It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 30
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:36 AM
I saw molten steel or molten something in the debris pile....a reply to: hellobruce

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:45 AM
originally posted by: hellobruce :
originally posted by: LaBTop

LT :Most of you will, by now, ask yourself what all this antimatter stuff has to do...etc.

hellobruce : Absolutely nothing, as there is zero evidence for beam weapons, thermite, mini silent nuclear weapons etc at the WTC.

My thesis on Mr Tahill and Jeff Prager's research, based on the USGS reports from their dust samplings from just after 9/11 :
Depleted uranium waste used as DU-plasma-front linings in high explosive upgraded traditional cutter charges, to cut the WTC steel core columns, could also have produced those comparable nuclear fission decay cycles products, and the same relations in decay products, as found in the resulting dust by the USGS samplers.
I still think this is in fact another glaring indication of something very out of the ordinary in a supposed by the official story, "natural" collapse mechanism after short, "intense" fires.

Only a >700 C fire can cause window glass to break, as the Cardington fire tests on a steel structure with NO fire-insulation, pointed out. Even after hours long intense fires, that structure did not collapse.
We also saw no window glass break at most sides of the collapse instigating floors in both WTC towers.


The blazing World Trade Center Fire in 1975 on the 11th floor and beyond :

Video Evidence of Explosives In both Twin Tower Collapses :

E. P. Heidner, from the DIA Office of Naval Intelligence : searches over 60 databases and over 2200 selected websites from 15 federal agencies, offering 200 million pages of authoritative U.S. government science information including research and development results :

Downward Acceleration of WTC 1 :

edit on 5/6/15 by LaBTop because: Cardington fire tests, not Cardigan.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

There are two types, those who post pages of stuff that are always missing the common sense items or all the details, that destroy their theories. Then, there are those who just post personal attacks.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 07:35 AM

Victims of the military-industrial complex "patriotic" propaganda that has grown so powerful these days, it can only be stopped by some miracle, like a dollar-collapse, or defeat by an honest enemy, further in the development of even more heinous weapons of mass destruction.
My hopes on that are not particular high.
It's better to keep exposing the lies, misconceptions and propaganda pieces.
In the hope of an awakening of the voting masses. (Voting is probably already globally rigged for decades now)

A lot of excremental stuff is brewing lately, and in the process of deteriorating into a chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable anymore, outcome....

and of course as they say flaq indicates one is over the target
makes one wonder: what, and to what purpose, is behind the flaq?

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 12:06 PM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

There are two types, those who post pages of stuff that are always missing the common sense items or all the details, that destroy their theories. Then, there are those who just post personal attacks.

And that is why "OS-Trusters" are not taken seriously anymore, for a long time already. They cannot apply common sense to their blindly following of Authority, and thus discover why the authorities their theories are wrong.

This is such common sense :

Re-read my preceding posts on that page 13, to see why that is common sense, and NIST their sagging trusses theory is toast.
Then you can also read in that post that NIST declares the pancaking floors theory already for many years as non compatible to the modus operandus of the Tower collapses :

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, -snip-

That's why it's so comical that lots of Trusters keep insisting, to this day, on pancaking floors as the collapse mode.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:33 PM

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because :

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and

(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab ; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST interpreted their photo of "sagging trusses behind broken windows" totally wrong, as proven by me, and is now left without any solid evidence of sagging floors and trusses, thus now has to re-phrase that above sentence as follows :

to the point where core columns on the south face of WTC-1N and the east face of WTC-2S were failing (after being cut diagonally), and all these columns sunk down a few meters and the composite floors sinking together with those core columns, pulled the perimeter columns on those sides, inwards.

The only way for those perimeter columns to have been pulled inwards, is by cutting outer core columns diagonally, then sinking of that cut row of outer core columns. Which pulled the composite floors down with them, under an increasing angle, until the row of perimeter columns could not withstand that immense force anymore, and gave way, pulled inwards by that huge surface of composite floor decks with their underlaying double trusses.

Charles M. Beck proved mathematically, based also on common engineering principles, that the 47 core columns could not have failed naturally, and thus external factors have to be considered, in this case, explosives that diagonally cut a line of outer core columns first, which than sank a few meters, pulling the hat truss down a few meters, and the perimeter wall also about a meter inwards via the also sinking composite floor, solidly connected to those outer core columns. Then the rest of the core columns were severed, the radio mast of WTC1N sunk also as the first sign of collapse initiation, and then global collapse, assisted by lots of other explosions (sounding like a collapse sequence) followed.
Just look at the collapse videos posted by me on page 13, and you see what I just explained.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Sorry I stopped spending time reading your extensive posts long ago, when you were shown in black and white that you were making assumptions not supported by any evidence. So, I choose not to read yet another post in which you claim you are right based on your flawed assumptions.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:33 PM

originally posted by: LaBTop
totally wrong, as proven by me,

Except you have proven no such thing, it is all in your mind!

without any solid evidence

Very true, you have no solid evidence at all, just nonsense about mini nuclear bombs going off at the WTC's!

Charles M. Beck proved mathematically

He has not actually!

Quote: The load-bearing vertical columns begin to fail one by one, each at location near the source of damage. When the remaining columns cannot carry their load any more, the building is set in motion. However, as the building starts to move the remaining columns continue to offer resistance before their eventual failure. It is important to observe that as a result the acceleration of the building is initially fairly small, but then starts to increases as more and more columns fail. With the failure of last of the remaining columns the top section achieves a near-free fall acceleration. The free fall lasts until the top section reaches the ground when it starts to decelerate. No citation or line of reasoning advanced to support this assertion. More tellingly, there is no estimate given of the duration of the increase in acceleration to near freefall; in particular, whether it would be detectable over the timescale of the available measurements. Since columns would be expected to have negligible resistance after a total shortening of a few per cent, I would suspect that this initial period of low acceleration would be so brief as to be undetectable. Beck states that the near-freefall acceleration is achieved after 0.7m of drop; that hardly seems surprising, as this is about 17% of the height of a single storey. Beck is trying to dance around his own analysis by refusing to quantify it. It's that good old unevaluated inequality fallacy again, a great favourite of the truth movement. Quote: Well defined failure point and initial free-fall acceleration of the top section both indicate that the collapse of WTC 7 was not spontaneous. Again, an assertion unsupported by any citation or line of reasoning. The flaw in Beck's analysis is that he's assuming that the collapse of WTC7 commenced with the movement of the roof line, and neglecting the prior fall of the mechanical penthouse. He's then deducing that something must have destroyed or severely damaged the core columns. Could that, perhaps, have been caused by having a large structure collapse through them? This isn't a possibility that Beck seems to consider. And even after all this careful misdirection, Beck can't come up with anything. He's forced to admit that Bazant and Verdure's crush-up model is an equally good description of the collapse as his own vague generalisations about damage to 50% of the columns. Even that is based on his own unpublished work on the Twin Towers collapses, which uses a gross overestimate of the column dimensions - Beck assumed that the ground level column dimensions were continued all the way to the roof - followed by an assumption that WTC7 was built to the same strength. Overall, a nice try to slip some truthiness into a serious paper, but this is poor reasoning that falls far short of supporting the conclusion it's designed to support; as a result Beck has backed off from actually stating the conclusion he'd like to. He's working very cleverly, though, as a stealth truther, and if he goes on like this he may slip something past a group of peer reviewers who are having an off day.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:29 AM

hellobruce : Except you have proven no such thing, it is all in your mind!

LT : Prove to me then, that the NIST report photo of "sagging trusses" just behind a row of broken windows (broken by plane and building debris, not by fire! ) is NOT taken on a side of that building, that had perpendicular floor decks adjacent to that row of windows. Thus making it impossible for their also perpendicular to those windows, underlaying floor trusses, to suddenly sag in such a miraculous manner, that they now hung in front of those windows, i.o.w., parallel with those windows.
Find me one other WTC windows photo or video, where you can show me sagged trusses hanging behind rows of windows on one floor. You can't, NIST can't, but they still hang their whole "sagging trusses caused collapse initiation" -theory on that miracle.

LT :without any solid evidence.
hellobruce : Very true, you have no solid evidence at all, just nonsense about mini nuclear bombs going off at the WTC's!

LT : Tell me what exactly you do not understand from the rest of my words after "My thesis on Mr Tahill and Jeff Prager's research, based on the USGS reports from their dust samplings from just after 9/11 : "
in this second post by me on this same page 30 :

LT : Charles M. Beck proved mathematically....etc.
hellobruce : He has not actually!

AAAhh, good old JREF forums, now renamed to IS-forums. (very bad choice of initials, Islamic State comes to mind) Any idea why they thought that change necessary? JREF got too much attention, and bad press? And was advised to change their name by some befriended agencies?

I was talking about the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, and you post some JREFer talking about Beck's WTC 7 paper?
Let's cut the crap out, and thus ask that JREF/IS forum-poster to explain then for WTC 7, this seismic amplitude anomaly :

EDIT : Come on, is there really anyone at JREF/IS thinking, that that huge seismic amplitude starting in Manhattan 8 seconds (17:20:38) before Cianca took his photo (17:20:46), is caused SOLELY by the NIST explanation of breaking/buckling/failing of column 79, the one under that east penthouse?
Are you really that gullible?
While you see what much smaller seismic amplitudes show up a few seconds later, when the whole 47 stories building thundered to the ground.
In that process, breaking ALL its, comparable to column 79, core and all perimeter columns while arriving in the lower part of the building, which was out of sight for all video taping reporters.
Since we saw the whole top of the building sink as one entity, until out of sight or masked by the dust clouds. No left over core columns spires sticking out above the sinking roof parapet line !
edit on 6/6/15 by LaBTop because: Felled the need to ask for sanity.

EDIT2 : Making it a tad bit clearer :

edit on 6/6/15 by LaBTop because: see EDIT 2.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:58 AM

This 1975 fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the trusses needed to be replaced.

And in 1975, the whole weight of the North Tower its upper 99 floors were pressing down during more than 3 hours, on its weakened steel columns in that 11th floor RAGING fires in 65 % of its core plus office area, and later on also on its higher floors.
If you read those fire men reports, about a fire as hot as a blow torch, you start wondering what is true about all these NIST and their Trusters assumptions, that the steel in the Twin Towers was so affected by the "intense" heat, that the upper parts had to come down naturally.

Those upper Tower parts were much less heavy than the 99 floors Tower part in the 1975 fire.!
And still no sign of ANY deformation or affection in that 1975 fire. Which had no sprinkler system installed at that time.! And the huge water tanks on the upper mechanical top floors were filled with water to spread to the supposedly intact sprinklers on the floors ABOVE the plane impacted, shortly (30 mins) burning floors. So, how did those fires manage to spread to these above-impact floors, without being stopped by the still intact sprinkler system.?
I suppose that every floor had a low-pressure-stop-valve installed in that sprinkler system, exactly for the purpose of cutting off lower floors damages to the system, so that the water pressure would be present at the still intact floors. If not, the installer should be in prison for criminal neglect.

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: LaBTop. And this last post is an example of my earlier point. You ignore pertinent facts about the 1975 fire. 1. No high speed airliner slamming into the building and, 2. The 1975 fire in the North Tower, was confined to the section of the building that had the much more durable asbestos based fireproofing that was discontinued after the 30th or so floor and not used in the South Tower.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:26 AM
Floor sagging "observed" by NIST : NCSTAR 1-6D page 324 :

How come this photographer managed to take a picture of the North face and the South face of WTC2S in the same 09:38:22 second, as NIST thinks? They are at opposite sides.
Even if these two photos were taken from a helicopter, it's still impossible, in the same second.
Thus the time stamp given by NIST is obviously erroneous for one of them (or both? ).

By the way, those are not sagging floors, they are sagging lowered ceilings and the sagging aluminum side rims and aluminum cross sections from these lowered ceilings. Aluminum weakens much earlier than steel.
The double floor trusses under each composite floor deck on these north and south sides center parts WERE PLACED PERPENDICULAR to the exterior building perimeter, not parallel. And also on the east and west sides. Only the corners on north and south sides had some short parallel decks laid out there.

See for proof, this NIST picture from NCSTAR 1 page 40, fig 3-3 :

You then see, that on those plane impacted floors in WTC2S, on all 4 sides of WTC2S, the main center portions of those sides had their floor decks installed in a perpendicular manner.
Only at the east and west side corner portions of both the North and South sides we see parallel to those two sides, installed floor decks.
And the by NIST observed sagging of something not clear what they think it was, is just behind the CENTER exterior tower sides portions in those photos, right in FRONT of those, cut by 9/11 planners, outer core columns. (see top linked composite photos)

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:30 AM
Inward bowing of the East wall of WTC2S just before collapse (09:58:56) :

How come NIST printed under that photo that it is the west wall, while any keen observer can see that it is the EAST wall, just by looking at that jet-engine break-out hole in the NE-corner of floors 81 and 82. The plane came from south and impacted the south face of WTC2S at quite an offset from the south side center, to a point to the east of that center, in fact.
Then the right jet engine cartwheeled through eastern office space and left the building through that hole in the NE-corner between the east and north side, to end up under some scaffolding on the street below, some blocks further north.

Sloppy work for a multi-million NIST research project.
They didn't care to pay a few dollars more for thorough end-editors?

By the way, it's obvious the 9/11 planners didn't want the first collapsing South Tower to impact the North Tower (lots of standing remnants still there after such a scenario), so they opted for an east-off-center plane impact, and later on for the diagonally cutting of the row of eastern outer core columns first, to be sure that the South Tower would topple partially to the south-east, on top of these lower buildings of WTC4 to the east side :

Note the tilt to the east and south of the top portion of WTC2S at collapse start :

These outer core columns slipped down after cutting and they sunk a few meters and pulled the exterior columns on that one or two lower floors than that 78th floor inward-down with them. Since the perimeter columns were firmly connected to the core columns by means of the huge composite floor area.
Like from this : |_| at floor 77, to this : /| at floor 78.

Because these outer core columns were as a whole, much stronger than those perimeter columns, it were those perimeter columns that give in.
After that, they ignited by radio signal, the first 4 small thermobaric gaseous+chemicals fueled bombs that blew whole composite ceilings up and floors downwards, and core columns up while their welds/bolts sheared off, inside one huge office floor space :

Those events you can see as the first, black soot billowing smoke columns rising from the roof top just before and at collapse start, and then those gray/white smoke rings spitting out of every second or third floor on the way down. (see posts of that, on page 13)

Second plane, seconds before it hit WTC2S on the South face, offset from its center
Rare pictures I had not seen before :

Plane at 1 second before impact (09:03:14) in WTC2S :

Same moment, but taken from the east side of WTC2S :
Lots of additional last flight moments pictures more on that website.

All THANKS TO the man/woman from the 911conspiracytv website.!
A load of rare pictures, videos, documents and texts about 9/11. We are lucky that people like him/her exist, doing all this meticulous work to preserve precious moments and information for our offspring.

WTC Truss manufacturing (many more on site) :

WTC Floors before concrete was poured on top :

As you can see now, those were strong, concrete with re-bar floor-decks, with fire-durable double trusses under them, enforced by cross trusses between all trusses.
I showed you already the same sort of trusses which held out perfectly in a much longer and hotter high-rise fire, a few posts back. The one you saw a buckled vertical column, but perfectly intact trusses to the right and left of that column. Which endured the same excessive heat as the column, but did NOT SAG at all. Nowhere in that fire.

EDIT : I meant the Broadgate Phase 8 fires, from :

edit on 10/6/15 by LaBTop because: One typo.

edit on 10/6/15 by LaBTop because: Added EDIT.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:45 AM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: LaBTop. And this last post is an example of my earlier point. You ignore pertinent facts about the 1975 fire. 1. No high speed airliner slamming into the building and, 2. The 1975 fire in the North Tower, was confined to the section of the building that had the much more durable asbestos based fireproofing that was discontinued after the 30th or so floor and not used in the South Tower.

I was not addressing the fire-insulation, nor the plane impacts their resulting damage, that has Charles M. Beck already addressed in his two WTC Towers papers, and shown that even with half of all core AND perimeter columns gone, collapse could not begin, NATURALLY. Only assisted by explosives could that occur.

The subject was however the so called (by NIST) sagging of whole rows of floor trusses on all four sides of the WTC South Tower.
Just behind floor windows, as NIST supposed.

Therefore my above two posts, to show that NIST is erroneous with their sagging trusses theory.
The problem for NIST is, that they can't prove a damn thing about it, even worse for them, the Broadgate fire proves that those trusses were damn sturdy, in an even much longer and intenser fire.

But NIST still insists that it were the sagging floors, which are a main ingredient of their progressive collapse theory.
Those non existing sagging floors pulled the perimeter columns inward, and that started the global collapse, NIST thinks to this day.

I say it's explosives that cut the outer CORE columns diagonally first, those displaced/sunk, and pulled the composite floors with them downwards.
And in effect pulled thus also inwards, that floor's row of center PERIMETER columns that were situated IN FRONT of that now cut and sinking row of outer core columns.
And those perimeter and core columns were welded/bolted sturdy enough to those composite floor decks. Just as NIST also says.

NIST says to this day that sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inwards.

I say they cut outer core columns and that initiated both collapses, followed a second later by cutting of the rest of all core columns. And collapse-assisting following small TB-explosions to keep the collapse going all the way down to the ground, through up to then, all those still undamaged floors.
Let NIST explain the curious fact that that inward bowing ONLY appeared right in front of the outer core columns, and NOT at ALL in the corner portions of those floors.

While most floor parts near windy corners burned much heavier than the center parts. Especially the NE-corner where the jet engine came through and left that intensely burning fire behind. Thus, why happened no NIST-expected floor sagging and following inward bowing of its perimeter columns near that corner hole.?

PS : to the poster with the JREF/IS link to Beck's WTC 7 paper discussion thread from 2008 :
Beck is now at his fourth version of his WTC 7 paper these days (his 2013 version, not his 2008 one). Version 4. Beck's WTC 7 paper. Version 8. Beck's Twin Towers paper.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:44 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

The smoking gun of 9/11 is building 7

You don't need anything else.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 11:41 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Charles M. Beck is wrong.

And, you addressed the 1975 fire saying that it was proof that the building should have survived the impact damage and fire damage. I pointed out that you ignored pertinent facts.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:56 PM
Once the Saudis found out the location for trillions of dollars being sponged through insider trading info gained from the stock market, they sent in Atta's group to burn it down. Little did they (The Saudi's) know that the key to the whole thing were the criminals in building 7.
Of course Donald already knew that the jig was up (which was why he made his statement), and that they would have to shut down their little "Black Budget" golden goose, once it had been compromised. But, I'm sure he was just as surprised as My Pet Goat (remember the look on his face when he was informed of the hit) when the Jihadist did their damage to the Great Satan thingy.
And the big question remains after all of these years.

Why were the victims shoes left?

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

Please link some sources!

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:36 AM
a reply to: Yule C Mann

Once the Saudis found out the location for trillions of dollars being sponged through insider trading info gained from the stock market,

No clue what you are talking about.
Show us some proof of any part of that statement.

Just a side note:
You cannot hide a trillion dollars anywhere.
You cannot covertly spend a trillion dollars.

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 07:45 AM

originally posted by: matt1893
a reply to: hellobruce

Please link some sources!

new topics

<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in