Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
which smoke task? im confused



www.whatreallyhappened.com...


This one you can see smoke before anything had fallen.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...



[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tasketo]




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
oh thats cause the other tower collapsed before hand



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I guess this one is compressed air too huh?



The compressed air theory is silly IMO. The WTC buildings were not air tight.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
www.flurl.com...

there ya go
if you watch the second link you posted..


theres the fire you are concerned with. you can see its next, to the right of the hotel in the video i posted, and to the right of what you posted

hope that clears things up



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc
So if a 1k Ibs weight falls and hits you in the head, its impossible that your legs might possibly break along with skull and neck? Or does every bone above your legs have to break first?



Who knows, I guess it would depend on how my legs were positioned. I would image that my head would be the first concern then my vertebrate. 1k is a heck of a lot of weight. But if you want to create analogies, I have on for you.

If you free dropped a 15 pound bowling bowl on your head from, let's say, 6 inches above your head, will all the bones in your body break? WTC 1 free fall started with the top 13 floors(about the lenght of your head). It fell straight down(it didn't start falling from, say, 100 foot above). THe top 13 floors started tilting almost immediately(placing less resistance on most, if not all of the building), but yet, the whole building somehow collapsed on it self? Where the towers that fragile?????? A 15 pound bowling ball is pretty heavy, it probably weighs more than you head. Would a 15 pound bowling ball released even 10 inches above your head crush you with no resistance into dust?!!! Or you think your head will absorb the shock(probably with a leg wobble) and then roll off your head and on to the floor???

Which is more logical??????



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
blatantblue, I cant watch that video, it says i need i need to download a plug in and there arnt any available. Im guessing because im using windows 98 and this is an old pc. But I will take your word for it because my first point has yet to be explained.

Somone explain.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
There are a good deal of problems with the theory that they were air. Here are a few:


  • The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
  • There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
  • There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
  • The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
  • The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
  • All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.


Try to think those over before suggesting they were just air.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
take a PET bottle - coke, pepsi the choice of a generation- fill with water - make small slices in the bottle down its length horizontaly - be careful not to cut just weaken the plastic then apply force from above - stamping works. Structural integrity will give in some places and not in others - the result - water pours from fractures well below the impact of downward force. Downward pressure - ipso sum ergo propter hoc - Newton noticed it - gravivity causes a pressure build up looking for the path of least resistance.


uH what made the cuts to the side of the WTC towers then? See that is the part nobody is explaining here... lost of grasping at straws to avoid what is painful and scary...

I think people need to be stronger... the truth is gonna be scary sometimes and you have to accept what it is.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
You compressed air people are just little over the top. I cannot count the number of structure fires I have been to that have collapsed. The air rushes out through the broken walls and roof it doesnt get compressed downward.

These are demolition explosions from key points of the tower, exploding from the center core outward. If you look at the first picture that was shown on this thread, you can see that the suib is comming out of the left side also, its just hard to see because of the backgound.

Wood structures, and stung truss steel structure (like a modern stripmall) collapse due to the heat from a fire. Large steel structure buildings absorb to much of the heat and it never concentrates in one area. This is why they do not collapse due to fire.

An incedent cmmander would never have let that many firefighters in that building if they even had the slightest feeling it would collapse. Becuase large steel structures cannot collapse due to fire.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
The "compressed air theory" is very weak, down right anorexic! These were caused by squibs, charges going off.

The WTC Towers had fire safetys that shut off the air in different sections in case of a fire preventing oxygen the fire needs thus starving it. This is why the NYFD knew before they rushed in that fires were contained...black smoke from an oxygen starved fire. What they didn't count on was somebody "pulling the bulding" after they went in.

The building would not have pancaked due to the low temp of the fire compared to what is needed to weaken the structural steel.

Wake up and smell the thermite.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I won't say what is or is not possible but I have some questions.

When a building is taken down how many squibs are needed and where do they need to be placed on the building? How many squibs would be needed to take down one of the World Trade Center buildings and where would they to be placed inside the building? I'm only asking because in most of the squib shots of other buildings I see many squibs, dozens on some buildings, and they all seem to be on the corners of the buildings. In the first screenshot posted by the OP I only see 2 circled areas and neither seem to be in the corners of the building. That may or may not mean anything - I do not know.

This thread sounds like something that the people at implosionworld.com should look at and try to answer. Those are people with real knowledge of this field of science. What looks strange or out of place to someone who does not blow up buildings for a living could actually be a very common thing. I personally cannot say either way because I do not have the training or scientific knowledge of what happens inside a building when it is being burned up by jet fuel or collapsing or being blown up and I believe most ATS posters fall into that same category.

I have the feeling that most of the posts that will appear in this thread will be based on political biases and personal views of the world and sadly will have little to do with science and physics.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
When a building is taken down how many squibs are needed and where do they need to be placed on the building?


It depends, but in terms of the WTC, the explosions you see coming out from the sides are definitely not the only explosives to have gone off. These were just exceptions that didn't go off at the right time for them to be masked. Other videos show the same explosions coming out in rows riding the collapse wave, or rather being the collapse wave.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Blatantblue, thank you for posting the video. I do not think the compressed air theory is the answer. It's possible compressed air could cause windows to blow out, but the distance and the presicion of the blasts make the compressed air theory seem a bit far fetched, imho.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
bno prroblem man good nifght!


[edit on 17-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Okay those floors are sepertated by concrete reinforced by steel rebar grids and steel supports with the exception of stair cases and elevator shafts. There is no way that those blow outs could be caused by air pressure. When air ruwhould have rushed out it would have escaped from the windows being blown out the sides with debris. The air people here describe would have been that that launched the debris cloud out the side during collapse.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I do not completely rule out the compressed air theory because just a small amount of compressed air is really powerful. Much stronger than most posters seem to be giving it credit. I am not a scientist but back in the day my class did build a spud cannon for high school physics class. Potato guns are simple to make. You just need some pipes, a source of compressed air, and a potato. At 100 psi and a 45 degree angle a potato can be lauched into the air traveling 250 to 300 feet. And 100 psi is nothing in terms of compressed air. I would imagine that a collapsing building would be producing much higher psi.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
if someone wanted to demolish a building, they would place the charges on the supporting columns, which generally aren't in the middle of a face of the building.

just my two cents.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
I would imagine that a collapsing building would be producing much higher psi.


Not if it's not air tight, and the air is escaping into the atmosphere as each floor is being destroyed. After all, most of the solid debris was ejected outwards and landed outside of the footprint. So what was holding in the gases then? Allah?

The floors were also not connected vertically except by HVAC and small shafts in the cores of the buildings. The HVACs terminated on mech floors, which most squibs did not originate from. And air wouldn't have shot across whole floors in compressed jets from the cores without decompressing, and still have managed to cause those expulsions.


Originally posted by The Parallelogram
if someone wanted to demolish a building, they would place the charges on the supporting columns, which generally aren't in the middle of a face of the building.


There were columns on the exterior of the WTC Towers. Perimeter columns, exterior columns, whatever you'd like to call them. And remember that these demolitions were propoganda to freak out the public enough to justify launching a "war on terrorism." The point was to make them look not like demolitions, and blowing off the perimeter columns in a downward-rushing wave accomplished this nicely enough, especially since it totally obscured vision for most of the collapses.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by commonsense4u

Originally posted by jmanunc
So if a 1k Ibs weight falls and hits you in the head, its impossible that your legs might possibly break along with skull and neck? Or does every bone above your legs have to break first?



Who knows, I guess it would depend on how my legs were positioned. I would image that my head would be the first concern then my vertebrate. 1k is a heck of a lot of weight. But if you want to create analogies, I have on for you.

If you free dropped a 15 pound bowling bowl on your head from, let's say, 6 inches above your head, will all the bones in your body break? WTC 1 free fall started with the top 13 floors(about the lenght of your head). It fell straight down(it didn't start falling from, say, 100 foot above). THe top 13 floors started tilting almost immediately(placing less resistance on most, if not all of the building), but yet, the whole building somehow collapsed on it self? Where the towers that fragile?????? A 15 pound bowling ball is pretty heavy, it probably weighs more than you head. Would a 15 pound bowling ball released even 10 inches above your head crush you with no resistance into dust?!!! Or you think your head will absorb the shock(probably with a leg wobble) and then roll off your head and on to the floor???

Which is more logical??????










How many building do you know of that have a support system like human body has? Whats so hard to believe about thousands of pounds of weight suddenly falling on top of a building and completely shattering its foundation causing it collapse on top of its self? If you wanna believe that the planes didnt cause the building to collapse, thats fine, but to me, as far as asking whose those are in the pictures you first listed, its nothing more than the result of thousands of pounds buckling on top of each other and the force causing either glass or cement (whatever it is) to shoot out from the building.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc
Whats so hard to believe about thousands of pounds of weight suddenly falling on top of a building and completely shattering its foundation causing it collapse on top of its self?


The weight of the top causing the collapse is illogical and impossible. Can you even explain how you come up with this theory, or are you just parroting what some web site has told you? Don't they teach basic physics in school anymore?

15 floors, no matter what they weigh, is not going to crush 95 floors that are undamaged and stronger than the upper floors. Impossible!!
Also all that weight you talk about is being destroyed as the building collapses.
Nothing is stopping the debris from falling off the side, so why would it take the path of most resistance?
Gravity causes objects to take the path of least resistance, not crush through objects bellow them.

If the floors falling on top of each other caused the collapse, what bought the central core down? If the floors were still attached to the central core then the floors would not have fell. If the floors became detached then the central core would have stayed standing. The theory just doesn't work.

Look at building 2, it started to do what you would normally expect, the top portion started to topple over, then suddenly the building underneath it gave way.
The building underneath the toppling top portion was undamaged. How do you explain that? What reversed the normal physical reaction here?

But all that is irelevant when the architect of the building designed it to take multiple 707 hits. A 707 is heavier then a 757. I won't post the info cause I have posted it before and it got ignored, I wonder why?
Look it up yourself. The buildings outer core was designed like a netting so it could move in the wind in any direction and still stand. Imagine pushing a pencil through a screen door, does the whole door collapse?

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution