although many would say that im being hypocritical and coming across like some kind of know it all expert myself, i simply tell you like it exists.

I really dont care if you believe me or not, it's not my world you're destroying.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
The so called pods are not missiles but napalm bombs to get the dramatic fireball effect you saw in the explosions.



Ohh, a new sig line.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. It is stupid and wrong on so many levels.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Dont feel bad Roark....I expected someone to say something like that. Possibly more will say the same..possibly just a mass ignore.

enjoy



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Well if you knew it was a stupid thing to say, then why did you say it?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I didnt say it was stupid, thats a silly value judgement on your part. Enlighten me on the data....Im game for silly science and a debunkfest from you.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11
And before you freak out with, "OH NO! SUPER BUCKLING!" realize that those are aluminum covers: not the steel columns. The steel is behind the aluminum. Just thought you might like to know.



We have gone over this before, bs, and frankly I am getting tired of beating you over the head on this subject.

Look again at this photo:







Such a stupid example, is that the best they can do?

Firstly, the perspective of that photo is out to buggery to begin with, there's 3 points of perspective you have to deal with before you can even begin to place parallel lines, which makes placing accurate lines all that bit harder.

Secondly, there's smoke covering half of the frame which again makes it difficult considering the first point.

Thirdly, black lines over black areas is really, really, really, stupid when your trying to prove something considering the first and second points.

This just shows that NIST can say something, provide anything and put an official stamp on it and make it gospel.

Look at this image, woah, how buckled are those lines!!???


If that's what the 'truth' hangs on...well... i guess people believe anything.

Yeah, the building buckled slightly and then collapsed perfectly at all edges and all points at the exact same time.
What a crack team those NIST officials are!


Everyone, listen up, it's OK now to use crappy photos to prove physics!!
Bring back the pod!! Bring back the holograms!! YAY for crappy photos that prove nothing!!

9/11 is an inside job, you don't have to even look at any photographs or any video or even anything on September 11th 2001 to prove that.

Fortunately, business deals leave a lot of trails. Unfortunatly, not as many research the true trails because they get caught up in the photo game.

This 'my crap photo is less blurry than your crap photo' is all just a disinfo wank (can i say wank on ATS?).

Follow the money, it's really that simple.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
I didnt say it was stupid, thats a silly value judgement on your part. Enlighten me on the data....Im game for silly science and a debunkfest from you.




Where is the pod again?


Why would you need napalm when you have 3000 gallons of jet fuel aboard?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Such a stupid example, is that the best they can do?





How's that? Can you see the inward bowing of the exterior columns there?

How about this one?




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


On top of what ShroudofMemphis said, Howard,



Push the aluminum closer to the beam nearing the top - and bam. Looks like it's buckled. It's amazing. I know.

Put numbers on top of the columns and it creates a further illusion that the columns move outwards around where those numbers have been placed, thus exaggerating the small amount of space the aluminum moved inwards.

Look at what Shroud posted. That really is the kind of stuff NIST is relying on. That other pic of "buckling" you post is even more exaggerated in its suggestions.

But to take it a step further - imagine all of those columns did buckle. Then so what? The core wouldn't collapse from that. At the very most, some perimeter columns might fall backwards, and I severely doubt that would even happen because of the integrity of the steel (the aluminum was even in good shape from what it seems). Weight redistribution: it's a safety thing. And it's sort of the law in NYC. And speaking of safety, look up the safety ratings for those buildings. Strong stuff.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I can't even see any columns in that first new pic Howard. Got any pics of the columns actually buckling, instead of aluminum facades hanging this way and that?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
How about this one?



And this one is just ridiculous.

What's the caption say? As collapse initiates?

Bad news, Howard. WTC2 tilted out the butt as its collapse was "initiating." That wasn't buckling in the sense you're trying to portray it: from immense heat. Those columns are failing from the tilting of the cap alone:



Immense heat around those columns is a joke. The aluminum is just falling off in the pic you posted, still in great condition, and aluminum melts at only around 600 degrees Celsius. That tilt would only last 2.5 seconds or so, too, before the collapse finished "initiating," and then the lateral charges kicked in and all the angular momentum just magically vanished! But that's something you can't get into, I guess, since NIST hasn't provided you any pictures trying to exaggerate the lack of tilt.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
So basically, what you are saying is that you are blind to the inward curvature of the exterior columns that is evident in those photographs starting about the 78th floor. Is this correct?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Push the aluminum closer to the beam nearing the top - and bam. Looks like it's buckled. It's amazing. I know.

Put numbers on top of the columns and it creates a further illusion that the columns move outwards around where those numbers have been placed, thus exaggerating the small amount of space the aluminum moved inwards.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by bsbray11]


1) there is only an inch or so room between the column cover and the column. The buckling was much greater than that (at least a foot in that photo, much greater than that in the photo from WTC 1)

2) What "pushed" the column covers inward? can you please explain that?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Immense heat around those columns is a joke. The aluminum is just falling off in the pic you posted, still in great condition, and aluminum melts at only around 600 degrees Celsius. That tilt would only last 2.5 seconds or so, too, before the collapse finished "initiating," and then the lateral charges kicked in and all the angular momentum just magically vanished! But that's something you can't get into, I guess, since NIST hasn't provided you any pictures trying to exaggerate the lack of tilt.


Who said the columns were that hot?

The buckling occurred because the floors inside the building were sagging and failing. This pulled inward on the columns. This was a result of the impact damage and the fire damage to the floor trusses, not the columns.

Once the exterior of the building started to buckle, the strucutre was doomed.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark




How's that? Can you see the inward bowing of the exterior columns there?


i can see steel with no source of fuel glowing red hot on the corner where it is exposed to the cooling effects of the outside air, and yet, it is ONLY the corner, and not the surrounding columns. it fricking looks like it's burning. does steel burn?

you know, howie, i've been hangin' out at the physics forum. some of your buddies are there. it's amazing how the same techniques are used everywhere.


"no evidence" (ignore any evidence that doesn't support the lie)
"people think you're stupid" (the bandwagon appeal)
"you're stupid" (ad hominem)
"you're a conspiracy theorist" (renaming to create a negative impression)

i think rick spiegel did a great job of showing how tower seven fell at the rate of freefall in a VACUUM. that's a fact. all the shillery in the world won't change it. all the evidence is out there. if this case could ever make it to court, it would be a slam dunk.

ihatescifi and agent smith.

HAHAHAHA! keep typing, boys. you're fingers are moving, but you're not saying anything.
no, those pyroclastic flows could NOT be from the 'heat' of a collapse. not that there wouldn't be heat, but there is NO WAY IN HELL those flows were the result of friction from the collapse. they were FAST and HUGE.

the white smoke from the bottom of the tower is WHITE. if it was something burning that fell from on high, then the smoke would be grey or black.

i'm glad you had a laugh about the flashes, smitty. i didn't say they were missiles. you did.
i just said i saw flashes. they are weird, and they happen immediately before the collapse.
they could have been missiles. maybe you're right.

flying a helicopter through smoke is unwise, i hear. a clear blue sky, and more than one of these helicopters decides to fly along the edge of the smoke, halfway in, even. maybe they were heavy smokers, and not trying to hide from prying media cameras(that weren't prying that hard, apparently.)

i looked at your 'debunking' of the ejection arc. although i don't agree with rick's analysis about the arc, i don't agree with you, either, that none of the debris was ejected WAY TOO FAR.

you know, the official lie has changed many times, and certain people around here have taken every one of those cheesy arguments as the gospel, only to change when the 'better mirage' came out. funny, that.

i can't believe you guys are still trying to defend the lie. EVERYONE is going to see this movie, eventually. i mean, you're already looking pretty desperate. so are your evil leaders. rice's voice is cracking a lot these days. bush has locked himself in his room and is prone to violent outbursts(kinda like hitler in the end).

man, i hate evil.

and, yes, i think terrorists from the middle east are real. they are just stupid, petty criminals, though. not evil meglomaniac world destroyers like the PNAC crew.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Ah the DTB shill is back, once again blessing us with several paragraphs of writing without actually contributing to the discussion.
I think we are on the same side, we debunk the demolition theory and you're here to make the Demolition boys look bad... I get ya

Glad your not on our 'side'.

If excitable people like you are ever succesful in taking over the world then I think I'll take my own life, not that the world will last long anyway.

So where is your video of a dust cloud caused by a known building collapse to compare it to? Surely you're not just basing your argument on the fact the WTC cloud looks similar to a volcanic pyroclastic cloud?
You realise, of course, that different causes can have similar outcomes, surely you wouldn't be basing your argument on assumptions without a clear comparison?

Why don't you do some research and present us with sound scientific arguments, instead of letting WCIP and co do all the work while you run around getting all excited, you might give yourself a heart-attack.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
DTB? what's that?

down town brown?
duo trio beta?

WTC7. faster than freefall.

how do sleep at night.

there's NO WAY intelligent people like you and roark don't know what your doing.
what a piece of crap world this is turning into.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
how do sleep at night.


Remeron and a bottle of wine, sometimes a Scotch too.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So where is your video of a dust cloud caused by a known building collapse to compare it to? Surely you're not just basing your argument on the fact the WTC cloud looks similar to a volcanic pyroclastic cloud?
You realise, of course, that different causes can have similar outcomes, surely you wouldn't be basing your argument on assumptions without a clear comparison?


no. i wouldn't. i'm basing my 'assumptions' on the FACT that there were HUGE EXPLOSIONS. you want a little science? read a book.
let wcip do all the work?
hey, some of us don't get paid for this, dude.
there are other forums, too, that require bug spraying every once in a while.

"no evidence" (ignore any evidence that doesn't support the lie)
"people think you're stupid" (the bandwagon appeal)
"you're stupid" (ad hominem)
"you're a conspiracy theorist" (renaming to create a negative impression)

what? did i strike a nerve?

oh, yeah. wtc7 had a pyroclastic flow, too.
i'm sure that many scientists have woken up to the lie. (i've been reading their papers)
it's only a matter of time.

i'm not excited. i don't know how you get that idea.
you know that's twice you've suggested that my health might fail.
i feel okay. especially my conscience.

oh, yeah, and WTC7? it fell at the rate of freefall in a vacuum. (i let rick do the work on that one. i knew it was freefall, which is STILL impossible, but i didn't know it was actually SUCKED down)

you know, my belittling friend, that many of the arguments i made YEARS ago here, are showing up in science essays and analysis, now? like the disintegration of the cap, for example. your 'piston' is a loose pile of rubble. it is supposed to be pushing all these floors out of the way, and yet it dissolves before the floors which are SUPPOSEDLY being pancaked, are NOT BUDGING.
how about vertical strength? ever try and bend a rod by pushing straight down on it? the rod transfers the load to the ground. the towers should have down that.
i'm getting pretty tired of playing 'fetch' with apologists.
while you think that if you 'win' an argument, that it is settled(debunked, lol), the fact is, the universe doesn't reshape itself to your belief system.
so, i think MAYBE i'll start keeping it simple....

WTC7? ZERO resistance to collapse. not even the resistance of air.

HAHAHA! keep typing.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join