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.

 

WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
David Chandler's interpretation on videos of the South tower's collapse, he is the man that compelled NIST to revise their cartoon on WTC7.

www.youtube.com...#




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No I want specifics.

We would all like specifics. Contrary to popular belief, we don't have all the answers. That's where an independent, international investigation comes in.

But NIST doesn't have all the answers. On the subject of 9/11, you have 3 choices:

1.) Believe with blind faith what NIST and other investigatory agencies of the government have led you to believe concerning 9/11 with no evidence other than their word.

or

2.) Believe, with mountains of evidence in the form of videos, witness testimony, forensics, physical evidence, and a great deal more professionals, in what the 9/11 truth movement has uncovered and continues to pursue.

or

3.) Make up your own "facts" that contradict both the 9/11 truth movement and NIST



Originally posted by esdad71
What do you feel was used and in what capacity?

I believe conventional explosives were used to bring all three WTC towers down. The "capacity" part could be answered with a new investigation.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


OK, so conventional explosives were used. In order to try to determine if it was possible you have to have an idea of the capacity used. If you do not attempt to determine that you will continue to believe something that may not be possible.

Also, stop bringing NIST into these conversations as if they were supposed to find explosives or that they are the final authority. Their investigation, the FINAL investigation not the prelims you so often quote, was very thorough on the why of the collapse.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by glitchinthematrix
especially having heard Silverstein say he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7 with his own mouth.


Although this doesn´t belong to this thread I believe it´s important to end this myth.

Silverstein did NOT give any order or decide anything.
Check my signature which is taken from his exact words.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 





If a specific floor in a building supports all the floors above it, then if those floors collapse, the floor underneath will not collapse.

It's simple physics: when the upper floors collapse, the lower floors have to support less weight than before, and therefore they do not collapse!!!



HUH ???

You did study physics in school - the part about gravity and momentum ?

The floors of WTC were attached to columns by clips fastened with bolts

The clips were fastened to trusses which spanned the gap between the
columns. A metal deck was laid over it and covered with layer of
lightweight concrete






The top chords were supported on bearing seats at each end of the two trusses. At the exterior column/spandrel beam, a gusset plate was groove-welded to the spandrel face and fillet-welded to the top chord angles. At the bearing seat, two 5/8-inch A325 bolts in 3/4 inch x 1-1/4 inch slotted holes connected the trusses' top chords to the bearing seat with a single bolt in the exterior angle of each truss. The lower chord was attached to the exterior column/spandrel beam with a viscoelastic damping unit connected to a small seat with two 1 inch A490 bolts that provided a slip-resistant connection. The damping unit had a capacity of about 5 kips.




When the 81st floor failed and top section of WTC 2 dropped onto the floor
below it shearing the bolts holding the floor truss . This floor in turn dropped, adding to the mass of the debris coming down , which in
turn collapsed the floor below and so on. Like a snow ball rolling
downhill it acquired more mass and momentum as it crashed in each floor

It was found that the momentum of falling only 1/2 meter (20 inches) was
enough to shear the bolts and clips . Each floor actaully fell the distance
of 1 story - 3 meters (10ft)



In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. The section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.





The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The video clearly shows that collapse scenario to be nonsense.

The entire top of the tower visibly disintegrates above the impact point.

The progressive collapse scenario proposed is a joke when one simply looks at what really happened.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Oh God, here we go again. It's called concussion ro something like that. Go and view every video on building demolition you can find and then come back and say "Ooops I made a mistake - it's natural when a building collapes from the inside!

ATS is the best humour site on the web!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Acquiring large numbers of people rallying around ideas does not lend any credence to the ideas being truthful or correct.


Yes but it brings political pressure, that gets stronger as the number gets larger.
In 10 more years enough people may demand a new investigation and make it an election issue, to the point it just can't be ignored by those seeking election any longer. I expect some of the decedents of those killed on 9/11 to lobby hard for this in the future. With almost 3000 killed, it could very well become a very large number, especially if some of these ever come into money, and advertise their plight for justice.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


For this Idea to work....

Explosive would need to placed Insided evey Steel Frames or Straped to every
every steel frame.
To be on the Inside of the Steel Frame, could only have done at Build Time.
The thought of Explosives sitting in a building for 30 years ready waiting is just to silly
to even comprehend. How come those people that did get out did not say they saw
Explosives straped to Pilars. They were either Blind or They must have been part of the coverup.
If each one of those puffs of smoke is claimed to be an explosive to be consistant with the
Observation then you would also have to conclude that explosive must have been on every
floor and near every window frame.

And if there really were explosives disguised as Pot-Plants why wait for up to an
Hour to set them off. They could have set them Off any time. Why wait
for a Plane to come along. It would have made more sense to blow them in the
first 10 minutes of a Plane going into the Tower. A Plane goes in, building go boom,
building comes down would certainly be more acceptable.

I suppose It could be pure co-incidence the Government wanted to blow the
building on the same day the Terrorists wanted to drop it.

So can somebody explain HOW you can put all the explosives by the window
frames and be totally invisible to all those people working there that day.
As far as Know, Invisibilty Spray has not been Invented yet.
The whole concept of the theory of Explosives just seems so absurd for
words. All the 911 Truthers just say explosives used but never provide any theory
into How the Explosives were placed there undetected, Who Placed the Explosives,
When were the Explosives placed there or Why Explosives were placed there.
Or even calculated How much Explosives would be needed to cover every window.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Hi, I follow what you are saying and excuse my ignorance, I am no civil engineer but what caused the columns to collapse ?

What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by thedman
 


Hi, I follow what you are saying and excuse my ignorance, I am no civil engineer but what caused the columns to collapse ?

What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?


1. Not weakend, Pulverised by the Massive Kinetic Energy of a Fully
Loaded Jumbo

2. A Fully Loaded Jumbo Fly flat chat into a Building

3. Once a single floor fell, the Kinetic Energy of that floor caused the
Next Floor to Fail.

4. Why and Who said the trusses had to melt, they were just weakened.

5. The Origianal Design only allowed a smaller 707 size, assumed not
fully loaded, and the pilots would be trying to avoid a accident by
slowing the impact. This was the Biggest Plane at the time.
Massive difference in Kinetic Energy with a 707 going at 100mph and
fully loaded Jumbo going at 500 Mph.
Like Comparing a Mini hitting a brick wall at 20mph and a Hummer
hitting a brick wall at 100mph



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



There must be access to every large support structure because of the regular inspections needed to be done to the steal columns. A building of that size must have regular inspections done to its structure.

Getting access to important structures within the Tween towers wouldn't be a problem.

Placing charges with explosives and thermite wouldn't be a problem either. Pre made charges would make the job doable within months.

The shaped charges would be easily put in place around the hallow steal structures with a aluminium frame. It could probably be done in less than 5 to 10 minutes pr. steal structure. With pre made charges.

Solid beams only need one shaped charge with thermite to cut it.

You dont need to drill holes into the steal columns like common demolitions do this on other concrete buildings. So placing charges would not attract attention at all.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


The floors above the impact point weighed 40,000+ TONS

Steel will also lose around 50% of its strength at the temperature these fires went to. So DIDN'T melt DOESN'T have to.

If any one claims the fires were almost out at the start of collapse look at videos and picture taken then.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
If any one claims the fires were almost out at the start of collapse look at videos and picture taken then.


Sorry but photos, videos and experts all agree the fires were going out before the collapse.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by chunder
 


The floors above the impact point weighed 40,000+ TONS

Steel will also lose around 50% of its strength at the temperature these fires went to. So DIDN'T melt DOESN'T have to.

If any one claims the fires were almost out at the start of collapse look at videos and picture taken then.


I guess you have some calculations to do. If you think 40 000 Tons would push the lower "intact" part of the building to the ground.

The collapsing top part breaks of to a angel and keeps on falling over at a greater angel as it is collapsing. That means the 40 000 tons are not pushing straight down. Gravity is pushing the collapsing part over to one side. You can clearly see that by watching the OPs video.

You can even see the roof (The top square) of the collapsing building before the intact building is collapsing. That should tell you that the Collapsing top part of the building has turned to ruble before the intact lower structure collapses.

EDIT: You can see the top of the roof. The whole square at 0:07 seconds.

EDIT to add:
If the top collapsing part of the building had the mass to push the whole intact lower part to the ground. Why wouldn't the top part still be intact in some way on the ground? There is no sign of any mass at the ground that cold have pushed the intact part to the ground.


My guess is that the lower intact part of the tower riped the collapsing 40 000 ton top part of the tower to pieces as it rolled over and came down. Shaped demolition and thermite did the rest.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Instead of debating the controlled demolition of WTC 7, why doesn't everyone believe Larry "Pull It" Silverstein after he made his faux pas confession on PBS? (and no, Silverstein wasn't "pulling" firefighters because there were no firefighters to pull, firefighters aren't referred to as "it", not to mention the fact that Silverstein has absolutely no authority over the FDNY.)



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Silverstein was obviously in on the gig, with his x2 insurance payouts to the tune of billions.

I'm sure he worked long and hard to rig those buildings to blow.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Nothing new to see here. IMO anyone in there right mind can clearly see from video evidence the towers were detonated. Good to see people still becoming aware and making this stuff known..

S&F



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


People who cant see that every building is brought down unnaturally must have a twisted knowledge of mechanics. Or they are to proved to admit that it was a inside job. I know it is quite embarrassing to admit that your own elected government would do such a thing especially if you are a American.

An other thing i would like to mention is Condoleezza Rice's interview.
www.youtube.com...

In this interview she lies about the interest the US has in the 911 threat stated in the PDB. US NATO had different units in Afghanistan based on intelligence from a third party about plans taking place inside the US.

Denmark for instance had special forces in Afghanistan based on this intelligence, prior to 911. So did the UK.

EDIT to add. US NATO also had a exercise in Oman prior to 911. That's were Task force K-Bare was assembled approximately a moth after 911.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I would have thought more Tons but....

If one floor weighed 100 tons and falling with gravity the force of the impact one the floor below is going to be lot more than 100 Tons. And each floors is added to pulverise the next floor. The speed increases and total amount of energy increase at an exponentional rate.

This building was also unique, which also added to it's own down fall. Even if there were no fires at ALL, I reckon it would have still come down. Just too much damage supporting the structure above. Take a bit longer but the outcome Innevitable.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join