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 gottago
Here's another view of the spire turning to dust:
And h/t to CF for posting the photo of the spire sizzling with dust plumes rolling off it. How exactly, that?
It just pushes the real question away to the next level--you've got to explain the missing building mass and all that dust.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Remember that most of the building was concrete which was reduced to dust as a result of the explosions caused by the demolition.
A designer of the WTC is on record as saying you could put several airliners into the building and it would still stand due to the design.
One aircraft, a bit of a fireball (which remember, is EXTERNAL to the building) followed by a bit of an office fire across a few floors.
That does not add up to a vertical building collapse at free-fall speed, and not after just 57 minutes.
Anyone care to explain the sounds of explosions before and during the collapse?
There is plenty of evidence of this, available from numerous sources.
Again, despite any flaws the film might have or point of existing as a film, "Loose Change" covers this point quite well.
Originally posted by gottago
Holy thread hi-jack, Batman.
The thread is about the bizarre physical effects seen in the various photographic evidence of the remnant of the tower's central steel core structure, aka the spire.
What caused them, related phenomenon pertinent to them.
We're not here to rehash Loose Change and do 9/11 101 yet again.
Please, stay o/t people.
[edit on 11-3-2007 by gottago]
Originally posted by Insolubrious
I could never really decide whether the spire gif in question was turning to dust or falling, creating a dust trail, but it kinda looks a lot like it is turning to dust.
If a low yield nuke(s) had been used, surely someone with a Geiger counter would have found out by now??? Did no-one look even if it was just to show that no nuke had been used?
Originally posted by Spawwwn
you have to be kididng me those pictures are obviously photoshopped fakes.
isn't that the core that was still standing weeks after the attacks?
Originally posted by micpsi
Although I remain unsure, I think the clue to what is happening with the spire top is that it starts to fall just before it appears to turn into dust. Now, if it had turned to dust without showing signs of falling, then I WOULD be interested. But I think it is more likely that the shudder caused by the slipping down of the spire knocked off fine dust that had accumulated on it, enveloping it in a cloud that obscured it as it fell. Sorry, Professor Judy Wood. But I think you misinterpreted this.
Originally posted by Long Lance
sorry, but a nuke gives of a flash, it does not cook away slowly, does it? do you know of any example of a 'slow' nuke? besides, nuclear neutron radiation would have penetrated the entire structure, therefore affecting more than just the columns' surface. as you know, the neutron bomb was designed to kill without inflicting as much thermal damage as a normal nuke, so using neutron radiation to destroy a building seems counter-intuitive to me and the approach would require intensely focused neutron beams without sidelobes (otherwise half of manhattan would have dropped dead), not to mention leave tell-tale signs of nuclear damage. of course there's no way to tell if any samples were tested.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Sorry, but the nukes did give off flashes at the WTC towers on 9-11. We just didn’t see them because they detonated inside the buildings somewhere in the bathtub areas (basements). The seismic records of Palisades show this clearly. ..
The light issue is hard to reconcile, but then again, so are many other things without considering some source of extreme energy being ADDED to the system.