WTC 1 Collapse - Evidence of Explosion or just kinetic energy?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95b3745c706.jpg[/atsimg]

In the above picture you see a frame by frame breakdown of WTC1 collapse. Notice the hole on the left side of the building in the first frame has no fire. Instantly in the next frame there is fire shooting out from the hole...following an obvious loss of structural integrity of the top floors. The bottom floors do not appear to buckle at all.

Is this evidence of explosions whether planted or otherwise internal explosions of equipment. Or is this merely kinetic energy from bending beams?

Compare the above collapse and the top sliding to the left and then view the next photo

www.studyof911.com...

The top section nearly falls off the rest of the building...so how in the world does the top section continue to pulverize the bottom section?


[edit on 17-2-2010 by ExPostFacto]

There were reports of people hearing multiple explosions after the planes struck, explosives would also explain why the tower fell at free fall time.

Nice job! Here comes a few of my favorite guys to "debunk" what is obvious and logical. If only the OS would have said it was "magic", then these idiots could point back to the "magic-bullet-theory" for historical reference. Good luck, can't wait to see fanastic arguments from the other side.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

WTC 1 Collapse - Evidence of Explosion or just kinetic energy?

For one its WTC 2 - South Tower

What you are seeing are the support columns buckling and the floor
above collapsing . As it collapses will displace the air and cause the fire to
billow out. Seen it numerouse times as old factory buildings collapse from
fire

reply to post by budaruskie

Nice job! Here comes a few of my favorite guys to "debunk" what is obvious and logical. If only the OS would have said it was "magic", then these idiots could point back to the "magic-bullet-theory" for historical reference. Good luck, can't wait to see fanastic arguments from the other side.

Fantastic arguments?

How many building fires you been to? Are you an explosive expert or
fire investigator?

Or a you tube commando in mommy's basement...?

reply to post by thedman


While that seems possible it does not appear to be any sign of fire near that exit point. Not saying there isn't a fire nearby, but going of the evidence here. In one frame no fire shooting out horizontally, next frame fire. Still very little loss of integrity in the building. I also see nothing but flame, why isn't dust ejected at well from this hole?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Nice job! Here comes a few of my favorite guys to "debunk" what is obvious and logical. If only the OS would have said it was "magic", then these idiots could point back to the "magic-bullet-theory" for historical reference. Good luck, can't wait to see fanastic arguments from the other side.

Fantastic arguments?

How many building fires you been to? Are you an explosive expert or
fire investigator?

Or a you tube commando in mommy's basement...?

Neither question is relevant to the topic. I merely am presenting evidence of a possible explosion. I am not saying it is proof, only evidence.

And so it begins.

Originally posted by thedman

How many building fires you been to? Are you an explosive expert or
fire investigator?

Or a you tube commando in mommy's basement...?

Only one and mommy is dead ahole. However, I'm sure I'm just as qualified as yourself. I have eyes, a brain, and know how to use them.

While that seems possible it does not appear to be any sign of fire near that exit point. Not saying there isn't a fire nearby, but going of the evidence here. In one frame no fire shooting out horizontally, next frame fire. Still very little loss of integrity in the building. I also see nothing but flame, why isn't dust ejected at well from this hole?

Avoid the above question at all costs dman, although I already know that you will. Call your boys swampfox, dereks, and alftard to join the party! You guys are my absolute favorite debunkers because your logic and evidence is always impeccable.

Your link is broke man.

You have to right click on the image and use that URL, directly to the image file itself. It should end in a .gif or .jpg or something along those lines.

That gallery uses a database that customizes URLs based on how you have chosen to view the albums, things like that, so you have to hotlink.

reply to post by vjr1113


I have a gif I set up along time ago where it showed a CNN footage taken at random times up till the towers fell. It shows smoke billowing from the towers and such.. I will have to find it and show it here but it is interesting that there was alot of smoke prior to the towers falling..

Anyway I have always wondered about the 2nd image.. the tower tilts then falls straight down.. Normal science would tell us it would tilt and fall over, not into itself.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
I merely am presenting evidence of a possible explosion. I am not saying it is proof, only evidence.

And to be clear the explosion would have had to have been inside the building, coming from somewhere near the core probably. In fact destroying the core structure would immediately transfer all loads onto the exterior structure and it would then collapse at its weakest point.


Also this is the same corner of the building where molten metal was seen flowing out of it just minutes before this occurred. Just saying.



This is from ONE BOMB going off in 1993:





Imagine if that same bomb went off in the core structure.


You would no longer have a core structure at that part of the building.


And simply do this near the impacted floors, and like I said, the exterior will simply start collapsing at its weakest point. This would not take as much explosives as everyone always claims. Only a handful of strategically placed bombs at most. We're not talking about TNT. We're talking about military bombs.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Here is the image you are talking about:

reply to post by bsbray11


Thx...I fixed the pic link for you.

reply to post by bsbray11


Ya thats the image..

Although crappily made.. You can see the times on the bottom of the image.. If you notice between 8:15 and 9:30ish there is alot of smoke there so it gives some idea on what Rodriguez said about bombs going on and that video of them guys on the payphone with the explosion going off..

Anyway thanx bray for that.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

following an obvious loss of structural integrity of the top floors. The bottom floors do not appear to buckle at all.

The failure came right at the point of impact, where the steel bowed inwards, not buckled above or below.

Is this evidence of explosions whether planted or otherwise internal explosions of equipment. Or is this merely kinetic energy from bending beams?

Explosives aren't going to bend beams towards the explosion. Heat would weaken a column, the heat was coming from inside the building, the column bowed towards the fire.

The top section nearly falls off the rest of the building...so how in the world does the top section continue to pulverize the bottom section?

As seen in this picture, part A obviously lost its support, gravity is pulling it down into that empty space causing it to tilt. As you can also see, part B and in your own pictures, it was still attached for about a second while part A fell, causing the tilt, but once it also failed from the weight, there was no reason it continue the tilt, then fell straight down, as seen.

In order for it to "fall off", not only would the floors below it be able to resist the enormous load that just fell on them, but it would also have to be pushed by some other external force that just isn't there.

All of these comments about "science, physics, logic would tell us it did this, not that" are irrelevant if you do not understand science and physics.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Whyhi]

I really cant see that falling into itself like it did..

I believe it should have fallen over at some point and time and not straight down knocking things 500ft away from it.

Still makes no sense.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by ThichHeaded]

reply to post by ThichHeaded


What part specifically are you confused about?



Alright, that's a picture of the tilting with my awesome MS paint skillz. Obviously, the red line is gravity, pulling down vertically. The yellow circle is the part that failed after the tilt was started by the other side falling into the the gap caused by the support failure, breaking the yellow circle part, fell as one slightly angled portion being pulled down vertically by gravity. ( Yes, my red line is crooked )

The green portion roughly represents what I picture some people are thinking should have happened either right after the tilt or while it was falling, the light blue arrows represent a force needed to push it over.

Simply put, there is no force to push it over. There was no reason for it to continue to lean as both sides were not supported, falling down. The only reason for the tilt was the brief period where one side was falling and the other was still supported, after the supported side also failed, no reason to tilt

I'm not sure how this can be explained any more without repeating myself more than I most likely already have.

i hear ya is it hard to understand how a plane full of possibly the most flammable fuel going hundreds of miles an hour could cause any damage.
Instead im supposed to beleive a crack demolition team and every government and civil agency are working together to destroy its own property wich it has to pay to clean up and no real evidence has ever been produced there was a commity hearing they did bring to light that the president had warning and also didnt react properly but they didnt address that the buildings were blown up because it well didnt happen.
I remember watching that second tower fall saw the plane i heard weeks after some one say ya know i bet the government did it i read it on the internet and here we are victims of those first dellusional paranoid shut ins. If you asked me after i saw all that messed up sh.t that day and yea saw how the buildings were falling and said they were blown up i might have either laughed in your face or simply punched you. the plane hit the building the fire burned hot the metal sheared the world suffered and yet these yahoos still need more i mean really people get a clue and you tube is not science nor is wikipedia and opinions dont prove anything they only cloud the issue. if there was evidence it wouldnt be coming to light here or from someone who saw a video on you tube....
Be Well and use your heads people dont just beleive cause its fun to be apart of a cause its a major discredit to the heros of that day. they are not liars and you truthers didnt solve anything sorry to say.

reply to post by Whyhi


This is a horrible angle I admit...however, take a look at the leaning top half of the tower.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10c2c4318a5c.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by triplescorpio


The owner of the towers filed insurance just before the towers fell collecting a BIG amount of $. Building 7 fell for no apparent reason, other than a couple of fires in the top floors. You might want to look into what was in that building too.

Even if the fuel manages to burn, the towers fell at free fall speed.

FREE FALL

As if they where hollow. By that logic, a small earthquake would have demolished them. I've seen building fires that burn for days and they don't fall, but this tower, which was built to take anything you throw at it, burns for a little while and some how vaporizes all the support beams.

What about the alleged explosives heard by people? What about the white smoke leaking from the tower? What about the pictures of the CUT beams at the wreckage?

^ btw the tower still fell on itself, the leaning part is the top part above where the plane hit

[edit on 17-2-2010 by vjr1113]