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.

 

Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





We only have the word of the government for that and they are the ones in question here.


Actually we also have the word of independent organisations and professionals. And while the government is the one under question, it is the prosecution that have the burden of proof.




Don't you think if a whole floor of columns were 'blown away' the building above that floor would have crashed down onto the floor bellow it immediately, not wait for an hour?


My point exactly.




How do you explain the expulsion of pieces of the outer mesh/facade laterally up to 600ft away? That takes more energy than gravity cab supply, no?


Momentum. Do you have evidence and calculations to prove otherwise?




How do you explain a lack of resistance from undamaged parts of the structure, i.e. the whole building bellow the impact point?


See above, particularly here and here.




How do you explain the South Towers tilt and rotation and the sudden change of its inertia? If the official story is to believed then this needs answering, cause all 3 buildings defied physics that day, and WTC 2's change of inertia is the most obvious blatant example.


It was answered. I'd like to see your evidence and calculations proving that the 3 buildings defied physics.




Do we need to re-write the laws of physics now...


No you just need to understand them.



reply to post by Gorman91
 





I still think that if they were smart enough to pull off 9/11, they would have been smart enough to realize that they would have failed at life in whatever they wanted to do. That's it, they failed. And until I see some form of success of communism, I will not be able to understand people who believe in a NWO. Bush is out in 1 year, and there is nothing going to lengthen his term. He will be forgotten once the next prez screwes up more, although I'm not sure HOW you could screw up more.


Couldn't have said it better my self



reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 





It's not the bigger the building the bigger 'the bomb' you use to knock it down. It's industry standard pre-fab'd shaped cutting charges for cutting support columns, not vapaorzing inner sections of the building based on its size.


Actually, the industry uses the least amount of explosives required and customises their charges to achieve their specified job.

(continued)...




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
The timing involved is specified in section six of this FAQ, rough speeds can be calculated by dividing either the total hight of the tower or the average height of each floor over the total time taken for entire collapse sequence. Section 6 of that FAQ also indicates that the momentum of the collapsing section was modelled by NIST.



Looks like NIST claimed another one. Here is a lesson for you. Instead of using NIST as your brain, lets actually use yours for a minute...

...answer this following question.

Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?



Let me know your answer as soon as possible.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





I just told you why you don't see them, because they are hidden in the CORE. Should I explain again why you cant see them? The explosives are in the core, and the flash's are being hidden by the actual office space of the building.


You could try providing some evidence.


reply to post by jondular
 





To answer your question; Those were two of the largest buildings on the planet and to bring them down in the normal way might have caused more damage to the buildings outside of the twin tower area. Also Silverstein only had insurance on the ones that fell.lol! sorry. But, he had to know!!!


That does not answer my question. As has already been cited extensive damage was caused to other buildings, and no, contrary to your assumptions, the conventional method (i.e from the bottom up) provides for more stability and control, not less.


reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 





Don't bother continuing, in this thread. I already told you this thread has a topic while providing you with a free for all thread for you to rant in. This thread isn't about me. I know you're all about talking about me to divert the discussion, but please for your own sake you're making it look like you have a weak position as you're unable to address the topic at hand. In some circles that's known as thread derailment.


Which part of that post was on topic?
If you're so distressed about me going off topic why don't you ignore those parts and address the points I make that are on topic, instead of spending most of your time going off on a tangent about how I'm derailing the thread and how my sole focal point is some how you.


reply to post by Griff
 





You mean like suggestions from outside forces? The power of suggestion is a great one.


Indeed it is, but implications hold no scientific value and conjecture is not evidence.





Maybe not the victims involved who would have been in shock. But you can certainly take the eyewitness testimony from the first responders as fact. These people weren't in shock and were there doing their jobs.


They did not however have all the facts or a complete perspective of the dynamics involved.




So we shouldn't listen to the firemen who said WTC 7 was bulging, cracking and etc.?


As I have stated in an earlier post, a decision was made to evacuate the immediate area due to the bulging and threat of collapse, that's called taking action based on the facts available for the situation at hand, it does not involve memory or recollection.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
You could try providing some evidence.



Here you go:




NOW LETS SEE YOUR EVIDENCE!

[edit on 19-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?


Assuming you mean terminal velocity, since objects actually accelerate during free-fall and thus are not at a constant speed before achieving terminal velocity: Neither, given the weight involved with anything you could hold with two fingers, the scale of the sections compared to your hand, and the average height of a human being. I doubt the section in either image would have time to achieve terminal velocity, though for an accurate calculation I would need to know the exact size, weight, and height. Terminal velocity is dependant on the object's size, weight, and various factors of resistance. The terminal velocity for objects the size of the two towers is completely different to that of objects the size of a small ball.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I just told you why you don't see them, because they are hidden in the CORE. Should I explain again why you cant see them? The explosives are in the core, and the flash's are being hidden by the actual office space of the building.



Originally posted by himselfe
You could try providing some evidence.



Originally posted by 11 11
Here you go:




NOW LETS SEE YOUR EVIDENCE!


Ahh yes, that old chestnut. Completely ignoring the fact that the video does not show important scales like the distances between the camera and the tower and doesn't show whether or not the video and audio are indeed from the same source, how does that video prove that there are explosives wired to the core?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Assuming you mean terminal velocity, since objects actually accelerate during free-fall and thus are not at a constant speed before achieving terminal velocity:



See, your problem is that you assume. I said absolutely nothing about "terminal velocity". When I said "free fall" I was talking about the constant rate of acceleration.


free-fall


Near sea level, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8m / s2 regardless of its mass.


Since you have failed to answer my question, I will give you an F for failure.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Ahh yes, that old chestnut. Completely ignoring the fact that the video does not show important scales like the distances between the camera and the tower and doesn't show whether or not the video and audio are indeed from the same source, how does that video prove that there are explosives wired to the core?


Here's a question for you, how does it NOT prove it? We have the sound of multiple explosions, we have smoke from the base of the building, and we have the time at which is took to fall. AND YET ALL YOU HAVE IS NOTHING BUT WORDS AND NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP

First off, the video was edited to compensate for the speed of sound. Also, the sound and video WERE from two different sources, and they were linked together by a TIME CODE. I assure you the professional level at which the video was made is astonishing. This proves that there was an explosion prior to the collapsing of one of the WTC's. There has yet been any evidence that proves this WASN'T a controlled demolition, only evidence the shows that is WAS a controlled demolition.

Try again, you are not doing to well.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think we are getting to close to the truth here!
It makes some of us very nervous,as you all can see.
One thing we all know, is that our Goverment will do anything to stop us.
And yes that means to put Goverment agents on Conspiracies sites to debunk the truth.
After reading this thread,I SEE the evidence of explosives in the WTC were
used, the video itself is proof enough. and the sound of explosives before the WTC disintegrated in thin air as it came dow, are real evidence.
Thats is going to be the best we can prove sence The Goverment order everything to be removed or destroy immediately, and not letting real investigator to examine any of the debris.
The Goverment did NOT want the debris tested for explosives residue that woud be found on the debris site.
They knew their CONSPIRACIES theory story of airplanes and jet fuel would not hold up if these test where done, and made public.
You can bet, our Goverment will leave no stone unturn.
SHOCKING HEADLINES NEWS!!! PROOF! The United States stage A FALSE
FLAGE APERATION TO WAGE WAR!



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by himselfe
Assuming you mean terminal velocity, since objects actually accelerate during free-fall and thus are not at a constant speed before achieving terminal velocity:



See, your problem is that you assume. I said absolutely nothing about "terminal velocity". When I said "free fall" I was talking about the constant rate of acceleration.


ROFL (yes I'm at that point now).

I made one assumption, and I made that assumption for your benefit, since your exact words were "Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?", implying that there is some sort of static constant to the speed of free-fall, since the section would accelerate equally in both images up to a certain point. You said nothing about acceleration, and given the next quote it is blatantly obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about:



Originally posted by 11 11
free-fall


Near sea level, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8m / s2 regardless of its mass.



We live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Mass has plenty to do with an object's terminal velocity and thus the maximum speed it attains during free-fall.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
I made one assumption, and I made that assumption for your benefit, since your exact words were "Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?", implying that there is some sort of static constant to the speed of free-fall, since the section would accelerate equally in both images up to a certain point. You said nothing about acceleration, and given the next quote it is blatantly obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about:


Since it is blatantly obvious you do not know the answer to my question a few post back, I will L.O.L. and shrug you off as "another one".

You see, the answer is:
The section of building on the left should NOT fall at a "constant acceleration that equals to free-fall".

The section of building on the right SHOULD fall at a "constant acceleration that equals to free-fall".





Originally posted by himselfe
We live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Mass has plenty to do with an object's terminal velocity and thus the maximum speed it attains during free-fall.


I'm not talking about terminal velocity or maximum speed, I thought I just told you that. I am talking about the acceleration of gravity on ALL OBJECTS in an atmosphere. If you study WTC you will see it fell in constant acceleration, just like free-fall, with very little resistance.

You know, if the "squibs" are "just compressed air", then why didn't the "compressed air" offer any resistance to the falling of the building? You would think the "compressed air" would make a cushion of air like a hovercraft and slow down the building's collapse. Just like office furniture, steel beams, wood, drywall, and concrete are supposed to slow the collapse down, but didn't.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





Here's a question for you, how does it NOT prove it? We have the sound of multiple explosions, we have smoke from the base of the building, and we have the time at which is took to fall.
AND YET ALL YOU HAVE IS NOTHING BUT WORDS AND NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP


The video was your evidence not mine. The fact that it does not disprove anything does not mean it proves something. You posted that video as evidence to back up your claim that explosives "are hidden in the CORE", the burden of proof is on you. The fact that I can't disprove something using your poor choice of evidence does not invalidate the fact that your evidence does not prove what it is meant to. You expect the mainstream to believe you with logic like that??
And no, putting it in both capitals and bold does not make your point any more valid.




First off, the video was edited to compensate for the speed of sound. Also, the sound and video WERE from two different sources, and they were linked together by a TIME CODE.


The only numbers I see resembling a time code in that video are durations, that does not prove that both sources were recorded at the same time.




I assure you the professional level at which the video was made is astonishing.


I don't doubt that you find that screen capture of fairly basic video editing software astonishing.




This proves that there was an explosion prior to the collapsing of one of the WTC's.


It does not however prove that explosives "are hidden in the CORE".

 


On a separate note here's an interesting video:



While it doesn't prove much it does show an interesting perspective of the dynamics involved.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Those are not squibs, the interior collapsed faster than the exterior walls, it is pressure from the collapse.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by himselfe
I made one assumption, and I made that assumption for your benefit, since your exact words were "Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?", implying that there is some sort of static constant to the speed of free-fall, since the section would accelerate equally in both images up to a certain point. You said nothing about acceleration, and given the next quote it is blatantly obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about:


Since it is blatantly obvious you do not know the answer to my question a few post back, I will L.O.L. and shrug you off as "another one".


uhuu...



Originally posted by 11 11
You see, the answer is:
The section of building on the left should NOT fall at a "constant acceleration that equals to free-fall".

The section of building on the right SHOULD fall at a "constant acceleration that equals to free-fall".


You said absolutely nothing about acceleration until I posted those facts, your exact words were: "Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?". Speed is not acceleration.


Originally posted by 11 11



Thanks for that video, the footage actually proves one of the points made early on in this thread, in reference to the stream pointed at at the beginning of the video, have you ever seen an explosion create a sustained jet stream like that? They even slowed the video down showing the stream's flow in relation to collapsing floors above. Nice find!

It's a shame about the rest of the video.



Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by himselfe
We live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Mass has plenty to do with an object's terminal velocity and thus the maximum speed it attains during free-fall.


I'm not talking about terminal velocity or maximum speed, I thought I just told you that. I am talking about the acceleration of gravity on ALL OBJECTS in an atmosphere. If you study WTC you will see it fell in constant acceleration, just like free-fall, with very little resistance.


...


Originally posted by 11 11
Looking at the image below, which top section of building will fall at "the speed of free fall"? The Left or Right?



Originally posted by 11 11
You know, if the "squibs" are "just compressed air", then why didn't the "compressed air" offer any resistance to the falling of the building? You would think the "compressed air" would make a cushion of air like a hovercraft and slow down the building's collapse. Just like office furniture, steel beams, wood, drywall, and concrete are supposed to slow the collapse down, but didn't.


Momentum, and if you're suggesting there wasn't any compressed air just have a look at the jet stream shown in the video you posted above.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
My point exactly.

What point? I don't think you understood my point?



Do you have evidence and calculations to prove otherwise?


Do you? Other than bogus BS designed to fool those who lack knowledge on such things? Might look impressive to you, but you can't fool me with that garbage.

We don't need calculations to see the obvious. All you need is an understanding of basic physics and your eyes.


See above, particularly...


Sry but you're going to have to do more than just post links that don't answer my questions.


No you just need to understand them.


Is that right?
In that case if you are so sure then you can explain to us IN YOUR OWN WORDS, no links pls, how the top of WTC 2 defied physics, or as you believe didn't. It obviously did but I'd love to here it. The only proof I need is the vid.

You linked to a page on Momentum? How about resistance, inertia?

So as far as your momentum is concerned...

The top should have continued it's motion, as in Newtons 1st laws of motion (Inertia) and the law of conservation of angular momentum.


Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed.


What caused the angular momentum to stop and transfer it too vertical momentum?


A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it...An object that is in motion will not change velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.


What was that external unbalanced force? Gravity isn't the answer. I think we can all agree that the lower undamaged floors had the energy to hold the mass of the top. The WTC was designed to hold 5 times it's own mass. So what force caused the top, which was in motion, to change it's velocity?

[edit on 19/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





What point? I don't think you understood my point?


Perhaps you should bother to read the entirety of posts you are replying to. I mean honestly:


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by himselfe
Also could you explain to me how buildings the size of the WTC towers could possibly remain standing for any period of time after having an entire row of lower level support systems blown away? And how the collapse originated from the point of impact high up if the lower supporting structures were destabilised, or why they would bother destabilising the bottom row at all if their intent was to collapse the building from the point of impact?


What support systems were blown away? There is no proof at all that any of the central columns were even damaged let alone blown away. We only have the word of the government for that and they are the ones in question here.
Don't you think if a whole floor of columns were 'blown away' the building above that floor would have crashed down onto the floor bellow it immediately, not wait for an hour?


Does it look like I'm the one misunderstanding things here?
The level of inanity rife on these forums is depressing.





Originally posted by himselfe
Do you have evidence and calculations to prove otherwise?

Do you? Other than bogus BS designed to fool those who lack knowledge on such things? Might look impressive to you, but you can't fool me with that garbage.


I'm not trying to prove otherwise. "No you" ... "No you" "No you" ... "No you"





We don't need calculations to see the obvious. All you need is an understanding of basic physics and your eyes.


I couldn't agree more!




Sry but you're going to have to do more than just post links that don't answer my questions.


Why? You don't bother, so why should I?




Is that right? In that case if you are so sure then you can explain to us IN YOUR OWN WORDS, no links pls, how the top of WTC 2 defied physics, or as you believe didn't. It obviously did but I'd love to here it. The only proof I need is the vid.


Turning my own argument against me doesn't absolve you from the burden of proof. But just in case you missed it:



Is that right? In that case if you are so sure then you can explain to us IN YOUR OWN WORDS, no links pls, how the top of WTC 2 defied physics, or as you believe didn't. It obviously did but I'd love to here it. The only proof I need is the vid.


Try figuring that one out genius!





You linked to a page on Momentum? How about resistance, inertia?


What about them? Last time I checked resistance wasn't invincible, and I'm not sure how inertia disagrees with my stance?



Inertia is the measure of the reluctance of the object to change either its state or rest or , if it is moving, its motion in a straight line. It should be emphasized that 'inertia' is a scientific principle, and thus not quantifiable. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, it is neither a force nor a measure of mass. In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia as described by Newton in his First Law."


(continued)...



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
No one will answer me on the problem with these suposed "charges"

If they were in the core, more then a little spit of dust would come out. The combination of burnable goods, length from the outside, and distance to travel would result in a much more wave of an explosion, not a bullet whole type one.

And if they were on the outside you would see a flash of explosion. Not the ones you see form the vids far away, nor the little dots of light small enough to be a light bulb. I mean a white and yellow explosions.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





The top should have continued it's motion, as in Newtons 1st laws of motion (Inertia) and the law of conservation of angular momentum.


As far as inertia is concerned it pretty much did. As far as angular momentum is concerned, you are aware that the top was still attached to the rest of the tower right? It didn't just magic itself some wings and fly free from the rest of the building before deciding to fall on it's side. Since you are so clued about angular momentum and rotational inertia, I assume you understand the principle of torque right?




What caused the angular momentum to stop and transfer it too vertical momentum?


Since when does angular momentum defy gravity? Angular momentum does not have exclusive control over a body's motion, since we are here on Earth and not in the depths of space, other forces can and do have effects on a body in motion.




What was that external unbalanced force? Gravity isn't the answer.


Gravity plays it's part, or are you suggesting that gravity magicked itself away like the other laws of physics? Don't you find it a little ironic to claim that the towers defied physics and then to use the laws of physics to try and prove your point?




I think we can all agree that the lower undamaged floors had the energy to hold the mass of the top. The WTC was designed to hold 5 times it's own mass.


As with any building, the WTC's ability to perform as it was designed relies on it's ability to maintain structural integrity, having a huge plane penetrating it and exploding inside it is not conducive to maintaining structural integrity. The WTC was designed and built in the 1960's, a time when they simply did not have the computing power or experience necessary to model the full dynamics of such an impact.




So what force caused the top, which was in motion, to change it's velocity?


Gravity, torque, friction...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
...As far as inertia is concerned it pretty much did. As far as angular momentum is concerned, you are aware that the top was still attached to the rest of the tower right?...


First off your rambling makes no sense. Yes of course it was still attached, that pretty much proves your 'pancake collapse' wrong right there. We know it was still attached because it remained standing after the planes impact.

Once the top section started to tilt and rotate there was nothing that should have caused the building under it to start to collapse faster then the top was tilting. The floors under the top section were undamaged, there is nothing that would have cause the bottom to fall, without an external energy acting on it, i.e. explosives of some kind. It wasn't the top crushing the rest of the building, which is what you believe, no? The top section, as you pointed out, was still attached, so it didn't 'drop' on the lower undamaged floor. Which it couldn't do anyway because it was falling to one side and not sitting true.
Whatever way you look at this, without the help of explosives of some kind, it defied physics.
And don't bring up the fires, we already know they were not hot enough to cause the steel to fail.

You still haven't explained how the tilt turned into a vertical fall. You still haven't explained how the top started to tilt in the first place, and the opposite direction of the damage btw. You still haven't explained the lack of resistance from undamaged floors.

But keep trying, I don't wear down easy...


[edit on 20/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
So no one has an answer to my "charges in the tower" question?

Once again:

If they were in the core, more then a little spit of dust would come out. The combination of burnable goods, length from the outside, and distance to travel would result in a much more wave of an explosion, not a bullet hole type one.

And if they were on the outside you would see a flash of explosion. Not the ones you see from the vids far away, nor the little dots of light small enough to be a light bulb. I mean a white and yellow explosions.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Gorman91]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join