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.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink
Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.
Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.
The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?
The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.
And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.
It's frustrating, isn't it?
The "controlled demolition" crowd are generally just a bunch of people with no clue about physics and load-bearing structures.
Anyone who watches the multiple videos of the collapse and can't see that the building collapsed onto itself because of the impact of the upper floors onto each subsequent floor just isn't wrapping their head around the sheer mass involved. When the upper structure made that initial fall, it built enough momentum to crush the floor beneath, which then crushed the next floor and so on to ground level. When you watch a close slow-mo shot of the collapse, you can literally see it collapsing floor by floor at a high rate of speed.
Esdad71 :the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.
psikeyhackr : A potential energy calculation is only valid if the distance is EMPTY SPACE otherwise it is just a delusional.
If there is solid mass in the way and the falling mass has to push it or crush it then energy is lost and that supposed potential energy DOES NOT BECOME KINETIC ENERGY.
Computing the potential energy of the WTC straight down through its own mass is a mathematical delusion.
originally posted by: LaBTop
An animated-gif from the video of the North Tower collapse :
An animated-gif from the video of the South Tower collapse :
Click this Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
Observe calmly and concentrated all those 18 frame-photos from the North Tower collapse,
the various animated gifs on that page for the South and the North Towers collapses,
and then read this evidence why a pancake theory is outrageous wrong, since the visual evidence proves it immediately wrong :
The above animated graphic alternates the first and 67th frames. It shows a classic controlled demolition of a 12 story building (the top 12 stories of the North Tower). Strange how the roofline collapses so evenly, I guess, that all the central core columns and all the perimeter wall columns collapsed simultaneously. Some coincidence eh ?
The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor (just above the lower red line) with large flashes of hot gas from the explosions, clearly visible. Initially, the second line's detonation is obscured by the dust cloud of the first. However, being much more powerful detonations, the second line's dust cloud quickly bursts into view.
A close look at the video/photos shows that the collapse begins at the 98th floor, then the 99th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 100th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 101th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 102th floor collapses onto the 98th, etc until the second line of detonations initiates the final collapse. So once again, we have the disintegration of the tower above the impact floors, before the collapse of the tower below the impact floors.
Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor, which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc.
These very strange circumstances, mentioned above, have a very simple explanation: The twin towers were deliberately demolished. Occam's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation, a deliberate demolition, is probably also the correct explanation.
originally posted by: Meee32
taking a building down in it's own footprint is quite the challenge and has to be carefully planned.......
all falling in their own footprint
If even one of the towers had collapsed sideways or toppled over I don't think anyone would be asking questions
originally posted by: Meee32
With my very limited knowledge I would assume the building would take the path of least resistance... No?
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink
Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.
Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.
The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?
The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.
originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: scottyirnbru
I'm not an expert in physics nor am I an expert in demolitions, are you? What are your qualifications?
Anyway a lot of folks that are experts say it just couldn't happen like that... We have demolitions experts because taking a building down in it's own footprint is quite the challenge and has to be carefully planned.
Also note how and where the planes hit, especially the second, it was on a corner one would assume this area would be the weakest and thus make the top fall that way under the load...
3 buildings on 1 day all falling in their own footprint from 2 planes hitting them... Hmmm there must be some rather large odds against that no? If even one of the towers had collapsed sideways or toppled over I don't think anyone would be asking questions... But all 3, I mean it has to raise an eyebrow no?
originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: hellobruce
m.youtube.com...
Here is one... You notice the bottom?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: hellobruce
m.youtube.com...
Here is one... You notice the bottom?
How many floors fell straight down before falling over in your video? None, so that video has zero relevance to the WTC' collapse.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
The secret service officer at the 7:55 ish mark says his name is Bennett was he one of the two Bennett s -Bryan Craig Bennett, Eric L. Bennett killed on 9/11?
originally posted by: ObjectZero
Jet fuels open burn temp is 1,890F, steel gives at less then 1,200F. It's liquid point is 2500 to 2750. The fuel carry amount on a 767 is 23,980 gallons.
originally posted by: teamcommander
originally posted by: ObjectZero
Jet fuels open burn temp is 1,890F, steel gives at less then 1,200F. It's liquid point is 2500 to 2750. The fuel carry amount on a 767 is 23,980 gallons.
I have to ask this question. Mainly because I can.
How long did the jet fuel burn while the steel beams were expose to the flames? I would think there should be some "time of exposure" to any heat source for a major effect to be shown.
I once watched a demonstration where a man passed a lighted cutting torch over an ice cube but it did not melt because he moved the torch to fast to transmit enough heat to the ice for it to melt.