Ground Zero Footage

originally posted by: samkent
Yes there has.
Delft

Sorry. That is a concrete structure. Not comparable or as strong as a steel structure.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not to any floors below the impact.

Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

Don't worry we will keep you guy's right when you all forget important things regarding 9/11 !!!

I think if a video of this incident surfaced, it might shoot the OS right in the foot.

Please explain why you think that

let me guess, you want me to say that it didn't fall the same way as the WTC did. Right?

Why the traps?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

YET again bonez like all the OTHER mislead individuals on here YOU always seem to forget about the structural damage caused by the plane's it wasn't just the fire was it, how many years will it take for that fact to sink into YOUR head!

According to NIST's initial reports, there was only 15% structural damage to the impact zones. Everyone keeps forgetting that the structure was intact above and below the impact zones. 15% structural damage is not significant. Especially when the structure above and below is completely intact.

So no, the damage from the plane impacts was not significant enough to factor into the collapse scenario. But, I know how some people like to claim the damage was far worse than actuality. Helps their minds ignore the controlled demolition evidence and cling to fire/impact damage theories instead.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

That is yet another concrete structure. Not comparable. Not as strong as a steel structure.

Concrete structures crumble. Easily. Once collapse is initiated in a concrete structure, progressive collapse is inevitable.

I can't wrap my head around how some people keep trying to compare concrete structures to steel structures. They are not even in the same universe as comparable.

And even after they're reminded that the structures are concrete, they still post them over and over, year after year.

There has never been a steel-structured highrise collapse, progressive collapse, or complete and total collapse due to office fires before 9/11 or after. Ever.

Ever.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

True, considering the lower floor structure was designed to carry the load (weight) of the upper floors. Whether those upper floors toppled onto the floors below or remained intact, the structure again was designed to carry those loads.... Something must have compromised the lower floors to make them incapable of carrying the weight of the upper floors....

originally posted by: eNaR

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

True, considering the lower floor structure was designed to carry the load (weight) of the upper floors. Whether those upper floors toppled onto the floors below or remained intact, the structure again was designed to carry those loads.... Something must have compromised the lower floors to make them incapable of carrying the weight of the upper floors....

I cant remember the formula but there is one for how much the weight multiplies for ever foot of drop.

a reply to: eNaR

True, considering the lower floor structure was designed to carry the load (weight) of the upper floors. Whether those upper floors toppled onto the floors below or remained intact, the structure again was designed to carry those loads.... Something must have compromised the lower floors to make them incapable of carrying the weight of the upper floors....

You could not be more wrong.
That's one of the reasons the CD theory exists.

The floors were 'hung' from the exterior wall to the inner core.
Much like a dropped ceiling in your basement.
That was one of the selling points from the beginning. No pesky columns interfering with the floor plan. As you exited the elevators you had a straight shot all the way to the windows.
Since the floor loading capacities were all identical all the floor trusses were identical.
The floors design was also it's downfall. If you put too much weight on floor 55 it would crash through each and every floor until it hit bottom.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

You clearly haven't watched much footage.

Watch a video of any controlled demolition and then watch the close-up videos of the towers collapsing.

In a controlled demolition, the building seems to consume itself from the bottom up. This is done on purpose so the top floors stay intact as they come down, creating a smaller footprint.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, starting with the upper most sections above the damaged area coming down onto the floors beneath.

I am not falling for that one. I never stated "controlled demolition" I said explosives. Just because explosives were used does not automatically mean CD. It just means the building was blown up in away we may not have seen before. Stop trying to fit it in a CD models. In fact stop with your models all together. This is real life son.

So your evidence that explosives were used is the fireball being pushed out of the building by the rushing air of the collapse? You're gonna have to come up with something better than that... son (I really wish there was an eye roll smiley for idiotic remarks like yours). In the closeups of the damaged portion, you can see the structure give way just before the fireball is expelled from the building.

This is real life, boy. The theory that explosives were used to collapse the buildings is fantasy and there isn't a single shred of evidence that suggests otherwise. All the truthers have is opinion, speculation, and photos that are easily debunked. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

I will just go with eye-ball witnesses and leave the rest out. Firefighters, police EMT's news anchors... everyone on the morning of 9/11 reported hearing explosions. How does progressive collapse answer to that inconvenient truth.

I saw a BBC video a while back where Architect Richard Gage and the CEO of one of the countries largest demolition companies discuss and debate why there were/weren't explosives in the twin towers. I like the reaction that the CEO has when Richard Gage throws out the idea that the explosives could have been set and placed during remodels, or in the initial creation of the building in the 80's. Keep in mind, the original blueprints were destroyed in the collapse, according to the NIST report. See 27:30-29:25

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Your post is correct but you are taking the wrong things from it. Correct, no damage above impact zone. There doesn't need to be. All we are looking at is the dead mass loading now working through damaged steel columns that are getting progressively hotter thus progressively weaker. At the point of failure you have the dead mass travelling vertically downwards and impact loading onto the steel and concrete below. Due to it's velocity it's impact forces are far far greater than any static loading hence failure.

You later mention steel buildings suffering total collapse due to fire. You ignore impact and the failures that this caused. You ignore the unique design. You ignore the damage to the firepprotection caused by impact. You are looking at a single specific event instead of everything as a whole.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not to any floors below the impact.

Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

Don't worry we will keep you guy's right when you all forget important things regarding 9/11 !!!

I think if a video of this incident surfaced, it might shoot the OS right in the foot.

Please explain why you think that

let me guess, you want me to say that it didn't fall the same way as the WTC did. Right?

Why the traps?

Again with the traps? People aren't trying to trap you, they are trying to work out your logic behind your thinking. You make statements about concrete dust but then don't offer an alternative. You mentioned aliens and sun spots. That's as credible as some of the waffle posted here. All these cherry picked details, no fully joined up thinking.

You said you'd start with the money trail. Are you saying the insurance companies were duped? I can't get them to pay out on my accidental damage but they've paid billions for this? And that's despite surely having the internet in their offices where they too can read about micro nukes, CD, no planes, nano thermite. The dude a few pages back linked to a 500 page ebook. It told his version of the truth. Yet the insurance dupes have ponied up all this cash and all the evidence was online the whole time. Suckers.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Funny how you agree with some of NISTS statements and not others I will put this in capitals so it might have a chance of sinking in.

NOBODY ON EITHER SIDE WILL EVER KNOW THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACTS !!!

YOU really are being very silly about this, how many of the building fires used against the OS of 9/11 are buildings made of steel an concrete, how many of them have FAILURE of the steel JUST due to fire yet the structure still stands due to the REINFORCED CONCRETE!!!

The link I GIVE shows progressive collapse of floors from the top of the building to ground level something YOU people claim CAN'T happen. Even though there is no damage to the structure below and the loads being a fraction of a percent of those of 9/11.

The floors of the Twin Towers WERE suspened between the OUTER AND CORE WALLS they were INDEPENDANT of each other, the connections of floor at the top were the same as the floors lower down, only those connections could resist the impact of any mass falling on that slab.

We have people here quoting about the towers were designed to hold the floors higher up of course that is true BUT that is a STATIC/DEAD load once a mass/load starts moving that ALL CHANGES.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: signalfire

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification; maybe the OS supporters will actually read it this time, I remain ever hopeful...

Prager NUKED pt 1

Prager NUKED pt 2

You'll see photos you've never seen before, many of them uber-zoomable. You'll have to learn a bit about nuclear physics but he walks you through it. You'll actually know what you're talking about regarding what we saw that day, what the aftermath was like, what the evidence unequivocally showed, and a whole lot more!

Cheerio!

What the evidence unequivocally showed. I don't think you understand the word evidence or unequivocally. If it's unequivocal evidence it would be the story. But it's not. So it isn't.

Not necessarily (would 'it be the story')... Jeezus man, why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout, 'LA LA LA!'?

Turns out the truth is dangerous, and the level of cognitive dissonance is massive. The more I talk to people about this subject, the more I realize just how lacking in curiosity and willfully ignorant most people are...

Prager is the unsung hero of the 9-11 Truth Movement; he has put this information together in an entertaining form, out for everyone to read for free, and took the chance that he'd be silenced in one way or another for doing so. He has made no money whatsoever for all his hard work. Meanwhile, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been doing public (I'm presumed paid) talks now for years, without making any headway in getting their theory taken seriously or publicly debated all that much. I believe the 'thermite' theory is a trojan horse or 'plan B' of sorts; no amount of thermite would have produced the effects seen, and since the nuclear theory is being suppressed, all the smug debunkers can point at the thermite theory, laugh and go back to their Fox News programs. If thermite was ever taken to court, it would be seen for the incomplete or erroneous theory it is, and that would be that. The Big Lie would be the default explanation, regardless of how utterly idiotic it so obviously is.

If Prager's work were taken into court, there'd be a lot of referrals to the Hague based on it. OF COURSE there's evidence there, but I can tell you haven't bothered to read it or you'd be busy discussing it in depth...

What needs to happen is for a new generation, unsullied by the Instant Big Lie shoved at us by the Bush administration and Corporate News, to take a look at the photo and eyewitness evidence, realize how much it doesn't match up with The Big Lie, and finally, realize that New York City was nuked, and 'they' won't hesitate to do it again, in YOUR city, if it suits their agenda.

And time might very well be running out.

Smug debunkers using one-liner declarations that 'nukes are ridiculous' are only proving that they haven't read the material, can't be bothered to do the research, and have nothing to offer to further the discussion. If you want to debate the information in the Prager material, again I can offer up the author for that purpose. We'll get the discussion on tape so the whole world can hear how well you do...

Oh no buddy. I downloaded it onto my phone. It was a lovely little ebook he'd made. I liked the illustrations with superheroes and pictures and stuff. It was laid out in a curious fashion, like someone just discovered page maker. Anyways, to the content. If it is what you say it is why isn't it the story?

I asked about every newspaper and news site all around the world. Every single editor and journalist have ignored it. You've all this evidence and all this fact and all these incredible reports and pictures and details yet still nobody touches it. Hmmm..odd.....

How do you know that EVERY single editor and journalist have ignored it? Have you asked them? Brought it to their attention? Forced them to sit down and actually read through it, which takes both time and a bit of intelligence? It has been thoroughly quoted over on the Veteran's Today website, repeatedly now, so at least one outlet is giving it a go.

The 'nobody touches it' meme is a well-known problem. People don't want to be called 'conspiracy theorists' by idiot parrots, they don't want to lose their jobs or be the laughing stock at the office, and they don't want to be Hasting'ed... Pity, there's a Pulitzer Prize there and Prager should get it, but he's put his work out there totally without copyright. ANYONE can take that information and run with it.

The point now is to refute the evidence and conclusions, if you or anyone else can, not to discuss 'how come no one else has brought it up...'. Why don't we start there, since you've apparently had a chance to read it. Any debunking possible? Because frankly, I'd love to see him proved wrong somehow, it would mean that perhaps the US government and it's ally Israel aren't psychopathic and that one of the biggest cities in the world wasn't nuked and almost no one noticed.

a reply to: signalfire

It wasn't nuked. You repeat this like it's fact. There is no evidence. There is pseudoscience and conjecture but no fact. Prager doesn't deserve a Pulitzer, he could submit the work himself, it still wouldn't happen.
Clearly I've not asked every single journalist, do you really believe them all to be scared? That's your rebuttal to my point. They are worried how they will look.
I'm a rationalist, show me evidence and I'll change my mind. Show me conjecture and I'll dismiss it. Pragers conjecture isn't evidence. It's opinion and pseudoscience.

Debunking you say? Show me this micro nuke. Show me the micro nuke that 'vapourises' humans but leaves paper untouched. This imaginary weapon which has been used only on 9/11. Never on a battlefield either before or after. The military can't keep secrets. Everyone knew about U2s and Blackbirds and F117s. Everyone knows about drones and black prison sites and mass spying. Everyone knows about keyhole satellites and cia wet ops teams and all those delightful darpa projects. Prager and you suggest a weapon which has existed for a number of years and has only been used to destroy buildings in new York.

So we take this further. It was a set up. It was planes / no planes / holograms / missiles (your choice, pick one) that hit the tower. They also did the same in Washington. And Pennsylvania. The towers were hit, they burned then someone pressed a button initiating a sequence of micro nukes which destroyed the buildings. Thankfully the building caused considerable damage to 7 or they'd have needed to sneak in later and remove the micro nukes / CD charges / mysterious demolition thing (your choice, pick one). And they did all this to start a war in Afghanistan. Not Iraq though, they lied about WMDs.

That close enough to your hypothesis?

I couple have done it cheaper. Gimme 4 big lorries. A load of diesel and fertiliser. Park next to tower. Kablooie.

a reply to: wmd_2008

We have people here quoting about the towers were designed to hold the floors higher up of course that is true BUT that is a STATIC/DEAD load once a mass/load starts moving that ALL CHANGES.

Just a correction to your statement.
It is NOT TRuE that the lower floors were designed to hold up the upper floors.
As you mentioned, the floors were 'suspended' between the inner and outer. And as such were only designed to hold the weight of itself and office equipment/people.

a reply to: samkent

I said TOWERS not TOWER FLOORS.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

According to NIST's initial reports, there was only 15% structural damage to the impact zones.

Yes, but the gravity loads were not distributed equally amongst the rest of the columns.

Everyone keeps forgetting that the structure was intact above and below the impact zones.

No one is forgetting that.

15% structural damage is not significant.

It's not significant enough to cause an immediate collapse, this is true. It would probably also be true if gravity loads were distributed equally amongst the remaining columns, but they weren't. You should know this.

So no, the damage from the plane impacts was not significant enough to factor into the collapse scenario.

Sure it was. YOU keep forgetting, or are ignoring, that the gravity loads were not equally distributed amongst the undamaged columns.

Also, damage to the fire protection can be considered damage from the plane impacts. Correct? I think you are forgetting, or are ignoring, this damage in your statement.

But, I know how some people like to claim the damage was far worse than actuality.

No, what's apparent is that some people keep forgetting, or choose to ignore, damage from the plane impacts.

Helps their minds ignore the controlled demolition evidence and cling to fire/impact damage theories instead.

Personally, I'm not ignoring anything. Nor do I see anyone else doing that. We listen to "your" arguments and reject them as wrong, and explain why they are wrong.

It is YOU that are ignoring facts like how the building system redistributed gravity loads. Your post implies that you believe that gravity loads were distributed equally amongst the undamaged columns. This overly simplistic and quite obviously wrong.

originally posted by: eNaR

True, considering the lower floor structure was designed to carry the load (weight) of the upper floors. Whether those upper floors toppled onto the floors below or remained intact, the structure again was designed to carry those loads.... Something must have compromised the lower floors to make them incapable of carrying the weight of the upper floors....

Even if it were true that the "floors" were designed to carry the load of the upper floors (they weren't, the columns were), It is not necessary for the lower structure to be compromised for the collapse to continue.

The lower structure was designed to hold a static load, and not to halt a dynamic load.

I have a simple question. Why was there so much dust / sand / pulverized concrete? Is that normal?

9/11: The Mother of All Big Lies

The 9/11 Attacks, “Keeping the Lid on the Lie”: Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement

F.T.G.

a reply to: Emerys

I saw that doco too!

I saw another one recently which was made quite a few years ago - saying that the fireproofing was in the process of being upgraded. Now - if that's true - could it be possible that thermite or whatever be put in place during those operations?

a reply to: AllIsOne

Yes. Yes it is.

In NORMAL controlled demolitions you don't see so much of it because a) nothing that big has been demo'ed before b) in routine CD, most of the walls, furniture/furnishings/fittings and of course papers, computers and PEOPLE have been removed prior.

You're looking at 2 100+ story high towers with a crap load of concrete, steel, computers, walls, doors, people etc. At the speed of falling and impact it's no wonder so much was pulverised!