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.

 

How to Collapse Without Explosives

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


That was actually not the tower I was referring to when I made my comment. That one though did have part of the tower standing for a moment after the collapse.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Can anyone prove that there were explosives in the tower?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


That was actually not the tower I was referring to when I made my comment. That one though did have part of the tower standing for a moment after the collapse.


What? That is 'the spire'. There is no other spire.

That part did stand for a moment and then break up and turn to dust as it falls, oh wait collapsed and left it's dust behind, my bad.

www.youtube.com...

If it fell because it couldn't hold itself up it would have fallen over, not straight down. For it to fall straight down it could no longer have been a solid object. Try making a broom handle fall straight down.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Segador
Can anyone prove that there were explosives in the tower?


No need to.

If the final outcome of a collapse mimics a controlled implosion exactly then it was probably a controlled implosion, regardless of whether you can prove there were 'explosives' in the building.

All four walls of WTC 7 ended up on top of the debris pile, in other words the majority of the building landed in its own footprint, which is the point of controlled implosion demolition. It can not happen unless it's controlled due to simple laws of physics.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I definitely recall the part of the spire falling before every video I've seen cuts off.

As for not needing evidence of the explosives, uuhhh Yes Yuh Doo! If you are trying to dispute a claim that's been presented to you, scientifically you cannot just ignore it and say "this is what dunnit." You have to first provide evidence that it was impossible for the proposed reason to happen. Evidence does not mean "he said so." It means something that can be, say, tested. Then you must provide evidence for the new proposition, explosives. All you have is "it looks like it!" and that is simply not a convincing argument. You need evidence.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by BAZ752
I merely questioned that there must surely be other possibilities that _BoneZ_ should be prepared to accept not just those that are apparent ''facts'' to him or her.


There's only one possible way that three WTC buildings could have came down and that is with explosives, based on all available evidence. That's why so many (1200+) architects and engineers have banded together; so many scientists, scholars, and PhD's have banded together; and have came out and said that their research and education have also told them that the only way three WTC buildings could have came down is with explosives.

I do hope that one day you will have a little more free time to take a look at the evidence for yourself.
[edit on 7-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]


_BoneZ_, as I've said, I refrain from debating in the forum for a number of reasons but in my admission, and for what it's worth, I certainly consider that explosives were involved to bring a structure of this integrity down into a pile of dust and debris. I base my opinion on reading the few eye-witness accounts made of hearing said explosions and with various shots of more reliable footage, but as I said, there have been many archives of footage tampered with, specifically the video showing the flash bursts (which weren't apparent so I understand).

I'm not in demolition and therefore cannot comment on the intricacies of how such programs are set out to bring buildings down. It's only through the basic principles of structures that I am able to generate my own educated understanding without true in-depth knowledge of the technicalities of controlled explosives.

I perhaps interjected on the matter of the spurs prematurely purely because it's not an uncommon phenomina for air-pressure to expose itself in such ways (spurs) during a demolition, but consider, structures like the WTC have never been demolished before have they? (that's the interesting part) I just offered that although it is very likely caused by explosives, there's a possibility that some are purely blow outs.

I'm not strictly sticking to one side of the argument because there are literally 100's of 1000's of questions that are unanswered, but if it helps, I don't believe it was the heat of the aircraft fuel burning and the severe torsion of the core at that height that made buildings of this type and size almost freefall and reduce to dust.

My aim here is to learn as much as I can given the time I am afforded, and I absolutely favour learning more or even being 'taught a lesson' along the way, be that by the written word of reliable and supported sources, reliable and untampered video footage, genuine interviews or other research conducted through relevant experiments.

I have generated perhaps up to 6 maybe 7 hours of viewing the collapse online (and TV) which although probably considered minute by the more hardcore researcher, it's still enough to allow me to build an educated guess as to how these buildings collapsed.

Long may the drip feed of my own research continue, but I must remain diligent and always consider other possibilities such as the facts we simply do not yet know of.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
ask merza! lol







I would think the effect 0:48 would be what we see if it did come down because of force of floors .



This one is also intresting.


For me i still havnt made up my mind about the 9/11 shinanagon . Still waiting for more concluive evidence from all sides.


edit on 8-2-2011 by seedofchucky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


Whats interesting about this is that there were reliable reports of the basement of the first tower exploding and blowing up moments before the plane struck high above.

A janitor gives a compelling story of this happening, which if true indicates there was a deliberate weakening of the lower structure to enable the gravity fueled collapse. I haven't watched the whole video maybe this is mentioned in it, if it isn't then it's something to think about



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Here are a couple videos. The first shows two skyscrapers being demolished from a distance. Even over the music, a person can easily make out the massive sounds of crashing from the building and the striking similarity to the WTC collapses:

www.youtube.com...

The second one here shows a shorter skyscraper with the same concept. It demonstrates how a building can be taken down from the top down:

www.youtube.com...

And then for anyone who wants a serious and scientific examination of how and why this happens, here is a PDF that includes the math and everything for the collapse situation:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Please review this with civility and let me know what you think. I would like to see how this can be argued away by truthers.


Does anyone regard 18 story buildings as skyscrapers these days?

Isn't it obvious that dropped 50% of the building on the lower 50%?

They weren't skyscrapers and they were not steel frame buildings.

The great height of skyscrapers makes it necessary to make the distribution of strength and therefore the distribution of mass very different from what occurs in short buildings. The CN Tower demonstrates the point.

www.youtube.com...

This comparison of Verinage demolition techniques to what happened to the north tower is utter rubbish. Where has it ever been used on a steel frame building?

psik



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


Whats interesting about this is that there were reliable reports of the basement of the first tower exploding and blowing up moments before the plane struck high above.

A janitor gives a compelling story of this happening, which if true indicates there was a deliberate weakening of the lower structure to enable the gravity fueled collapse. I haven't watched the whole video maybe this is mentioned in it, if it isn't then it's something to think about


Couple of problems with Willie's testimony.

1-How would he know that the "explosion" was before the first impact if he was in the basement? He wouldn't have any frame of reference as to time.

2- An explosion capable of cutting core columns in the WTC would have cause Willie and others in the basement to suffer from baratrauma injuries.

3-The collapse still begins at the top, not at the bottom.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It's never been used or even tested on a steel-framed tube-in-tube (need that too, remember) building. That's why there's so much problem with a lot of what is said here. The entire point was that a building can begin a collapse after the destruction of a single floor. What would happen in a steel tube-in-tube building as opposed to a concrete infrastructure is the big question. Someone needs to run tests on this, and remember, we're not talking about traditional steel structures. Those would react VERY differently than the trade centers did.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It's never been used or even tested on a steel-framed tube-in-tube (need that too, remember) building. That's why there's so much problem with a lot of what is said here. The entire point was that a building can begin a collapse after the destruction of a single floor. What would happen in a steel tube-in-tube building as opposed to a concrete infrastructure is the big question. Someone needs to run tests on this, and remember, we're not talking about traditional steel structures. Those would react VERY differently than the trade centers did.


Is there some reason that the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM would not apply to a tube-in-tube skyscraper? So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC? Why is this Verinage crap more important then that?

It is possible to create experiments of collapses.

www.youtube.com...

I could easily change the number of washers that I raised and dropped on the rest. Our GREAT engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for FOUR YEARS OF EDUCATION should be able to afford to make models much better than mine. 10 oz washers would allow a much more precise distribution of support strength. Too many of my levels have the same paper loops. It is certainly curious that none of our engineering schools have managed to do this in NINE YEARS.

psik



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It's never been used or even tested on a steel-framed tube-in-tube (need that too, remember) building. That's why there's so much problem with a lot of what is said here. The entire point was that a building can begin a collapse after the destruction of a single floor. What would happen in a steel tube-in-tube building as opposed to a concrete infrastructure is the big question. Someone needs to run tests on this, and remember, we're not talking about traditional steel structures. Those would react VERY differently than the trade centers did.


Is there some reason that the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM would not apply to a tube-in-tube skyscraper? So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC? Why is this Verinage crap more important then that?

It is possible to create experiments of collapses.

www.youtube.com...

I could easily change the number of washers that I raised and dropped on the rest. Our GREAT engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for FOUR YEARS OF EDUCATION should be able to afford to make models much better than mine. 10 oz washers would allow a much more precise distribution of support strength. Too many of my levels have the same paper loops. It is certainly curious that none of our engineering schools have managed to do this in NINE YEARS.

psik


Yes, conservation of momentum does behave differently with different material composition and energies. With a concrete infrastructure, you have a very "block hits block" set of energy interactions, and conservation of momentum plays well. In cases like a steel tube-in-tube with concrete in-between structure, it is very much not block hits block, since the entire energy of the tower is not concentrating on the floor below evenly or completely. Unlike a block system, the steel will toss around and maintain its weight as well as build up some extra kinetic energy (hence, the ejections from extra energy). Essentially, since the floors below cannot even hold up the non-vertically resisted debris if it wasn't falling, it would collapse very quickly without any appearance of resistance to the naked eye. The simple fact is that the tower's horizontal trusses were not designed to take vertical load.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Yes, conservation of momentum does behave differently with different material composition and energies. With a concrete infrastructure, you have a very "block hits block" set of energy interactions, and conservation of momentum plays well. In cases like a steel tube-in-tube with concrete in-between structure, it is very much not block hits block, since the entire energy of the tower is not concentrating on the floor below evenly or completely. Unlike a block system, the steel will toss around and maintain its weight as well as build up some extra kinetic energy (hence, the ejections from extra energy). Essentially, since the floors below cannot even hold up the non-vertically resisted debris if it wasn't falling, it would collapse very quickly without any appearance of resistance to the naked eye. The simple fact is that the tower's horizontal trusses were not designed to take vertical load.


The conservation of momentum remains the same regardless of the structures. The masses may deform differently and the number of pieces that may fly off in different directions may change.

No one has any evidence that a tube-in-tube stricture is more likely to collapse than a normal skyscraper design. We are just bombarded with a lot of biased information trying to IMPLY that but then the horizontal beams in the core get swept under the rug. I have never even seen the layout of the beams specified and if it was the same on every level. Since the elevator shafts were different lengths there could have been horizontal beams in places on some levels where they could not have been on others.

But when does anybody talk about that? This entire investigation is SO SLOPPY it is laughable.

But information needs to be disappeared so nitwits can BELIEVE the crap they prefer.

psik



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I have never even seen the layout of the beams specified and if it was the same on every level. Since the elevator shafts were different lengths there could have been horizontal beams in places on some levels where they could not have been on others.


You really, really should read the NIST report on the towers.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I have never even seen the layout of the beams specified and if it was the same on every level. Since the elevator shafts were different lengths there could have been horizontal beams in places on some levels where they could not have been on others.


You really, really should read the NIST report on the towers.


I downloaded and burned the NCSTAR1 report three years ago.

It ain't there. It is not in the blueprints that don't come from NIST. They say where the toilets are but not the horizontal beams in the core.

I am really tired of people that have ridiculous delusions about the crappy information in the NCSTAR1 report claiming stuff is there when it ain't.

psik



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Precisely, it's self evident, plus these were steel structured buildings, and, the impact floors were not in the center.



Nothing absent the use of explosives can explain the actual phenomenon of destruction, which occured to within a mere few seconds of the time of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object, from the height of the TT's.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Segador
 

yes, the presence of micro spheres of atomized steel, as well as nano-thermite in the dust, proves it, as does the physics of destruction, molten metal in the pit, not to mention all the eye witness accounts of explosions occuring all over the place, well away from the impact areas, in some cases which blew firemen right off their feet. There were explosives present, there can be no doubt.

I can understand uninformed Americans still believing the official story, but those who've researched it...


They are either in denial or much worse, are actively working to protect the most heinous of crimes and lies ever perpetrated in modern history, a rather disgraceful thing if you ask me.


edit on 9-2-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

You look like some sort of private school Washington political aspirant, are you? 'cause it would be nice to know who NOT to vote for in the future.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 




That second vid explains nicely why a Verinage collapse is not the same as the WTC collapses.

The verinage collapse decelerates as teach floor compacts. Careful measurements, pre-collapse, lets them know how many floors they need to drop to cause complete collapse.

The towers did not have enough floors dropping to cause complete collapse, and would have slowed and stopped way before all the floors were collapsed, due to resistance and Newtons laws of motion. WTC 7 was not a top down collapse, and post collapse pictures clearly show outer walls sitting on top of the collapsed building, an impossibility from natural collapse.

As the guy in the vid says, prove this to be wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join