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.

 

If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except that Mettalic Hydrogen has only been created for about a milisecond so far. Everything that I have read on it goes back to the Lawrence Livermore lab experiment in 1996 where they accidentally created it, for about a milisecond. Even things as late as last year, ONLY talk about the 1996 experiment. Or is it so high classified, or another "covert military explosive" that we don't know about?


It was no accident, they intentionally set out to create metallic hydrogen, not sure where you got the accident bit from. Russian researchers also claim to hvae produced metallic hydrogen as far back as 1973.

It has been theorised that Metallic hydrogen may be metastable, meaning it retains its density after the pressure has been removed, it doesn't re-expand into a gas. Who know's if it is in production at a pilot plant or not, I would hardly call it super secret as you like to claim - there is enough literature about it. The question is has it been produced in quantity.

70 years ago it ws predicted that hydrogen could turn into a metal at high temperatures, which has since been proved. So it wouldn't surprise me if it were metstable as well and even less if research has been conducted to produce it in a usable quantity.

I doubt you did any reading about metallic hydrogen before I mentioned it anyway.

PS. What's more is that in it's metastable metallic form it can be used just like any other metal, so it could be used in the supporting structure of a building.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by mad scientist]




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Any theories that involve just having explosives to start the collapse at the impact zone therefore ackowledge that a paccake collapse is acceptable,then debate revolves only around the possibility that the collapse could initiated conventially.


Okay, I was with you until that last part. If some one theorizes that just a handful (like 2 or 4 or something) floors were demo'd and that brought down the building, then I agree that the progressive collapse must occur in the intermediate areas to bring down the towers as they came down. BUT, just because a limited demo theory involves, well, actually necessitates, a progressive collapse, doesn't mean this debate revolves only around the possibility of the collapse being initiated conventionally (which is a weird term to use for a plane-bomb in a building lol ) because this debate doesn't really even involve the "conventional" method. This debate is about HOW the building would have been prepared for whatever manner of demo occurred for a planted explosive collapse.

In other words, this debate has an a priori that there were some type of intentionally placed explosives involved and is about how some one would have pulled that off.



Originally posted by smallpeeps
What pancake collapse are you talking about? I never saw that. I saw a huge cloud of atomized concrete dust.


I don't know if this is some type of weird psychological thing that has some odd name (which I don't know much about) where two people can look at the exact same thing and declare total opposites, but I absolutely see a progressive collapse. And I'm really trying to understand how you don't. Is it because the loose matter didn't stay in a perfectly vertical column and end up in a big heap?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
So WHAT if I read about it before you mentioned it or after. It doesn't change the fact that I can't find ANYTHING about production of it, except for ONCE in 1996. It was theorized as early as the 1930s, but the ONLY sucessful production of it that I can find ANYWHERE was in 1996, and they didn't expect to make it at the time.


The Lawrence Livermore team did not expect to produce metallic hydrogen, as they were not using solid hydrogen, thought to be necessary, and were working above the temperatures specified by metallization theory; furthermore, in previous studies in which solid hydrogen was compressed inside diamond anvils to pressures of up to 2.5 million atmospheres, detectable metallization did not occur. The team sought simply to measure the less extreme conductivity changes that they expected to take place.

www.everything2.com...

The word "accident" may not have been the best choice, but it still stands that they didn't expect to produce it when they started the experiment.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So WHAT if I read about it before you mentioned it or after. It doesn't change the fact that I can't find ANYTHING about production of it, except for ONCE in 1996. It was theorized as early as the 1930s, but the ONLY sucessful production of it that I can find ANYWHERE was in 1996, and they didn't expect to make it at the time.


Well they were expecting to make it, hence why they were conducting the experiments. www-phys.llnl.gov...

Well, you know what, if it's not on some quick googled website then I guess it can't be true
So if someone told you back in the early 80's the US had a Stealth Fighter, you'd say BS because there are indicators that it is possible, but you hvae no proof ie. picture etc.

BLAH, I'm through with this inane argument. Let other people make up their minds.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
No, if someone had told me in 1980 that there was a stealth fighter I would have considered it, because there were indicators that there WAS, even without pictures. How can you say they expected to make it when the GUYS THAT DID THE EXPERIMENT say that they didn't expect to make it DURING THAT EXPERIMENT???

I'm not saying that metallic hydrogen DOESN'T do what you say, I'm saying that it's a stretch for me to go from 1996, when they did an experiment and UNEXPECTEDLY created it, for a MILISECOND, to five years later having enough created, and in explosives to use it at the WTC. The would take more than five years to go from being able to make it for a milisecond, to making it stable, and figuring out how to set it in explosives.

Oh sorry I don't have access to all the scientific degrees, and obvious knowledge you do, so I have to use the web. Next time I'll wait a week before I reply so I can spend all my time reading all the scientific journals you do and get smarter. Because I forgot that the only thing the web is good for is downloading porn.


[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Any theories that involve just having explosives to start the collapse at the impact zone therefore ackowledge that a paccake collapse is acceptable,then debate revolves only around the possibility that the collapse could initiated conventially.


Okay, I was with you until that last part. If some one theorizes that just a handful (like 2 or 4 or something) floors were demo'd and that brought down the building, then I agree that the progressive collapse must occur in the intermediate areas to bring down the towers as they came down. ..............


Sorry, I did say before when someone else pointed it out that whatever I wrote there was not quite what I wanted due to being distracted and hurrying. I have since corrected it anyway.

EDIT:

I see that what you said still applies anyway I think - sorry!

[edit on 31-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Less than 200 lbs RDX shape charges would have produced the demolition of either tower.... and the installation would have only taken a couple days and completely hidden in the inner elevator/maintenance structure.

And shillboys are you going to ever reveal your biased Religious views ???



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   



Originally posted by smallpeeps
What pancake collapse are you talking about? I never saw that. I saw a huge cloud of atomized concrete dust.

ValHall said:
I don't know if this is some type of weird psychological thing that has some odd name (which I don't know much about) where two people can look at the exact same thing and declare total opposites, but I absolutely see a progressive collapse. And I'm really trying to understand how you don't. Is it because the loose matter didn't stay in a perfectly vertical column and end up in a big heap?

I understand the difference we have, and I think it revolves around the idea of the term "pancake collapse". To use the analogy, WTC was like a stack of 100 concrete pancakes, all of which were united by a central core that was built to hold all the weight above it (and more, actually), plus a strong exterior lattice that supported much of the weight also.

So if it were truly a progressive collapse which went pancake-by-pancake, we would have seen some pausing as energy was dispersed onto the lower pancakes. The nature of an item falling onto a fixed item is that the falling item loses energy. A person can't push a door open without slowing down. WTC was a freefall. I didn't see any pausing or halting at all. I saw the top half of the WTC2 (25% of the total weight on the structure) tilt AWAY from the base first as the picture below shows.



What happened to the rotational torque of this top chunk? What's happening in the picture here? How did the fully-intact top section stop rotating? From what little I know about physics, bodies tend to stay in motion. This chunk should have rotated away from the rest of WTC2, from my viewpoint.

70% of WTC2 is intact below this chunk. All the pilings, superstructure, etc of the first 70 floors are all still in place. The "drop" of the top section is really only a fall of a few feet (the height of one or two floors) so how does the top section meet no resistance at all? I could see total fragmentation of the building happening if the top section had somehow been dropped from a much higher height, but it's really only falling a few feet, onto the floor below, which should then provide some resistance. To me, that would be a "pancaking" type of event.

What I see with WTC2 is not a progressive collapse, but a tilting of the top mass, followed by a mysterious loss of all vertical support. What force remains to place sufficent weight on the lower 70% of the tower and destroy it? What force hit the lower 70 floors? The debris above it (falling onto it) is losing its cohesive strength by contributing to the huge dust cloud. Pulverized concrete in dust form doesn't provide enough downward pressure to violate the pilings and central structure of WTC2, from what I can see. The central core had to be encouraged to fail.

Also, WTC2 didn't even take a direct hit from its plane, but rather a off-center blow which dispersed the majority of fuel outside the tower. Nothing from the hit on WTC2 indicates it should have failed if it didn't fail right away. The core of the building was not hit, the four exterior corners still had their exterior structure intact, and survivors from the plane impact (who even saw plane parts around them) said that the heat died down quickly. [The message board post below has some dead links, but I've seen these quotes elsewhere:]



www.letsroll911.org...

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower:
Quote:
The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby:
Quote:
We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.

The official story claims that temperatures, exceeding 800 degrees Celsius, were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away.

What explosives were used? Well now if we'd been allowed to look at the evidence, we'd know, wouldn't we? That's why they had GPS units on each dumptruck. Hauling away the evidence (concealing it) was as important as making sure it came all the way down to the ground.

If they took no chances with hauling the murder-evidence off, it's reasonable to surmise that the same attention to detail was applied to the murder.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
[WTC was a freefall. I didn't see any pausing or halting at all.


And just to clarify for Peeps, I don't think he means the collapse was falling at the speed of gravity here. I think he means the smoothness of the fall.

Just hoping to prevent someone from taking that one bit out to ramble over and ignore the rest.



What I see with WTC2 is not a progressive collapse, but a tilting of the top mass, followed by a mysterious loss of all vertical support.


I agree; the tilting and vertical collapse in WTC2 were two separate events. You can see it in video: the floor the cap is resting on suddenly explodes, and each floor below is then blown sequentially.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by smallpeeps
[WTC was a freefall. I didn't see any pausing or halting at all.


And just to clarify for Peeps, I don't think he means the collapse was falling at the speed of gravity here. I think he means the smoothness of the fall.

Just hoping to prevent someone from taking that one bit out to ramble over and ignore the rest.

Thanks, yes that's more what I meant. It was a smooth drop. Although it was not at the speed of gravity, it was damn close, and there were no visual signs of any resistance which I verbally associate with the term "pancaking".



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamboni
And shillboys are you going to ever reveal your biased Religious views ???


I assume you're talking to me there, but I'm not really sure what my religous beliefs have to do with how explosives could have been planted in the WTC? I just checked and I am in the right thread so it's your mistake.
Perhaps you would like to start a thread entitles 'AgentSmith and Howard Roarks religous beliefs' if it's something that bothers you so much.

It would probably be good to leave the childish insults in the kindergarten too, we don't tend to incourage such pettiness round here if we can help it.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Professor Jones has calculated that 4,000 lbs of explosives would be needed to bring the towers down.

That could be distributed by a mere 10 people in 10 trips at 40 lbs each.





posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Professor Jones has calculated that 4,000 lbs of explosives would be needed to bring the towers down.


That's all????


I assume that he means that this was distributed throughout the building, does he realize that the impact energy of the top of the building hitting the bottom would be greater than that?





Originally posted by Jack Tripper

That could be distributed by a mere 10 people in 10 trips at 40 lbs each.


That statement makes so little sense, that I can only conclude that you are a troll.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Oh yeah, Howard.

4000 lbs of explosives couldn't have brought the towers down, but 0 lbs of explosives could have!


That makes a hell of a lot of sense. In fact, it makes so little sense, that you could hold such a double standard, that I must conclude that you are paid to be this illogical.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
So the top what, third(?) of the building slamming down onto the bottom of the building wouldn't cause it to collapse?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
4000 lbs of explosives couldn't have brought the towers down, but 0 lbs of explosives could have!




If it only took 4000lbs then what would be the point of using explosives?

Why even bother with two tons of bombs, and take the risk of exposure, when your going to hit the same building with a plane full of fuel?

That line of thought makes a demolition scenario completely unneccesary.


I am interested where Jones calculates this. Did he actually calculate the elusive extra energy, or is this his opinion?


If you think that it only took two tons, then aren't the same "problems" with the progressive collapse present?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So the top what, third(?) of the building slamming down onto the bottom of the building wouldn't cause it to collapse?


LOL haven't we already been over this twist of physics like a billion times already? Or are you again purposely trying to make this thread go round in circles?

Pls explain to us how the top portion of the building, which was way less than a third, can crush the stronger lower floors without even the slightest resistence. It's not possible without help.
Not only that, look at the vids again, the top portion turns to dust as the building collapses. So how does that have the force/energy to completely destroy everything in it's path?
You guys who believe that is what happened have NEVER been able to show how that could be possible.
If you had then we wouldn't still be here. Anyway old news, most thinking ppl know that's not what happened.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why even bother with two tons of bombs, and take the risk of exposure, when your going to hit the same building with a plane full of fuel?


Err because the plane full of fuel woudn't do the job and they knew that?
Couldn't risk the buildings not coming down now could they?
How else would silversteiner (sic) have got his payoff?
And how else would they cover their tracks?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If it only took 4000lbs then what would be the point of using explosives?


To get the buildings to collapse? Unless you're still pushing that fire thing, in which case I'm still waiting for the evidence.


If you think that it only took two tons, then aren't the same "problems" with the progressive collapse present?


It would depend. I'm not an explosives expert, and I don't think you could find any explosives expert to come forward that would not be totally out of their league with what the most powerful institution on Earth has access to.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So the top what, third(?) of the building slamming down onto the bottom of the building wouldn't cause it to collapse?


WTC1 impact zone was centered around floors 97/98 or so. That's about 13 floors crushing 97 more.

13:97, or about 1:10 rounded, is much less than one third. Both buildings fell in the exact same manner, so whatever made WTC1 collapse, we can assume similarly made WTC2 collapse. And in either case, one demolition is enough to warrant serious action.

"Slamming" is quite an inappropriate word. Supposing that the first floor to allegedly fail, failed at all, it wouldn't exactly be a free-fall. It would be resisted the whole way down. And the columns were not set up floor by floor, so as to provide a little speed-up in between as some would like to imagine. The collapses would've have been totally resisted the whole way down. I wouldn't put any bets on 1/11 of a building to crush the remaining 10/11 in such a fashion if I were you, either. Those are staggering odds to begin with, let alone everything that would occur as the buildings fell.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join