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.

 

No bottom floor explosion signs; and janitor

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Fuel could have made it to the basements, but from there it would have to be properly dispersed as an aerosol in order to ignite as an actual high explosive, and that aerosol has to have a specific ratio of fuel to air within a small margin of error. The aerosol also has to be dispersed over the area in which it's to take effect. Liquid jet fuel running down the insides of the building isn't going to accomplish this, short of a miracle.

I'll throw in that the fuel could certainly catch fire, maybe creating bursts of flame or etc. depending on the circumstances, but to destroy actual structure you would need great overpressures, and you can only get these from high explosives.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by bsbray11]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
"What people "typically" do during an explosive demolition has absolutely no bearing on what is physically possible.

Also, there is no such thing as a typical explosive demolition. Every building is a different situation."

So could you speculate how this non-typical demolition took place?
I mean, we're explosives non-typically placed only in the top floors.
Since the buildings seemingly fell without charges set off near the lower floors, I wonder why any in demolition of a tall building one would bother to put charges on the lower levels, since the 3 WTC's fell beautifully without them. It seems that pancaking- just like the mainstream sources say- was the reason for the collapses even if charges were exploded from the site of the plane impacts on up. I dont think relying on pancacking would ever be considered by a demolitions crew. Anyway, I believe the 9-11 conspiracy theorists don't like the pancake/buckling theory. But that's what it looks like to me. Almost calm and smooth at the lower levels while its turbulent exactly at plane impact areas.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Show me videos of the collapse waves reaching the lowest floors. I've never seen these, and have no idea where you're getting your info.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Can you elaborate on that. I don't know what that means in relation to what I said.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You keep saying you didn't see explosions rip out of the bases of the buildings as they fell. So, I ask, where can you see the bases of the buildings as the collapse wave rips down the buildings, floor-by-floor? The falling material obscures the actual collapse after just a second or two.

If you mean the foundations, then you wouldn't be able to see that anyway, because it was underground. Nevertheless, white smoke did rise up from the lobbies, and white smoke WAS reported by eyewitnesses that experienced explosive events in the basement levels.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I wasn't talking about not seeing foundation/base explosions(of course you can't see them). I was referring to not seeing explosions anywhere between the crash area and the ground floor just before(1-2 seconds) and just after(1-2 seconds).
So, are you saying that explosions set-off beforehand(minutes?/hours?) at the basement/foundation levels(the sound the hispanic conspiracy guy said he heard/felt) could eventually cause the buildings to collapse without any other explosives set-off higher up? Or, there was this and another round of foundation/base explosions at the time of collapse?(i.e., softening up and final blow)

By the way, I believe the Bush/Cheney regime was behind 9-11, but in this ONE area(i.e., of not seeing any explosions from floors 1 on up to the crash site), I haven't been satisfied. One person said there's no typical demolition. I didn't know that. I thought all steel frame buildings had to have "global" pylon explosives(charges set on each floor) in order to SAFELY bring them down. I didn't know that a building like this could be brought safely down by just explosions in the foundation/base, unless they didn't care about safety. So is it your best guess that only the foundations/base were exploded?, because I've seen demolitions on TV before, and stuff shoots out very noticeably at all points up and down the structure at roughly the same time(slightly staggered perhaps) but the 2 buildings fell with floors 1- up to the crash site smooth and unperturbed.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I would like to know how 2 buildings with different structural and fire damage collapsed exactly the same way.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join