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.

 

Photos You Cannot Deny

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


You obviously have not considered the ramifications of your belief. NIST claims 11 seconds and Lamont-Doherty Near Earth Observatory's seismic data claims 10 seconds for a WTC 1 near-freefall collapse. Let's assume for arguments sake that free-fall speed for Tower 1 is 9 seconds for the 97th floor to the ground. Tower 1 collapse was initiated at the 97th floor.

In your theory, each floor would have to overcome the resistance of the floor beneath it, which the vast majority of the 97 floors would have had zero fires to weaken the steel and connections. The tower took the path of most resistance by falling through its own strongly reinforced and inter-connected mass.

Assuming a time of one second for each floor to sheer its connections to the massive core and outer wall sections, and the trusses and the cross-trusses, we would add 97 seconds to the 9 for a total of 106 seconds for your pancaking to take place.

Even dividing the time by four (1/4 second per floor resistance) would leave us 33 seconds pancaking time; far too much greater than the official observed times of 11 and 10 seconds.





The official Explanation(s)



The official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 (photo above) global collapse (sic) is that the alleged release of potential energy (PE), of the mass of an upper part C above all supporting columns after sudden, local deformation and buckling, due to downward, alleged near free fall movement in an initiation zone (indicated by red) and impact of a structure below, exceeds the strain energy (SE) that can be absorbed by the same columns below and above and that all this was due to gravity only.

It is suggested that the upper part C is rigid and remains intact during the complete crush down of the WTC 1 structure below, i.e. the global collapse (sic) is not a collapse but a 'crush down'.

The crush down is suggested to take place as follows:

WTC 1 is assumed to consist of three parts:

Part A - the lower structure (97 stories before crush down).

Part C - the upper part (13-15 stories).

Part B - rubble that is formed of part A, when part C crushes the stories one after the other.




Each storey is 3.6 meters tall with density 0.255 and becomes a 0.9 meter thick layer or rubble with density 1.025, when crushed, e.g. [2].

At time t = 0 sec part C is alleged to drop on part A - crush down starts.

At, say, time t = 8 seconds about 60 stories have been crushed and there are still 37 stories remaining of part A. A 54 meters thick layer of rubble - part B - has been formed of what was 60 stories! The upper part C remains on top.

At time t = 10 seconds part A is completely crushed and only a 87.3 meters thick - very tall! - layer of rubble on the ground - part B - remains of part A. The upper part C still remains on top.

At time t = 15 seconds nothing remains! Part C has been destroyed in a crush up and the rubble - part B - is spread out on the ground.

Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.

What you would expect to happen

The following would happen, if the upper part C actually drops; two of its thin walls slide and drop outside and do not damage anything. The other two thin walls slide and fall inside the structure - part A - below and punch holes in or slices the floors there locally. No rubble is really formed.

The thin floors of the upper part C are in turn locally punched or sliced by the part A walls/columns below and will soon be jammed inside the part A walls/columns below. No walls or columns are dropping on other walls or columns producing an impact! Do not believe that the upper part C is solid, rigid, strong or anything like that! It is quite weak. Local failures - floors punched and sliced - will be produced at contacts. No crush down will ever start!

Local gravity failures above cannot destroy the columns of the intact structure below! All the energy released by dropping upper part C is absorbed by the deformations, failures and fractures of floors in the initiation zone and locally in the upper part C and top of lower structure part A and by friction between locally failed floor parts rubbing against each other after initiation and by any loose parts dropping down outside. The crush down should be arrested inside the initiation zone! Or maybe upper part C would slip off and drop beside the structure below.

gators911truth.blogspot.com...


Of course we have plenty of evidence that the rooftop antenna which was mounted to the top of the massive core section, fell seconds before the rooftop moved downward. This is proof that the massive core was severed completely through in at least one or more places, before the collapse sequence was initiated.

WTC 1 Roof Antenna Fell First From A Stationary Video Camera - frames

There is no possible way a 757 completely severed the core; so something else severed the core. Demolition explosives of some nature or thermite cutting charges of some nature seem the most viable causes; although some scientists are postulating a mini-nuke and others a focused energy beam.

WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS



“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures (frames above) of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move.

nationalwriterssyndicate.com...




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Spreston, your last post shuold be a thread all on it's own. This is the
part of nature that none of the GL's can explain, yet they believe blindly
in the OCT.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Forgive me for "hijacking" your thread but I'm new so I thought I'd reply on this one as it's called "Photos You Cannot Deny" and it seemed apt.

I watched the video The secret Evil of 9/11 today for the first time. It's by an anonymous person, but it had quite good write ups about it, so I thought I'd watch it. As soon as I started watching I was so shocked because I'd never seen this clip before and it doesn't make sense to me. I guess you guys who have been here a long time have covered this one before, but I thought I'd post some stills. It's a low quality video and I've then cropped the stills, so overall really bad quality, but I think they illustrate the point clearly:


In this image it looks like the cockpit is exiting the WTC intact! How would that be possible?


In this one it appears that the plane exploded as it was exiting the building, but you can still see the grey nose of the cockpit still intact.


Here the whole plane has exploded and you can see the conical shaped flames around the cockpit. I can't understand how the cockpit wouldn't have been a crumpled mess or disintegrated after smacking into the building at such a speed!


This is the overall scene and if you watch the video it looks like something is being jettisoned from the plane. What could that be?

I always thought that a plane would just explode on impact when it hits something solid at high speeds, but when you look at this video it just seems to slice through the WTC like a knife through butter and only explodes as it's exiting the building. Very suspicious!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
No doubt there's some foul play going on with these videos. It obvious
there was some tampering, especially with this "nose out" scenario.

Even the exit hole is not big enough to allow an object of such size to
escape.

Further more, where did the that section of the fuselage end up? It
didn't drop down from the "fireball". Did the fire vapourize this part of
the plane in an instant?


www.youtube.com...

Anyone who believes the fuselage would remain at all intact hitting two
steel walls at 500+ MPH is well...you know.

It's obvious we were not shown live coverage of this aircraft impact.

Before any GL's answer with the typical, "but...how did they get all of
the videos from spectators" crap, ask yourself why the fuselage did not
drop down after exiting the tower.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Mark_Amy & Turbofan,

I am sorry, I am at work and don't have the time to go back and forth with you two if you choose to not get the easily obtainable photographic proof off of the internet, but what you see flying "through" the building in those pictures and the video is an engine. This was found - I believe - a couple of blocks away right where the trajectory path in the video points to. The cockpit and fuselage did disintegrate for the most part.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by tallcool1]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


For explosives to cause a building to "free fall," every vertical beam on every single floor would have to be completely cut. That's one assload of C-4. It takes a lot of C-2,3,4, PETN, or Semtex or any other cutting explosive to cut steel. And of course, you have to have significant tamping. These beams were massive, and you'd have blown out a hell of a lot more than windows cutting those beams.

Those weren't "squibs." There was overpressure from collapsing floors. Don't forget the elevator tunnels that also were pushing air.

Symmetrical collapse will occur when harmonics weaken a structure. Hell, it just falls. You don't understand harmonics, subharmonics, and just how well steel conducts this energy, do you?

Go hit a piece of steel with a hammer. Harmonics.

Stressed steel, exposed to relatively high heat, will weaken, shear, and due entirely to pressures and friction, create "molten metal." The pressures on these steel columns are enormous, and a weakness from fire or harmonics will literally "melt" steel. Take an aluminum yardstick and get it to oscillating by waving it back and forth, flexing the metal. It gets hot, and after a while, even though there is no real load on it, it will bend and finally break.

Bend a steel coat hanger back and forth. You'll note that a lot of heat is generated, Now, imagine a steel column or beam, exposed to fire, and we all know these buildings were designed to sway, and now add uneven heating, swaying, a weakened structure, and you have the potential for a number of problems. And harmonics travel all the way to the ground, transferred quite efficiently by STEEL.

When structural components begin to fail, yes, the popping, creaking, tearing, shearing, and joints, held by either rivets, welds, or both, will sound like explosions, gunshots, pops, and those will be transferred to lower floors through the steel columns all the way to the ground by vertical STEEL columns!

Put a piece of concrete in a press and start pressing. As the pressure rises, the concrete will suddenly crack and sometimes explode, especially the more dense concrete. No mystery there!

Now if you're talking about masonry, that stuff is not much more than sticky powder anyway. So you shake it and it starts coming loose, and it's one big dust storm! Masonry will powder in a skinny minute when stressed, or when oscillated - as in a harmonic disturbance such as an earthquake, or a falling building. Seeing as how the buildings were fairly tall, and the mass was destroyed, I would expect to see a lot of dust for thousands of feet away. Especially downwind.

And that aluminum oxide streaming off falling steel sections? Who exactly CAUGHT one of those falling beams, instantly examined it with a mass spectrometer, and was able to conclusively make this determination?

These iron spheres you mention, that were attached to this unnamed "energetic material," found in dust? I hope you have the name of this "energetic material," and I hope you're not referring to the thousands of spheres common on all major steel construction that comes from welding, welding slag, etc.

Angle cut core columns? Do you realize that it is common to use angle cut vertical columns, so that more surface area is able to be welded/plated/riveted?

Think about it. There's more linear surface in an angular cut than a flat, horizontal cut. It's much stronger, which is why they're designed that way.

Jesus!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Give me a break guys. It's over for the OCT. Your guys did a great
job on the ground cutting beams on angles during clean up; the floors
which did not pancake blew jets of debris out the windows on several
floors simultaneously (faster than free fall yet); fire caused what appears
to be a text-book CD which never before in history, or post 9/11 ever
happened, the explosions were tanks of diesel popping just before the
tower descended, all of the first responders and witnesses that got
thrown upward and across the room are delusional, a Ph.D. suddenly
lost any sort of credibility; the molten metal found by the fire fighters
never happened; the photos of fused concrete and metal are photoshopped, physics took a back seat for the terrorists that day, pyroclastic flow is natural when a building falls due to gravity; the powdered dust produced in mid collapse requires no resistance to form;
4 aircraft were overtaken without a struggle of either pilot/co-pilot
against common strategy, iron spheres attach themselves to partially
ignited chips which have similar chemicals to known thermite...but on
9/11 it happened to be paint...which was further addressed by Harrit
this June 2009...but the anonymous egspurts say it's not because
they have a keyboard, temperatures above and beyond normal office
fires can sustain themselves for weeks after despite many millions of
gallons of water poured upon the rubble, everyone cries about Bentham
and peer review, but NIST can withhold their data and you all swallow it up, hundreds of testimony are omitted from the omission report, "pull it" means a team of firemen because you all twisted a weak excuse to deny an admission of CD...even though WTC7 was vacant earlier that day and
nobody was fighting the fire..therefore no firemen to "pull", a slow bulky commercial airliner breaks into Class Bravo air space 30 minutes after NYC receives two impacts to the twins and "AA77" gets hardly a sling shot thrown at it while being tracked for 50 miles and doing 'loop-dee-loops" in restritced airspace, independent witnesses describe a north path several times over but they don't count because Craig Ranke did the interviews; recorded radio comm between firefighters confirm the towers were void of any massive fires near the impact zone just prior to collapse, yet the steel somehow continued to melt...while victims clung onto the "HOT" steel beams.

How is that for a run-on, poorly spaced and poorly punctuated paragraph?

You are either: disinfo, in denial, or a moron to support the OCT.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
How is that for a run-on, poorly spaced and poorly punctuated paragraph?

I must congratulate you, that is almost entirely inaccurate in every way. Do you think people just don't notice, or do the post stars from people on your side distract you? I'm pretty sure I have corrected you before, and if you just continue on to repeat the same thing despite proof existing, then I feel your next statement needs to be turned around.


You are either: disinfo, in denial, or a moron to support the OCT.

Which am I?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
YOU , correct ME?


You're all three Mr. Exponent!

Why don't you get yourself into the collapse analysis threads we've
started and check out the obvious use of explosives? You know,
the questions you said you couldn't answer with respect to gravity
as a sole force?

Hey, 'exponent' is going to correct me!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
YOU , correct ME?


You're all three Mr. Exponent!

Oh turbofan, will you ever stop making a fool of yourself? How could I be all 3? How would that even make sense! If I was a disinformation artist, I wouldn't actually believe in the 'official story', and so I couldn't be ignorant or a moron for believing it.

Dear me.


Why don't you get yourself into the collapse analysis threads we've
started and check out the obvious use of explosives? You know,
the questions you said you couldn't answer with respect to gravity
as a sole force?

You mean the one where I told you that the only force available is resistance from the building, challenged you to support any other force and you failed to respond?


Hey, 'exponent' is going to correct me!

I don't know what's happened to you over the last week to make you start posting in this manner, but it does make me laugh.

Tell me, do you have a complete hypothesis yet? Can you test any of it?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Just getting tired of the run-around "exponent".

We finally agree on something! Yes, the building is the object that could
have provided the force to stop rotation of the upper block.

So then "exponent", what happens to kinetic energy once the angular
momentum stops?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Just getting tired of the run-around "exponent".

Me too, hence why I often take posting breaks for a week or more.


We finally agree on something! Yes, the building is the object that could
have provided the force to stop rotation of the upper block.

So then "exponent", what happens to kinetic energy once the angular
momentum stops?

I'm not sure what you mean. The kinetic energy of the upper section was used up in destroying or disconnecting components. Inelastic deformation (the type of deformation which is permanent) 'uses up' energy. Of course it doesn't actually get destroyed, but it is used to break the bonds in materials. Think of it like boiling water, the energy used to transform water into steam is not gone, it is occupied as a higher potential energy state of the gas molecules.

I don't know if you are familiar with this concept. Please remember that I am mostly concerned with explaining this well so you understand it, so if you don't understand something I've written please tell me. Similarly if I have mistaken something you have written for something you didn't mean.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Let's back up 'exponent'.

We agree and by video evidence know the upper block stopped tilting.

We agree that the only possible force to stop the tilting was provided
by the tower beneath the impact level.

Since the upper block stopped tilting at some point, we know that the
energy generated by angular momentum equalled zero.

Agree, or disagree?

We can estimate that the load was distributed amongst the many perimeter
and core columns at the point rotation ceased.

Agree, or disagree?

We also know that all core columns were not cut, and approximately 4/5
were still intact when the floors stopped rotating.

Agree, or disagree?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Don't let the facts confuse you turbo. I conclude from your rant that you are at about a high school junior education level and that I assumed too much when trying to explain DSC and why Jones' paper was completely worthless in attempting to prove that paint is thermite. I realize now that, technically, you are in completely over your head and I shouldn't be too harsh in my criticisms of you. You read and repeat the something-for-truth websites without knowing what they are really saying. You are frustrated because those with technical skills and wordly experience don't believe the nonsense that they promulgate and know that many of the instigators are in it for reasons other than "truth" while you buy into the theories because you can't see the faults.
You should probably take a break before you work yourself up into a teenage crisis of some sort.

 


Please read Ad Hominem


[edit on 19/7/09 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

The kinetic energy of the upper section was used up in destroying or disconnecting components. Inelastic deformation (the type of deformation which is permanent) 'uses up' energy. Of course it doesn't actually get destroyed, but it is used to break the bonds in materials. Think of it like boiling water, the energy used to transform water into steam is not gone, it is occupied as a higher potential energy state of the gas molecules.



We understand the concept and it all takes time time time. Both towers took the path of most resistance and it takes a lot of time to break all or most of those connections (over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points).

Explosives can shear all or most of those connections in an instant, allowing both towers to fall in the near free-fall timespans reported by NIST and Lamont-Doherty Near Earth Observatory and others.



NIST claims 11 seconds and Lamont-Doherty Near Earth Observatory's seismic data claims 10 seconds for a WTC 1 near-freefall collapse.


The official WTC tower crush-down would have taken much much longer without demolition explosives (and) nano-thermite (or) other incendiaries.

WTC Tower Official Crush-down Explanation Is Just Not Possible



Assuming a time of one second for each floor to sheer its connections to the massive core and outer wall sections, and the trusses and the cross-trusses, we would add 97 seconds to the 9 for a total of 106 seconds for your pancaking to take place.

Even dividing the time by four (1/4 second per floor resistance) would leave us 33 seconds pancaking time; far too much greater than the official observed times of 11 and 10 seconds.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Turbofan, sorry, I missed your post earlier.


Originally posted by turbofan
Let's back up 'exponent'.

We agree and by video evidence know the upper block stopped tilting.

We agree that the only possible force to stop the tilting was provided
by the tower beneath the impact level.

Since the upper block stopped tilting at some point, we know that the
energy generated by angular momentum equalled zero.

Agree, or disagree?

Agree, kinda. It's not energy generated by momentum as much as energy stored in the angular momentum. Other than that semantic argument, yes at some point the block has essentially no angular momentum.


We can estimate that the load was distributed amongst the many perimeter
and core columns at the point rotation ceased.

Agree, or disagree?

We can't really say for sure, once the block has rotated even a few degrees, many of the perimeter columns are disconnected and the global collapse has begun. At the point which rotation appeared to cease, the block was tilted by a significant proportion, and no column impacts would be axial.


We also know that all core columns were not cut, and approximately 4/5
were still intact when the floors stopped rotating.

Agree, or disagree?

We don't know this for sure, bending of the core columns would undoubtedly sever them at some point, they were very much not designed to take this sort of load. You'd have to go into a bit more detail before I can agree or disagree.


Originally posted by SPreston
We understand the concept and it all takes time time time. Both towers took the path of most resistance and it takes a lot of time to break all or most of those connections (over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points).

Neither tower took a path of 'most resistance', that is a buzzword spread around in conspiracy circles which sounds reasonable and so most people repeat it. However, it has no basis in reality, and I have explained why many times in the past.

With regards to time, yes of course breaking connections takes time, but it is also proportionate to the force involved. Try it yourself, set up several planks of wood and a videocamera, break the wood sequentially with an impactor at a higher speed each time. Look at the speed of the impactor after impact, it will lose only a finite amount of energy which is not linearly proportional to the impactor's energy.


The official WTC tower crush-down would have taken much much longer without demolition explosives (and) nano-thermite (or) other incendiaries.

I'm afraid not, the BLBG paper is peer reviewed, features the most in depth analysis yet performed on the collapse, and Bazant's qualifications and experience alone are beyond assault without evidence.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponentAgree, kinda. It's not energy generated by momentum as much as energy stored in the angular momentum. Other than that semantic argument, yes at some point the block has essentially no angular momentum.


The tilting block both had stored and kinetic energy; as in all of the
stored energy was not used instantly.

We agree that at the point the tilting stopped, the kinetic forces/energy/whateveryouwannacallit no longer acted.


We can estimate that the load was distributed amongst the many perimeter
and core columns at the point rotation ceased.

Agree, or disagree?


We can't really say for sure, once the block has rotated even a few degrees, many of the perimeter columns are disconnected and the global collapse has begun. At the point which rotation appeared to cease, the block was tilted by a significant proportion, and no column impacts would be axial.


What columns do you suggest played a role in securing the upper block
from rotating further and/or falling off? Would you agree there would
be two points of interest as a tilting object needs a fulcrum, and a vector
force to rotate? In this case we need a fulcrum and an arresting
(opposite) force to stop rotation.


We also know that all core columns were not cut, and approximately 4/5
were still intact when the floors stopped rotating.

Agree, or disagree?


We don't know this for sure, bending of the core columns would undoubtedly sever them at some point, they were very much not designed to take this sort of load. You'd have to go into a bit more detail before I can agree or disagree.


I don't agree that the ~32 core columns and ~200 perimeter columns
could not support the upper block after impact. There are a studies from
architects and examples of FEA that show the upper block should not have
even moved!

Also from video/photo evidence it is clear (to me, and others) that the
positioning, and destruction of the upper block is not from gravity alone.

Please refer to an angle between the top and bottom sections that would
indicate in your mind that core columns broke "post aircraft impact".

Select a time in a video, or angle in a photo at which time you feel any of
the arresting columns broke. Study them well, and study several different
angles of the South tower as your "point it time" must show the tension
side of the building (West wall) at full length.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
very very interesting pictures thats for sure, thanks for sahring them



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 

Large multi-section outer wall section hurled 600 feet away by a gravity collapse?


Your long-winded post took a long time to read; but not as much time as it would have taken the towers to accomplish what you state.

But NIST claims 11 seconds and Lamont-Doherty Near Earth Observatory's seismic data claims 10 seconds for a WTC 1 near-freefall collapse, and other sources agree.

How did the official crush-up crush-down explanation for the collapse of the towers accomplish so much in such a short time? How did all those floors get crushed and pulverized into dust in only 10 or 11 seconds? It should have taken 10 times as long (100 to 110 seconds) or longer; if the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY was the teeniest bit true.





[edit on 7/18/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Whatever you [SNIP]!

Since when does a highschool education get you into an Aerospace lab?

Here's about half a billion worth of equipment in just part of one lab,
I guess they let all the highschool drop outs use this stuff hey?



Anytime you want to post your real name, education and employment
history...just say go!



[edit on 18-7-2009 by turbofan]

 


Removed insult.

Please read Ad Hominem

[edit on 19/7/09 by masqua]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join