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 science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SantaClaus
 



Not pre-installed explosives. Pre-installed wiring during construction. This started to be done, in high rises, for the day any buildings were pulled to make way for other urban projects. It is far more cost efficient to do pre-installed and mark the wiring (drilling the holes and allowing the wiring to easily be pulled out for hook up) at the time of construction. It is highly time consuming and expensive to run wiring once high rise buildings are completed.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


AGAIN, I was offering theories! Didn't know this was actually done. My question is: would pre-placing charges be inefficient? Do they deteriorate, are they volatile? Simple question. I believe your rhetoric, but you avoid the details.

This is the main problem. If you want to argue, you'd better know every up and down, physics included. Most people decide to be ignorant, and until you force them into seeing a simple, inevitable truth, they will walk around stupid forever.

I think I asked a simple question, and while I am a skeptic, like many of you, you avoided answering the question. If someone asks you a question, take it seriously.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SantaClaus
 



Not pre-installed explosives. Pre-installed wiring during construction. This started to be done, in high rises, for the day any buildings were pulled to make way for other urban projects. It is far more cost efficient to do pre-installed and mark the wiring (drilling the holes and allowing the wiring to easily be pulled out for hook up) at the time of construction. It is highly time consuming and expensive to run wiring once high rise buildings are completed.



BY THE WAY. So we get this clear, I meant would pre-installed explosives be theoretically possible? I asked for that and only that. NOT WIRES. EXPLOSIVES!

I know they are one in the same, all I offer is the possibility that these buildings fell under control, yet weren't necessarily planned. Still a conspiracy theory, just less cynical.

SO BASICALLY, could a building be built with explosives in it to avoid the danger of collateral damage?? I havent heard anything that is evidence against a controlled, automatic reaction to the fall. This is an important building, mind you. And it offers knowledge we probably have no idea about. Why not blow it up if it has a ton of secret info that is all very sensitive.

Again, this is a coverup, but PLEASE debunk my possible THEORY that charges could have been installed at the build. For the safety of info.

I don't agree with the theory I provided, I just feel the questions were answered in a backwards manner.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZThe top section should have toppled over and left most of the bottom half of the structure intact and standing. Period.


An additional view with a steady and nice zoom of the unexplainable tilt action, forward to 2 minutes 14:



This one really is undebunkable, without contradicting laws of physics.

edit: link seems to be playing up (thanks to IvanZana for pointing this out)

2mins14+
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 13-12-2007 by adjay]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
I know they are one in the same, all I offer is the possibility that these buildings fell under control, yet weren't necessarily planned. Still a conspiracy theory, just less cynical.


If they weren't planned how did they fall? i'm not sure what you mean. If you built a building with explosives in it the effects would be nearly exactly the same as if you put them in the day before (depending on what you used). They would likely have put everything in place at least a year before they did it, so no-one would find the building rigged with explosives when doing maintenance.



SO BASICALLY, could a building be built with explosives in it to avoid the danger of collateral damage?? I havent heard anything that is evidence against a controlled, automatic reaction to the fall.


The collateral damage would be the same if you wanted it to be when you set it up, no matter when you do it.


I have just noticed something I missed out on my previous diagram. As it was a momentum diagram of vertical forces, i did not include any forces in a horizontal plane. And the horizontal component of the resistive force is the main force that is pushing it over, even before the the rotational force;



That makes it even harder to explain how the top section continued straight down and crushed the building below.


[edit on 13-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

The top section should have toppled over and left most of the bottom half of the structure intact and standing. Period.


Unfortunately, your entire analysis is based on a faulty premise: that the force of the top section falling the few initial feet onto the lower section while pivoting was insufficient to initiate global collapse of the rest of the building.

As we know from watching the videos of the collapse of WTC2, global collapse began before the tilting of the top section reached a sufficient angle for the center of gravity to go beyond the edge of the building.

The claim that WTC 2 should have remained standing has been refuted over and over.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
[edit on 13-12-2007 by jthomas]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The problem with pre-installed high explosives is that most do tend to degrade over time due to atmospheric moisture absorption, oxidation or formation of secondary compounds that can make them either more sensitive (to the point of spontaneous detonation) or insensitive to the stage where they can't be detonated. If explosives were built-in they would have to remain in pristine condition unattended for over 25 years or more.

I'm trying to remain impartial but I've yet to see firm evidence of explosives doing what explosives do - IE explode. I've witnessed controlled demolitions on smaller scales than the WTC buildings and the charges going off in sequence are unmistakable visually and audibly even at considerable distance but in this case it just isn't there.

Maybe we'll never fully understand the physics of what happened there and let's hope we don't get any more demonstrations on that scale.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
BY THE WAY. So we get this clear, I meant would pre-installed explosives be theoretically possible? I asked for that and only that. NOT WIRES. EXPLOSIVES!


Of course they would be theoretically possible. If the wires could be pre-installed, as Zeuzz points out, so could the charges.

Is your point that, as the charges could have been pre-installed, they may have been triggered by the events of the planes impacts? To that I would offer the hypothesis that if this was the case, the charges would have gone off only in the area's affected by the impacts, and very close to the times of impact, and not on the lower, unaffected floors, from 45 minutes to 1 hour and a half later. The wiring, while being installed, would have no control signals being sent to it, thus rendering it an unoperational circuit.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

The top section should have toppled over and left most of the bottom half of the structure intact and standing. Period.


Unfortunately, your entire analysis is based on a faulty premise: that the force of the top section falling the few initial feet onto the lower section while pivoting was insufficient to initiate global collapse of the rest of the building.


Actually I did explain exactly that in the previous diagram. As you should beable to tell, the diagram above is at a single frame of time, at the time when the top section was at 20 degrees, so obviously it does not say anything about the actual collapse after this time. It does show that the forces acting on the top section at this time should have only created rotational motion, and that the main force acting on the top section is acting to the right, pushing it outside of the original structure.

However my previous diagram explains this, and takes into the account the trajectory the top section should have taken, and that is the trajectory the top section should have taken even if the building was providing no resistance. In the real world the building would have provided some resistance, and caused it to topple even earlier.

in case you didn't see it;




Originally posted by jthomas
As we know from watching the videos of the collapse of WTC2, global collapse began before the tilting of the top section reached a sufficient angle for the center of gravity to go beyond the edge of the building.


So what exaclty was causing this 'global collapse' when the top section was completely outside the original structure? The actual structure should not be significantly damaged below the impact zone, so it should be providing just as much resistance as it always did. Steel core columns take a heck of a lot of energy to compress, bend or shatter, especially when you have 47 core ones, with 250 perimeter steel columns to crush, the energy needed is far more than the maximum amount of gravitational potential energy available to the top section.



The claim that WTC 2 should have remained standing has been refuted over and over.


Please provide sources.


[edit on 13-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by ZeuZZThe top section should have toppled over and left most of the bottom half of the structure intact and standing. Period.


An additional view with a steady and nice zoom of the unexplainable tilt action, forward to 2 minutes 14: www.youtube.com...
This one really is undebunkable, without contradicting laws of physics.



I corrected the unworking vid link
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
In that video if you look to the left and watch only the dripping, molten, steel you can i think see how Thermite works. Check on you tube under thermite on car.
And to the guy who says get over it because we are like cattle to the controllers of the world maybe you shoulda been in the tower instead of some other cow.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus

BY THE WAY. So we get this clear, I meant would pre-installed explosives be theoretically possible? I asked for that and only that. NOT WIRES. EXPLOSIVES!

I know they are one in the same, all I offer is the possibility that these buildings fell under control, yet weren't necessarily planned. Still a conspiracy theory, just less cynical.


I do not know if you meant what you stated above the way you stated it. However, your hyposis is not hypothetically or theoretically feasible in the physical world of explosives, including controlled demolitions. Wiring, attached to explosives with charges set, is not the same as simply pre-wiring, during construction, for the day the wiring will be used on internally planted and charged set explosives.



SO BASICALLY, could a building be built with explosives in it to avoid the danger of collateral damage?? I havent heard anything that is evidence against a controlled, automatic reaction to the fall. This is an important building, mind you. And it offers knowledge we probably have no idea about. Why not blow it up if it has a ton of secret info that is all very sensitive.


Your hypothesis would not avoid a great deal of excess collateral damage. Since the buildings fell in their footprints, the chances of your hypothesis working by chance, from construction days due to internal pre-planted, pre-set, pre-wired and pre-charged explosives, are nil to none. Only control can place a building where the demolition experts wish that building to land when pulled. The chance of mere unplanned chance (your hypothesis) happening on three buildings (one not hit by anything) is non-existant.

For a building to drop straight down from implosion, those charges have to be precisely set and timed to start cutting, in order to prevent the weight of a building from causing toppling directly due to uneven demolition cutting. Rather than dropping straight down from gravity.

I suppose someone could use your hypothesis, but I have no idea why anyone would pre-plant explosives wired and charged or not. Particularly, when explosives most used for implosions are gunpowder. Gunpowder can become unstable and undependable over the years. When high rises go up, there normally is no set time to legally pull them in the future. I honestly do not believe anyone pre-planned 21st century 9/11 in the late 1960s and early 1970, when the WTC was constructed and opened for public business. Pre-wiring makes it so easy to simply internally set, wire, and charge explosives. The holes are already drilled during construction and the wiring is already in.



Again, this is a coverup, but PLEASE debunk my possible THEORY that charges could have been installed at the build. For the safety of info.


If you consider the raging fire in WTC 1 in 1975 at the lower level, I believe that fairly debunks your hypothesis quite easily. That fire burned for hours and was stated by firemen to be a raging inferno, quite unlike what transpired on 9/11. Since it started in the BF Goodrich office, it was most probably a highly difficult to control chemical fire. There was no structural damage occurring from that fire which raged for several hours.

www.nytimes.com...




I don't agree with the theory I provided, I just feel the questions were answered in a backwards manner.


That makes at least two us not in disagreement with your hypothesis of pre-set internal wired charged explosives.
To do what you have hypothesized means they would have had to completely seal up already set (inside the steel beams sealed with thick layers of concrete) explosives at construction time.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


ZeuZZ, as I recall the leaning was to the outside of the South Tower not the inside. That is why I contacted Dr. Jones due to the building top defying the basic laws of physics. That top was so heavy it should have peeled from the uncut portion of the core, toppled off the top, and exploded below. That didn't happen. Instead, the top was still leaning as the bottom was rapidly dropping faster than gravity would allow without controlled demolitions. That lean did prove one aspect debunking the "official" verision. It proved no plane and/or kerosene compromised those redundantly built buildings, particularly at the center core. As does the 1975 fire in WTC 1.

Here's a very odd fact regarding that lean. The rift, causing the top floors to shift to the outside, was 3 or 4 floors above the corner side where the alleged plane was stated to enter the South Tower. In other words, the cut cores dropped on the opposite side of the building where the alleged commericial plane was alleged to make entry.

The lean would have prevented any counter side demolitions from righting the top because the angle was at least 23 degrees. I agree with that figure, because I got approximately the same measurement using my handy dandy dinosaur age high school geometry class protractor.

Part of the inside center core was cut on the side leaning out because it dropped that side down. The balance of the uncut core caused part of the building to peel away to the outside direction. The center core portion, still intact but heavily bent, was literally all that was holding on the top floors when someone prematurely cut only part of the core. Which allowed that side of the building to drop down and lean to the outside. Thus, peeling away a portion of the building from the opposite side, due to the weight of the top floors when the weight of the building peeled that side of the building away from three eternal wallls.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


But why would they drag him/her? He/she displays the exact type of mentality that they are trying to breed in Americans today.

"Don't question your government and the rich. They know what is best for you. Blah blah blah blah. Let us take care of you. Oh GOD! World War III is on the horizon! Give up your rights! Oh crap, we lied. Dang. But don't worry, we'll come up with something else to scare you into giving EVERYTHING up. You wait and see."

Signed, the So-called elites that want you to take that person advice and just get over it.

Just ignore EVERYTHING bad that the government does. It's for your own good. Be a good Patriot and SHUT UP!

Well, I can't do it. I'm sick to death of the people that choose their sides by what party their parents voted for.

"Since Bush is a republican then I support him fully because that is what I am. Who cares about morals. Who cares whether or not they are creating all of this evil so that their families can get richer and stronger. Who cares. I stick with my party."

Signed the ignorant Patriot.

People need to wake up and they need to start forcing the hard questions down the governments throat. They need to start forcing the truth out of them as well. Until that happens we will only see more unfounded wars and much more death.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm trying to remain impartial but I've yet to see firm evidence of explosives doing what explosives do - IE explode. I've witnessed controlled demolitions on smaller scales than the WTC buildings and the charges going off in sequence are unmistakable visually and audibly even at considerable distance but in this case it just isn't there.


Pilgrum, thank you for mentioning that. To implode, the explosives are planted inside the metal to cut not explode the beam. They are set at a 45 degree angle to allow the top portion to literally slide off the bottom portion. Thus, allowing gravity to take care of pulling the building where demolition experts desire the pulverized concrete and other pulvarizable debris, plus, the cut beams to land.

Yes, the implosions on the external wall were visible as tiny white puffs of smoke at the corners of the external walls. Explosives release external white smoke whether being used for explosion or implosion.

But it was the inner core that used the lion's share of explosives. That wasn't particularly going to be seen or even heard by those on the outside of the buildings. Those on the inside, who managed to use cell phones to call out at the time and were overheard to mention explosions on tape recordings, heard the muffled inverted (implosion) explosions coming from the core.

Implosions are not desigened to explode out and up. They are designed to create a vacuum and pull inward instead. This will cause a great deal of debris to blow outward, as the building is expelling air and debris from literally being vacuumed into its own footprint.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Thanks alot for those responses guys, I appreciate it. I am absolutely clueless when it comes to anything of this nature. The physics are completely clear to me, but demolition's are a different matter. Sorry I got heated, I just wanted to know if it were possible. The deterioration of said material was what I thought would be the debunker of my theory.

By the way, Zuezz, that diagram you offered a few posts ago was awesome. My old physics teacher from high school would use it as a case study (if it weren't really politically incorrect).

Don't get me wrong people. I am a new believer of this stuff and I want to cover all possibilities in my mind before I take the stance that this was an inside job. It is a very unpopular stance, but after hearing what zuezz says (along with many others), and then seeing the videos again, how did we not know this right away?

Its just another step along the inevitable path of America's collapse.

Again sorry for ranting in my earlier posts, just wanted some feedback.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
For a building to drop straight down from implosion, those charges have to be precisely set and timed to start cutting, in order to prevent the weight of a building from causing toppling directly due to uneven demolition cutting. Rather than dropping straight down from gravity.


Exactly, for it to fall at the speed it did you have to model the collaspe 1) without air resistance. 2) Assuming absolutely zero resistance by the 47 massive central steel columns or the approximately 200 intact exterior support members. 3) the intact core columns (most of the original 47) and the about 200 visibly intact perimeter columns SIMULTANEOUSLY failed at the precise moment of collapse initiation. 4) Another concealed assumption with the official account is that all support columns lost ALL of their strength – from floor to ceiling – at a single instant in time.

Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail SIMULTANEOUSLY in a fire. In more popular language, these hidden assumptions with the official account are "statistically impossible."

But there is ONE way that all of the columns could have lost strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ


As we know from watching the videos of the collapse of WTC2, global collapse began before the tilting of the top section reached a sufficient angle for the center of gravity to go beyond the edge of the building.



So what exaclty was causing this 'global collapse' when the top section was completely outside the original structure?


As I explained, the top section never got outside the structure. The acceleration of gravity of the falling structure quickly exceeded the motion of the tilting of the top section.


The actual structure should not be significantly damaged below the impact zone, so it should be providing just as much resistance as it always did.


No, because the top section caused the global collapse.


Steel core columns take a heck of a lot of energy to compress, bend or shatter, especially when you have 47 core ones, with 250 perimeter steel columns to crush, the energy needed is far more than the maximum amount of gravitational potential energy available to the top section.


Not at all. It did it one floor at a time. If you remember, the core columns tied to the outer walls by the floor trusses is what gave the structure its rigidity and strength. The floor trusses around the area damaged by the crash of UA175 as well as those already weakened by fire eventually gave way to the top section, a mass of 110,000 tons. Simple computations shows that the kinetic energy of that mass falling the 8 or so feet, first on the most damaged side, then under the whole top section, far exceeded the ability of each storey to withstand that force.

Remember also that during construction, the core columns could only stand on their own about a dozen floors. The design required that the core columns be tied to the outer walls via the floor trusses in order for the building to be constructed at all, given its design as a lighter-wirght structure than traditional skyscrapers.


Please provide sources.


I already gave you many but you dismissed them without addressing them.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Instead, the top was still leaning as the bottom was rapidly dropping faster than gravity would allow without controlled demolitions.


There is no evidence that the bottom rapidly dropped "faster than gravity would allow without controlled demolitions." Many have made that claim but have not backed it up with any evidence. In fact, I haven't see anyone state what constitutes "faster than what gravity would allow" without being able to model the collapse itself, something we know is computationally far too difficult even with today's super computers.

WTC 2 collapsed in around 14 seconds, considerably slower than free fall from gravity. This is backed up by the best video available showing that WTC 2 took longer than 12 seconds to fully collapse:

youtube.com...

If you freeze-frame the video at 11 seconds, you'll see that the collapse front of WTC 2 is still higher than the adjacent Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), with free falling debris ahead of the collapse front. The Marriott Hotel was itself 242 feet high above West Street.

The last frame showing WTC 2 occurs at 12 seconds and the building still hasn't fully collapsed.

For WTC 2, at 1,363 ft, to collapse at exactly free-fall speed, without an consideration for any type of resistance, it would take 9.22 seconds.

A building taking 12 seconds to collapse at free-fall speed would have to be 2,304 ft tall; one taking 14 seconds to collapse would have to be 3,136 feet tall falling just due to the acceleration of gravity without any consideration of resistance at all.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join