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.

 

South Tower Video - Discuss

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Amazing, you flew right over the whole point of this aspect... The dust - Forget what is going on under the dust, here is the $64,000 question, what caused the dust (concrete mainly) to become dust, and to be ejected out of the tower?.


You are leaving out the fireproofing and drywall. That's dishonest. The fireproofing is very easy to turn to powder and probably maked up the majority of the dust during the collapse.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
waypastvne, if the dust was NOT from concrete that would probably mean there would have been acres and acres of concrete stacked up at the bottom, which I have not seen any pictures showing this. I remember a lot of witnesses on video however noticing the complete lack of flooring concrete/cladding etc in the pile....



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Dust:


Iron spheres are a known product of fires, so their presence in the dust could be evidence of fire. Not proof, since they could have come from other sources, but do we need proof that there were large fires in that vicinity on 9/11?

Iron spheres are also a known product of metal cutting operations, so their presence could be evidence of metal cutting operations. Not proof, since they could have come from other sources, but do we need proof that there were significant metal cutting operations in that vicinity following 9/11?

Iron spheres are also a known component of dust from crushed drywall, concrete, and (IIRC) suspended ceiling tiles, so their presence could be evidence of crushing of drywall, concrete, or suspended ceiling tiles. Not proof, since they could have come from other sources, but do we need proof that drywall, concrete, and ceiling tiles were crushed in that vicinity on 9/11?

(There are other known sources, such as brake pads and metal grinding and polishing operations. I sweep iron microspheres from my own basement floor after using my bench grinder. They're the sparks that fly off the workpiece, which are hot enough to incandesce even though the grinding wheel and workpiece don't heat up much. Brake pads and grinding tools, though probably represented in the wtc towers, don't appear to be as likely to have produced them in as large amounts as fire, cutting, and crushing release from other materials.)

Iron spheres are less prevalent in normal office dust because most normal offices have not experienced burning up in a fire, recent extensive metal cutting operations, or crushing of large amounts of interior construction materials.

Anyone who wishes to claim that the spheres are evidence of any other event such as explosive demolition, exotic beam weapon effects, or thermite reaction should first, at the very least, establish that such an event can generate the types of iron spheres observed. The next step would then be to further establish that it could generate exclusively those types, without significant co-generation of other materials such as larger spheres that were not observed in the dust.

Once that is done, then and only then can you begin arguing that the presence of the iron spheres is in any way important or interesting. At that point, you will have to show that the overall weight of evidence favors whatever hypotheses you are proposing for the spheres' origin, over the existing hypotheses of generation in the office fires, by crushing of construction materials already containing iron spheres, and generation during metal cutting operations. That would be the hard part, if you weren't still several steps away from even being able to start.

Respectfully,
Myriad



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

The original size of the upper block was reduced to 1/3 before the tower
began to descend. See the photo proof here:


There is zero evidence that anything was "reduced"



Originally posted by turbofan
By the time the tower was half destroyed, there was nothing left of the
upper block yet the demo wave continued accelerating, and debris
continued to arc up and laterally.


Again...this is an assertion with no evidence...saying "but.... but.... it looks like is turned to dust" is not an argument or evidence.

Zero evidence that anything was vaporized or "dustified"...


Originally posted by turbofanHow does this happen, along with pulverizing concrete in mid-air if there
is nothing left to crush ?


It didn't happen...you might think it did, but that isn't evidence....


Originally posted by turbofanAlso how does the West side of the tower continue to break apart if the
load is no longer situated above those columns?


How do you think it broke apart? Maybe the massive section of building that is destroying everything beneah it? C'mon man....use your brain here...


Originally posted by turbofanNobody has come up with a gravity driven explanation yet...not even
Mr. Mackey the man of "20 Internet Ph.D.'s"


Yes they have and until you can show me using some *gasp* MATH AND PHYSICS why they are wrong your uneducated, uninformed, and non-expert armchair quarterback opinions are worthless...


Originally posted by turbofanCome on GL's, notice the debris and powdered concrete getting shot "up
and out" of the West side:


Maybe you need a lesson in turbulence and fluid flow...


Originally posted by turbofanWhere is the top section gone? See if you can point it out. Remember,
it was over 300 feet tall before the collapse began. It also tipped 23 degrees to the East before any major descent could be measured.


*Sigh*

It is falling onto the rest of the structure...

So tell me how did they "destroy" all of that material?

Silent "hush-a-boom" explosives? Or maybe nano thermite? Thermite? Thermate? Death Rays from the galatic empire? Scalar weapons?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Never mind that, the photo I have shown clearly proves the top section
was off axis and NOT loading the West perimeter columns. What are
you going to tell me next "Hooper", the upper block slid back up and
centered itself?




No Turbo, it was supposed to topple over like a tree. Right?

Did you read the paper that I posted a link to?

Here is another paper that explains the lateral ejections that you spoke of.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories:
www.jnani.org...
And while you're reading it, please let me know where the explosives at the begining of the collapse.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Crush a couple acres of drywall and a couple acres of concrete and see what it looks like. Unless you want to calculate the volume of particulates in the cloud in the photo and then calculate the volume of reducible material in the building and do a comparison. Be my guest and prove me wrong.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Does building seven exibits the same type explosions.
What if there are no squib appearances or upwardly ejected material on seven?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Seventh
 


Crush a couple acres of drywall and a couple acres of concrete and see what it looks like. Unless you want to calculate the volume of particulates in the cloud in the photo and then calculate the volume of reducible material in the building and do a comparison. Be my guest and prove me wrong.


Still sidestepping the question, what reduced the 2 acres of drywall and concrete to dust, was it the same energy force that decimated human bones to this size (-) and microscopic, at the same time blasting them over 150 metres away?.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Who ordered proof of explosions?........

www.911eyewitness.com...

Want some wine with that sir?.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by terran99
 


Don't be stupid, I already linked you to photos and stated there are
slow motion/stop frame analysis complete to prove the reduction of
the top section.

Here it is again for your viewing pleasure:




Once again, here is the reduced top section hanging off the side of
the tower:



[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Right, so that explains the fact lead was vaporized ? Right ? No. Temp of 3000 plus degrees are needed to do that.

And it say's the dust is from the bank. Who was cutting steel in that building before the investigation ?

RJ lee group 20 3.0

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event"




[edit on 20-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 20-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 20-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry


Right, so that explains the fact lead was vaporized ? Right ? No. Temp of 3000 plus degrees are needed to do that.


read it again... Then read this.....



1) Metallic lead vaporizes at 1100°F. which is the temperature at which heat guns operate. Lead oxide used in paint most likely vaporizes at about 800º F. The mid-range infrared heat waves heat the paint and wood only to 400-600º F. Therefore, dangerous lead fumes are not released from the heated paint.



And it say's the dust is from the bank. Who was cutting steel in that building before the investigation ?


Did you look at when the tests were done? You know the multiple tests? The first one 9 months after the collapse and the second one a year and a half after the collapse. However, keep in mind that the tests was a "working assumption" that was released prior to the NIST report.


such spheres are a well known component of fly ash; fly ash is a component of certain concretes. Furthermore, while the oxygenation levels of the spheres are inconsistent with steel cutting, they are entirely consistent with welding processes (arc, SMAW, etc.) that would have been used during the construction of the towers, so that could be a secondary contributor. And on top of that, how many other minor contributors exist? Diesel engines? Steel machinery? Brakes on vehicles? Remember: The Twin Towers were exposed to the elements of a downtown metropolis for decades, and all those minor contributors could have easily added to the spheres



The differences in the amount of spheres is simple due to measuring background vs. measuring amount liberated by a catastrophic collapse.

The RJ Lee report does not conclude that the spheres were produced on 9/11, they presume it. And they were lacking the information that was eventually released in the NIST report.

There is no reason to take any of the information in the RJ Lee Report and use it to argue that the spheres were produced during 9/11.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Who ordered proof of explosions?........

www.911eyewitness.com...

Want some wine with that sir?.


I posted a video several days ago that show the collaspe. Where are the explosions?

Thank you



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Yes. 150 meters? What's the problem there? Drop something like a piece of microscopic bone fragment from an elevation of a 1000 feet, where do you expect it to land? And I am, of course, assuming anything you say is factual with regard to bone fragments and landing distances. But more than likely there is some "enhancement" in your statements.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by turbofan
He's can't be a demo guy using those observations. How about the South
tower? No "sledgehammer" there; it started tipping over and fell off axis.

How do you figure it was able to slide away from the core columns and
break apart before the rest of the tower began to move?



Please watch the close up of the South Tower and it collapses. Please point out the explosions.

point out the explosions? is that a joke? the entire building EXPLODED. There is no other word to describe it. Things don't burst into billion of microscopic pieces in mid air when they simply collapse.


Also, please explain to us what should have happened with the South Tower's collapse.
that's a loaded question because the buildings shouldn't have collapsed at all.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by terran99
 


Don't be stupid, I already linked you to photos and stated there are
slow motion/stop frame analysis complete to prove the reduction of
the top section.

Here it is again for your viewing pleasure:




Once again, here is the reduced top section hanging off the side of
the tower:



[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]


There isn't any "slow motion" or "stop frame" "analysis" in what you have treid to pass of as "evdience"...

You (or whomever else) is just looking at the photo and telling us what you think you see....well no one cares what YOU think you see because your opinion is that of a non expert layman.

The vast majority of experts in various fields do not think the videos or photos of the WTC collapses show this....hell the vast majority of people with an IQ above room temperature don't think they show that either.

Spare us your "opinions"....



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
that's a loaded question because the buildings shouldn't have collapsed at all.


You only think it's a loaded question because you have no answer and no clue what you are talking about...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by terran99
 


Yet another GL who speaks from ignorance.

I wish these kids would do their homework before coming to a debate.
It's no wonder they can't carry a conversation and continue to spread
garbage ultimately confusing themselves and others.

Read. Learn. Enjoy.

Step through the original media video here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Other angles here:

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Whatever...


lol....that was Tino's answer to the statement "It's The North Tower. The video even says North Tower.".

Gotta love PfT's attention to detail and specificity.

"Whatever..."



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Yet another GL who speaks from ignorance.

I wish these kids would do their homework before coming to a debate.
It's no wonder they can't carry a conversation and continue to spread
garbage ultimately confusing themselves and others.

Read. Learn. Enjoy.


What page are we on? Turbofan? You have yet to point out the explosives in the video I posted.

Anyone?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join