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.

 

South Tower Core Turns to Dust

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
bsbry--

When you posted on light it made me recall a video presentation I'd seen some months ago that studied the WTC collapse using video shot from the Jersey Palisades, and analyzing the sound track while accounting for the time delay caused by sound traveling at a slower velocity than light. In that video they'd noted a bright light at the tower's base just before collapse, but after some hunting I couldn't find it again. (Maybe someone else here has bookmarked it and can offer a link?)

In any event, I came across this, similar, short google video which shows the same bright light at the tower's base moments before the onset of collapse.

Look for it at the base of the tower, seen through the thin opening between the foreground buildings. It is too long-lasting to be the actual detonation flash--which I think Wizard is right in assuming wouldn't have actually been seen since the bomb would have been placed in the sub-basement to cut the core columns--but rather it is sunlight catching the pale dust and white gases roiling out from that explosion.

One further thought. You have to be amazed at the incredible strength and integrity of the structure, to stand intact as long as it did while the top is exploding, if you consider the basement core has just been mini-nuked.

The energy required to bring the towers down was simply staggering, and I'm struck by that again every time I see one of those photos of one of the towers bursting like a chrysanthemum fireworks display.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by gottago]




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Another question I have is WHY was this 'spire' still standing momentarily after the collapse while there should be much stronger elements from the core still standing?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
My main question is what kicked all the dust (fireproofing?) off while it was falling? Did some sort of shockwave travel through the spire right before/as it fell?


That dust is not fireproofing. Look at the hi-res image I posted. I think the spire ultimately just fell, too, but there is way too much dark dust rolling off of those few core columns (over time, even) for me to think anything other than the steel to have been the source of it.

When something is broken up into dust and then it comes off, it'll just linger in the air, but this stuff is just rolling off in great quantities and expanding upwards as if heated. Also, all fireproofing I've ever seen is white/light gray.


gottago,

I think the video you're talking about is 9/11 Eyewitness taken from Hoboken by Rick Siegel. Look that up and see if it's the video you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
bsbry,

Thanks that was indeed the video but the replacement offers a better view of the base; Siegel's view was obscured by low buildings.

Looking at all the visuals brought to the thread, I do agree with your analysis that the spire does not completely disintegrate but is rather disintegrating and shedding enormous quantities of dark dust as it falls.

That alone is remarkable, as is the spire itself, since it is really the only structural element we can isolate and examine during the collapse.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Gotcha Brey..

Can I say that my brain is now totally warped.






bsbray11

I think the spire ultimately just fell, too, but there is way too much dark dust rolling off of those few core columns (over time, even) for me to think anything other than the steel to have been the source of it.



Just hard to get my head around but I understand what you are saying and I agree, at least from what I can see by what I have looked at so far. If the steel itself was being transformed some how.. whaat?
.... If that's not dust or fireproofing then I'm totally out in left field here. I believe that there some freaky technology that the general public doesn't know about so I'm open minded but I'll just have to say this is definitely one of the more peculiar oddities of the collapses.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Another question I have is WHY was this 'spire' still standing momentarily after the collapse while there should be much stronger elements from the core still standing?


VFTS,

Considering the strength of the core it's absurd to even think the towers should have fallen from aircraft impacts in the first place, but even if you're going to accept that much, the tops only should have fallen off where the planes hit. There's no logic to complete collapse--the buildings were shedding weight and stresses were being relieved. And even if you're going to accept a total pancaking collapse, you still should have had most of the core standing at the end. And even if you don't accept that, at least the spire--the nub of the core.

What is amazing to my eye indeed is that the spire is still standing after what must have been a mini-nuke detonation in the sub-basement.

If you go back through the thread to the photo Cameron Fox provided, you'll see that much of the the spire is simply disintegrating, frying and spalling off enormous amounts of smoke as it falls.

That it did stand as long as it did only proves how massive and well-built the core truly was.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
My main question right now is what exactly is that 'stuff' coming off the spire as it falls?



Gottago

One further thought. You have to be amazed at the incredible strength and integrity of the structure, to stand intact as long as it did while the top is exploding, if you consider the basement core has just been mini-nuked.



Absolutely. I'm just about 100% convinced that it was the sheer strength of the exterior 'perimeter' that allowed the building to collapse the way it did, even with the footing knocked out first. The interior falling within the very strong exterior perimeter explains alot for me. When you watch the building collapse.. it like the interior is 'peeling' the exterior inwards and exploding at the same time.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]


kix

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Have you considered that the Demolition was so good that the building nearly fell at gravity speed and the removal of oxigen fron the vacuum created by the collapse left a shadow or ghost of smoke of similar size and proportions on the building?

That for me is a proof of demolition, there is no way that much energy was contained by just a collapse, the added explosives and it shows....

Check the previous video is a very good example...



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Have you considered that the Demolition was so good that the building nearly fell at gravity speed and the removal of oxigen fron the vacuum created by the collapse left a shadow or ghost of smoke of similar size and proportions on the building?


There was a vacuum created by the collapse that caused the "tails" of the ejected debris to be sucked downward, giving them an appearance of arcing up and out:



You can see it in videos that there is a downward "sucking" as the building collapses towards the ground. The spire didn't exhibit that, though. That dust was expanding upwards, and you can't even see where it's coming from unless it's the steel itself.



The debris circled in red seems to share a certain property with the spire, no? In that it appears to be trailing a stream of dust as it falls, anyway. And if you look around you'll notice that that circled piece isn't alone.



The idea is that high-energy neutrons are slamming the steel on a molecular/atomic level and causing it to sublimate instantly where contacted. There isn't enough time for heat to really transfer before the steel just vaporizes. By the time the spire was sticking up in the air, this radiation was probably much less intense than it was just a few seconds prior.




If that's the case then all that trailing dust, and all of that coming off of the spire, etc., is the same thing going on as what's causing ejected debris to be trailing white dust in the image below:



The above is much more massive than anything that could have been used at the WTC, though, and it also probably couldn't have been any kind of fission device, because of the scaling problem, and potentially problems getting rid of the residual radiation. So if any nuclear device was used, it would have to have been much more recent technology than a 1950's or 60's bomb, not to mention completely classified.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by bsbray11]


kix

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Great post!, my pint is that black smoke and of course a huge cloud of pulverized matter goes out as the WTC falls at incredible speed...if the fire was on the upper levels how do we account the destruction, smoke and energy of ...mmm lets say 45 floor ..down?...

Even my wife who is no demolition expert since that dreadful day , said, those buildings where demolished....



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
That second video post was a bit better although the camera zooming makes it hard to tell.

Now i am not sure about this but after watching these clips it reminded me of watching it on BBC news on the day (i was quite stunned back then over this bit) and I have a hunch they aired a much better resolution clip from a closer angle of the core evaporating which i have not seen since.

Also in the loose change footage there is a very clear close up of these core columns but the LC directors fade before it happens, it maybe worth checking out the original footage too. I would like to find a source for it but haven't yet, anyone?

*looks for video*

video.google.com...

go to 11:50, I would like to find the rest of this clip. Maybe I should go quiz the LC forum. I would imagine it holds a better resolution vid of what you guys are talking about.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
just thought I'd post this clip, everybody's been digging around in the video archives recently and lots of interesting tidbits are popping up...

Worker: explosion in WTC basement

bsbray--

Exactly.

But since you've got sublimating metals streaming off the exploding top of the tower, and later several inches of pulverized micron-level dust covering lower Manhattan, and huge losses of building mass later, you also have to conclude the collapse started with a mini-hydrogen nuke too. And perhaps one or two others placed on the way down.

The biggest in the basement, goes off 11 seconds before collapse and causes the rumble/shake/seismograph signature we've seen all over the place.

Collapse initiated by another, smaller, which makes the chrysanthemum fireworks display and streaming/sublimating debris. Finish it off with one or two more along the way down, with thermite/thermate charges throughout.

Hell of a lot of explosives needed to take that thing down.

Makes you shudder.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by gottago]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
What is that:




The core beams.

They look mighty dusty.

One step away from being dust themselves according the theory of thermate.

Is it thermate or magic core beams.

Do you believe in magic.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Akareyon
The question remains: why did virtually all vertical steel components on that day follow gravity, i.e. straight down, instead of toppling?


Answer: No resistance. There are only a few ways that I can think of to achieve this. And structural damage and fire aren't them.


Thats the problem with the WTC aspect of 911, nothing even close to this has ever happened, it is all theory. One of the only parts of the puzzle that isnt theory is exactly what has been stated, newtons 3rd law. The path of least resistance could not have been the lower floors under normal circumstances, or even the extenuating circumstances of jets striking + burning fuel/environmental variables.

Which brings me to the second bigest problem with 911, burden of proof. The burden of proof is not on the CT'ers, it is on the government. They needed to be able to PROVE that it was brought down solely by the hijackers/plotters.

The lack of this proof certainly implies conspiracy. Thats our problem, that is the implication. Circumstantial evidence doesent convict.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join