It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 16
18
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

It's not possible to say how fast it should have fell,

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:17 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420

Now lets look at the model of collapse that we were given by NIST; global failure. It IS NOT possible under this model, there would need to be much resistance below those huge pieces of steel to force them out laterally. Global failure does not allow for this.

You state this as if it was a fact.

Prove it.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

Now lets look at the model of collapse that we were given by NIST; global failure. It IS NOT possible under this model, there would need to be much resistance below those huge pieces of steel to force them out laterally. Global failure does not allow for this.

You state this as if it was a fact.

Prove it.

Sure.

In global failure there is no resistance from below because the structure has failed. The lateral ejection mechanism requires resistance from below. If there was resistance from below lateral ejection is possible. If there was resistance from below the NIST model is incorrect.

This leave us with these possibilities:

1. There was resistance below the point of lateral ejection. NIST is incorrect, new investigation.
2. There was not resistance from below the point of later ejection, a force not mentioned in the NIST report is present, new investigation to find the source.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420

In global failure there is no resistance from below because the structure has failed.

Why not?

The lateral ejection mechanism requires resistance from below. If there was resistance from below lateral ejection is possible.

Prove that they were ejected in the first place.

The only way to prove this would be a frame by frame motion analysis of whatever piece of ext column you choose. There needs to be a fixed point in there too, so that you can do it accurately.

Curious - are also saying that they were ejected up and out also, or just out?

Pretend that I'm a member of the CTBUH, and you're trying to convince me of your view. Incredulity won't cut it.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:37 PM

posted by ANOK
reply to post by Joey Canoli

It's not possible to say how fast it should have fell, the only thing we can do is observe the collapse wave and the fact that it was constant in it's speed, which indicates lack of resistance.

If there was any discernible resistance it would be very obvious as the collapse would have slowed as it progressed, no resistance no slowing, resistance lots of slowing. The only way to keep a collapse moving through the path of most resistance is to take away that resistance. Simple physics.

posted by Joey Canoli

Oh nonsense. The tower collapse should have taken over a hundred seconds to break thousands of welds and break thousands of bolts and pulverize 97 floors of concrete. That is only one second per floor, because the building took the path of greatest resistance, through its own strength, as the lower floors were designed stronger and stronger.

But WTC1 only took 10 seconds or 11 seconds or 13 seconds to collapse; whichever official collapse speed one chooses to believe. Not a hundred seconds or even half that timespan.

We only know that all resistance was suddenly removed from WTC1, the antenna standing on top of the core structure fell first, hundreds of 4 ton and larger pieces of structural steel were hurled in all directions up to 600 feet away, structural steel is not spring steel and is not hardened and tempered to about 45 Rockwell and will not spring back into its original shape if suddenly bent, and WTC1 fell much quicker than 100 seconds.

Therefore WTC1 had its resistance removed through some form of demolition and collapsed in only 10 seconds or 11 seconds or 13 seconds.

[edit on 8/25/09 by SPreston]

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by SPreston

The tower collapse should have taken over a hundred seconds to break thousands of welds and break thousands of bolts and pulverize 97 floors of concrete.

So you can back that up? Or not?

Clunkity clunk much?

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:48 PM

Why not?

I answered that question directly in the same sentence you are questioning.

WTF?

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM

posted by SPreston

The tower collapse should have taken over a hundred seconds to break thousands of welds and break thousands of bolts and pulverize 97 floors of concrete.

posted by Joey Canoli

So you can back that up? Or not?

Clunkity clunk much?

Nope. Just common sense.

As ANOK stated "It's not possible to say how fast it should have fell, the only thing we can do is observe the collapse wave and the fact that it was constant in it's speed, which indicates lack of resistance."

If we would have had a proper investigation into the WTC, then we could probably have backed that collapse speed up with scientific models. But NIST deliberately gave the investigation a hatchet job didn't they?

NIST John Gross lied and lied and lied; even about the proven molten metal under the WTC. You know he lied; everybody knows he lied. A government agency (U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey) deliberately has kept the evidence on-line on its own website for 8 years; proving that John Gross lied about the molten metal.

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001

The 9-11 Whitewash Committee of fatcat political hacks covered it up. You are covering it up.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why not?

I answered that question directly in the same sentence you are questioning.

WTF?

Ahhh.

So this is all opinion then. Got it.

How are you gonna get the members of say, the CTBUH to listen to you then using opinions only.

Hiint - they won't....

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SPreston

The tower collapse should have taken over a hundred seconds to break thousands of welds and break thousands of bolts and pulverize 97 floors of concrete.

posted by Joey Canoli

So you can back that up? Or not?

Clunkity clunk much?

As ANOK stated "It's not possible to say how fast it should have fell,

How's that work?

You make a positive statement about it should have taken 100+seconds, and then go on to agree with ANOK's statement that there's no way to know.

Cognitive dissonance much?

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:31 PM
THANKS s preston i have been on the side line watching and observing as i have no education in physics, but my gut and common sense tells me this was an inside job.
keep up the good work, i see alot of trolls trying to misdirect you on your very sound information!

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

You really don't get the point of this do you? Speed really isn't the answer, it's the motion of the collapse that shows the lack of resistance, a fluid and constant collapse, no matter how fast really, will only happen if their is nothing in the path of that collapse. Gravity will not instantly overcome resistance.

Let me put that to you in another way, it doesn't matter how fast it should have fell. That figure is not necessary, and you know it can't be estimated without guessing so what is the point in bringing it up constantly? Oh I know, you have nothing else.

You can't prove there was resistance, so you avoid having to directly deal with that issue. The buildings, all 3, fell at speeds consistent with there being NO resistance, can you prove otherwise? I'd guess no because you would have done it already.

[edit on 8/25/2009 by ANOK]

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

I am going on the NIST report here. Its no opinion at all. If there was global failure there was no resistance, by definition.

Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself.

If it was global then all resistance is gone, according to the definition, not my opinion.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

You can't prove there was resistance, so you avoid having to directly deal with that issue. The buildings, all 3, fell at speeds consistent with there being NO resistance, can you prove otherwise? I'd guess no because you would have done it already.

If it fell slower then free fall, then there was resistance. Your failure to see this isn't my problem. It's yours.

And your statement that it didn't slow down during the collapse is ridiculous also. What happens if it's at equilibrium? Why would it continue to slow down? What if the resistance is greater, but the weight increases?

What happens when your parachute opens? You slow down initially, granted. But then you reach equilibrium between the drag (resistance) of your 'chute, and you are descending at a constant rate.

By your definition, I should be descending slower and slower. So if I open high enough, I'll stall? Clearly NOT the case.

Try again, this time, I'll expect you to produce something that would convince a member of the CTBUH to look into your claims.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Joey Canoli

I am going on the NIST report here. Its no opinion at all. If there was global failure there was no resistance, by definition.

Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself.

If it was global then all resistance is gone, according to the definition, not my opinion.

Funny thing that the members of the CTBUH disagree.

Why do you think that is?

And where's your motion analysis? This is key. You must prove this, otherwise, this whole discussion is nothing but a strawman.

Forget about my arguments if you wish. Pretend like I'm a member of the CTBUH, and you want to convince me, so that I'll back your desire for a new investigation.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by thedman

Why are you lying again?

Aerial map of WTC site

The Winter Garden is at the center left (round domed building) between
Merrill Lynch and American Express (WFC 3)

Another map of area

WTC 7 to the north is 350 ft from North Tower - was heavily damaged
by debris from North Tower. Winter Garden is only half the distance
the walkway to WTC 6 was smashed by the collpase.

Columns from WTC 1 hit the east end of my precious Winter Garden structure, particularly the area directly adjacent to the North Bridge which used to link myself to the WTC complex. I experienced severe collapse of the eastern end framing. Several other semicircular trusses and parts of the dome were also badly damaged. The western two bays of the roof structure remained intact, but were covered with debris. Inspectors estimated that 60 percent of the roofing glass panels of my structure had collapsed. Additional structural collapse occurred on parts of the 2nd and 3rd floor framing adjacent to WFC 2 and WFC 3, the North Bridge connection extension, the ceremonial stair above the circular landing, and the 4th and 5th floors at the eastern end. Localized structural collapse occurred in various other areas of the barrel roof. I was shocked.

But I was not the only one hit. WFC 3 was the most damaged of the WFC towers. Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 and on the setback roof

Damage to WFC 3

[img][/img]

I looked at all those links. Those folks need help. Can you cough up some compadre.
.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:27 PM

Funny thing that the members of the CTBUH disagree.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:03 PM

Originally posted by SPreston

The Pulverized Office Contents, The Pulverized Human Remains, and
The Steel Outer Wall Units land up to 600 feet from the base of the Tower.

Original image

Pressure was applied outward in all directions, at all levels.
The 'Point of Origin' of this pressure wave is evident.
Photographs and videos.
The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE.

A loyal WTC firefighter victim family member presents conclusive evidence that explosives blew 4-ton exterior wall sections 600 feet away from the North Tower to land upon the glass roof of the Winter Gardens building.

C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta

Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower.

In memory of:

Vincent Princiotta F.D.N.Y.
Killed on 9/11/01

Sal J. Princiotta F.D.N.Y.
Killed on 5/1/07

Original image

The roof damage to the Winter Gardens is 600 feet from the base of the tower.
Original image

The 4-Ton steel Outer Wall Units from the Sky Lobby level
had 8 seconds to travel the 600 ft.
These 4-Ton Units exited the North Tower at near 55 MPH.
Original image

Some force was strong enough to accelerate hundreds of 4-ton steel Outer Wall Units from 0 to over 50 MPH in 0.09 sec. and eject the material over 500 ft. out over Lower Manhattan.

This brief force was present, pushing in all directions, for an average time period of-
Approximately 0.09 sec. on each floor. Every floor. 110 floors.

REMARKABLY This Same Force Pattern was present in The South Tower/Marriott

The Same Force was present at The Same Floor Levels and with The Same Results.
The same pressure wave evidence in both North and South towers.
From the same floor levels, the same wall sections are blown the same distances.
C.S.I. 9/11

It is self evident by the stars and flags , that the threads you have posted in defense of the of governmentally abused American citizens of the 911 TRADEDIES speak for themselves. A weasel or roach would refrain from attacking an American with such knowledge of the events of 911.
IMO they must be from countries with their own interests at hart NOT AMERICA'S

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Guessing, opinions, etc are being used as proof or "evidence" of foul play, and yet you accuse me of being arrogant for guessing in a logical manner of an event that occurred?

There is a big difference between guessing based on MSM created hollywood physics, and hypothesis based on real life physically possible scenarios.

Well then, I still find it humorous that you honestly believe that there were explosives in the basement and are suggesting that this is what caused an entire press to disappear in rubble. Because as all the physical evidence shows, those alleged "explosions" in the basement didn't do a darn thing to the overall events on 9/11 or even contribute to the collapses.

Eh? Yet you think a deflageration did? Your logic is that because you think an explosion in the basement didn't do anything it could not have been an explosion? Eh?

How do you know it didn't contribute to the collapses? Just another MSM based guess, or assumption?

When the jetfuel poured down the elevator shafts....

Wait, your whole hypothesis is base on a fallacy. First you have to prove it's even possible for jet fuel to run down elevator shafts and explode. It's already been shown that jet fuel does not explode in open air. Sorry but you need to re-think this based on what you've learned in this thread about how jet fuel reacts.

Plus I wonder why when a plane crashes we see a large fireball go up into the sky if jetfuel or its vapor is not explosive, or how FABs do what they do best.

If what you saw was an explosion then it wasn't jet fuel. If it was jet fuel what you see is a deflagration, a sudden and hot burn. Yes it looks very similar to an 'explosion', except it doesn't have a blast wave.

There were many reports of jet fuel pouring down the shafts and covering some people in it, including witnessing fireballs going down the shafts. Explosives do not cause people to catch fire, nor do they burn people up inside elevators.

Please provide these reports. People being covered in jet fuel doesn't prove it 'exploded' in the lobby.

Explosives don't cause people to catch fire?
So how do you explain the people in the basement who got burned? If it was not an explosion, then how did the press disappear, and no one said anything about it being buried in rubble except the debunkers, the witness said it disappeared.

What ever way you spin it, it was an explosion in the lobby/basement not a deflagration. So it could not have been caused by jet fuel. QED.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by ANOK]

Thank for the nnightmares ANOK

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420

Funny thing that the members of the CTBUH disagree.

Sure.

Just as soon as you find a video motion analysis of ext columns being ejected.

This claim has been around for quite a while. Chandler seems to be video producing guy, why hasn't he done this yet?

Do you ever wonder? If someone did this, then the TM might get some traction.

I KNOW why it hasn't been done.

Cuz it's a lie....

new topics

top topics

18