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 LoganCale
you can see the antenna drop downward in video of the collapse a little faster than the exterior -- could this be due to perspective? I'm not sure).
Originally posted by LoganCale
I most definitely do not believe there were explosives around the outside of the building. As a building is collapsing, the air that is inside is going to be forced out somehow and it's going to blow open windows or go out ones that have already been broken or air vents or anything it can and that's going to cause dust puffs from all the pulverized rubble that's currently in the air as it's collapsing.
Originally posted by bsbray11First off, the air could not have pressurized! This is a really obvious problem: the towers were being destroyed. Air is most certainly not going to compress when each floor is being blown out, one by one, innards and all (this includes air!).
A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Howard, that is totally non sequitur.
You have no idea what caused that wind. I have no idea what caused that wind. But it hardly explains ANY of the above-mentioned problems.
I wouldn't be surprised if two or even three types of explosives were used on the core structures and/or trusses: thermite (speculating here, but thermite with sulfur could have been used to quickly cut the trusses off from the core structures), large unconventional explosives in key locations higher up the buildings (actually blew up much of the cores -- I point here to medical evidence of radiation at Ground Zero, and how well mini-nukes would explain certain oddities of the collapses and Ground Zero's temperatures), and conventional charges at the base of the core structures to ensure they fell in full (as per the WTC1 Hoboken video's depiction of the WTC1 core collapse).
Originally posted by count zero
I wouldn't be surprised if two or even three types of explosives were used on the core structures and/or trusses: thermite (speculating here, but thermite with sulfur could have been used to quickly cut the trusses off from the core structures), large unconventional explosives in key locations higher up the buildings (actually blew up much of the cores -- I point here to medical evidence of radiation at Ground Zero, and how well mini-nukes would explain certain oddities of the collapses and Ground Zero's temperatures), and conventional charges at the base of the core structures to ensure they fell in full (as per the WTC1 Hoboken video's depiction of the WTC1 core collapse).
Here is where I believe we are often steered in the wrong direction.
The assumption that it takes teams of engineers a very long time to
place charges for controlled demolition is correct. Yet it is only correct
in that we know what types of explosives they use. The military in this
country is always 10 to 20 years ahead of the population when it comes
to technology (i.e. cell phones). How far ahead of common knowledge
do you think they are in terms of munitions? There could be types of
explosives that are incredibly small yet more powerful than dynamite.
We have no way of knowing what it would actually take to bring a building
down because we have no way of knowing the extent of technology that
could have been used.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
The wind would have been caused by the air above in the tower being compressed by the collapse and escaping through all available escape routes to equalise the pressure. This would include the stairwells.
If it was caused by explosives you would expect it to be more sudden, accompanied by a loud report, and one would think he would have remarked on it. He'd probably have had a noticable popping sensation in his ears from the sudden change in pressure from the explosion(s) too, which one would think he would remark on.
Originally posted by bsbray11You'll notice that the man did not report the air making a quick left turn and bursting through solid concrete and steel.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
What leads you to believe that the jets of smoke burst through concrete and steel?
When you watch the video you can see the smoke fly out, I wasn't aware you could see into the building and see it breaking down walls.
In the video it looks like smoke pouring out an already open area, just like it looks further up. Only as the collapse progresses does it look like a "squib". I don't see the need for a "magic air missile" to get smoke to be ejected with violent force. It should be expected with the forces involved.
Of course like most of the "evidence" for demolition, it looks much better in a misleading still.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Originally posted by bsbray11You'll notice that the man did not report the air making a quick left turn and bursting through solid concrete and steel.
What leads you to believe that the jets of smoke burst through concrete and steel?
When you watch the video you can see the smoke fly out, I wasn't aware you could see into the building and see it breaking down walls.
In the video it looks like smoke pouring out an already open area, just like it looks further up. Only as the collapse progresses does it look like a "squib". I don't see the need for a "magic air missile" to get smoke to be ejected with violent force. It should be expected with the forces involved.
Of course like most of the "evidence" for demolition, it looks much better in a misleading still.