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.

 

What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by dariousg

This would be true if the mass above was still solid. It wasn't. It was pulverized.

"pulverized" is not a state of matter. It is the mass that is the most important, and breaking up concrete does not reduce its mass.


"pulverized"...is a result of FRICTION
it take massive amounts of energy to 'pulverize' the concrete....there is ONLY, so-much energy,


What CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.



I want to be extra careful with my answer here, I think that you are asking how, after the collapse started, it progressed downwards.

The simple answer is that the amount of force exerted by the upper section of either tower falling even a single floor massively exceeds the load carrying capacity of the next floor down. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element. The floors were very thin, 4" of concrete, and designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.

What caused the floors below to fall at those speeds? Momentum, caused by the upper section being accelerated due to gravity, and converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

Now, if you are asking what started the collapses, please post and let me know, but the answer to that in depth is in the NIST report.


still pushing fantasy as fact...

the 'OFFICIAL' collapse theories “seem to defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy, and known structural failure behavior.
The kinetic energy of the falling debris would have been largely absorbed by the energy required to dismember the structure, bending and twisting steel components, and pulverizing 220 acres of concrete floors. To accomplish all this while achieving a 'CONSISTANT' nearly free-fallspeed collapse is simply not physically possible, There is not sufficient energy available.... For this massively strong structure to just crumble away at near-free-fall speed would have required immense amounts of explosive energy.

This violates Newtons Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the speed decreases. Transferring energy has a reaction time. So, this isn't a matter of "a theory." It's observation...we would see it..we would SEE the collapse start, S-L-O-W-L-Y...NOT, like we saw, explosively discharging dust and debris on all four sides, EVEN BEFORE, contact is made with the lower section, in order to CREATE the dust and debris through FRICTION

HOW does that antenna drop straight down about 9 stories, EVEN BEFORE there is movement of the impact area...seems like YOUR top crushing block, is 'BREAKING UP'.

and WHAT is the mechanism, that STOPS the 'tipping' block from it's forward momentum of 'rolling off the building', to INSTANTLY break apart, as we ALL see.....so much for THAT building crushing 'top block' also.....so WHAT do YOU have left?




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman

Not fully true. You being an idiot who makes wild illogical assumptions is well-documented throughout this thread, it is there for everyone to see. And yes, you may think my conspiracy stories are rubbish, if by rubbish you mean, backed by cold hard facts and laws of physics.

The thing that bothers me is whether you're really a psychopathic idiot? Or if this is your job?


Dude, what's your problem? I only just found your posts now and already you're flinging around adolescent insults. Go back and reread my posts. When did I ever insult YOU PERSONALLY or anyone else for that matter? My goal is to discuss the poor credibility of these ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy stories, not to attack or belittle anyone. I don't NEED to insult anyone, I have the facts on my side.

I have the maturity to separate myself from the events of 9/11 so that I don't see an attack on the material I post as an attack on me personally. It's obvious you cannot, so you're the one who's causing the problem here, not me.


Done with you now. You haven't brought one shred of good critical and logical arguments to support whatever belief you have and I'm getting tired of addressing you and your little game. I already shot you down once, don't make me have to kick you while ur down.


Good grief, of *course* I haven't brought any critical or logical arguments here yet. I only just started posting to this thread! You're reading, what, only my third post to you here? What do you want me to do, mentally beam them out to you by ESP?

Yep, I'm done with you too. It's blatantly obvious your goal ISN'T to discuss the events of 9/11 but to fulfill a need to harass the people who disagree with you and your beloved conspiracy stories, and the longer I converse with you the the more likely you're going to intentionally steer this conversation into a childish tit-for-tat insult-fest that accomplishes nothing. If you want to go around calling complete strangers "psychopathic idiots" to elevate your low self-esteem and make you feel better about yourself, fine, whatever floats your boat, but I'm an adult, so you're have to do it without me. The only thing you've ever been able to prove me wrong on here is my assuming you were an adult as well.

This is the last time I will respond to you. Grow up.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
What conspiracy stories? Link me to one I have posted. You're going to tell me what I said and be inaccurate about it and then tell me what I saw? Yeah.


All right then, since I misunderstood you I retract the statement. Would you mind them clarifying what you meant when you posted...

"You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down."

...becuase when I read this, I naturally interpret it as being a sarcastic remark and you DO believe there were explosions "higher up in the building and getting lower as it came down". There is NO evidence whatsoever backing the claim there were controlled demolitions, so if you accept this as well then we are in full agreement, in which case, I thank you.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm pretty sure custodians didn't crawl around in the elevator shafts cleaning the cables. I'm also pretty sure that there weren't inspectors and engineers crawling around in the core and elevator shafts every day. And since the core was mostly what needed to be destroyed to bring the towers down, the work could've been done in the weeks leading up to 9/11, just as some survivors have testified to.


They didn't need to crawl around every day. They simply needed to crawl around once in a while.

If peopel are goign to claim there were controlled demolitions then we necessarily have to go by the rules that govern controlled demolitions, otherwise they weren't controlled demolitions. Setting up such a gigantic structure like the WTC, not to mention, TWO of them, will necessarily take several thousand man-hours to do, at LEAST five months, longer, if they were intentionally tryign to conceal them. I have a hard time accepting the statement that noone would have done *anything* (No painting, no inspection for water damage, no electrical work, nothing) *anywhere* in the building at *any time* during that period.


Make sure you say "in my opinion the plumes were clouds of air" because you have zero proof of a building ever collapsing and showing plumes. However, we do have abundant proof that plumes are shown during most every controlled demolition:


All right, fair enough. It was the opinion of controlled demolition experts that the plumes we saw was air being forced out of the structure as it collapsed, which I agree with becuase it stands to reason the air in the building had to have gone somewhere as the structure was being compressed during the collapse.

I likewise accept the statement that controlled demolitions also have similar plumes. The air inside the structures would necessarily need to go somewhere as THOSE buildings were being compressed during the collapse, too. If you disagree, then please explain where the air does go.


And then there's the witness testimony to the flashes and explosions going off, and the way the buildings fell, all suggesting controlled demolition on top of the plumes that already suggest controlled demolition.


Noone is refuting there were explosions. The debate is over whether the explosions were due to a natural chain reaction of events from the plane impact or actual explosives.

I support the "flammable objects" explanation becuase it is irrefutable that the towers had objects in the buildings that would naturally go BOOM if they catch on fire- electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc, and there is NO hard evidence that explosives were ever present in the buildings.


Please show proof that plumes are seen in building collapses that are not controlled demolitions. If you cannot provide proof, you will have to concede.


Bad logic. I do not have to prove the plumes aren't from controlled demolitions because the claim of controlled demolitions have to be proven as a suitable scenario for the collapse first before they can be used as an explanation for the plumes. It's a given I don't need to disprove the plumes were from heat beams from Martian war machines becuase Martian war machines is an unsuitable scenario to begin with.

SO, what physical proof is there to support the claim there were explosives in the structure, exactly? You know as well as I do that there is none.



Please forgive the perps for not setting the explosives off in a timed order to make it look more like a controlled demolition than what it did. You do realize that whoever is in control of the explosives can detonate them at any time in any sequence?


If that is the case then there's no way you can say they were controlled demolitions. The entire reason for setting all the charges off in timed sequence is specifically to destroy all the supports at once and cause it to fall straight down. The explosions not going off in sequence means there had to be some OTHER reason why the towers fell straight down, otherwise blowing stuff up in random order would have caused it to topple over. Physics have to apply to secret conspiracies just as it applies to the rest of us.

Inventing alternative rules involving secret controlled demolitions, and then inventing alternative rules for how controlled demolitions work to explain the alternative rules involving secret controlled demolitions, isn't a theory. It's circular logic.


If you were the perp, you know damn well you would want the buildings to sound and fall as little like a CD as possible.


I I was the perp I'd have just put a bomb in the basement like they did in 1993 (but bigger), not some convoluted scheme to plant controlled demolitions in two heavily occupied buildings and then orchestrate crashing aircraft into the buildings as a cover story, plus enlist hordes of disinformation agents to make you believe the cover story.

How many thousands of people would it take to pull that supposedly "secret" conspiracy off, anyway?


Yeah, too bad your failed logic doesn't apply to "9/11 Eyewitness" because that video was recorded from 2 miles away and you won't hear the building crashing through itself or crashing on the ground at that distance. You can only hear the explosions and detonations which are corroborated by first responder testimony, I might add.


There was a lot MORE video taken of the collapse than just that one particular vantage point. The aerial footage taken by the news helicopters were almost right next to it when it collapsed, and THEY don't show any "flashes up and down the building" either.

do you have anything to the contrary?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


reply to post by OnTheFelt
 

I have heard all the theories, from the utterly silly to the fairly conservative, and yet nothing I have seen makes me think that aircraft did not do the damage we saw that day.

That is not an invitation to go back over those points with me either. Believe me I have seen all the truth movements facts, and theories. Many of them are based on incorrect speculation, inaccurate facts, questionable witness testimony, and assumptions


YOU MUST be talking about the NIST HYPOTHESIS..

is it speculation that they ONLY have evidence of "low steel temps"(averaged to 450F), FAR below a steel compromising temp.

is it speculation that, when testing the floor assemblies, they were loaded with twice the known weight, heated to a hotter temp than was recorded in the steel, for a longer duration that the towers stood, with NO floor collapse.

is it speculation that the 1975 fire, burned for more than 3 hours, and engulfed 70% of the 11th floor, and ALL of the core, with the fire creeping up through utilities 7 more floors, and NO structural steel had to be replaced

is it speculation that, when the kink forms in 7, no matter what position the roof line is in, EVERYTHING, INSTANTLY falls EQUIVALENT with the ACCELERATION of gravity...

FALLING as fast as an object can fall THROUGH THE AIR

oh...and, WHAT *HAS* to happen in order to get an object to ACCELERATE?


and let us NOT forget the TOP-CRUSHING-BLOCK....umm...where is it?

WE SEE the tipping top, INSTANTLY stop its momentum and break apart...

WE SEE the antenna falling STRAIGHT down at least 9 stories before the IMPACT area is affected by collapse

SEEMS like the "blocks" were crushed, BEFORE they impacted the lower sections

and WHAT creates all the EXPLOSIVE dust and debris being ejected on ALL 4 sides, EVEN BEFORE contact is made with the lower sections in order to CREATE the dust and debris through FRICTION



even though they may seem logical to the layman. They are just as bad as, or maybe even worse then, the official story.


ummm...this IS the 'official story'


Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC:.Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC.
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values(600C)
Paint tests indicated low steel temps(480F)
Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
Underwriters Laboratories found that there was no floor collapse.
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."NIST-p.143

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132


WTC7
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The plumes were clouds of air and dust being pushed out of the building like a bellows as the structure was collapsing.

Make sure you say "in my opinion the plumes were clouds of air" because you have zero proof of a building ever collapsing and showing plumes. However, we do have abundant proof that plumes are shown during most every controlled demolition:





Explosives aren't the only explanation of these plumes.

Air displacement, no matter how the buildings fall, accounts perfectly for it when the floors meet and force out the air between them.

The Balzac Vitry shows this perfectly. No explosives were used, but it clearly has "plumes" around the entire perimeter where the exterior walls were removed.

www.dailymotion.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Explosives aren't the only explanation of these plumes.


So you are admitting that one possible explanation for this type of phenomena is some sort of explosive charge?

I don't think any of those singular puffs coming out is ever the result of any floor "pancaking" down. Try to visualize how all the components of a single floor would begin to interact if any parts were to fail. Even a single beam breaking free and falling from one end, and impacting the floor below with the other end still in place, might stir up a lot of dust but is not going to generate a predominantly lateral force of air moving straight out of the building, for example. Those puffs were obviously explosive charges. In the WTC even NIST admits the likelihood of all the truss connections failing at the same time to allow a symmetrical drop of an entire floor, is extremely unlikely. So all those puffs coming out from all over the building simultaneously when the collapse initiates,



those are apparently the result of something, again, even NIST claims is very unlikely and that they were not able to support with any theory or hypothesis in their report: the simultaneous failure of a large number of independent structural components, including the core structure that was holding up the antenna. They opt for saying that the global collapse of the WTC towers was too chaotic to analyze in any detail, that it was a system of chaos, even though they both maintained uncanny symmetry on the way down.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So you are admitting that one possible explanation for this type of phenomena is some sort of explosive charge?

I don't think any of those singular puffs coming out is ever the result of any floor "pancaking" down.



Of course I do.

So then what accounted for them in the Balzac Vitry video? No explosives were used.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Those puffs were obviously explosive charges.


Well...then WHY are they on the outside perimeter??

I think we've all seen how the exterior pieces were constructed, they didn't seem all that substantial as structures. I thought the core was the strong part, the "spine", if you will.

Those "puffs" also are not accompanied by sound, not in the way I've seen in many controlled demo videos. Remember, because of the difference in the speed of sound, and light, you should see the 'explosive puff', then hear the sound, and somewhere in between the portion that begins to collapse overcomes inertia and starts the fall.

And, as to the trapped air scenario, as floor collapse from above? Each floorplan was not a complete open space, there were multiple offices, many with closed doors, possible anterooms (foyers) before reaching the office part near the windows...You could easily imagine any of those closed spaces, with the air needing to go somewhere, right??? Seems like the glass would be the path of least resistance.

[edit on 23 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


That's the first I've seen of that, and when I search for it online all I can find are videos of the collapses, and links to videos.


Do you know where I can actually read about it, some news or magazine article maybe? I don't understand how they achieved these demolitions if they didn't use explosives, but I'm sure it still took a lot of coordination to make them as symmetrical as they were either way.

Yes, it does produce a similarly shaped dust cloud, in the bigger context. In more specific events I'm not really seeing any individual explosive outbursts at all. I don't really hear any explosions, either. So I'm curious as to how exactly they did those.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well...then WHY are they on the outside perimeter??


They're not on the outside perimeter, they come out of it. Which is why it has so much momentum already as soon as its forced out. Not just air, remember, but actual visible debris, concrete dust and aluminum panels and the like. There are photos of these things as far as 25 and 45 floors ahead of the collapsing building, and I've heard everything from all sorts of complicated air pressure maneuvers going down instead of being sucked up and out that increasingly enormous hole in the tops of either building as it "collapsed," to water lines bursting, transformer explosions, all kinds of crap. None of those really make any sense. When at the same time you even have firefighters saying they were convinced it was coordinated because of how evenly spaced the explosions were. Where is that guy posting the eyewitness testimonies when you need him?



Those "puffs" also are not accompanied by sound, not in the way I've seen in many controlled demo videos. Remember, because of the difference in the speed of sound, and light, you should see the 'explosive puff', then hear the sound, and somewhere in between the portion that begins to collapse overcomes inertia and starts the fall.


All that means to me is the device is not conventional or necessarily even civilian knowledge.



Seems like the glass would be the path of least resistance.


Glass would be less "resistance" than the giant vacuum in the ceiling?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



OK...I was following your logic until.....

Glass would be less "resistance" than the giant vacuum in the ceiling?



That doesn't square well with your other assertions of 'blasts' coming out 25-40 floors lower.

But...I wsn't, maybe, precise enough about the exterior perimeter. Any demo charges would most likely have been in the central core, correct? Two reasons: Easier to do covertly, that is, to install. AND, if you want an 'implosion' so that the structure will collapse in on itself. Seems, since the exterior facade was really designed mostly for vertical load-bearing, any strong torsional forces, and tearing moments from within, should have been sufficient to collapse the outer walls.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you know where I can actually read about it, some news or magazine article maybe? I don't understand how they achieved these demolitions if they didn't use explosives, but I'm sure it still took a lot of coordination to make them as symmetrical as they were either way.



It's in French.

I read a translated copy of comments, but couldn't find it again. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

All that means to me is the device is not conventional or necessarily even civilian knowledge.



How does this work again?

The "bombs in the basement that crumpled the door" HAD to be super sonic in velocity in order to crumple the door...... but these are silent cuz...... why exactly?

It's not very consistent to claim supersonic air velocities AND silent at the same time.

That's simple physics.

You need to choose one.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11
 


OK...I was following your logic until.....

Glass would be less "resistance" than the giant vacuum in the ceiling?


That doesn't square well with your other assertions of 'blasts' coming out 25-40 floors lower.


Because you still think those expulsions have something to do with the air pressure environment inside the towers. I don't. I think they would have been there anyway.


Seems, since the exterior facade was really designed mostly for vertical load-bearing, any strong torsional forces, and tearing moments from within, should have been sufficient to collapse the outer walls.


I agree the core would be hit, not the exteriors. Once the core goes, the hat truss tries to transfer the weight of the "hanging" block (above where the core columns have been severed) all onto the exterior columns, which will just fold at their weakest portion where the plane impacts were. So from the outside it looks like the building just naturally failed where the planes hit, which they did for that part of the structure. But the core and everything else inside going with it means there is more going on than just perimeter/truss failures like NIST focused on.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I read a translated copy of comments, but couldn't find it again. Sorry.


Ok, so we know those demolitions were at least very quiet, you say they didn't involve explosives, yet we don't know how exactly they were demolished.

This is great. This is going to make for a very interesting discussion.





All that means to me is the device is not conventional or necessarily even civilian knowledge.


How does this work again?


How do the demolitions you just showed me work, again?


The "bombs in the basement that crumpled the door" HAD to be super sonic in velocity in order to crumple the door...... but these are silent cuz...... why exactly?


Define "silent." If you think I am saying they made NO noise then you are misrepresenting me.


It's not very consistent to claim supersonic air velocities AND silent at the same time.

That's simple physics.

You need to choose one.


Yeah, that's called a "straw man," a logical fallacy.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Ok, so we know those demolitions were at least very quiet, you say they didn't involve explosives, yet we don't know how exactly they were demolished.




By hydraulics.

I told you that already.

Go back and reread my post.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



By hydraulics.


Well, that's it then. Brilliant, really. That's how they demolished the WTC, without those pesky loud explosions!!!

Hydraulic pistons, pre-planted somehow. Could even use the buildings' own water supply for the fluid.

This is fun!!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You didn't mention it on this page, which was what I was reading.

You don't want to define what "silent" means to you, as far as any explosions at the WTC? I know it doesn't mean something no one can hear, when plenty of people heard lots.

Even though those demolitions are done with hydraulics, they look and sound very familiar, don't they? That symmetry they came down with is something they actually had to plan and prepare, you know. So does this make the first official example of a "hush-a-boom" demolition?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Even though those demolitions are done with hydraulics, they look and sound very familiar, don't they?


Yes they do.

Nice plumes, right? You even agreed.

So then explosives aren't the only way that the plumes can be generated, right?

So then you proved this statement by you "I don't think any of those singular puffs coming out is ever the result of any floor "pancaking" down." to be incorrect.

Self debunking.

Sweet.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join