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.

 

Visible explosives 7 wtc

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I wasn't particularly making a point either for or against demolition or the official explanation, it was simply that Kleverone's comment which I replied to was was just one of many comments posted on lots of threads which said, essentially, that things dont fall straight down like that. Well yes they do.


Things fall straight down like that, steel structured web designed buildings do not fall like that. I think that you are the one generalizing things TT. I hardly doubt that anyone here was challenging Newtons law, my point is, First of all the buliding should have never fell. THESE WERE THE FIRST STEEL STUCTURES TO EVER TOTALLY COLLASPE!. EVER! I should just end it here but I won't. One side of the building should have collasped even a little bit before the other, not the case. Straight down each side even. My question that I'm sure will be totally ignored is how these three bulidings became the first Steel stuctured buildings to totally collaspe. Even the designers of the building said it was designed to withstand impacts from a planed hitting it. Tower 7 didn't even get hit by a plane and it fell the EXACT SAME WAY! A solid Steel building collasped due to a minor fire. Even a Major fire has never even come close to collasping a steel building. These were the first 3. I'm not sure how many times I have to write that, but I will write it as many times as I need to.




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I think we can all agree that the way the buildings came down was quite curious to say the least.

You can argue the semantics regarding the forces of nature acting upon the buildings one way or another, but one thing that cannot be argued is the existence of molten slag in the rubble of WTC Towers 1, 2, and 7. Slag that maintained it's burning heat and ferocity nearly a month and a half after the buildings came down.

If you can explain how molten steel slag existed in the rubble weeks after the buildings came down, and also explain how thermate or other explosives could NOT have been used to bring the buildings down I would tip my hat to you.

Once you do that, however you'll also have to explain how steel that simply "falls" to the ground contains gross amounts of sulfur; sulfur being structural steels worst enemy as it acts as a corrosive/erosive and is the signature trademark of thermate and thermite explosives.

Slag deposits:
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Sulfur content of the steel:
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamking

If you can explain how molten steel slag existed in the rubble weeks after the buildings came down, and also explain how thermate or other explosives could NOT have been used to bring the buildings down I would tip my hat to you.



well, to me the thermite debate is pure hypothesis but thats beside the point.

ill tackle the explosives part of that, as i do know a thing or two about it.

HE detonates at over 24000fps. it doesnt melt the steel when it detonate it punches through it. either by brute force or shape charge. the blast is not there long enough to 'heat' the steel to a significant degree. (dont bother bringing up the shape charges used in missles thats something different)

so, any RDX, PETN, or TNT based explosives were NOT responsible for pools of slag or molten metal anywhere in the structure. they just dont work that way. simple caloric theory.

as to the rest of your post, i dont think its my job at all to explain WHY the buildings fell at all. my only goal is, was, and will be to provide factual information on explosives. what they can or cant do and if anything i say actually reinforces your theories that htere were demo charges in the buildings than so be it, i state my opinions but when i present data its raw facts. i dont change any of the data i present to fit my theories and have on many occasions actually provided information that could be used to PROVE how the buildings could have been demo'd.

at least by now id like to think theres one or two out there that will vouche for my credibility and that i dont let my own opinions cloud the data i present.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I'm not sure that the musings of Isaac Newton could or should be described as a triviality.


The laws themselves are not trivial. In this case, the force pulling down compared to the force "pushing up" by the building (normal force or what-have-you, electrostatic) is insignificantly small, small by (an) order(s) of magnitude (I don't remember the exact figures). That's why WTC2 started leaning outwards before it fell: it was going somewhere, but straight down was just not possible. That's when *something* made it fall straight down, symmetrically, all the way to the base, without slowing down. That's an enormous conflict in that building's behavior if you leave explosive devices out of the picture.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
at least by now id like to think theres one or two out there that will vouche for my credibility and that i dont let my own opinions cloud the data i present.


I can vouch for you. Even though we disagree sometimes, you've shown me that you're an honest person.

Hypothetically, could there be a "muffled explosive"? If so, how could it be done?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
(hypothesis)

hypothetically...yes, you can dull the sound of a high explosive going off...but, you have to bury it in something like...sand bags. which by the way can also help direct the force of the blast to a small degree.

(/hypothesis)

the problem is, it has to be a lot of sand bags (depending of course on the ammount of he being used.)

so that would just add another level of complexity to the equation in my opinion cuz now not only do you have guys stringing wire/det cord and HE charges...you got a bunch of lackies bringing in a truck load (and i do mean truck load) of sandbags or other such materials

things like insulation wont do it as it just doesnt have the density.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Could you use a concrete casing to dull the sound? I understand that it would add to the complexity. It's just something I've been thinking about.

BTW, thanks for answering.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
They didn't even muffle the sound, there are many people who heard explosives. They didn't even need to muffle the sound anyway, all of New York was full of crying, screaming, yelling, people. On top of that, 100's of sirens from emergency vehicles, and honking horns were going off. Then, on top of that, the trauma alone mixed with adrenaline is enough for people to ignore certain sounds, or even acknowledge the sounds but not understand whats happening...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
connected....


explosions do NOT equal high explosives.

contrary to waht you see in movies, you cant take out a building with a pound of c4. sorry, you just cant. the ammount of force it takes to cut even a single steel beam is enough that it is unmistakeable what it is, and to date ive only seen ONE video that was even close to making me think that there were ANY high explosives anywhere near the wtc complex.

i would love if people put as much research into waht HE can or cant do as they do into the rest of the conspiracy. MOST of the people on these boards say it was a CD cuz well...it looked like one to them. but they dont actually look to see if real explosives actually fit the evidence.

to many of us taht HAVE used HE, it just doesnt.

again, this is my opinion, take it for what its worth.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
contrary to waht you see in movies, you cant take out a building with a pound of c4. sorry, you just cant. the ammount of force it takes to cut even a single steel beam is enough that it is unmistakeable what it is,


This is the first reason why I don't believe structural damage to one side (even two) and fire could have done it. Not that it looked like a CD (that is about the 5th reason why I believe it was a CD of some sort). That's why I'm trying to figure out what could have done it that stays in the parameters of what was observed that day. And thanks to Damocles, I have come to the conclusion that it probably wasn't HE. Unless somehow the sound was muffled for most of them.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Hypothetically, could there be a "muffled explosive"? If so, how could it be done?


Yes, there could be. But to muffle an explosive of the size you would've needed to bring down the WTC, you would've had to muffle in a pile of debris (like concrete, or sand) the size of a small office--and you'd have to do it for every explosive.

Otherwise, everyone for miles and miles around would've heard an explosion MUCH louder than any of the explosions that were heard on 9/11. And since no one heard anything like that, either they somehow magically trucked a few hundred tons of sand or concrete into the WTC, or there were no explosives.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
connected....
explosions do NOT equal high explosives.


I have to completely disagree. In controlled demolition, they actually cut small sections out of support columns and then place HE on the cut. This is so they can use less explosives. It is totally possible a single guy could have had access to WTC 7 building for 2 hours every night for a year before 911, with a trusty plasma gun, cutting away at supports and preparing them for a small amount of explosives, getting ready for the big day.... Its a huge building, no one would notice.

It is HIGHLY POSSIBLE to destroy a building with a pound of C4, but its all about how you prepare the building. Not that I'm saying they only used a pound of C4.

Anyway, an explosion is an explosion. Ok? I have no clue why you said "explosions do NOT equal high explosives", because that quote is just outright idiotic.

explosions = anything explosive that has been detonated.


On that note, you say a pound of C4 can not bring down a building.... well then why in the frikken world can a little tiny bit of debris and a few fires bring down a building?!?!?!?!?!?!

Do you see how stupid the official story sounds?




[edit on 12-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
idiotic huh? hmmm that amuses me.



I have to completely disagree.

feel free, doesnt make you any less wrong about it.


In controlled demolition, they actually cut small sections out of support columns and then place HE on the cut. This is so they can use less explosives.


and to you that makes sense does it? well that scenario kind of rules bush out as the perp, he was only in office 8 months.

no, i do see your point, its just not a very good one. you dont start cutting away supports for a building while its occupied as theres too much margin for error. you cut too deep, something collapses and your whole plan goes to hell. not real smart eh?

besides, it is possible to cut a single beam with only a couple pounds of demo. what you fail to realize obviously is that you take that few pounds and multiply by the number of beams that hold the building up and that adds up real fast...

some will then argue that "there were explosions heard all day" but then why did the buildng come down all at once?



It is HIGHLY POSSIBLE to destroy a building with a pound of C4, but its all about how you prepare the building.


PLEASE provide me with an example? of course lets not talk about an outhouse here. and lets not get into explosive/powder demos cuz thats not what brought the buildings down. so please, a realistic example?


Not that I'm saying they only used a pound of C4.

good i was about to quit takign you seriously.


Anyway, an explosion is an explosion. Ok? I have no clue why you said "explosions do NOT equal high explosives", because that quote is just outright idiotic.

idiotic? i laugh every time i read that. if you have no clue why i would say that then i have to ask why im bothering trying to discuss this with you as it is quite obvious youve never held a block of TNT in your life and got all your info from wiki and google.

so maybe the idiotic part is me even replying through the laughter but ill give it a shot.

lets break it down...i said HIGH EXPLOSIVES. ok? do you even know what an RE factor is? seems to me that if you are going to question me this way you should know that.

but ill forgive that one and we'll just move on

some basic data for you to mull over

tnt detonates at 23000fps high explosive
c4 detonates at 26000fps high explosive
even anfo detonates at 8900fps

ok can you see the difference there between that and even say cordite (used in bullets) which project the lead at under 2000fps?

so to say anything that explodes is a high explosive is just laughable really.

so by your logic if i threw a can of WD40 into a fire and let it explode thats a high explosive?

please...things can explode during fires, ask any firefighter. this doesnt mean theres HE in said fire. there were a lot of fires burning on 911 and lots of things explodign..this doesnt mean there was ANY HE anywhere in manhattan now does it?



explosions = anything explosive that has been detonated.

possibly the one thing you got right. but still wrong in context of there being any demo charges in the buildings

gas leak fills a room until it reaches its LEL and explodes. High explosive? NO, just an explosion.

"it sounded like a bomb going off"

yeah, it SOUNDED like a bomb, but people will often draw comparisons to things they think they've heard before to describe an event. i had someone tell me that while driving next to a semi truck and it had a tire blow "it sounded like a bomb going off" but it wasnt, its just what he could tell me to compare it to, but sadly 90% of people (or more) have never actually heard a bomb go off.

i have. many times. name an explosive and ive probably used it or watched it go off. there are perks to telling an army recruiter that you wanna blow things up....chances are you get to. i did.

so if you really wanna call my quotes idiotic please get some real experience to bring to the table not just a degree from google u with a minor in youtube.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
In controlled demolition, they actually cut small sections out of support columns and then place HE on the cut. This is so they can use less explosives. It is totally possible a single guy could have had access to WTC 7 building for 2 hours every night for a year before 911, with a trusty plasma gun, cutting away at supports and preparing them for a small amount of explosives, getting ready for the big day.... Its a huge building, no one would notice.



this is actually an edit to my above post i just didnt notice until after the edit window had passed. this should have been what i was quoting sorry for the confusion.

this is the part i want to know if it really makes sense to connected.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
www.youtube.com...

Look at this video. One thing these demolitions do have in common is that rate of speed of collapse, it is apparent and self evident this is what is happening with Bldg-7.


Also what should be apparent is if the actual sound to those demolitions was played in stead of the techno music; you would hear a series of LOUD explosions. My idea is if you can make squibs why aren't the explosives heard at WTC7? Inless there are silent explosives we don't know about.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Growing up my father was in the demolition business. One of my fathers
friends had a friend who was in the business of building demolitions.

The truth about explosives is this. Something of this size and magnitude
if you watch video slo mo, their is a telltale rippling up instead of down
the building taking a huge breath then if you watch the building takes
a VERY VERY VERY HUGE EXPELLING OF AIR AND BUILDING
SUCKS INTO ITSELF WHICH IS THE TELLTALE SIGN OF EXPLOSIVE USE.

OTHERWISE THEIR WOULD BE A WHOOSHING OF AIR OF THE FLOOR THAT IS COLLAPSING AND DUST PARTICLES WHOOSHING OUT OF
THE OPEN AREA WHERE PLANE HIT WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT HAPPENING
WITH FOOTAGE ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

BUT WHAT CLEARLY IS HAPPENING WITH ALL THE EVIDENT FOOTAGE
TAKEN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF WHERE THE PLANE SUPPOSELY
HIT BUILDING IS AN UPWARD RIPPLING AND A SUCKING IN OF
THE BUILDING THAT ONLY AN EXPLOSION EXTINQUISHING
ALL OXYGEN IN ITS PATH COULD CREATE.

THIS SUCKING EFFECT CANNOT HAPPENING OTHERWISE FROM BELOW.
MANY OF THE FOOTAGE SHOWING THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING
CONTINUALLY SHOWS A CLEAR AND APPARENT EXTINQUISHING OF
AIR MANY MANY FLOORS BELOW FOOTAGE TAKEN OF OTHER SIDE
OF BUILDING.

ONLY EXPLOSIVES FROM BELOW OR SOMEOTHER ACTION THAT IS
EXTINGUISHING THE OXYGEN SUPPLY OF THE BUILDING SO THE
BUILDING TAKES A DEEP DEEP BREATH AND SUCKS DRY ALL THE
OXYGEN IN ITS PATH COULD CAUSE AN EFFECT OF A BUILDING OF
THIS SIZE.

ONE FLOOR COLLAPSING ONTO A NEXT FLOOR WOULD CAUSE AN
EXHALE OF AIR NOT AN INHALE OR SUCKING IN OF AIR AS CLEARLY
SEEN IN MANY VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THIS SIDE OF BUILDING

THE SUCKING IN OF THE BUILDING, THE EXTINQUISHING TELLTALE SIGN
OF SOMETHING MUCH MUCH LOWER DEPLETING THE BUILDINGS
AIR SHOULD BE ANOTHER EVIDENT SMOKING GUN.

HOW COME NONE OF THE DEMOLITION COMPANYS ARE POINTING
OUT THIS CLEAR AND DEFINING FACT?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Cameron

Lets see, didn't Silverstein buy the building only 6 mos prior to the collapse. Is 6 mos not enough time to set up explosives.
Lots of time to do what they want 6 separate 24 day periods when
you think about it.
More than enough time Cameron. 6 mos is more than enough time.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
ill agree with most of what youre saying about what should happen,

where i disagree is in what did happen. however...all ive ever seen (other than watching it on tv the day it happened) are grainey choppy compression artifacted downloads so based on the files ive seen im not surprised the buildign does some strange things.

just dont think it necessarily proves it happened in real life. if you have some links to where i can download some raw video of this, id love to see it, this may be that one thing that changes my mind and has me admitting i was mistaken. but based on the files i HAVE seen, ill stand by my statements



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
guys i dont it..the whole wtc7 collapse thing.
i mean wouldnt any building collapse if a huge jet crashed into it? wouldnt the gas tanks explode and junk? causing the whole building itself collapse?

i just dontknow what to think though but maybe if someone could explain the issue to me
why is it different?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBadge
guys i dont it..the whole wtc7 collapse thing.
i mean wouldnt any building collapse if a huge jet crashed into it? wouldnt the gas tanks explode and junk? causing the whole building itself collapse?

i just dontknow what to think though but maybe if someone could explain the issue to me
why is it different?


Heheheheheeeee, priceless!

But seriously, hehehehehhehee nooooo be strong ;o) I can't be serious,,,, Like you I'm no expert and there are many many on here that are but I think its because no plane and therfore no plane fuel was involved in the 'Collapse thing'. If you are really serious but I get the distinct impression that you are not but if you are? Just read the argument from some very clever people on both sides of the debate on here.

Oh, on the windows popping out that was meant to debunk the controlled explosion theory or certainly go towards it. When 'I' look at the footage I'd have expected all the windows all around the building to pop out not just on that 'corner'. No for me its pretty obvious. Just trust your eyes apply the background to that day and the events following, add in some lay person probability for all these events to have happened and hey presto commonsense screams Local government terrorism. I think



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join