What is that sound coming from the WTC?

reply to post by linux2216

Why didn't the 110-story steel support columns designed to support 10 times the weight of the buildings survive in some recognizable state?

This is exactly why I find the towers failing due to impact and fires so hard to believe.

How did those core columns in BOTH towers fail?

reply to post by theability


Like I said , it amazes me the number of posters who present an argument that is self-defeating , such as yours .

This is the post from richierich : "At normal gravity, it would take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one...IF that were possible, but as seen the towers fall in less than 10 seconds, which means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for pancaking to be the excuse. "

Notice where he says "at normal gravity"? Normal gravity meaning freefall ? You with me so far ?

Then , he says "it would take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one " , do you see where he said that ? Good .

Then he says "IF that were possible" , you see that ? Good .

Now , listen REAL close .

If it takes a half second for a floor to fall into the top of another floor with the pancake theory , then it also would take that same floor a half second to fall into the top of another floor with the explosion theory.

If this floor breaks loose due to damage from the impacts and fires , once it is broken loose , it is in freefall .

If this floor breaks loose due to an explosion , once it has broken loose , it is in freefall .

Either way , it is going to fall at the same rate of speed , seeing that it is in freefall in both scenarios .

Therefore explosives is not proven .

Is that a little easier to understand for you ?

reply to post by okbmd

If this floor breaks loose due to damage from the impacts and fires , once it is broken loose , it is in freefall .

But wouldn't the remaining floors below cause some resistance?

reply to post by crowpruitt


The core columns DID NOT fail !

The floor supports failed . Why does everyone continue to insist that the friggin columns failed ???

reply to post by crowpruitt


If you've got a 600 ton floor slab crashing down onto another identical floor slab which is fastened to the columns in the very same fashion , I'm betting that the floor supports of this second floor are going to snap and give way immediately , moreso when you have the combined weight of several 600 ton slabs crashing onto the next floor at once .

You would have virtually NO resistance at all in this scenario .

reply to post by okbmd


BTW from richierich post:

At normal gravity, it would take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one...IF that were possible, but as seen the towers fall in less than 10 seconds, which means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for pancaking to be the excuse.

Now the issue is "AT LEAST"!!!!

Now lets have a little physics lesson here ok? Now you can follow along if you wish. If the Floors fall at 0.6 seconds per floor how long class would it take for the building to reach the ground?

Now lets do the math class at 0.6 seconds per floor x 105 floors equals about 63 seconds to fall.

That is about 6 times slower than free fall.

Now how long did it take to fall? 11 seconds


My last post stands as printed.

Now class what did we learn?


There was no resistance induced by lower floors on the WTC collapse!



[edit on 24-5-2010 by theability]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by okbmd
If you've got a 600 ton floor slab crashing down onto another identical floor slab which is fastened to the columns in the very same fashion , I'm betting that the floor supports of this second floor are going to snap and give way immediately , moreso when you have the combined weight of several 600 ton slabs crashing onto the next floor at once .

You would have virtually NO resistance at all in this scenario .

First off that initial collapsing floor would have to fall in a symmetrical manner to cause a perfect downward force, which means all floor trusses would have to fail at the same time. Not possible from a non-controlled event.

There is NO evidence at all that any steel failed. I would love to see the experiment where you manage to cause steel to fail due to carbon fire in an hour.

So for your hypothesis to even work you need to show evidence that it is possible for carbon based fire to cause steel to completely fail instantly and completely.

600 tons sounds impressive but you fail to understand how buildings are designed. All buildings are designed to hold themselves up plus there own weight by at least x2 (usually higher for large high rise buildings). So you also have to show that the trusses did not have the ability to hold the weight of the floor by at least x 2. The first floor should have held the weight, and if it didn't the resistance would have slowed the collapse as it takes time and energy to crush and break welds and fasteners. As each floor 'pancaked' the resistance would build slowing the collapse as it progresses, but we see the opposite the collapse wave does not slow down, which means it actually accelerated because it was overcoming resistance that would naturally slow the collapse.

Also you would have to have equal lack of resistance throughout the whole collapse for it to have remained symmetrical. This is impossible from a non-controlled event.

I'm sure there are many more points that go against your hypothesis but that is enough to show it's wrong and not based on any knowledge of physics or building design.

[edit on 5/24/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by One Moment

These buildings, one, two and seven were designed and built purposefully with nuclear explosives in them SO.....to be taken down when the time came to have them demolished.

That big "whoosh" sound you heard was any vestige of intellectual rigor at ATS being sucked out the open window.

Seriously? Nuclear explosives were built into the buildings? Does ATS have any sort of intellectual standard? Any at all?

reply to post by ANOK


" There is NO evidence at all that any steel failed. I would love to see the experiment where you manage to cause steel to fail due to carbon fire in an hour. "


Actually , there is more than ample evidence of steel failure .

What there is a total lack of , is evidence of controlled demolition .

Please link me to something conclusive in that matter ?

As always , there's people who still disregard the fact that the towers were hit by airplanes travelling at great speeds , which , upon impact , caused structural damage to the steel .

And once more , we conveniently leave out of the argument , the FACT that the steel columns at the points of impact had walls that were appx. 1/4" thick .

It doesn't take even a small stretch of the imagination to see that 1/4" steel , damaged by the impact and then exposed to large fires , could weaken and fail in that ammount of time .

I wouldn't mind addressing your entire post , but why do it over and over and over ...?

That's one thing I have noticed on this site . There are others , in addition to myself , who simply get tired of explaining it over and over , ad infinitum .

I may take the time later , to reply to your entire post but , at the moment , I feel it would be pointless .

You guys have your minds set as to what you are going to believe , regardless of how many times someone presents a contrary post .

I'm cool with that , I am just being way more selective in which posts I choose to respond to from this point forward .

I am not going to spend all of my time explaining something that has been expounded upon hundreds , if not thousands of times already , right here on ATS .

And please don't accuse me of being blind to everything that you guys are presenting as arguments ., as I actually started out as a 'truther' myself .

I have worked both sides of the debate , even being ridiculed for doing so .

Truth is not exclusive to any one group of individuals . Truth can and will be found in both camps .

If I find anything at all that supports YOUR position , you can be assured that I will indeed post it right here on ATS .

So far , I see nothing that would support controlled demolition in a court of law .

Nonetheless , you are entitled to your opinion . I respect that . Please show me the same .

[edit on 24-5-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by ANOK

All buildings are designed to hold themselves up plus there own weight....

What's the difference between "holding themselves up" and "plus there[sic] own weight"?

Actually buildings are designed with a variety of loadings in mind and not every element of the building is designed to maintain the same loadings. Different elements are desgined with different loadings in mind.

Originally posted by theability
Before the idea that the OP tampered with the video:

First off I did not post the video on youtube,

Second Then how then could I have done anything to it?

So now let lay to rest that the OP tampered with the video.

[edit spelling]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by theability]

No no good sir, I know you did not tamper with this video. I never intended to make it look like you did it. I know you didnt and I apologize if I made it sound like I did.

I've known of this video and debunked it years ago. Its a fake. A con. And I do not wish for you to get caught purveying lies and junk with this particular video!

reply to post by okbmd


Blah blah blah, show me the evidence that steel failed due to fire, or aircraft impacts.

Thanx...

reply to post by GenRadek

No no good sir, I know you did not tamper with this video. I never intended to make it look like you did it. I know you didnt and I apologize if I made it sound like I did.

Thank you for clarifying.

The last thing I wish to do, is tamper with anything, It does no good for me and no good for finding out the truth, what ever it maybe.

And of course it does no good, for debate like these.

Thanks Genradek.

reply to post by theability


Hey always happy to help, even if we are on slightly different sides of the aisle!


And you're welcome!

also, I really do wish someone would remove that video from youtube, cause it suckers in more unsuspecting folks that have not seen the original. It hurts the truth more than it helps.

[edit on 5/24/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by ANOK


Blah , blah , blah ...?

With an attitude like that , you actually think I am going to waste my time pulling up information and typing anything for you ?

You must be kidding .

Find it yourself .

"THIS is the original video. Nothing like the edited faked explosions."

An original video on Youtube? I don't think so. Youtube does not broadcast original videos; they broadcast videos which have been uploaded, encoded, compressed and reduced in file size, compared to the original video. The obvious reason for this process is to decrease load times and bandwidth.

The only one who would have access to the original video would be the person who shot it (the source) or had access to the camera. Contrary to what some people believe, you DO NOT find original videos by surfing Youtube.

Without a proper sound analysis of the original video, which to my knowledge has not been presented, there is no way to draw a conclusion one way or the other. Drawing definitive conclusions on a video which has been encoded, compressed and possibly edited is a poor, lazy and inaccurate method of investigation, to say the least. A real investigator would track down the owner of the original video and have it reviewed, authenticated and analyzed using professional video and audio software.

Only someone who has no knowledge of video streaming on the web would draw a definitive conclusion, one way or the other, from a Youtube video. It takes a little more footwork than some Youtube Armchair Investigating to draw a final conclusion on this video, or for that matter, any other video which is being streamed on the web.

It boggles the mind the amount of crap people are willing to believe without conducting a proper investigation into the source of the evidence.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Sphinx, lets not get into semantics ok?
Its obvious its not the "ORIGINAL" video taken fresh from the camera. i thought that at least THAT would be obvious to most.

"Original" in the sense that the video that was in the OP's first post, was very obviously edited and had a faked soundtrack put in (not by the OP of course), while there exists an EARLIER video that did not have the added explosions. ERGO the video WITHOUT the explosions is the "original" video, and the faked soundtrack video is the obviously FAKED and EDITED video.

No need to get all riled up like that.

"Sphinx, lets not get into semantics ok?
Its obvious its not the "ORIGINAL" video taken fresh from the camera. i thought that at least THAT would be obvious to most."

Glen, you're drawing definitive conclusions on two videos which are NOT ORIGINALS and are accusing me of semantics? Interesting to say the least.

"Original" in the sense that the video that was in the OP's first post, was very obviously edited and had a faked soundtrack put in (not by the OP of course), while there exists an EARLIER video that did not have the added explosions. ERGO the video WITHOUT the explosions is the "original" video, and the faked soundtrack video is the obviously FAKED and EDITED video."

Again, what makes you conclude this "earlier video" is a 100% representation of the original video and has not been altered in any way prior to being uploaded to Youtube? Is it your video? Because it was posted on Youtube earlier than the other video makes it 100% authentic? You're kidding right?

"No need to get all riled up like that."

Thanks for your interest in my high blood pressure.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by okbmd
Find it yourself .

Obviously there is nothing to find, or you wouldn't hesitate to prove me wrong. Don't pretend you were doing me a favor.

I know there is no evidence of damage to ANY of the structural steel prior to collapse at the WTC except for the facade. NIST could not know what happened inside the buildings, their report is based on convenient assumptions, or simply outright lies designed to fit a preconceived conclusion.

To me it is obvious that once the plane impacted the facade then it would have lost most of it's inertia and could not possibly still have enough energy to severely damage another heavier set of steel columns, even if an aluminum plane could have caused the columns to fail in the first place, which I believe to be unlikely.

You're not fooling anyone with your claims that you cannot backup.

reply to post by ANOK


Your 'blah blah blah' attitude is why I decline to debate any further with you .

That type of mindset can never be proven wrong ., as it refuses to consider anything other than it's pre-determined conclusions .

You will deny anything and everything that is presented to you .