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.

 

Proof that there was an explosion at the time of collapse...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   


A shockwave cannot be produced by the collapse of a building, a shockwave is only produced by intense thermal activity, i.e. an explosion.


The collapsing buildings displaced an enormous amount of air causing a
tremendous "air blast" - people fleeing the collapse were picked up
and hurled by the air blast. One fireman was tossed an estimated 75 ft
by the blast, fire trucks were flipped over by the blast by the air which
was travelling at estimated speed of 200 mph




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

The collapsing buildings displaced an enormous amount of air causing a
tremendous "air blast" - people fleeing the collapse were picked up
and hurled by the air blast. One fireman was tossed an estimated 75 ft
by the blast, fire trucks were flipped over by the blast by the air which
was travelling at estimated speed of 200 mph


could you please post any scientific evidece behind this? how was the air displaced exactly? there was much more air in manhattan by volume than the towers displaced. every eyewitness account said it was hot air, thats not from displacement.

the clip does not seem to be spliced to me. it appears the camera was pointing out of the window filming. it also appears that the tape was jerked around as a result of the shockwave.



there is an explosion at the exact time of collapse plain as day in this video 14 seconds in.

in the meantime, disagreeing and debunking arent really the same thing. I will be back later on, hopefully someone will have analyzed the video itself by then.





[edit on 19-8-2007 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420


Are you refering to the flame right at the point of collapse? That is not explosion....am i missing somthing?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
its a lateral ejection of smoke and flame that protrudes the surface of the building.


An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases



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

i suppose the gentleman who was in this chopper watching live fabricated the explosion he references also. (1:15 into the clip).



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   


shockwave or bad camera work?

it took those 30 stories 8 seconds to reach the ground.
it took wtc7's 47 stories 6.6 seconds.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Wow a shot of a pilot losing control for a moment. If you could fly a helicopter would you be able to stay calm and not get scared if you saw that happening a short distance from your airborne chopper? I doubt it. I am sure I would have a large dump in my flight suit.

When the twin towers fell didnt each collapse register on the richter scale? How would you explain that? Maybe all the subway cars in New York had bombs in them and every train in the system arrived at WTC at the same time and exploded. Or maybe there was a frickin laser beam aimed at the WTC from the moon.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   


Either the pilot made sudden control inputs or they hit turbulence. The editing is also suspect.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The collapsing buildings displaced an enormous amount of air causing a
tremendous "air blast" - people fleeing the collapse were picked up
and hurled by the air blast. One fireman was tossed an estimated 75 ft
by the blast, fire trucks were flipped over by the blast by the air which
was travelling at estimated speed of 200 mph


could you please post any scientific evidece behind this? how was the air displaced exactly? there was much more air in manhattan by volume than the towers displaced. every eyewitness account said it was hot air, thats not from displacement.


Scientific evidence? I have none, but have you ever put your thumb on the end of a garden hose to speed up the water? Do you know how that works? What you are doing is increasing the psi but reducing the flow. The surface area of the opening has been reduced so less water comes out faster. When the towers fell couldnt you use that principle? There was alot of air in the towers and just a bunch of small doors and windows for the air to come out of. So dont you think that would increase the speed of the aircoming out of the openings.
If my bable doesnt make sense, get a paper lunch bag and sit it upside down on your counter. push down on it. It just crumples right? No resistance? now pinch the end up and do the same thing. Now you have resistance. Pretty simple. you have restricted air flow with a smaller opening which causes the air to speed up. As for the hot air, there a bunch of fires and explosions in the buildings? That would make sense wouldnt it? Or are you guys going to twist it into something else? Oh ya I'm guessing so. I am excited to see what you come up with.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
i agree about the garden hose theory, but the air around manhattan is not constricted like in a garden hose. it works as a good example for a garden hose, but not open air.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinner99
Scientific evidence? I have none, but have you ever put your thumb on the end of a garden hose to speed up the water?


Cut holes all along the hose and see if you can still increase the spray pressure that way. The water will escape earlier, before it can reach you.

The towers were not airtight. Your example, and any example using an air-tight container is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Cut holes all along the hose and see if you can still increase the spray pressure that way. The water will escape earlier, before it can reach you.

The towers were not airtight. Your example, and any example using an air-tight container is irrelevant.


especially when the official theorists claim that all the lobby windows were blown out by the fireball from the impact, and when we consider the mechanical floors and skylobbies.
big holes in the 'syringe/garden hose' theory.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
i agree about the garden hose theory, but the air around manhattan is not constricted like in a garden hose. it works as a good example for a garden hose, but not open air.


I am not talking about the air Manhattan. I am talking about the air inside the towers.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
all you people do is babble babble, this and that and do not get anywhere.

For SIX bloody years the same dopes in power are there having time to wash away the blood from there hands. Sure you can put on a show and protest but that didn't do much now did it? Bush says, F.U America!! Yet you parade like chickens and recieve endless sympathy to yawn to sleep.




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Cut holes all along the hose and see if you can still increase the spray pressure that way. The water will escape earlier, before it can reach you.

The towers were not airtight. Your example, and any example using an air-tight container is irrelevant.


I think that your not looking at the big picture here. Of course the towers were not air tight. I never said that. All I am saying is that due to the amount of air inside the towers being pushed down as they collapsed, the only place the air could escape through was the doors and windows, RESTRICTING the flow and INCREASING the pressure. It doesnt matter if there is air escaping on the 1st, 55th or 75th floor, the principle is the same. All that air and only a bunch of tiny doors and windows to flow out of? You do the math or science.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinner99
All I am saying is that due to the amount of air inside the towers being pushed down as they collapsed,


They collapsed floor-by-floor, didn't they? How does the air between the floors get so far down the building, when it isn't airtight?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


They collapsed floor-by-floor, didn't they? How does the air between the floors get so far down the building, when it isn't airtight?


Think about how much air the towers had in them. BASIC SCIENCE!!! BASIC SCIENCE. It had to go somewhere. Every single bit of air was not pushed out of the towers as they collapsed. There is no way. Some had to be pushed down. I mean think about it. Drop a book on the floor. It causes air to move doesnt it? You know what displacement is right?
Get yous heads out of the sand.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
i completely agree that the us government had something to do with the attack and i am finally convincing family and friends



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I'd nearly buy the compressed air theory except for one thing, dust and debris doesn't compress air unless that dust and debris is more dense than the intact structure. If the building was relatively intact during the collapse, sure it would explosively compress air but you'd be a tom fool to believe that the resistance of a falling debris cloud is more than the intact structure below it. Pressurized gases will as most things follow the path of least resistance, is it falling dust and debris or intact structure?
Screaming bad science bad science while overlooking this simple yet gaping hole in that theory seems hypocritical to me.
How can anybody watch these videos and not see that these towers were brought down in a controlled manner is beyond me.
They pulled the bomb sniffing dogs off the job that weekend for crying out loud.


[edit on 24-8-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinner99
Drop a book on the floor. It causes air to move doesnt it? You know what displacement is right?


If your book was exploding and turning to dust as it fell then it wouldn't shift any air.

It's rediculase to think a building that is exploding itself upwards and outwards is going to push air through passageways, through doorways, and down elevator shafts to be forced out one window well bellow the collapse wave.

Also if you really look at the squibs you can see them coming from the middle of the buildings on two side at the same time. What's the odds of that?









See a similarity in these two pics?...





Also for it to be compressed air then you would have to believe in the pancake collapse theory which NIST does not even support.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join