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 LeftBehind
Free falling objects do not change velocity unless they encounter air resistance or hit something.
The Towers did not fall at free fall.
The fact remains that the freefalling debris hit the ground faster than the non free falling building.
What you think is proving your point, is actually debris falling from different heights.
And that puff of debris could very well be a blast of debris being forced out below the collapse, while not being the main part of the collapse.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I understand what you guys are trying to point out.
Originally posted by LeftBehindHowever none of proves demolition.
Originally posted by LeftBehindFree falling objects do not change velocity unless they encounter air resistance or hit something.
Originally posted by LeftBehindThe Towers did not fall at free fall.
Originally posted by LeftBehindThe whole premise that they were faster than free fall is ludicrous and you guys know it.
Originally posted by LeftBehindThe fact remains that the freefalling debris hit the ground faster than the non free falling building.
Originally posted by LeftBehindYour graph means nothing when reality disagrees with you.
Originally posted by LeftBehindYou are misenterpreting the video.
Originally posted by LeftBehindHere is the video you claim shows proof of demolition.
www.plaguepuppy.net...
What you think is proving your point, is actually debris falling from different heights.
Originally posted by LeftBehindAnd that puff of debris could very well be a blast of debris being forced out below the collapse, while not being the main part of the collapse.
In which case it totally invalidates your "faster-than-freefall" theory, not that physics and the evidence doesn't do that already.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Look guys I understand your argument, I was a little drunk when I posted last, so please forgive my simple mistakes.
Originally posted by LeftBehindYou are basically counting a "squib" as the collapse.
It would be the same if you said that this pic was proof of demolition.
Now, I know you guys already think thats proof.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
However if you tried to get us to believe that the "squib" was the collapse, and since that squib is showing up below the debris, that therefore the collapse is faster than freefall at that point, most of us would say that's pretty ridiculous.
Originally posted by LeftBehindThis is exactly what you guys are claiming is happening in this vid.
www.plaguepuppy.net...
However due to most of what is happening being obscured, you can post grainy gifs, and homemade charts and at least convince yourselves.
Originally posted by LeftBehindAm I claiming I know exactly what is happening in that video. No, I have a reasonably good idea, though.
And my scenario seems more likely to me than someone sneaking into the towers and planting explosives on every perimeter column on every floor.
But, that's just me.
Originally posted by billybob
i miss WCIP! (hell, i even miss howard, my arch-nemesis, LOL!)
Originally posted by Aim64C
What goes into arming a building for demolition?
Well.... first off.... there are days of prepwork where concrete is stripped from around steel supports, and then those steel supports are cut with cutting torches to ensure the steel 'pops off' at a certain angle.
Also, the explosive charges used in demolition are small - their area of effect deliberately kept very small to keep from sending debris out like high-velocity grenades.
You have to go through this process to really destroy steel - which was one of the primary weight-bearing materials in the entire structure. You can place three tons of TNT in that building you might cause a colapse - but you'd me more likely to strip the place of concrete for several floors and blow out the glass - and scare the living hell out of people below.
Originally posted by CameronFox
1993 WTC Bombing...etc..But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by CameronFox
1993 WTC Bombing...etc..But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)
Simple question. Where the mechanical floors occupied? I think by now you know what my theory is with the core columns and the mechanical floors. I actually don't know the answer and am really asking you.
Most mechanical floors require external vents or louvers for ventilation and heat rejection along most or all of their perimeter, precluding the use of glass windows. The resulting visible "dark bands" can disrupt the overall facade design especially if it is fully glass-clad. Different architectural styles approach this challenge in different ways.
In the Modern and International styles of the 1960s and 1970s where form follows function, the vents' presence is not seen as undesirable. Rather it emphasizes the functional layout of the building by dividing it neatly into equal blocks, mirroring the layout of the elevators and offices inside. This could be clearly seen on the World Trade Center twin towers and can be seen on the Sears Tower.
Conversely, designers of the recent postmodern-style skyscrapers strive to mask the vents and other mechanical elements in clever and ingenious ways. This is accomplished through such means as complex wall angles (Petronas Towers), intricate latticework cladding (Jin Mao Building), or non-glassed sections that appear to be ornamental (Taipei 101, roof of Jin Mao Building).
Originally posted by billybob
i was just observing this same phenomena of freefalling debris on the outside of the building being passed by expulsions from within on a different video.
i'll see if i can make another illustrative pic. sometime this week, hopefully.