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.

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

page: 4
18
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:10 AM
Anned,
Did you experiment with the bricks or dominoes yet?
Examining your thought process that equates cups and cards to 4 ton panels of steel.
I trust you are silent as the folly of cups cards and landslides has registered.
The cards are in your example in a free fall situation, there is no mass between the card and the earth, hencs no resistence, no upward force slowing the acceleration of gravity. The entire WTC1 and 2 was in position between the falling mass and the earth, and caused resistance, but not sufficient to throw, propel, hurl 4 plus tons of steel 600 feeet, or two football fields distance.

Hurl, propel, thrown, blasted, are verbs describing trajectory initiated by force and energy. Above the level of simple gravity.

Show me the math where steel panels can levitate and float and glide that far and you are probably on the moon.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:26 AM
Anned,
It has been a couple of days since I last heard from you about the cups, cards, bricks, dominoes, and landslide experiments. Could you please reenter the discussion and defend your position. Your position of landslides, floating 4 ton panels, being floated and moved 600 feet on cushions of air.

I appreciate your attempts at humor.

While we are on the subject, I do not want the explaination that the panels were "spring loaded" due to the weight on top of them either, and that they flipped like tiddly winks out onto the surrounding landscape.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by fmcanarney]

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:28 AM
Definite explosions heard in the Towers. At the end of video, a loud explosion heard across the river from Tower One and smoke emerging from the Tower One base.

There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)

BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:47 PM
Anned,
Are you going to "man up' to the discussion and refute the cards cups bricks dominoes proposition or not?

I am anxiously awating your input into the further equation of the landslide.

Do not give up now, you almost have me convinced.

posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 09:44 AM

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 12:39 PM

posted by fmcanarney
Anned,
It has been a couple of days since I last heard from you about the cups, cards, bricks, dominoes, and landslide experiments. Could you please reenter the discussion and defend your position. Your position of landslides, floating 4 ton panels, being floated and moved 600 feet on cushions of air.

I appreciate your attempts at humor.

While we are on the subject, I do not want the explaination that the panels were "spring loaded" due to the weight on top of them either, and that they flipped like tiddly winks out onto the surrounding landscape.

Anned is still running; as far away as he can get.

Umm; the tiddly wink hypothesis has just entered the 9-11 fantasy tale OFFICIAL STORY explanation from wmd_2008 on another thread. It seems to be anything and everything but the truth with these guys.

This was 9-11; miracles and suspended laws of physics everywhere.

Larger image

Huge 80-ton multi-section structural steel outer wall piece headed up and out and down to Winter Garden and WFC3 American Express buildings.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics

Explosions running far ahead of the collapse wave

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM
good to see you posting again SPreston.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:18 PM
Well, I started reading this thread "looking" for the "evidence" offered.
But I see no evidence whatsoever. All I see is speculation, and frankly some ignorace too on the part of the one who offered the "evidence" we were all going to see.
Photographs are used to mislead the viewer because the debris is still, and you are not able to tell where it´s going. So they tell you things are flying up, or sideways in this and that picture, and you are supposed to take their word for it.
On the videos however, the absence of explossions IS EVIDENT. There´s a rumbling thunder of the structure falling downward, but as the structure falls, some of the outer shell is thrown towards the sides of the building from the resistance of the lower structure. And being the building so high, there you have the reason for those pannels to have flown that far away from it. The speed at which the pannels are thrown is considerably lower from what you would see with explosives. This can also be seen in the so called "squibs" which are simply pockets of air blowing outward from some floors due to the pressure of upper portions of the building collapsing downward. During the videos, it is EVIDENT there are no explosions at the times those pockets of air are blown outward from those few floors.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:27 PM
Yeah if there was no explosives the only way debris would make it that far is if the building toppled over sideways towards it.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SPreston
You are quite mistaken. And how did 4 ton and much larger pieces of exterior wall structural steel wall sections get hurled over 500 feet away?

The towers were well over 500ft tall and stored huge amounts of potential energy.

It matters not at all how tall the buildings were. It only matters how much potential energy was above the ejections site of the wall sections. You debunkers come by, toss out a fact and run away without ever realizing your fact does not apply. It is true, the buildings were well over 500 feet tall. So what? This stuff was not ejected from the bottom so the total height has nothing to do with it.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by rush969

Wow! I guess an airplane knock down the building. We should believe in our honest Government. They always tell us the truth.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:56 PM

posted by rush969
Well, I started reading this thread "looking" for the "evidence" offered.
But I see no evidence whatsoever. All I see is speculation, and frankly some ignorace too on the part of the one who offered the "evidence" we were all going to see.

In other words you only see what you want to see. You are an average pseudoskeptic. Why are you wasting your time here on these forums? Where is the evidence you have compiled to prove your 'opinion'?

The North Tower was destroyed with a top-down explosive demolition

Diagram of WTC complex

These video analyses by David S Chandler show heavy steel pieces being hurled out from the North Tower alleged gravity collapse at 70 mph. Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor, where the vertical motion of the building was no more than half that speed

High Speed Ejection from WTC1 - An Analysis
by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics

High Speed Ejection from WTC1--Further Analysis - Result: over 70 mi/hr
Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor

Another High Speed Ejection from WTC1 - Result: over 70 mi/hr

Stabilized Video of South Tower

North Tower Top-Down Explosive Demolition

Another view

Blast wave, is the only possible explanation. Who cares precisely the how and the what. There was a blast wave, a demolition wave, and therefore, the buildings were intentionally imploded, or in this case, exploded, the first top down explosive demolition of a high rise steel building, with the explanation everyone is supposed to believe, that they simply "collapsed". They were quite obviously taken down on purpose, and the plane strikes and fires were not the actual cause, only the broad daylight "slight of hand" ruse, to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of their total destruciton, in the horrified minds-eye of the observing world. That's all that matters. That it was a ruse, the official story about it, a flat out lie. Does it matter the precise mechanism and explanation other than THEY BLEW THEM UP? I don't think so. We've done our job. The sceptics and debunkers, they would like to drag it in that direction, with questions like - when did they wire the buildings for demolition? How many bombs were there? Was it on every floor, or every tenth floor? (said with a shrill wine)

Well, even if every tenth floor, with zero resistence, given the laws of motion, it would still have taken over 30 seconds.

The only possible way they could have come down that fast, is by a blast wave, removing all structural integrity BENEATH the falling debris plume/fountain of building material. Period. That's the only thing that needs to be proven unequivocally and has been proven, and it does not matter where those graphs came from, as they depict the truth and the reality in a very easy to understand, straightforward manner.

[edit on 11/26/08 by SPreston]

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by rush969
And being the building so high, there you have the reason for those pannels to have flown that far away from it.

Um, it doesn't work that way. Maybe if they moved a few feet away from the buildings as they fell, or maybe if they leaned many more feet outward, but instead you have pieces that have clearly already been detached, flying hundreds of feet sideways through the air. "The buildings were tall" does not explain this motion.

posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 07:54 AM
reply to post by rush969

And being the building so high, there you have the reason for those pannels to have flown that far away from it.

RUSH969: using your word "FLOWN" means fly, or to glide.
These panels were 4 tons. They might have a flat aerodynamic glider like appearance in videos and pictures, but each one weighs as much as two 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenues.

Therefore unless a force vector perpendicular to the force vector of gravity can "hurl, propel, move, throw, toss, expel, shoot or other appropriate verb" the mass away from gravity induced movement, the panel will fall towards the center of the earth. The ejecta (panels) show a trajectory of UPWARD parabolic movement initially and then respond to gravitys force.

Some propelled 600 feet perpendicular to the force vector of gravity.

posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by fmcanarney

Sorry. You are right. I shouldn´t have written "flown" of course.
Those large portions of structure simply FELL through an intricate collapsing structure, where currents of air, and all sorts of different obstacles TOSED them in a CURVE towards the center of the earth.
THERE, IS THAT BETTER?

posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by rush969

Being knocked around by larger pieces of debris would almost be a plausible explanation for the heavy debris thrown out -- except that the majority of the steel was so thrown out of the buildings' footprints, and in all directions!

This wasn't something that happened to this piece and that, here and there, as they were knocked around by other debris. It's something that happened to all the debris from the WTC Towers besides what relatively little was left in the footprints. Some people like to claim all the steel must have been crammed into the basements, then, but photos of the basement excavations disprove this, and also structure was still intact at ground level. On the other hand, you can actually see hundreds of thousands of tons of steel laying all over the entire WTC complex and beyond.

posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 08:51 PM

## Sorry. You are right. I shouldn´t have written "flown" of course. Those large portions of structure simply FELL through an intricate collapsing structure, where currents of air, and all sorts of different obstacles TOSSED them in a CURVE towards the center of the earth. THERE, IS THAT BETTER?

No, that is even worse.
Currents of air and other obstacles tossed them 600 feet.
You just reworded the explaination of the word FLOAT.

What sorts of different obstacles TOSSED these 4 plus ton panels 600 feet?

Tossing them in a curve means they were placed in a parabolic (CURVE) trajectory. Those obstacles must have tossed or floated these 4 ton panels upwards as well as horizontally, right?

So I am waiting for an explaination of how this happened, as it is obvious from videos that they travel in a parabolic path.

In the first second the gravity would not have sufficient energy to impart a horizontal velocity to 4 tons to propel it 600 feet.

I like the tiddly wink/flipped popsickle stick explaination better than floating or tossing idea. However even those two imparts such a high degree of cognitive dissonance that I wake up to dreams of third grade recess and recent visits by the ice cream man on a bicycle.

The only thing that eliminates my cognitive dissonance is controlled demolition. However each person has his/her own comfort level of maintaining the internal psychological conflict of the OS versus reality.

Me I opt for this simple equation.
The less cognitive dissonance I have the closer to the truth I am.

The closer to the truth I am the better I sleep at night.

The better I sleep, the more easily I will wake up for the 4am van ride.

Anger directed to others who point out the discrepancies and conflicts is a sign and symptom that the angered person has such a degree of cognitive dissonance, that they discount the obvious and usually causes them to strengthen their convictions that they are right.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by fmcanarney]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:24 AM

posted by bsbray11
Being knocked around by larger pieces of debris would almost be a plausible explanation for the heavy debris thrown out -- except that the majority of the steel was so thrown out of the buildings' footprints, and in all directions!

This wasn't something that happened to this piece and that, here and there, as they were knocked around by other debris. It's something that happened to all the debris from the WTC Towers besides what relatively little was left in the footprints. Some people like to claim all the steel must have been crammed into the basements, then, but photos of the basement excavations disprove this, and also structure was still intact at ground level. On the other hand, you can actually see hundreds of thousands of tons of steel laying all over the entire WTC complex and beyond.

Two clips of the North Tower show abundant evidence of explosive demolition that is not adequately explained by the OFFICIAL STORY.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics

Rapid ejection of debris on the northwest corner of the tower.
Regular speed & 50% slow motion.

[edit on 12/3/08 by SPreston]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by rush969

Wow! I guess an airplane knock down the building. We should believe in our honest Government. They always tell us the truth.

This is typical: Say that the plane knocked the building down. We all know this is not true, and cashlink obviously says this to discredit my post.
No, the plane didn´t knock the building down, the building withstood the hit exactly as it was designed to do! But, the building was damaged beyond repair and suffered major damage to it´s inner structure, this structure was weakened (didn´t melt) by the fire raging uncontroled for more than 1 hour in one case and 2 hours in the other, and structural failure occured as a result of this weakening of the supporting structure
which was unable to support the upper part with it´s great weight and mass and thus collapse ensued! As a result of the way these buildings were built. as the floors were collapsing, the outer "shell" steel structure beams started "peeling" out, being pushed outwards by the force of the collapse, and this is how those pannels and beams ended up where they did. There, is that a better explanation? Just because some people say, "it sounded like an explosion", "I heard an explosion", "I saw no plane", etc... doesn´t mean, things didn´t happen they way we all saw them happen.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by rush969]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by rush969]

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:46 PM
Well, since we received a warning about OT posts in another thread, maybe this is the better place to continue this discussion with Griff.

It looks like the explosives needed HAVE been done for you already.

Notice that the quote and the links have all the info needed to figure this out for yourself.

This is from Ryan Mackey's whitepaper that he did in response to DRG's junk.

"Regarding Dr. Griffin’s preferred theory, it should be pointed out that explosives rarely
impart much momentum to solid objects, unless the explosive is actually contained –
material making up a solid casing will be fragmented and sent at high velocity (i.e. shell
fragments), but nearby solid objects will hardly move at all. This is because explosives
create a pressure shock that moves at supersonic speeds. The explosive may exert a high
pressure on nearby objects, but the pressure rapidly “washes over” those objects and thus
does not have time to impart a large impulse. Unless the pressure wave is somehow
contained, the wave will rapidly move beyond nearby objects, at which time they are no
longer accelerated. This effect is reminiscent of big-wave surfing – a truly large wave
moves too fast for a surfer to gain much of a push from it and it will simply pass him by,
unless he has either a longer, faster board or is towed into the wave by a jet ski.
For a worked example, Rememnikov [151] presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT
exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would
experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for
17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has passed the objects. Let’s assume we’re discussing a section of unattached, hollow square
steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a
maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x
0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.
It should be noted that the simplified calculation above grossly overestimates the total
impulse, because we have assumed the peak pressure is sustained for the entire duration,
when in reality a lower average value is expected. The actual expected impulse per
facing area, seen in Table 1 of Rememnikov’s paper, is a mere 955 kPa-msec, or only
573 Newton seconds imparted to our column as above. We therefore are using a very
generous estimate, almost five times higher than we actually expect. We will use our
simplified estimate rather than the lower, more accurate number to silence any doubts
that we have potentially underestimated the maximum imparted velocity.The total impulse is equal to the mass of the object times the change in velocity. In this
case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of
approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600
kg = 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value
compared to the ricochet scenario described above. In order to propel this column at the
speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT
equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our
generous assumptions above.
What these examples prove is that, while explosives can impart large objects with a
significant velocity, it requires either enormous explosives indeed, or very large
explosives at extremely small distances. Gravitational energy is capable of ejecting steel
comparable distances until the explosives reach many tons of TNT equivalent in size.
Also missing from Dr. Griffin’s analysis is that, if large pieces of steel were propelled by
explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still – as a material shrinks in
size, its surface area to volume ratio rises. A piece of steel scaled down by 50% would
experience four times less impulse, but would weigh eight times less, and thus receive
twice as much initial velocity. This means that, if explosives had propelled steel
fragments, we would see small pieces propelled much further than large pieces – and this
is not the case. If explosives had driven a large fragment 600 feet, then very small pieces
would have been ejected like shrapnel, damaging buildings and killing onlookers at
distances of hundreds or even thousands of meters; this too did not happen. "

Info on blast effects on buildings:

ro.uow.edu.au...

Please don't handwave this away Griff. It would be encouraging to at least see some sort of intellectual vigor in falsifying your working hypothesis that TB's were used to "blow" the ext columns 500'....

top topics

18