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.

 

WTC North tower burned for 3 hours at 700 degree C in 1975

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Matthew5012
This in mind its quite clear what brought down both buildings in the same way(doesnt anyone who thinks fire did it think its odd how they came down in the exact same way)


What about the fact the damage and fires were similar? If you have two things failed from the same damage, the failures usually do look alike


the size of the plane wasnt the same and the level of damage wasnt the same. but yes they looked the same as there just fires.

what i was saying is that they both fell STRIGHT down, why not part of it buckleing under the heat of the fire and falling to the ground below. but this didnt happen they both fell stright down destroying every floor on both buildings. makes no sence unless it was brought down with explosives....just like building 7 was.

if your one of the ones saying fire did all this then why the explosions and the people that heard them going off...you can even hear them just before the building collapes on the video from over the water. its a complete joke that you all this fire is the reason they fell....It was brought down with explosives people!!!




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Sorry, but 767's are pretty similar in sizes one to another


As for the "straight down", the gravity ensures most things do fall straight down. How else would the buildings fall in your opinion?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
To fall vertical, you have to take out the vertical supports, did we see them obviously compromised before collapse? That counts a lot towards in the inner core as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Let's just make the whold 911 incident simple. Let's make a simple observation.

3 buildings fell near perfectly down. 1 of them wasn't his by a plane but fell in a very similar fashion to the other buildings. Given everything you know and have observed about life and how things occur in this universe, does it make sense that two airplanes and some jet fuel were the sole cause the near perfect destruction of 3 buildings?

Troy



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
To fall vertical, you have to take out the vertical supports, did we see them obviously compromised before collapse? That counts a lot towards in the inner core as well.


So what do you call the bowing of the exterior columns shortly before each building collapsed?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what do you call the bowing of the exterior columns shortly before each building collapsed?


I like to call it ridiculously insufficient to make a whole, massive floor instantaneously fail.




Does that seriously look like it's about to fall straight down and turn itself into dust?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
HowardRoark, I take it these are the buckling columns, correct?





posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
3 buildings fell near perfectly down. 1 of them wasn't his by a plane but fell in a very similar fashion to the other buildings. Given everything you know and have observed about life and how things occur in this universe, does it make sense that two airplanes and some jet fuel were the sole cause the near perfect destruction of 3 buildings?

Troy


valid point but you will observe something unique about posting insighful comments like this at ATS.. many people will ignore it because they didn't think of it and it flies over their heads. I still think that the twin towers once brought down successfully allowed WTC 7 to be pulled and thus allow Silverstein to redevelop the entire property. If things had gone wrong with the twin towers coming down... the impact and strategic demo charges to ensure an orderly fall down then he may not have ordered WTC 7 to be demoed.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
HowardRoark, I take it these are the buckling columns, correct?




That is one shot of them, yes.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what do you call the bowing of the exterior columns shortly before each building collapsed?


I like to call it ridiculously insufficient to make a whole, massive floor instantaneously fail.




Does that seriously look like it's about to fall straight down and turn itself into dust?


thats a good picture, can you get a snap shot just like that of the explosives going off mate?

The reason i said why did they all fall stright down, is that if the plane had caused the damage and the fire caursed the building to buckle then it would fall on that side first and not the other side at the exact same time (remember the size of the building) and it would fall to one side and onto the streets below. (look at other buildings that have had fire damage in history they never fall down into a neat pile they crumble in bits and break off) so they wouldn't fall stright down as they both did, its just not possible. infact how all 3 did because building 7 came down in just the same fashion.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Masisoar
HowardRoark, I take it these are the buckling columns, correct?




That is one shot of them, yes.



That was at the iniation of collapse. I think even though BSBray11's photo only showcases one side of the World Trade Centers, it still doesn't yield any of the severe buckling that would initiate a collapse. And his photo is shortly before the collapse.

Edit: Hence the falling debris.

[edit on 9/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Masisoar
HowardRoark, I take it these are the buckling columns, correct?


That is one shot of them, yes.


That was after the collapse had already initiated, as I'm sure you already know.


Cause, and effect. They are not the same thing. If you want to point at something that occurs after the collapse starts, and blame the INITIATION on that same thing, then I could blame the collapses on molten steel (thermite), those expulsions (high explosives), etc., every bit as easily.


Originally posted by Matthew5012
thats a good picture, can you get a snap shot just like that of the explosives going off mate?


That photo is from NIST if I'm not mistaken, from their report. They literally have thousands and thousands of photographs and video recordings of the Twin Towers that are not available to the public. So no, I'm not aware of anything that clear of the collapse wave.

This is about as good of quality as you can find online of the things:





If you look at the second image, you can easily spot many more expulsions than simply what is circled in red, too. The one circled in red is simply slightly ahead of the rest and more obvious.

Notice the three clearly outlined cauliflower puff shapes directly facing the photographer in that photo; those are expulsions, too, all in a row. Three more are perpendicular to those three. A video clip was posted in another thread that shows a wave of them rushing down a face of WTC2.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Sad, some posts here tell me some people aren't trying to find truth. They seem to want to protect secrets, and I guess protect the evil that was behind the trade center collapse. They seem to seek to confuse us and get us off the trail of the truth. Either that or they are helplessly caught up in believing what "the authorities" tell you no matter what. Whether or not "Bush and company" pushed the button, I don't believe we are hearing the whole truth. And we only hear about the twin towers, never the third collapse. Why on earth would you leave this collapse so thouroughly out of the media? Why? Why??

Any person with an observant eye and a little thought can understand that there is something wrong with the "official" explanation of the WTC collapse. Sure, a lot of us may not have questioned the planes taking down the buildings at first. That's because we weren't looking close enough at the evidence at the time and/or we may not have had all the evidence at hand.

I think we know pretty well who on this board is leading us away from truth, and quite honestly we don't have time to run in circles when we know what we see with our own eyes. We don't have time, especially when you are dealing with lies and secrets coming from the "top brass" whom we are supposed to trust.

Troy



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Cyber, World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 falling down due to fires, symmetrically, with little evidence of the causes of collapse.

The buckling that was obviously occuring pre-collapse, which obviously became too much to the point where the building's critical mass was reached = i.e. collapse, it's not a "snap of the finger" process of truss failure/buckling like some will lead you to believe. Truss sagging is independent to the floors on each building, pulling in their own way. The point is, not enough pre-collapse buckling was noticed around the "collapse floors" of each World Trade Center 1 and 2 to blame it on buckling failure.

The loss of angular momentum of World Trade Center 2's upper falling half should not of theoretically taken out the rest of the building simultaneously while leaning to one side and managing to take down the rest of the building even though it did not have as much momentum from gravity as say World Trade Center 1 as it fell straight down and didn't tip.

The fact that World Trade Center 2 fell before World Trade Center 1 hints an even more interesting viewpoint as to what really caused them when it was hit later, exhausted more jet fuel on impact and managed to fall way before the first trade center.

Hahaha and that's just the seed to the conspiracy. The evidnece of "No mass amounts of buckling columns pre-collapse" is the smoking gun for the conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
WTC CT is nothing but disinfo to make sure Americans do not investigate Flight 93. That is the conspiracy. It was shot down. The flight in December that come down over NY was also a terror attack, but no one investigates it, because there is more information about WTC 1,2 and 7. There is a video showing that flight explode in mid air. it was a show bomb.

There have been 2 movies, and countless books, and if you ask the average American, they say lets roll and move on. This is the only conspiracy. Take a step back...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The "squibs" interest me as well, but I got a question for anyone that can fill me in.
If these pfffs of smoke are supposed to be taking out the core columns, why do we only see a puff of debris exiting a window? We should be seeing a fireball, something big enough to waste 47 columns. But instead we get a window blowing out every few floors.

I'm not dismissing this, just seems more likely that a million tons of crap all pushing down at once might shove stuff out the window, than a powerful explosive going *poof* every twenty feet.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
The "squibs" interest me as well, but I got a question for anyone that can fill me in.
If these pfffs of smoke are supposed to be taking out the core columns, why do we only see a puff of debris exiting a window? We should be seeing a fireball, something big enough to waste 47 columns. But instead we get a window blowing out every few floors.

I'm not dismissing this, just seems more likely that a million tons of crap all pushing down at once might shove stuff out the window, than a powerful explosive going *poof* every twenty feet.



you dont honestly think that do you??, pressure blowing things out the window?? exatly the same all the way down the bulding...? and what about the fact its not coming out the windows at all. its coming out of solid wall....go look at the pictures...

and then there the fact that below the blast wave there are explosions coming out of the walls, 20 or so floors below. pressure wouln't be throwing out a million tons of crap there would it!!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
If these pfffs of smoke are supposed to be taking out the core columns,


That's an assumption that I don't think anyone here is clinging to.

It's hard to say what exactly they were taking out, or even whether they were HE's or thermite consisting of nano-sized particles as Prof. Jones is considering, but it's not nearly as hard to figure out that air would not have been the culprit for those things. That is the ultimate point for me -- something is up, and we aren't being told what.


why do we only see a puff of debris exiting a window? We should be seeing a fireball,


Relatively few explosives produce fireballs. Cutter charges do not produce fireballs, incendiaries like thermite do not produce fireballs. Fireballs only occur in certain circumstances with explosives.


But instead we get a window blowing out every few floors.


I don't contend that these things show up only every few floors. I think they were the collapse wave. In some collapse videos, that aren't obscured by free-falling debris, you can actually see waves of these things running down faces of the buildings.

In an above image, you can clearly see at least 7 in one instant, right where the building is currently collapsing.


I'm not dismissing this, just seems more likely that a million tons of crap all pushing down at once might shove stuff out the window, than a powerful explosive going *poof* every twenty feet.


It does seem like it would be more likely, that air would be doing that, but that idea doesn't really hold up when you think about it, which is the problem for me at least.

To recap a few problems, without going into specifics of the floors and where any meta-floor air would have been channeled in the first place (only open shafts were through the cores), we have the problem of the buildings not being airtight in the least.

Something that can't contain massive, solid steel beams, some of which still connected at the spandrel plates, is not going to contain, let alone greatly compress, a gas. You can even see masses of smoke and dust rising from the buildings as they collapse. That's not airtight, either.

The fact that you see them coming out one-after-another, and being the SAME SIZE EACH TIME, also indicates that it's not air pressure, or else the expulsions would be decreasing in size after each burst because of a release of built-up pressure, especially in the exact same regions of the building, within just feet of each other. You also see them coming out as much as 50 floors below the collapse waves.

So compressed air can be safely ruled out with some very basic and obvious observations (for anyone with a genuine interest in finding what actually happened, anyway). What they must therefore be is not immediately decided by this information. We have simply ruled out what they are not.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Don't forget BsBray that even if the buildings were airtight, it would take 55 floors of compression to amount to twice atmospheric pressure. Isn't that about the same as a 10 foot deep swimming pool? That's enough pressure to pop your ears...that's about it....not blast things hundreds of feet horizontally.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
About a 10 meter pool of water, or 33 feet. It's enough to cause someone discomfort or pain in their ears, I think, without properly adjusting beforehand.

And that's assuming no pressure drops until the given floor. So that 2 atmospheres or so would only be the pressure accumulated if 100% of the air from the above floors was forced down, and then released in one big expulsion. Each expulsion would represent a drop in pressure, obviously, and as I mentioned before, it's even more obvious that dust and smoke and even masses of steel beams were escaping the collapsing buildings just fine.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join