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.

 

The Tops of the WTC? What happened to them?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Somebody brought this out on in another thread which I think is a good point. How did the top halves of both WTC buildings get destroyed before they hit they bottom. The bottom area under the impact zone is where the destruction gets going, so they should have just fell into the pile, but they got obliterated before they ever hit the bottom. So what caused that.
They can't use the same reasoning that wiped out the rest of the building.
There was not a huge force crushing the tops.




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The tops of the buildings, just like the rest, disintegrated into dust and steel parts.. they did actually recover part of the base of the TV/Phone mast atop the tower i believe, and its being stored in that JFK hanger in NY.

As im sure your aware anyway, something strange was going on, especially considering that you can clearly see in one or two videos that the top portions literally disintegrate after passing through the dust cloud.

I can only offer my opinion on the matter. I personally believe exotic weaponary was used to take the towers down, in the form of micro-nuclear weapons. That is a topic of discussion of its own, but i believe it to be the case.. some say it was a microwave beam from space, which is equally as ridiuclous lol, but i feel that the micronuke theory does have merit, and could be proven.

So, what you were seeing was the top portions (indeed, the whole building) crumble into powder, as a result of intense heating etc from the micronukes. Thats my opinion anywho..



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Yes......because we all know that concrete is 'indestructible' and the tower should of fell over and landed on it's top without breaking up.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It sorta looked like they treated the top 20 floors or so above the crash zones almost like it was a seperate building, the top falls down into the crash zone just before the rest of the demolition gets rolling. Seems a logical thing to do on such a huge building. If they tried to make it fall away at the base it would of been way more likely to topple.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
There are two problems, I'm not sure what Blue Jay means.

One of them is that WTC1's upper floors all fell onto one floor, and that floor didn't fall itself until basically all of the upper floors had fallen onto it. Then it continued the collapse, just like a programmed sequence.

The other is this:




No "driving mass" there, and no pancakes.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Well, how did the upper floors sort of disingage themselves from the bottom part of the building and then fall straight down



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
as the picture above illustrates...

where did all the mass of the buildings go? how can 2 110 story skyscrapers "pancake" themselves into a pile smaller than the lobby?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
This is one of those obvious no-brainers that debunkers and official-story believers just simply don't see. More proof of demolition hiding in plain sight, and I point this out repeatedly on the forums.

Simple logic tells us that the upper building masses should have toppled and fallen beside the towers, essentially retaining their structural integrity, after the impact area "gave way."

Instead, you see them begin to twist and topple, then blossom into destruction.

By what force?

Twice, 20+ floors, structurally coherent, simply explode in mid-air.

Explosively disintegrate.

Well, they had to, to ensure that damage to surrounding buildings was minimized.

Enough said.



[edit on 2-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starbuck
where did all the mass of the buildings go? how can 2 110 story skyscrapers "pancake" themselves into a pile smaller than the lobby?


Weren't there 6 stories of basements and garages? Just saying that even if the debris pile was ground level, it would still be at least 6 stories tall inside the basement. Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   



Well what did happen to them is they exploded with the numerous explosives present in the the building, what other explanation is there.

As you can see from the pictures above, the top of the tower is leaning as it is collapsing and then suddenly is pulverized by what? Explosives indeed.

What else would convert tons and tons of concrete into dust


BeZerK



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
To me, that photo, and the video that goes along with it, is some of the most damning evidence against the "pancake collapse" people there is.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStarMan
To me, that photo, and the video that goes along with it, is some of the most damning evidence against the "pancake collapse" people there is.


Pancake Collapse. - Floor collapsing on top of each other. Yet we should see a pile of concrete, but we did not, instead the tons of concrete was converted into fine dust. What caused the concrete to convert into dust?

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Yes the top WTC 2, pic above, broke at least 3 laws of physics.

The only way that is possible is by a force of some kind acting on the top and bottom sections of the tower. What was that force?

Jet Fuel? Yeah, that's a good one!

If you look carefully at the vid, you can see the undamaged building bellow the tilting top starts to collapse faster then the top is toppling, taking away the pivot point of the tilt. Thus causing the top to change it's inertia to a vertical movement instead of continuing to topple.

That is only possible with some kind of explosives, not gravity.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes the top WTC 2, pic above, broke at least 3 laws of physics.

The only way that is possible is by a force of some kind acting on the top and bottom sections of the tower. What was that energy?

If you look carefully at the vid, you can see the undamaged building bellow the tilting top starts to collapse faster then the top is toppling, taking away the pivot point of the tilt. Thus causing the top to change it's inertia to a vertical movement instead of continuing to topple.


Yes i agree.

Also how was tons of concrete converted to fine dust?

Lets examine.

Here is an abstract from ScienceDirect:


Residual strengths of high-strength concrete (HSC) and hybrid fiber reinforced high strength concrete (HFRHSC) after exposure to high temperatures were investigated in the paper. The results showed that normal HSC is prone to spalling after exposure to high temperatures, and its first spalling occurs when the temperature approaches 400 °C (752°F). For HSC reinforced by high melting point fibers, the first spalling occurs when the temperature reaches to approximately 800 °C (1472°F), while there is no spalling during exposing to high temperatures for HSC reinforced by polypropylene (PP) fiber with a low melting point. Mixing high melting point fiber (i.e., carbon or steel fiber) with low melting point fiber (i.e., PP fiber) HSC greatly improves the properties of HSC after exposure to high temperatures.


Now lets examine what NIST said in its own report:


NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.



NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181


So i ask the question again, even if you say that temperatures in the impact zone reached 600 degree C, then why did the rest of the tons of concrete get pulverized into fine dust? How is this possible when there were no fires in any of the other floors?

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
^Yep. There was no energy in the buildings construction that could cause complete pulverization of concrete, office furniture, bodies etc., and it throw up and out as the building collapses.

Also how do the debunkers explain the expulsion of the towers outer mesh structure, up to 600 ft away? That's pieces weighing in the tons. Huge pieces found embedded in other buildings. It takes massive energy to do that. Gravity does not throw things laterally any distance, let alone 600 ft. Fire does not throw things anywhere (and pls don't say 'embers do' you smart arsses lol).

Why did the steel seem to snap? Hot steel DOES NOT SNAP. It bends, it buckles, it sags, it does not snap into nice easily manageable pieces.

How many times we gotta say this before it sinks in!
People seem to really have a hollywood understanding of physics.

Edit: I missed an 'i'...

[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Weren't there 6 stories of basements and garages? Just saying that even if the debris pile was ground level, it would still be at least 6 stories tall inside the basement.


The core at ground level for at least one of the towers was still intact, as was much of the structure beneath. And what debris was there, was mostly aggregate from concrete, rebar, and thinner pieces of steel. So some debris may have fallen into the basement but it's far from a 6-story ditch.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
There is one video around which clearly shows small charges going off on the corner of the tower at the top, which is captured in the picture posted by "Bezerk". I have it saved on my HD for safe keeping, and it is probably the most clear video showing explosions within the top portion.

The question that needs to be asked seriously by all is, where did the mass of the buildings goto?..

As far as im concerned they collapsed to dust. Two 110 story office buildings, crumbling like sand, leaving only steel beams, fragments of random objects and people..and one massive dust cloud.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^Yep. There was no energy in the buildings construction that could cause complete pulverization of concrete, office furniture, bodies etc., and it throw up and out as the building collapses.

Also how do the debunkers explain the expulsion of the towers outer mesh structure, up to 600 ft away? That's pieces weighing in the tons. Huge pieces found embedded in other buildings. It takes massive energy to do that. Gravity does not throw things laterally any distance, let alone 600 ft. Fire does not throw things anywhere (and pls don't say 'embers do' you smart arsses lol).

Why did the steel seem to snap? Hot steel DOES NOT SNAP. It bends, it buckles, it sags, it does not snap into nice easily manageable pieces.

How many times we gotta say this before it sinks in!
People seem to really have a hollywood understanding of physics.

Edit: I missed an 'i'...

[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]


Indeed. What force is needed to throw steel weighing in the tons to be ejected side ways into buildings hundreds of meters away?

Pancake collapse states the floors collapsing on each other, logic tells me this would not cause steel weighing in the tons to eject itself side ways meters away also does not explain how concrete was pulverized into fine dust.

Without an explanation to this, the official explanation becomes void.

Sorry but i have no other explanation to the pulverization of concrete other than the means of explosives.

BeZerK

[edit on 2-7-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Thanks for the pictures, they tell there own story.

Most people who accept the governments story, don't know too much about physics or science, if they did then they would be questioning this.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Blue_Jay33,

See the problem lies with the funding of the investigation. It was only given $3 Million to investigate the whole events surrounding 9/11.

Do you think $3 Million is sufficient to investigate, pay scientists for there time and effort, Research, testing etc? I really doubt it.

The following is what a $3 Million Dollar investigation gets you:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

BeZerK



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join