Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Actually, I've been thinking about this throughout the day and I'm not sure that does completely kill my theory. Perhaps it does, but allow me to offer up my additional thinking on the subject. After that, feel free to tear it apart if it's nonsense.

If there were a core bomb, it would only immediately damage at the most, several stories of core. The bomb could only be so big and the core was rather remarkably large and strong, seeing how it stood in place after the collapse for a short time. If that took place, I'd imagine the collapse would happen as the core was dropping downward (as it did, from my understanding -- you can see the antenna drop downward in video of the collapse a little faster than the exterior -- could this be due to perspective? I'm not sure). The core would then hit the ground, temporarily stabilized by the rest of the building until it finishes collapsing.

I watched the video and the core stood for seven seconds after the main collapse finished before collapsing. Or perhaps that fact kills my theory, I'm not sure. I don't know if it would be able to to stand that long if it were no longer structurally sound at the base.

There are also the camera shakes about 10 seconds before collapse on several clips that aren't just the camera being bumped. You can see debris falling off the towers in several places and sheets of metal hanging off that are swaying at roughly the same time as the shake on camera.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
To be honest, the WTC1 core confuses the hell out of me too. How could it have fallen straight down?

The perimeter columns look to me as if they were blown out floor by floor, in sequence. The squibs look the exact same as the puffs coming out in rows, as observable in video taken from below the collapse of WTC2. I know -- this implies charges around the perimeter of every single floor, or at least way down until around the lobbies, but that's exactly what I see. I don't see explosions stick out here, or there, in key locations with the perimeter columns, but in rows, floor by floor, that blend together and are perfectly symmetrical across at least two faces of each floor. All physics and more definite conclusions aside, this is just how it looks to me, and it looks pretty convincing that there were not only explosions at key places.

But then looking at the core of WTC1 standing after the perimeter collapses, it stands for a bit (or at least what was left of it), and then falls straight down! All I can say, is wtf. It's as if that part of collapse was totally conventional and the core structure was at that point blown from the base up, which it may very well have been, but something of that nature would most definitely not fall straight down by gravity alone. You can even see chunks fall off to the side prematurely -- this is what gravity does. It does not pull steel structures straight down upon themselves, especially from the bottom up!

I'm thinking that the core may have been affected by larger explosions within the building, obviously (what was left standing did not look to be very much of the core structure), but that there were additional charges in place to make sure that the core would come down in full.

At any rate, I'm fairly convinced that different charges were used in the demolition of the core columns, and the perimeter columns.

I wouldn't be surprised if two or even three types of explosives were used on the core structures and/or trusses: thermite (speculating here, but thermite with sulfur could have been used to quickly cut the trusses off from the core structures), large unconventional explosives in key locations higher up the buildings (actually blew up much of the cores -- I point here to medical evidence of radiation at Ground Zero, and how well mini-nukes would explain certain oddities of the collapses and Ground Zero's temperatures), and conventional charges at the base of the core structures to ensure they fell in full (as per the WTC1 Hoboken video's depiction of the WTC1 core collapse).

I'm just throwing out some ideas here.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
you can see the antenna drop downward in video of the collapse a little faster than the exterior -- could this be due to perspective? I'm not sure).


NIST looked at all of the videos from different angles and determined that in fact, the antenna didn't drop into the core as it appears from the one angle.

What happened is that the collapse started with the buckling of the south face of WTC 1. That caused the hat truss, to rotate southward.

In other words, the top of the building was tilting away from the viewer, making it look like the antenna was sinking into the building, when it wasn't.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Fair enough. I haven't viewed it from every angle yet to determine that myself, but I will do so. Are there any helicopter views of that collapse? I haven't ever seen a helicopter one that would show the antenna clearly as it's collapsing.

Any opinions on the other aspects of my theory? Please, tear it to shreds if you think it's factually impossible or just plain nonsense. Just explain why you think it's nonsense.

I most definitely do not believe there were explosives around the outside of the building. As a building is collapsing, the air that is inside is going to be forced out somehow and it's going to blow open windows or go out ones that have already been broken or air vents or anything it can and that's going to cause dust puffs from all the pulverized rubble that's currently in the air as it's collapsing.

The collapse of the core straight down seven seconds after the rest of the building finishes falling does seem somewhat odd and I wish I had a higher quality version of that video to see more detail in the core as it's collapsing. My version is 320x240 and fairly heavily compressed and zoomed way out. Surely someone got a close-up of the core collapsing...


On the other hand, perhaps without the support of the rest of the building, the core just slowly buckled at the base and started falling downward... would think it'd lean sideways, though... especially with all the wind stirring around from the collapse just before.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
I most definitely do not believe there were explosives around the outside of the building. As a building is collapsing, the air that is inside is going to be forced out somehow and it's going to blow open windows or go out ones that have already been broken or air vents or anything it can and that's going to cause dust puffs from all the pulverized rubble that's currently in the air as it's collapsing.


I don't know where you came across this, and no offense intended, but this is pure and unadultered bullcrap when used to explain the squibs.

First off, the air could not have pressurized! This is a really obvious problem: the towers were being destroyed. Air is most certainly not going to compress when each floor is being blown out, one by one, innards and all (this includes air!).

That alone is enough to put to rest any claim that the squibs were caused by air. Ok?

When you have the pulverized concrete slabs between floors, and steel columns and all being rocketed off the sides and off of a skyscraper, that is NOT air tight! No pressure is going to accumulate in those sorts of conditions! It's all going right up and out!

But, should we even have to go on...


Secondly, the squibs included solid debris in the form of dust. This was pulverized concrete, gypsum, etc. This was the same stuff that coated the streets of Manhattan. It was a very fine powder.

Alright, this fact gives you two possible routes:

A) This material was from the floor from which the squib originated.

B) This material, as some have proposed, was from the impact/collapsing levels.

And, some commentary on those:

A) What pulverized the material?

B) How was the material carried down the building faster than the rate of collapse? How could the speed of the building's alleged compression exceed the speed of the air's compression? Logical answer: it could not.


And thirdly, examine a floor chart and compare this to the area blown out by a squib. You'll find that these explosions are taking place behind completely random places in the perimeter: all air shafts were within the core structures. There was a lot of space between the core structures, and the outer perimeter. This means that the air would have to form some sort of stream, or what I like to call a magical air missile, that would not decompress and equalize with the rest of the air on the given floor, but instead rocket outwards from the core structure and blow out a completely random chunk of perimeter. Air is not known to behave in this manner; air has never behaved in this manner. It's impossible for air to do that.

So to sum up, you can put more stock into the squibs. At any rate, they were mostly certainly NOT caused by compressed air. That would have been physically impossible. Literally.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11First off, the air could not have pressurized! This is a really obvious problem: the towers were being destroyed. Air is most certainly not going to compress when each floor is being blown out, one by one, innards and all (this includes air!).


The must have imagined that wind, then.


A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

newyorkmetro.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Howard, that is totally non sequitur.

You have no idea what caused that wind. I have no idea what caused that wind. But it hardly explains ANY of the above-mentioned problems.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I'm no scientist and don't know too many specifics about that part of the collapse. But I would certainly imagine a collapse of an object that massive would create large amounts of wind, and large amounts of wind blow dust around. I just never really found the "squib" theory very plausible. By all means, continue to believe it if it seems plausible to you, I just remain unconvinced at present. Honestly, I probably shouldn't even be theorizing on this subject as it is way out of my field and I no nothing about the physics of a collapse or any of that sort.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
If the building had pancake collapsed as the Government contends the rate of fall would have been 30 -120 secs based on laws of momentum and most likely wouldn't have been global ..... as a result the wind most likely would not have been generated under the pancake conspiracy theory.

In the same pattern an implosion does produce considerable wind due to free fall of the above structure ....... so the 'wind' is most likely a symptom of demolition and actually helps disprove the pancake theory.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Howard, that is totally non sequitur.

You have no idea what caused that wind. I have no idea what caused that wind. But it hardly explains ANY of the above-mentioned problems.


The wind would have been caused by the air above in the tower being compressed by the collapse and escaping through all available escape routes to equalise the pressure. This would include the stairwells.
If it was caused by explosives you would expect it to be more sudden, accompanied by a loud report, and one would think he would have remarked on it. He'd probably have had a noticable popping sensation in his ears from the sudden change in pressure from the explosion(s) too, which one would think he would remark on.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Having actually witnessed a number of building demolitions up close and in person, I can tell you that I don’t remember my ears popping. The sound was loud, of course, and sharp. What I do remember was that you felt it in your chest as the shockwave hit your chest cavity.

To a much smaller degree you can notice this effect at a fireworks show.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Oh right fair enough, I've never got to witness a demolition sadly so I didn't know for sure. Would it not cause it in a confined space?
Saying that I remember letting of a gun (with blanks luckily) in my living room once by accident and I don't think I had a popping sensation then, just a damaged hand and a sense of deafness...



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


I wouldn't be surprised if two or even three types of explosives were used on the core structures and/or trusses: thermite (speculating here, but thermite with sulfur could have been used to quickly cut the trusses off from the core structures), large unconventional explosives in key locations higher up the buildings (actually blew up much of the cores -- I point here to medical evidence of radiation at Ground Zero, and how well mini-nukes would explain certain oddities of the collapses and Ground Zero's temperatures), and conventional charges at the base of the core structures to ensure they fell in full (as per the WTC1 Hoboken video's depiction of the WTC1 core collapse).


Here is where I believe we are often steered in the wrong direction.
The assumption that it takes teams of engineers a very long time to
place charges for controlled demolition is correct. Yet it is only correct
in that we know what types of explosives they use. The military in this
country is always 10 to 20 years ahead of the population when it comes
to technology (i.e. cell phones). How far ahead of common knowledge
do you think they are in terms of munitions? There could be types of
explosives that are incredibly small yet more powerful than dynamite.
We have no way of knowing what it would actually take to bring a building
down because we have no way of knowing the extent of technology that
could have been used.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero


I wouldn't be surprised if two or even three types of explosives were used on the core structures and/or trusses: thermite (speculating here, but thermite with sulfur could have been used to quickly cut the trusses off from the core structures), large unconventional explosives in key locations higher up the buildings (actually blew up much of the cores -- I point here to medical evidence of radiation at Ground Zero, and how well mini-nukes would explain certain oddities of the collapses and Ground Zero's temperatures), and conventional charges at the base of the core structures to ensure they fell in full (as per the WTC1 Hoboken video's depiction of the WTC1 core collapse).


Here is where I believe we are often steered in the wrong direction.
The assumption that it takes teams of engineers a very long time to
place charges for controlled demolition is correct. Yet it is only correct
in that we know what types of explosives they use. The military in this
country is always 10 to 20 years ahead of the population when it comes
to technology (i.e. cell phones). How far ahead of common knowledge
do you think they are in terms of munitions? There could be types of
explosives that are incredibly small yet more powerful than dynamite.
We have no way of knowing what it would actually take to bring a building
down because we have no way of knowing the extent of technology that
could have been used.


That is a very good point, IMO. # the Stealth Fighter was done in 1970 right?

Why would it be so hard to imagine a small (relatively) singular charge that could be placed on the floors needed. Not every floor per se, but at straegtic points that would induce structural failure



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The wind would have been caused by the air above in the tower being compressed by the collapse and escaping through all available escape routes to equalise the pressure. This would include the stairwells.
If it was caused by explosives you would expect it to be more sudden, accompanied by a loud report, and one would think he would have remarked on it. He'd probably have had a noticable popping sensation in his ears from the sudden change in pressure from the explosion(s) too, which one would think he would remark on.


I wasn't suggesting explosives caused that gust. I'm just saying that, with that witness report, Howard is not countering any of the problems I just described with the air-squib theory.

You'll notice that the man did not report the air making a quick left turn and bursting through solid concrete and steel.

So therefore, it is irrelevant to the implausibilities I have just brought up, for the upteenth time, that I doubt will ever be properly addressed. Howard will just keep posting stuff like that testimony, and leave it at that.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11You'll notice that the man did not report the air making a quick left turn and bursting through solid concrete and steel.


What leads you to believe that the jets of smoke burst through concrete and steel?

When you watch the video you can see the smoke fly out, I wasn't aware you could see into the building and see it breaking down walls.

In the video it looks like smoke pouring out an already open area, just like it looks further up. Only as the collapse progresses does it look like a "squib". I don't see the need for a "magic air missile" to get smoke to be ejected with violent force. It should be expected with the forces involved.

Of course like most of the "evidence" for demolition, it looks much better in a misleading still.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
IMO what would happen is the air would be equaly expeled from ALL open places.

But the squibs we see are only in certain spots.

Like bsbray has tried to explain, the air would not be pressurized enough in only a few spots to create those 'squibs'.

As the floors collapsed all the windows would be broken and allow the air to be expelled and equalise with the outside air. The WTC building were not air tight or the air under pressure.

Maybe if there were only a very small hole for the air to escape through on the whole floor then maybe you would get what you think happened.
But we know that's not reality.
There are too many open areas for the air to escape from before any pressure would build up to creat puffs of escaping air.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What leads you to believe that the jets of smoke burst through concrete and steel?

When you watch the video you can see the smoke fly out, I wasn't aware you could see into the building and see it breaking down walls.


And I wasn't aware that large piles of concrete dust were laying around open holes just waiting to be blown forcefully out over 100 feet into the air.


In the video it looks like smoke pouring out an already open area, just like it looks further up. Only as the collapse progresses does it look like a "squib". I don't see the need for a "magic air missile" to get smoke to be ejected with violent force. It should be expected with the forces involved.

Of course like most of the "evidence" for demolition, it looks much better in a misleading still.


It's not misleading. You just don't understand what you're suggesting.

Let me recap this again, even though ANOK just did. Because we can recap it all day and you guys still apparently do not comprehend what in the f we are trying to explain to you, or more likely aren't willing to understand it.

So please try to reason here. Please try to consider what we are saying. It's kind of important to consider, considering what you're implying happened here.

For pulverized material to be blown out of the buildings, even if from a pre-existing hole, the material would have to travel down the given building from the damaged regions faster than the collapse itself, ie faster than the speed of the "compression" that did not exist. This is physically impossible without ammending the official story to either include explosives, or magical fans that directed the stuff down the buildings as they collapsed, at rates faster than the collapse itself.

Second is what ANOK just pointed out, which must be the upteenth time it's been pointed out to you guys. Apparently, you cannot read something that disproves what you're saying? Or not reply to the parts of the posts that matter? I doubt you've missed all these posts pointing this out.

When you have materials from within the buildings being ejected outwards, that is anything but airtight. Air is not going to be trapped and pressurized in such a situation, let alone enough to cause those explosions. The amount of pressure required for that wouldn't even be approached before the air would just move up and out through the freaking missing floors.

Do you honestly believe the buildings were airtight, LB? I have a feeling that if it weren't for the squibs, you would have no problem admitting how those buildings would not be able to hold in air. But because of the implications, you stick to this crap here. If I were you, though, I would really be embarrassed. I hope you realize how dense it is to suggest those buildings could've built such massive air pressure as they fell, because I'm sure most everyone else here already realizes full well how illogical that is regardless.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by bsbray11You'll notice that the man did not report the air making a quick left turn and bursting through solid concrete and steel.


What leads you to believe that the jets of smoke burst through concrete and steel?

When you watch the video you can see the smoke fly out, I wasn't aware you could see into the building and see it breaking down walls.

In the video it looks like smoke pouring out an already open area, just like it looks further up. Only as the collapse progresses does it look like a "squib". I don't see the need for a "magic air missile" to get smoke to be ejected with violent force. It should be expected with the forces involved.

Of course like most of the "evidence" for demolition, it looks much better in a misleading still.




Even though others call it "illogical" they must be speaking from a position of no experience whatsoever in building operations.

Who can prove that the so called smoke consisted of concrete anyway? it was more likely sheetrock dust from blown out partitions along with such things as the accumulated dust on ceiling tile and quite possibly some of the fireproofing material.

Why do I say this?

Because I am firsthand eyeball witness to AIR blowing out walls at much less pressure than existed with large floor plates coming together in hundredths of a second.

On commissioning office building HVAC systems where a simple control failure at return air dampers occured I know for a fact that pressure differentials of less than 1" water column indeed caused sheetrock partition collapse.

On another building the refrigeration machinery shutdown while outdoor air dampers were fully open on a hot day causing the entire building envelope to pressize to .7" inch of static. When the static on the building envelope was at its peak heavy (3/4" herculite) double glass doors at both side of building were forced all the way open with an estimated 50Mph wind going through the 1st level - the wind kicked up all kinds of dust and debris while at the same time ceiling tiles were bouncing up and down several inches.

It is very possible that a shock wave of air developed ahead of collapsing floors (yes even faster than the collapse) exiting at the weakest window attachments first and no the air would not go out the top - that is illogical considering that the debris from collapse above had enough density to be just about considered a solid object - unless of course the ONLY thing one wants to believe and is extremely invested in is that the collapse was brought about by planted explosive charges.

I really urks me when NON-OPERATORS with no experience at all try to guess how and under what mechanism air moves with-in a building.

Go get a mechanical engineers degree and I might entertain your ideas - short of that its just B.S. guessing that shows an utter lack of understanding.

Bye the bye that was only 370,000 CFM that caused the results I noted above.

If you take the square footage of a wtc floor and cube it you will realize just how much AIR was displaced in such a short time - not all of it went out the sides because there was not time, rather it compressed, you can figure the available openings as the area of windows and the area of shaftways which are substantially smaller than the floorplate. The collapsing floor plates acted as a piston in a cylinder I can assure that almost none went UP.

Simple garage test; take two pieces of 2'X2' plywood with 15% sized hole in center and whack them together very hard and fast - tell me what happens?

my my did some of the air pass through the center at pressure? while the rest went sideways.

Theres your shockwave

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
With all your structural engineering expertise Phoenix, what is causing this in WTC 7, when the building has yet to begin it's collapse?

thewebfairy.com...

Look at the giff of WTC 7 you can clearly see the 'squibs' starting at the bottom and moving up, how does compressed air do that?

[edit on 15/2/2006 by ANOK]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join