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.

 

RARE WTC IMAGE+VID: Whats Causing this Black Smoke at the Base?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I have made this marked-up print to show what we have to accept if we are to believe the damage on the B3 (Level C in Mr. Pecoraro's account) came from a fireball/explosion coming from freight elevator 50.

img.photobucket.com...

And keep in mind, it had to decimate the parking garage 100 feet away while still leaving Arturo and passenger alive and kicking.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Valhall]




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Valhall
It can't be ruled out but I still wonder what the purpose of such a device would be as it would be relatively small compared to the scale of what was going on upstairs and not large enough to be a threat to the structure itself IE nuisance value compared to the risks involved in actually getting it set up.



If the base of the building could be compromised it would be worth it. Remember, that's apparently what they hoped to achieve in the 1993 bombing.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
Thanks for the info

Now I'll have to think about the problems of co-ordinating such a device with the indefinite arrival of a hijacked jet but for now I better get some sleep.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Here is what NIST states about the potential for structural damage due to the fireball AT THE LOCATION OF IMPACT.


A first approximation of the effects of the fuel cloud dispersion on the core column loading was performed by assuming that the fuel cloud spread vertically to fill the full floor height prior to reaching the core. No spreading in the langitudinal or lateral direction was assumed...The comparison shows than an expanded fuel cloud did not produce sufficient loading to fail a core column with the exception of points close to the wing root at the highest impact speeds considered. A more realistic fuel cloud dispersion would have included lateral and longitudinal spreading, as well as removal of some fuel from the cloud as a result of impact with the outer wall and building contents. Under these conditions, it is expected that the fuel cloud alone would not be sufficient to fail core columns.


wtc.nist.gov...

So, NIST states the fireball did not have enough energy (i.e. they are stating it was a FAD (Fire/Air Deflagration - sub-sonic fire wave propagation, low order, low energy) not a FAE (Fire/Air Explosion - super-sonic detonation high-pressure wave, high order, high energy)) to produce structural damage to the core columns at the point of impact.

I think we can officially rule out that it could cause catastrophic explosions and structural collapse almost 100 floors below it in the basement.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Here is an interesting video that I don't believe I've ever seen below. Go to approximately 1:50 on the video. Rick Sanchez is reporting in from near the WTC complex. He states that he had just spoken with police officials who told him that in addition to the damage due to the airplane strike they had reason to believe one of the explosions at the world trade center may have been caused by a van parked inside the building that may have contained an explosive device and that they feared there may have been explosives devices planted either in the buildings or in the adjacent area.

www.youtube.com...&rel=1

This entire video is some of the best news coverage supporting secondary devices that I have seen. The lady immediately following Rick Sanchez clarifies that there were two explosions in WTC 1 and that one was lower in the building.

Then at 2:50 a reporter explains about a secondary device that went off while firefighterss were in the area (and his report sounds as if some fire fighters may have lost their lives in that event) and that an hour after the first plane struck another explosion took place "in one of the towers" and believes the second explosion was a device planted in the building.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Thanks for the video link - very interesting indeed
You don't want to know how many hours it took to download on my connection only to discover it's a 'self-destruct' video so I didn't get to save it for reference but I did get to watch it twice.

A couple of thoughts I had relate to these reported devices exploding in confined areas: the witnesses would have been torn to pieces if they were large enough to threaten the building structure so, if they were intentionally planted explosives, their purpose would have to be to create confusion (the 'terror' aspect). One or 2 of them sound like larger explosions but still not on a demolition scale considering the structure under attack. Many reported (heard) explosions could still be from mundane pre-existing things in the buildings like pressurized fire extinguishers heated by fire or even containers of volatile solvents used for cleaning purposes.

The carpark explosion trumps them all and I totally agree it's unlikely that blast could have propagated from the elevator shaft. However, considering the experience of what it would take and where to position it for best effect gained from the '93 attack, that bomb still doesn't appear to have had a hope of bringing the building down or even disturbing the core structure. I still get caught in the report of white vapour and the smell of kerosene at the lowest levels when such a powerful blast in the basement would have displaced air upward in the elevator shafts, air ducts and firestairs, overcoming the downward fuel-air blast from above.

There's also a potential unreliability in remote triggering that bomb owing to the reported cell-phone and radio communication difficulties within those levels of the buildings (faraday shielding) and if it used a pre-set timer it was a remarkable fluke to detonate it exactly on cue as the plane struck.

The biggest worry of all if these were deliberately planted terror devices is that the persons who planted and detonated them are, most likely, still at large in NYC or elsewhere and unsuspected in what would have to be the crime of the millenium.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
With the recent influx of debunkers here at ATS who claim that all the information we have presented in regards to 9-11 have been debunked, I am bumping ths thread for their benefit.
A formal introduction is in order, Debunkers, meet IvanZana, and Valhall...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Basements explosions :
z10.invisionfree.com...

NK-44 made a sublime thread with so much evidence that no FAE could have ever traveled down the freight elevators and caused the basements explosions in both towers, it's one of the best essays I've read about that subject.

So, when Valhall and Pilgrum are still interested, do read it, it's quite long, but loaded with unknown to many, source material.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


And this is the strongest evidence that the whole jet-fuel traveling down all the way to the B4 Basement level to explode there, is a full blown fairy tale to camouflage the pre-plane impact explosions to hinder as much of expected firefighting efforts as possible, so the Myth of plane-impacts+fire-brought-down-the-Towers could be supported by all mainstream media outlets :

Evidence of damage to local elevators
and :
The most damaged elevators were local ones, not reaching into the impact zone, if they didn't reach into the impact zone, how could the jet-fuel get there?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join