It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by LeftBehind
There were no bombs going off before the impact.
Why oh why if there were any explosions they "have to have been from explosives or bombs"?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by ANOK
How about explaining this to me...
That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?
I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.
What that tower did was physically impossible without help from some other force causing the columns in the lower undamaged part of the building to fail equally.
What should have happened is the top should have continued to topple off taking part of the lower structure on the pivot side with it. A chaotic, non-symmetrical collapse, just like every building in history that has been damaged or bombed (non-demo).
Sry for quoting myself but once again this very important question is being ignored.
Until you can satisfactorily answer this then all other points are not even worth discussing imo. Nobody gonna tackle this one?
ust seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the Tower.
This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor.
There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia
You can read almost anywhere online, that Building 7 is 230 meters tall. There are three different videos of the building collapsing (or at least, three that I could find), so I used a stop watch and timed all three videos, using the corner of the building as my frame of reference. Once it started moving, I started timing. Admitedly, it's going to be hard with the videos we have to get an extremely precise timing, but I think we can get pretty close by averaging the three results.
Video 1 - 4.84 seconds
Video 2 - 4.90 seconds
Video 3 - 4.98 seconds
Average fall time - 4.91 seconds
I then took the two simple physics equations.
a = v/t
v = d/t
Giving us a = (d/t)/t
a = the rate at which the building fell.
v = velocity
d = distance
t = time
Gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, and if what I read was accurate, the above equation should more or less equal 9.8 mps2. So let's do the math.
a = (230/4.91)/4.91
a = 46.84/4.91
a = 9.54 mps2
Pretty close to 9.8mps2, or the rate at which something would have free fallen from that height.
Now, if the building had collapsed due to debris damage, fires, and everything else that the official story leads us to believe, then there would have been resistence from the portions of the structure that were undamaged. It would have been a jagged, rough collapse, not a smooth fall like we see in the videos.
Originally posted by Yandros
Its a very simple calculation. Something falling through air, unimpeded will take 10 seconds to fall 410 meters. The buildings took 10 seconds to fall. How can a building which is undergoing a pancake collapse encounter no resistance as each floor falls onto the next?
Originally posted by ThichHeaded
You have proof of that Val?? Cause that is the 1st time I have heard that..
And thanks for getting me that kink to that stuff I asked about earlier... or not..
Originally posted by Yandros
The point is a pancake collapse should have taken around 90 seconds, no where near the actual time.
Originally posted by Valhall
The buildings (WTC 1 and WTC 2) did not fall in 10 seconds. This is an extremely stinky-dead beat horse. Please check into this. They fell in 14 to 16 seconds. 1/3 the rate of acceleration due to gravity.
Repeat...the buildings did not fall in 10 seconds.
"Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor
during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official
story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it
is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and
adjacent Building No. 7."
WND quotes Reynolds as stating further, "Only professional
demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated
with the collapse of the three buildings."
Whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via "an
inside job" or not, one thing is certain: the attacks of September
11, 2001 became the catalyst that propelled Congressmen to quickly
pass the USA Patriot Act even though none of them had read it.
Originally posted by Hal9000
Back to the collapse of WTC7, I was wondering if anyone has a timeline on when everyone was evacuated from the building.