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.

 

9/11 in 5 Minutes: Video

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Necrose
can somebody actually provide me with a link to the supposed full-lenght video?
I can't seem to find any, and MSM are showing like 25-second BS.

thanks in advance


Full length of which video?




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
There's one small thing missing from these videos.
Provable Facts.

Other than that they make great night time drama's.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Necrose
can somebody actually provide me with a link to the supposed full-lenght video?
I can't seem to find any, and MSM are showing like 25-second BS.

thanks in advance


Full length of which video?


sorry, I am replying to multiple threads and my Safari tabs got mixed-up haha

edit on 2-9-2014 by Necrose because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
There's one small thing missing from these videos.
Provable Facts.

Other than that they make great night time drama's.


I'll give ya the star for that.
But at the end of the day. Building seven came down perfectly.
With Larry silverstein say he gave the go to pull it.

You have radio conversation ( between ems fire and demo crews )stating to clear #7. And then the building was gone in a matter of 5-10 min.

But don't ask me. I watched it live on TV.
Go to NYC and ask all the firefighters that were there. And still hold strong on the strong account and integrity.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
ZERO: an investigation into 9-11 ( full documentary)

I thought this one was pretty good.

Sorry Necrose

I too am everywhere at the moment...lol

edit on 2-9-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh



You have radio conversation ( between ems fire and demo crews )stating to clear #7. And then the building was gone in a matter of 5-10 min.

1.Is there a time stamp on the radio calls? Or did some website get footloose with the time(s)?
2.Fire Cheif(s) had a transit aimed at the building and noterd the progressive lean throughout the day.

So much for the myth that people went into the burning building with bags of explosives to 'finish wiring' the building.

On the web unicorns are alive and well.
Kill the power and unicorns vanish.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
That was a spot on doc-u-vid.

It wasnt until a year later i even realized building 7 had fallen too, magically, without having been hit by anything.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Bigburgh



You have radio conversation ( between ems fire and demo crews )stating to clear #7. And then the building was gone in a matter of 5-10 min.

1.Is there a time stamp on the radio calls? Or did some website get footloose with the time(s)?
2.Fire Cheif(s) had a transit aimed at the building and noterd the progressive lean throughout the day.

So much for the myth that people went into the burning building with bags of explosives to 'finish wiring' the building.

On the web unicorns are alive and well.
Kill the power and unicorns vanish.



Hehe.. no fox news CNN and many local stations picked it up and ran it.
The audio which is still has to be out there somewhere. From count downs to what sounds like the charges being set off.
And I'm not arguing with you on the matter that what remains now are YT documentaries. And facts sadly disappeared like unicorns.

Still don't change what the real firefighters saw and heard in towers 1&2..
And it still don't change that building 7 came down at 5:30 pm est.
First being stated collapsed on its own...
The a year later Larry Silverstein saying he gave the "pull it" order.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
That was a spot on doc-u-vid.

It wasnt until a year later i even realized building 7 had fallen too, magically, without having been hit by anything.


Yes it was one of the better ones... much better indeed


Edit: it was stated the day of 9-11 before it fell that gas lines ruptured from under the streets from 1&2 and ignited, then took off from there. So the evacuated 7 early on.
edit on 2-9-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
There's one small thing missing from these videos.
Provable Facts.

Other than that they make great night time drama's.


That is up to credible investigators. The video made no claims other than what was made by the white house and MSM.

NYPD or FBI should be conducting the investigation, not the "9/11 Commission". WTF are they?

A proper investigation by professional investigators is all anyone asked for. Denying people that is causing theories to get thrown around and then those theories are attacked as a way to legitimize the mainstream account. Yet the mainstream account has never had to answer to scrutiny on it's own without dragging in wild conspiracy theories.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Bigburgh



You have radio conversation ( between ems fire and demo crews )stating to clear #7. And then the building was gone in a matter of 5-10 min.

1.Is there a time stamp on the radio calls? Or did some website get footloose with the time(s)?
2.Fire Cheif(s) had a transit aimed at the building and noterd the progressive lean throughout the day.

So much for the myth that people went into the burning building with bags of explosives to 'finish wiring' the building.

On the web unicorns are alive and well.
Kill the power and unicorns vanish.



Then forget the myths. Explain how it happened. And stay within the boundaries of conventional physics and historical accounts with similar circumstances. Don't grab on to wild theories and use them to excuse a pathetic attempt at investigating. Not by you but the 9/11 commission and NIST report. Not worth the paper it is written on.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bigburgh
ZERO: an investigation into 9-11 ( full documentary)

I thought this one was pretty good.

Sorry Necrose

I too am everywhere at the moment...lol



I likes the one done by 'Zeitgeist the movie' 2007 I think, between religion and the banking system. Similar to the video in the OP, Zeitgeist does not make any claims, it only shows the footage from that day from all the reporters, emergency responders and witnesses. From that alone you can see quite clearly that the story doesn't mesh.

The quote I like best from the video is. " If 9/11 was NOT a false flag attack intended to drum up support for a military campaign, it would be the exception to the rule"



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



and historical accounts with similar circumstances.

You can't since no plane that large has struck any building. And no other sky scraper has used that construction method.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Bigburgh
ZERO: an investigation into 9-11 ( full documentary)

I thought this one was pretty good.

Sorry Necrose

I too am everywhere at the moment...lol



I likes the one done by 'Zeitgeist the movie' 2007 I think, between religion and the banking system. Similar to the video in the OP, Zeitgeist does not make any claims, it only shows the footage from that day from all the reporters, emergency responders and witnesses. From that alone you can see quite clearly that the story doesn't mesh.

The quote I like best from the video is. " If 9/11 was NOT a false flag attack intended to drum up support for a military campaign, it would be the exception to the rule"



Hey thanks I'll go check it out!

Whoops got timed out....
I'll be back later after watching.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



Then forget the myths. Explain how it happened.

Why is it so surprising that a structurally compromised burning building would collapse?
Ask your local fire department if they would enter a burning Walmart.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MALBOSIA



and historical accounts with similar circumstances.

You can't since no plane that large has struck any building. And no other sky scraper has used that construction method.




The planes never caused the collapse. The fires did, remember? The planes hit only a few floors very high up the tower. How do you explain all the floors below below?

The buildings reaction to burning kerosene can be compared to other events. And physics rule of "path of least resistance" can also be used.

Anyway I don't think this thread is made to argue various points of 9/11. The video cites the official claim and it is correct. The purpose I see of this video is to lay out the reported facts as the MSM did and then ask yourself what you think about the conspiracy theory that was the official story.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MALBOSIA



Then forget the myths. Explain how it happened.

Why is it so surprising that a structurally compromised burning building would collapse?
Ask your local fire department if they would enter a burning Walmart.



They wouldn't enter a burning Walmart is because the roofing above collapses which is what the building is designed for. In tilt up ware house you do not fire-protect the roof because you want the fire to burn through the roof which makes it easier to put out the fire from the top down. If there was a fire separated floor above then they would have to spray into the effected floor but surely from outside. I don't even know why I answered that question, I am assuming that your are not trolling.

And what is surprising about a steel structure collapsing due to fire? I don't think it has ever happened for one and then for both buildings to collapse exactly the same way is almost supernatural of explosives are not a possibility.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The trade canter was designed to withstand a major fire. Open plan as they call it, no intermediate columns to impede floor/office space. It had a central structural core and a perimeter structural support system that tied both together using trusses. Think of it like this, if you place a board across two stacks of bricks then load weight onto the middle of the board the board will deflect down. But also the bricks will deflect inward where they touch the board at the top. Replacing this all with a metal system, then heating it up and dumping the rubble of a jet on top, greatly increases the elasticity of the metal, causing even more deflection. Once one floor was compromised it was over. When structurally designing a building you start at the top and work your way down, as for loading conditions.


Building 7 was structural different - simple steel construction with a curtain wall I believe, without details it's hard to tell but most likely it is. Most demolition crews use as little explosives as possible to exploit the design used on the buildings there trying to bring down, but it all depends on the design. Gravity has no problem pulling everything down you just have to know where to start. In building 7's case taking out columns 58-81 would pull everything inward, then down, all else that would need to be done is cut some of the perimeter columns like chopping down a tree to help it along.

Sorry I'm rushing, If I did a bad job explaining something please let me know.
edit on 9/2/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
The trade canter was designed to withstand a major fire. Open plan as they call it, no intermediate columns to impede floor/office space. It had a central structural core and a perimeter structural support system that tied both together using trusses. Think of it like this, if you place a board across two stacks of bricks then load weight onto the middle of the board the board will deflect down. But also the bricks will deflect inward where they touch the board at the top. Replacing this all with a metal system, then heating it up and dumping the rubble of a jet on top, greatly increases the elasticity of the metal, causing even more deflection. Once one floor was compromised it was over. When structurally designing a building you start at the top and work your way down, as for loading conditions.


Building 7 was structural different - simple steel construction with a curtain wall I believe, without details it's hard to tell but most likely it is. Most demolition crews use as little explosives as possible to exploit the design used on the buildings there trying to bring down, but it all depends on the design. Gravity has no problem pulling everything down you just have to know where to start. In building 7's case taking out columns 58-81 would pull everything inward, then down, all else that would need to be done is cut some of the perimeter columns like chopping down a tree to help it along.

Sorry I'm rushing, If I did a bad job explaining something please let me know.


Those were cold joints all the way down the tower. Nothing 5 floors below the impact was damaged. Considering path of least resistance, why didn't the top section eventually work is way off to the side where there is little to no resistance in that direction? Instead of following this rule, the top section decided to instead plow it's way through hundreds of feet of cold steel joints and concrete.


What pancake theory describes is how if I tossed my 5 year old up in the air and tried to catch him I would be reduced to a pile of bones with my flesh and skin turned to dust.

Maybe I read your example wrong but isn't your example of a board laying across bricks excluding the central columns?

LOL I honestly couldn't tell if your backing up the official claim or arguing it. 1&2 sounded like you believe the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation using pancake theory but in #7 it sounds like you believe the building had some help coming down.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



LOL I honestly couldn't tell if your backing up the official claim or arguing it. 1&2 sounded like you believe the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation using pancake theory but in #7 it sounds like you believe the building had some help coming down.


Sorry, I have to be a little quick tonight.
Yes, I believe the TT's were brought down by jets hitting them. The open plan means NO center support under the trusses(they went from the central core to the structural perimeter) and do to the way the building was designed, excessive heat(not extreme) over a prolonged period of time would cause the trusses under extra load bearing conditions(debris from jets) also to bend inward pulling the structural perimeter in with it(the concrete core on the other side would not move). This would create a 'fold' and do to gravity pulled straight down. It's like standing on 2 'Pringles Potato Chip' tubes and then having someone flick the tube with there finger, just a little force and it crushes.
Because I feel this way DOES NOT mean I don't buy into the conspiracy aspects of what is going on here though. IMO this whole thing stunk from the beginning and just because the smell is gone doesn't mean the people that dealt it are.
As for Building 7 it was without a shadow of a doubt in my mind deliberately demolished with a 'plug and play' demolition setup. Federal building not open to public scrutiny, everything was in place to accept explosives well in advance to Sept. 11. From the videos I've seen they kept everyone out until they snapped in place the explosives to pre-wired systems. Made a cut here and there and 'boom'! (directional explosives or thermite would of been invaluable here, if they used it) I even remember from the jaded History Channel Movie they play every 9/11 they had a security guard in the lobby after the first tower fell, wtf, why would they need that for?
If it took 10 minutes to set one explosive charge(24 core columns), 1 guy = 4 hours or 2 guys = 2 hours plus cutting time which by looking at the plan only needed to be done to about 6 columns on the perimeter(I'd have to look at the collapse of Bld. 7 again to see how it fell to make a better determination). What I'm trying to say is 3-4 guys could have done this if there was existing access to steel columns and demolition wiring system already in place in about 6hrs, with time to spare.
Buildings don't tumble over except on a few rare occasions. Watch video's on buildings being demolished and you will see the ENTIRE building crumbles down into rubble while at the last second the area closest to the roof is still intact. The entire building moves down as if still in one piece.

Look at the TT falling again: crunch at the level the trusses failed (jet impact location), top moves down to that point, then the rest of it goes straight down(in both cases).

Now watch Building 7 fall straight down, with the windows at the roof in perfect condition, until the last moment. Just like a deliberately demolished building. If it fell any other way: partially, just the middle, one end only I would change my mind, but it didn't. EVERY SINGLE LOW LEVEL COLUMN WOULD HAVE HAD TO FAIL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME FOR IT TO FALL WITHOUT BANKING IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. What are the chances of that happening? Zero IMO. Someone strategically located explosives to take out the central and lower support columns to bring it down. No doubt about it what so ever.

I hope to talk later. . . AB
edit on 9/2/2014 by AnteBellum because: add



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join