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.

 

Explosion in the collapse?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Ok I am going to say I am unsure if this has been questioned before.

video.google.com...

watch when the camera steadies the tower starts to collapse. Now rewind. As soon as the camera steadies watch where the plane hit the towers. IMMEDIATELY, almost simultaniously, after the tower starts to collapse an explosion sending fire from the entire floor goes off. You can clearly see it isn't a fireball. It stretches for about half way across the floor of that tower. What caused the explosion?

I can tell you it wasn't the plane. That sucker was done exploding. the fuel was already burnt up in the building and on initial impact. So what caused that explosion?




posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I've wondered about that too but I think it's air displacement from the collapse that creates a big flame.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
How very fitting that the building owned by the Rockefellers with the pyramid and capstone on top is in every frame of the film...



The video is really jerky I don't know about this camera guy? I did see some explosion but someone should go through and pull out some good stills to analyze.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
You can also see something else that's been debated. Its around the 22 second mark through the end, you can see what looks like the core section 'spine' protruding up, it could be something else, but the camera blurs as it kinda sinks away.

I don't know if this belongs here but remants of a core section were discussed in other threads and this video shows a nice example, although very briefly, before the camera goes out of focus.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
You can also see something else that's been debated. Its around the 22 second mark through the end, you can see what looks like the core section 'spine' protruding up, it could be something else, but the camera blurs as it kinda sinks away.


Yeah, that's WTC1's "spire" -- the name it's adopted.

It consisted of a structural element that survived the collapse and remained standing for a bit before falling straight down, from the base. That is to say, it failed from the base, and yet for some reason fell straight down like a controlled demolition instead of to one side like anything else would.

A lot of people believe it's a part of the core, but I think it's actually a corner box column. Analyze other photos and I think you may conclude the same. This doesn't make it any easier of a question for the official account, though.

What I would really like to see is more footage of WTC2's core. It remained standing for a brief moment as WTC2 collapsed, and appeared like a big gray block, as if the tower had a reinforced concrete core. I've seen two different sets of images show this structure, but I'd really like to see a video of it collapsing. That would make my day.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
bsbray what do you think the cause for explosion was though?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
bsbray what do you think the cause for explosion was though?


What you suggested in your first post sounds plausible to me: explosive pressure forced the fires out of the building.

I think official conspiracy theorists would tell you the same thing, except they would blame air compression, by the above roof falling onto the fires. I think if you dropped a roof onto a fire, it would just smother it. It would take a lateral force, not vertical, to push the fires that far across a floor.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Erm... Won't the displaced air use the easiest way out? That is, coincidentally, laterally via already breached walls in the impact zone, thus blowing the flames out?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Could be. I was unsure so I figured it would be best to just see what everyone else thoughts were. I never saw the fire otherwise so I was interested.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The answer is in your first post:

"after the tower starts to collapse an explosion..."

Notice that it occurs after the collapse initiates, it is a result of the collapse, therefore it cannot be the cause of the collapse itself. If the towers were indeed demolished, I doubt the perpetrators would use incendiary devices to initiate the collapse, not only because fiery explosions would be so blatantly obvious, but mainly because contrary to what hollywood movies might depict, incendiary explosives don't cut through steel.

It's simply the top floors pushing down and the air and fire being forced out sideways via the path of least resistance. The pushing motion also momentarily feeds more oxygen into the fire, making it flare up further.

Keep in mind the path of least resistance is out the sides of the structure, not through the HVAC and stairwell shafts. According to the syringe theorists, we should see 50 foot jets of flame shooting out tens of floors below the collapse point there.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Keep in mind the path of least resistance is out the sides of the structure, not through the HVAC and stairwell shafts. According to the syringe theorists, we should see 50 foot jets of flame shooting out tens of floors below the collapse point there.


But this only applies up to that moment when the collapse reaches floors below the impact level. Then the air cannot escape through large gaping holes anymore and it cannot escape upwards as well.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Tuccy, what happens when floors begin blowing apart with most of their contents falling over the remaining sides of the building?

The building suddenly becomes air tight?

Please, man. How do you think all of that dust escaped during the collapses? Maybe steel was the medium and not air? Because we all *know* how steel is so much better at escaping tight spaces than air is.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
From some places the air can escape under the pressure caused by a massive falling "plug" consisting of upper floor's material. From some (presumably closer to the core) it cannot. This depends on loads of circumstancers - opened/closeed office doors, opened/closed emergency stairwell doors...
As a side note, it seems many people here are using the "all or nothing" view - so "all" air must have stayed in or be blown out, no other way. "all" pieces of the Pentagon 757 have to be shown or there was no 757. "all" of the mighty pile of steel must be examined or it's a cover-up...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
It pretty much would have to be all or nothing if the air could possibly have been compressed that much to begin with.

If the building was cut in half, and every single last cubic inch of air was forced into the lower half of the building, you would only have twice the atmospheric pressure you would normally have. About two atmospheres. Do you realize this? This is the kind of pressure you'd experience swimming to the bottom of a pool. That same amount of pressure, all across a floor, is not going to eject solid debris over a hundred feet into the air.

When the buildings were collapsing, we're seeing ejections of solid material more than twice as far down as the building has yet collapsed. There are images of squibs more than 50 floors below the collapse wave. One of the biggest squibs (if not THE biggest) was roughly 10 floors or so down as the collapse was just beginning.

How much pressure do you think would cause such expulsions as the one below, and how many floors worth of air would it take to cause such compression?











[edit on 4-7-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join