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.

 

Flames or explosions in the second tower as the first tower falls - NEW VIDEO

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
This video was just in the BBC documentary "9/11:The Twin Towers" broadcasted on Sept 7th 2006. Like the original post said, I have never seen this video before and it appears to show explosions coming out of the standing tower as the other one falls.

Link to video




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I still don't buy it, but its evidence of something nonetheless.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I think that's evidence of flames being pulled outwards by massive amounts of air rushing to fill the space formerly occupied by the top of WTC2. That's just what comes to my mind. It would happen regardless of how the building came down, imo. What's more curious is the apparent explosive events in WTC1 when WTC2 was impacted.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Thanks for bringing this up in it's own thread. I've posted about this in at least two different threads here.

bsbray - I'm having a real hard time believing that, because the videos and pics I've posted show signs of a large "event" in WTC 2 at the same instance that WTC 1 BEGINS to collapse (i.e. isn't necessary traveling down yet). Also, considering how far apart the two towers were, I can't see the internal collapse of WTC 1 having any effect on WTC 2.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
the videos and pics I've posted show signs of a large "event" in WTC 2 at the same instance that WTC 1 BEGINS to collapse (i.e. isn't necessary traveling down yet).


Wow, you mean while WTC2 was just tilting? (I'm assuming you just got WTC1 and 2 mixed up here.) That would be odd as hell.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
you beat me to that mixing up of the 2 towers.
WTC 1 - North Tower,
WTC 2 - South Tower.

Back to that video. I already addressed a long time ago a quite big, strange white cloud of dust or smoke, so to see originating from the louvers at the bottom of the south face of the South Tower.
You can see it clearly throughout the video, at the 0:02, 0:07 and 0:11 and later timestamps.
The cloud stays remarkably motionless during the whole earthshaking event.
It always reminded me of the remarks of the janitor, about explosions in the basements before both of the collapses.

And btw, so you can see it much clearer, here is the high res link to that video :

www.truthhub.com...

And, you can easily clock the total time from first collapse sign at 0:02, untill 0:12, when the first big chunks of debris hit the grass in the back of the running men.

That's 10 seconds for the fall of the first debris exploding from the 77th floor (lowest plane impact floor, highest at 85th) up till it hit the ground.

Time to re-evaluate nearly all former physical collapse times, they nearly all calculated from the top down.

As you will see, there is much more to see, if you load the highres version, look first at the total video, then pull the green slider back (in Win Media Player), and start to move that slider, mm by mm to the right !

I see a very peculiar, very long, thin fountain of nearly invisible gas spouting out of a "tiny" hole in the face, some ten floors down that dark band. Far down the collapse front nearing that spot. And far down that obvious big white gas cloud exploding out under the collapse front in a drop form cloud, above that dark band (which is one of the 3 reinforced mechanical floors).

Much too long for a cutter charge event, so what the hell is that caused by?
It is very obscure, you really have to look carefully, with brightness of your screen elevated high enough to not miss it.

And the most interesting observation around 0:11 to 0:13 :
The first huge, heavy perimeter-wall triple-beam part crashing down, which must have come from the 77th floor, did land VERY NEAR TO THE BASE of the tower.

So why did other perimeter parts, identical to that one, end up 30 times and more, further away ?????

Only explosions can do that.

Gravity driven, the first perimeter part falls in that video very near the tower base, from the collapse front all the way down. Forced outwards by the effect of the weight of the whole top of the South Tower pushing it outwards and then falling down in a standard gravitational parabolic motion.

Again, how can other nearly or identical (ripped off) perimeter parts from much further down, end up much further from the tower base ? ? ?

PS :
See my other post about the same subject : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nearly all perimeter parts exploded outwards, were the same shape, 3 long beams connected by 3 shorter thinner crossbeams.

On all 9/11 Ground Zero photo's and videos you see them laying around, most of them looking clearly identical.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

I see a very peculiar, very long, thin fountain of nearly invisible gas spouting out of a "tiny" hole in the face, some ten floors down that dark band.

Yes I see this, and I also see one about twenty floors above that one, closer to the middle of the tower face. They are pretty clear once you know where to look.
I think these 'jets' are quite strange. If Im not mistaken they are pointed out in some films like Loose Change. They can be seen from different angles too.
Strange indeed, but I can almost guarantee you that we will never know exactly what caused these.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
And the most interesting observation around 0:11 to 0:13 :
The first huge, heavy perimeter-wall triple-beam part crashing down, which must have come from the 77th floor, did land VERY NEAR TO THE BASE of the tower.

About that thin fountain :
What about a water fountain, from a broken standpipe? We know the NYFD tried to put pressure on these standpipes. So to see they succeeded, and thus the tower had to come down, before they managed to put the fires quickly out......

[edit on 6/11/06 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Valhall
the videos and pics I've posted show signs of a large "event" in WTC 2 at the same instance that WTC 1 BEGINS to collapse (i.e. isn't necessary traveling down yet).


Wow, you mean while WTC2 was just tilting? (I'm assuming you just got WTC1 and 2 mixed up here.) That would be odd as hell.


Yes, I'm so sorry. I mean, major event in WTC 1 when WTC 2 just started to collapse (i.e. the initial onset of global collapse but the top of the building is not falling downward yet, it's just internally collapsing on itself).

I shall go and find the threads I have this posted in and return promptly.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This is the thread in which I first discuss this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The videos I noticed this in were posted in the first post.

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

but I also include other videos and pics further in the thread. It's a short thread (just 3 pages long).



[edit on 11-6-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

(i.e. the initial onset of global collapse but the top of the building is not falling downward yet, it's just internally collapsing on itself).


I would expect the floors with trusses AROUND the very strong center collumn packet of 42 collumns to fall down and the collumns to keep standing for at least a prolonged time, in a true gravitational collapse event.

This did not happen. The radio mast fell down nearly at the same moment that we see the top floors collapse, while this mast is welded to the headtruss cap which is welded to the center collumn packet.

Btw, can perimeter parts fall further, the lower they are situated in the building ?
Did you meticulously inspected that BBC hires video of the collapse, and see that perimeter wall part smash in the ground near the basement, in the back of the cameraman?



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I'll have to think about your statements Lab. The important thing in these videos to me is that there is more than one perspective that shows the appearance of a significant and major event in WTC 1 at the same time WTC 2 begins to collapse. That's very interesting to me.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The actual flame itself is flaring due to a vacuum being created by the collapsing tower. This causes alot of wind activity in surrounding areas. Namingly WTC 1 in this case. Air is rushed in to fill the space the tower occupied and that air has to come from somewhere.

As a result of this vacuum can be seen here.



Air is pushed out of the towers on their way down. This creates a 'squib' effect where compressed air is burst out the side of the building as a result of a pancake collapse. As a result air must fill the space where the tower stood.

This means air rushes in from surrounding areas to compensate for the space the towers took up. As a result fires in WTC 1 are temporarily enraged whilst air (containing oxygen - fire fuel) passes through the building.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
That's far later than the timetags I'm talking about. Far later.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Don't forget that the buildings were interconneted through the plaza and lower levels. The air was pushed through from one building to the other.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Yeah, right, Howard. You've said that before. I couldn't buy that then either.

Serious. I mean truly serious. There's no way. I've said at least twice here that the event in WTC 1 happened simultaneously to the initiation of collapse in WTC 2. I doubt seriously that some columns starting to buckle would push air down over 800 feet through WTC 2 down to a sublevel tunnel, a block away, and then up over 900 feet into WTC 1 and belch smoke out. No - my senses and my calculator just don't think so.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Hahaha, very legitimate point Valhall lol.

Lawl at you Howard, lawl at you.


Does anyone notice the large banging going on in the video as it collapsed??

At the rate of the collapse of the building, I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt that was the sound of anything distinctively giving out, as it happened so fast, it would of been the roar, which you hear in the video.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Does anyone notice the large banging going on in the video as it collapsed??

At the rate of the collapse of the building, I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt that was the sound of anything distinctively giving out, as it happened so fast, it would of been the roar, which you hear in the video.



Being a Sound Engineer myself I think I have a valid point to make here. I take it this is where your extremley ignorant PM came from so I'll treat you the same.

The properties of a floor crashing onto another floor in sound are far different to an explosion. Explosions used in demolitions give off alot of high end and middle frequencies. Why? Because they are designed to have plenty of attack and do their job quickly. Floors Collapsing, on the other hand produces sounds on the lower end of the frequency charts. They don't have any planned, sharp attack. It is simply huge peices of concrete and steel falling onto other peices of huge concrete and steel. The noises in said video are clearly nothing like the noise of shaped charges which decay VERY quickly. The sounds you can hear in this video are hollow.

Then there is the speed of sound. The speed of sound is 344 m/s. These estimates are not 100% accurate so don't pretend I think they are. They are approximates but I believe they are pretty close.

The speed of sound through air is 344m/s. This means that it would take time for the sounds coming from the building to reach the camera man.

I have estimate that the camera is about 100m away from the towers. It may be more if anything, I doubt it would be less. I couldn't find the exact impact point of trade tower 2 but I know the tower is 415m high. The hole in Trade Tower 2 was about 2/3 of the way up. Which is 270m give or take. Now if anything I think these values would be higher but I've toned them down for benefit of the doubt.

So using Pythagorases Theroum you can conclude that a² + b² = c². In this case we have:

270² + 100² = c²

Which equals - 287.92360097775935

This means that the time the sound is taking to travel from the trade tower to the camera man is NOT instant. What you are hearing in the video is not the same as what is acutally going on in the tower. So that rumle "at the end of the collapse" is actually happening slightly before hand.

The sounds you are hearing are not of explosions. Explosions don't posses a hollow "door knocking" sound that you can see in this video. If anything, this is evidence for a pancake collapse.

It'll take a good ear for you to hear what I am talking about, so I hope you've got one.

Also - Notice the speed the floors start and and the speed they finish at as they gain momentum from the floors above pushing down on the current floor due to gravity.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
lol, I was just asking a question.

Treat me as you will, doctorfungi.

Thanks for your analysis, so what are we hearing in the video?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   



There are so many things wrong with this image, that all I can suggest is to study where the air shafts were, the trusses, and thermodynamics and decompression of air.


Air coming down to fill the space formerly occupied by the Tower, I could buy.

Air coming down to fill the space formerly occupied by the Tower, and then continuing down the Tower's core shafts, racing ahead of the collapse wave, and jetting out across open office space (without decompressing!) to blow some mysterious solid dust out of the perimeter does not make sense scientifically.


Until that theory can be cleaned up so that it does make sense (and I leave you to your own to realize WHY this doesn't make sense, because lord knows you guys wouldn't accept E=mc2 if we gave it to you in one of these posts), the squibs remain totally unexplained by anything other than some type of explosive device.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join