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: 28
1
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
The impacted floor gave way very fast as soon as it became weakend enough. You could assume the impacted floor was at ground level, since only the upper floors were acting on it at the time before it fell. As soon as that huge mass was released, it fractured the steel beams on the floors below because when you hit hardend steel sharply enough, it snaps and offers no resistance.


13 floors, falling onto 97, losing mass the whole way down, and not slowing down. Losing mass = losing momentum. Add greater resistance the whole way down. No loss of speed = doesn't make sense unless explosives are taken into account.

What you're saying might work theoretically if not for problems like that.


I have not seen the Dakota demo, but I don't think it would compair to this unless it had a mid to upper 1/8's floor collapse and the floors above it were untouched. Did it have concrete around it or soft earth?


The whole freaking building fell, blown out from the base. And it was stopped in its tracks. It probably landed on a concrete foundation, because it fell straight down.

Btw, "mid to upper 1/8's" isn't accurate in regards to WTC1, the most improbable natural collapse.


As for the dust, it was not in freefall. The chunks that were blowen out and hit the ground before the roof of the building were the big pieces that had less surface area for the amount of mass they had (less air resistance). When the dust was ejected, it was from a floor that was not falling down yet, the floor above was forcing it out with the air. A bowling ball would fall at true terminal velocity and would fall before anything on the WTC hit the ground. Nothing was in TRUE freefall that day.


Dude, before I waste time and energy addressing this, why the hell would this even matter? What are you trying to explain with this, exactly? Certainly not the squibs, because you can gather from pictures and the most common of sense that the buildings would not have maintained great air pressure on the inside from the falling floors. When solid material is being ejected, gases are escaping too.

And the air would not have been pushed down the buildings faster than the actual rate of collapse, either. Think about it. That would be impossible unless the towers' insides were shaped like a funnel and air was being collected and forced down into an increasingly tight shaft (they weren't), and even then that shaft would have to be led directly to exterior columns from the core (they weren't, either), and even then it would require a massive amount of pressure to cause such damage.

How many times the normal pressure of those buildings do you think could have possibly existed? Especially early in the collapse of WTC1, when a massive squib just blew out of the side over a hundred feet into the air. A few floors falling, even if 100% of their air of those floors was sent downward into the remaining floors, which is an extremely ignorant assumption, would only increase the air pressure so many floors below less than 2x at max considering the number of floors in between. Less than 2x the normal air pressure isn't going to cause what you're seeing in the videos. Not even close.


The reason I mention the "squib(s)" is because I don't even see the reason that explosives were going off that far down and not in an even pattern.


They stuck out because they went off at bad times. I don't think they were intended to go off when they did. Things like that happen in demolitions. It can be expected. If you watch collapse videos from below the collapse of WTC2, you'll see the same puffs coming out in rows from the destruction wave racing down the exterior columns.




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
because when you hit hardend steel sharply enough, it snaps and offers no resistance.

Hardening is a thermal process to utilise the ability of steel to harden. However the steel with the low carbon content of the structural steel in the WTC towers cannot be hardened. It would however, be normalised to remove stresses set up by the thermal and mechanical working during manufacture, prior to delivery to site. To some extent normalising can be regarded as the opposite of hardening
No matter what the carbon content of the steel and no matter how hard you hit it, it will always offer resistance. That resistance will vary according to many variables but one of them is not how hard it is hit. What is of more concern is where those forces were applied and what was the relationship between the energies available to collapse and the energy available to resist collapse. An infinitely massive force acting over an infinitely small distance would have no energy and therefore no effect, so there is little point in examining force without examining the energies involved.

Gordon.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The 75th and 76th floors were mechanical floors

Do any of you understand how building air handler systems work? How return air plenums work?

I suppose not.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I don't know, I'll try.. Does that mean that large networks of air ducting would terminate to one or two floors? Does it mean that the nearest exit for the build up of pressure would be concentrated into one small place?


XL5

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I was just trying to get you to understand why the debris fell the way it did. What I'd like solid facts on is the doorway configuration of the stair wells. Did they have latches or could they be pushed open from the inside of the stairwell into the offices or were some proped open. Air can go faster the the collapse if it goes through the stairwell (venturi effect). At the time 10-30 floors were destroyed, the gust of wind hit that guys back and blew him off his feet, it would be interesting to know the velocity of air on the floors and the stairwell.

The rubber viscolelastic dampers are not design flaws, without them, wind and earthquakes may weaken the concrete. They may not have much travel in them or may not have compressed fast enough. Were they on every floor?

Ok Gordon, maybe the steel wasn't hardend, but I bet they still snaped.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The 75th and 76th floors were mechanical floors

Do any of you understand how building air handler systems work? How return air plenums work?

I suppose not.


Have you realized that not all of those squibs came from those floors? That they can be seen coming from a number of floors during collapse?

I suppose not.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
Air can go faster the the collapse if it goes through the stairwell (venturi effect).


The stairs were in the core structure. I'd also like to know how we automatically come to the conclusion that the collapse produced enough air pressure on certain floors to cause explosive outbursts from within just from someone being knocked down in a stairwell in the core.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here's a pretty good link...

mindprod.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordonross
because when you hit hardend steel sharply enough, it snaps and offers no resistance.

Hardening is a thermal process to utilise the ability of steel to harden. However the steel with the low carbon content of the structural steel in the WTC towers cannot be hardened. It would however, be normalised to remove stresses set up by the thermal and mechanical working during manufacture, prior to delivery to site. To some extent normalising can be regarded as the opposite of hardening
No matter what the carbon content of the steel and no matter how hard you hit it, it will always offer resistance. That resistance will vary according to many variables but one of them is not how hard it is hit. What is of more concern is where those forces were applied and what was the relationship between the energies available to collapse and the energy available to resist collapse. An infinitely massive force acting over an infinitely small distance would have no energy and therefore no effect, so there is little point in examining force without examining the energies involved.

Gordon.


Just to expand and modify a bit....the steel used in the construction wouldn't have been normalized. It was heat treated to a certain yield point range. There is a measure of how a steel will react to impact loading. It's called the Charpy V-notch test. It is a measure of ductility (or absence there of and therefore brittleness). But anyone who wants to claim a brittle failure will have to go up against the following two contradictions:

1. Heated steel becomes more ductile, and
2. The I beams shown on the NIST page show ductility (a lip).

The Charpy V-notch is conducted by taking a rectangular piece of the steel with closely held dimensions, milling a notch in one side and then swinging a weight at the test specimen...laterally. The resultant test data can be reported as a ft-lb of force to snap the specimen in half, or it can be a measurement of the "lip" created when the specimen fails at the v-notch. The greater the lip, the greater the ductility.

A36 is pretty ductile.

And ductility is directly proportional to the heat of the steel...so as the temperature goes up, so does the ductility.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
At the time 10-30 floors were destroyed, the gust of wind hit that guys back and blew him off his feet,


Beg your pardon. Could I know who these guys were and where this stuff came from? How did someone talk about the gust of wind that hit them as the building came down on those floors? The last guy out of the building had another story so this is very interesting. Who are you talking about?


XL5

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
ChapaevII, this person was quoted from page 26 near the bottom 1/4 of the page. To have a gust of wind lift you off your feet, you would need a really strong wind (over 100km/h). The force of the wind and the fact that the windows were vibrating from the collapse of the impacted floors probably blew the weaker windows out.
This is the link that has Komorowski explaining the gust of wind and what happend.
www.newyorkmetro.com...

As for the steel, the heated steel probably gave way and bent. The other floors steel beams snaped or at the very least something had to break outright and not just bend. If ALL the steel beams bent and stayed, the WTC wouldn't have fallen the way they did if at all.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Aight...

I got to this party late, so my bad if someone already addressed this. Do any of you "debunkers" have an explanation for the explosions I heard? I don't know what kind of fool you take me for if you think I'll believe that those booms were from the floors falling when the building hadn't fell yet...



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Right witcha truthseeker.

And another thing (that may have been previously hashed on page 13 or whatever), if you govt. conspiracy theorist supporters think the horizontal and seemingly timed explosions out the sides are simply forced air, I was under the impression that the buildings did fall at free fall speed. The explosions of air out the sides indicate some significant resistance which would slow the fall rate to greater than free fall. No?

Another thing that's probably been hashed, why did the buildings melt away all at once? Wouldn't you expect that, minimally, the top sections that were relatively intact remain intact at least through the initial collapse? It all turned to freaking dust immediately. How did that smoldering diesel turn those many tons of concrete to dust in a matter of a few seconds or less?

No no no no, I am not buying the govt. excuses. As King George himself said so eloquently:


"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."


Heh-heh, he was probably spending a little time with the white lady during that Who concert and got it mixed up.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
1. Heated steel becomes more ductile, and
2. The I beams shown on the NIST page show ductility (a lip).

...
And ductility is directly proportional to the heat of the steel...so as the temperature goes up, so does the ductility.


I think it's quite interesting how mechanical and temperature loads/stresses acting on the trusses and joist assemblies are so integral to NIST's assessment of the collapse initiation mode, and yet those same trusses and joist assemblies were completely and deliberately excluded from their WTC wreckage steel salvage project.

Things that make you go hmmm...

[edit on 2006-3-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The 75th and 76th floors were mechanical floors


Howard you are your own best debunker just like Agent Smith.

As the 911eyewitness DVD points out in the analysis section with Newton's 3 laws of motion, the reinforced elevator floors directly below the impact zone on the south tower would have stopped a genuine collapse before it had a chance to gain momentum and forced the 25 floor top section to fall into the street in one large piece.

Instead the top section implodes into itself while the elevator mechanical floors just wait for their computer controlled detonation orders and then shoot out the famous 600 foot debris into the top of the Winter Garden.

To bring 110 floors down to earth in 10-13 seconds each floor has to start falling independently in sequence through thin air. There is no time for each floor to fall 12 feet and impact the floor directly below.

Have you seen the recent PhD calculation that puts a genuine 110 floor by floor tower collapse at 96 seconds? You can find it on the scholars website.

This is so obvious that the NIST 13 second pancake theory will go down in history as the most ridiculous official deception of all time.

The evil doers must be getting nervous now that the trauma based mind control fear factor has vanished and Scholars for 9/11 Truth are going public at an increasing rate. The public brainwashing from 9/11 is wearing off fast folks...

Even Fort Detrick military grade weaponized Anthrax in the mail to the media and the Democrats is not going to save the evil doers now.

Imagine the criminal insanity of those who approved this covert op to actually think they could demolish three steel frame buildings LIVE on network television and NEVER get caught because the public could be brainwashed by the media to maintain the fantasy forever.

Set up the gallows on the White House lawn...



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Howard???

Agent Smith???

Wow the Lord has spoken and the agents have seen the light or what?

The ol' disinfo dudes finally gave up the debunk or their handlers told them to cut and run?

Looking forward to the gallows on the White House lawn...



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do any of you understand how building air handler systems work? How return air plenums work?

I suppose not.


Well, why don't you enlighten those of us who do not. Instead of not contributing anything to the discussion.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I've watched this video a few times...but I just noticed WTC7 fell faster than the speed of gravity? ...just amazing.

(from Time frame 1:16:15)
video.google.com...



Edit: Speaking of 9/11 Eyewitness, news from its site:

9/11 - Bank Buys Broker For Concealed Demolition

www.shoutwire.com...

or

www.911eyewitness.com...

[edit on 7-4-2006 by noto]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by noto
I've watched this video a few times...but I just noticed WTC7 fell faster than the speed of gravity? ...just amazing.


don't get it wrong.
nothing FALLS faster than the acceleration of gravity. if it is observed going downward faster than that, it is being pushed.
i believe, what you are referring to, is that it fell at the rate of gravity in a VACUUM, ie. zero air resistance(and obviously, zero building resistance)? that is the rate that rick siegel measures in 911eyewitness.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join