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.

 

Ground Zero Footage

page: 13
56
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?


There were survivors in WTC2 that survived at the bottom of the stairs. the stairs were in the core. Therefore they didn't collapse.

There are also a lot of pics of the base of the ext columns still standing after the collapse. There are pics and videos showing cleanup guys taking them down. therefore, they didn't collapse either.

BUT..... I think you're wondering about all the levels between the impact zone down to there.

Buildings are designed to hold a static load, and not to arrest a dynamic load.




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: crazyeddie68

Barry Bonds ? You are not even close.
Really ?Look it up .



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: loveguy
Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...



Have a look

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE



I was asking for definitive pics of actual floorpans crushed under all of that dust?

As far as I can tell with the images provided; floorpans too became airborne dust particles that blanketed how many city blocks surrounding wtc?

Circle a floorpan that can't be mistaken, please.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

And "the rest of the building" never slowed down while it plowed through the base. How come the collapse never slowed down in the face of resistance.




Only the columns got progressively stronger.


Is this a column?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: loveguy
Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...



Have a look

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE



I was asking for definitive pics of actual floorpans crushed under all of that dust?

As far as I can tell with the images provided; floorpans too became airborne dust particles that blanketed how many city blocks surrounding wtc?

Circle a floorpan that can't be mistaken, please.


I couldn't see anything definitive in the pics wmd posted either. Since FEMAS own debris expert stated in a post I made earlier, that almost all the concrete was turned to dust, then the concrete must have been separated from the q-decking. No, metal clad q-deck cannot be turned to dust, it must be in the pile somewhere if it wasn't melted from the explosives used to bring down the building.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Do you want to explain this image below.

Progreesive Collapse


If you cant dont post in threads with subjects you obviously dont have the experience to understand.


That is a concrete building, you have been told that many times in this thread.


You really need to be spoon fed everything it was to show that a progressive collapse can go from top to bottom something truthers claim can't happen.

The top floor fell onto the next and in continued to ground level SOUND FAMILIAR and that's with no fire and no impact damage.

Now do you understand


Your not qualified to tell me what I need. Posting that pic of a progressive collapse and using it as a comparison to WTC is confusing. You use it to claim it is possible, but any attempt to compare the characteristics of the example you posted and WTC is met with "it's not the same construction" "steel vs concrete"

So which is it? Is it a comparison you are trying to make?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

And "the rest of the building" never slowed down while it plowed through the base. How come the collapse never slowed down in the face of resistance.




Only the columns got progressively stronger.


Is this a column?


I would say yes.

And?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: loveguy
Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...



Have a look

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE



I was asking for definitive pics of actual floorpans crushed under all of that dust?

As far as I can tell with the images provided; floorpans too became airborne dust particles that blanketed how many city blocks surrounding wtc?

Circle a floorpan that can't be mistaken, please.


Here's the biggest collection of photos that I'm aware of.

You can look. Tell us what you find.

www.sharpprintinginc.com...
edit on 22-9-2014 by lexyghot because: forgot link



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

SERIOUSLY you really need to read and try and understand, when you COMPARE buildings on fire and try and say they should fall like the Twin Towers then you have to look at like for like .

The buildings shown by truther sites are CONCRETE STRUCTURES with steel, but even with those the steel FAILS , THE STRUCTURES DON'T FALL due to the DESIGN / CONCRETE also none of those examples used have aircraft impacts.

After the collapse of the Towers initiated the floor slabs fall internally this is THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE you people seem to think that can't happen, that is why I show that example, a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE can happen and have happened on various occasions.

The top slab of that building fell onto the one below and even although none of the slabs below had damage or a fire the collapse continued to the ground.

I now hope that is SIMPLE enough even for YOU to inderstand.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?


Obviously because the rest of the building fell on it....


And "the rest of the building" never slowed down while it plowed through the base. How come the collapse never slowed down in the face of resistance.

Here is some pics of the collapse for members that still think.








I'm not sure how you can call something "progressive", when it finished the same way it started...



Thank you for posting Images showing exactly what I was saying. You can clearly see massive sections of the building falling faster than the rate of collapse. So no 'free fall' building collapse and by defintion the collapse is meeting resistance! Why after 13 years do you still fail to see what's in front of your face?

edit on 23-9-2014 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith


why do you fail to see that building exploded in front of your eyes and there was nothing "progressive" about it. Only an idiot would look at those pictures and claim the building simply "collapsed" . Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

SERIOUSLY you really need to read and try and understand, when you COMPARE buildings on fire and try and say they should fall like the Twin Towers then you have to look at like for like .

The buildings shown by truther sites are CONCRETE STRUCTURES with steel, but even with those the steel FAILS , THE STRUCTURES DON'T FALL due to the DESIGN / CONCRETE also none of those examples used have aircraft impacts.

After the collapse of the Towers initiated the floor slabs fall internally this is THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE you people seem to think that can't happen, that is why I show that example, a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE can happen and have happened on various occasions.

The top slab of that building fell onto the one below and even although none of the slabs below had damage or a fire the collapse continued to the ground.

I now hope that is SIMPLE enough even for YOU to inderstand.


No, I don't. Almost though, Keep at it LOL.

So lets recap so you know where to start in your next attempt. The picture you posted of a building that is claimed to have pancaked. They are 2 completely different structures, so don't compare how it pancaked just know that it did. Don't compare the 2 just compare the part that they both collapsed but NONE of the characteristics between the 2 collapses... don't compare those.

"Various occasions" ??? What other occasions other than the still image you posted??

Someone accused me of cherry picking in another 9/11 thread but what your doing takes the cake.

edit on 23-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.


So how long should it have taken to collapse without the use of silent explosives?



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.


So how long should it have taken to collapse without the use of silent explosives?


Not sure, nothing to compare it to. I don't even know if WTC could be properly clocked after the top falls under the dust cloud. What is known is that it was a steady fall that until we could no longer see it, was falling the same speed that it started. Which does not make "progressive". I would like to compare it to the collapse WMD posted but we cannot compare the speed, only the fact that it collapse.
edit on 23-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.


So how long should it have taken to collapse without the use of silent explosives?


Not sure,


Then the logical conclusion is that since you have no idea how fast it should have fallen, you have no basis for your disbelief of how things happened. You are using your common sense then. Common sense derives from experiences.

However, as you admit next :


nothing to compare it to.


There is no collective experience of planes deliberately hitting buildings, resulting in fires being set simultaneously over several floors.

Therefore, you have fallen back on some other experience in your life and are expecting it to have validity here.

It doesn't.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.


So how long should it have taken to collapse without the use of silent explosives?


Not sure,


Then the logical conclusion is that since you have no idea how fast it should have fallen, you have no basis for your disbelief of how things happened. You are using your common sense then. Common sense derives from experiences.

However, as you admit next :


nothing to compare it to.


There is no collective experience of planes deliberately hitting buildings, resulting in fires being set simultaneously over several floors.

Therefore, you have fallen back on some other experience in your life and are expecting it to have validity here.

It doesn't.


That was completely pointed at me and nothing I said. Why are you so interested in discrediting ME and not what I post. So what if I am not qualified to ask questions, the question should still have an answer that is believable.

The OS pushers act like because there is no "like for like" comparison, and the story is being told by "credible" sources, that that is the end of story. The sources are NOT credible. It was the US government. They don't lie? Normally an inquiry into something so large would happen in a few days, maybe a week. 14 MONTHS LATER we finally get an inquiry. The investigation was shrouded in politics and can in no way be used as admissible. Take it to court and see. if the FBI had investigated there could have been a little more bite to the investigation, but instead, 14 months later the FBI was blamed for failing to act... WOW! So we can't we cannot rule out "outrageous" when examining how BIG this lie may actually be.

I have never claimed to have all the answers, but I would have to be a fool to not question what really happened.
edit on 23-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



The OS pushers act like because there is no "like for like" comparison, and the story is being told by "credible" sources, that that is the end of story. The sources are NOT credible. It was the US government.

What about the sources of the conspiracy side?
Do you consider Richard Gage credible? profit
The makers of Loose Change? profit
How about each member one by one of ae911? no direct experience

When you start looking at credibility those pushing the conspiracy the hardest come up way short.
While I don't trust our government. I know they are not good enough to hide things for 13 years.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

SERIOUSLY you really need to read and try and understand, when you COMPARE buildings on fire and try and say they should fall like the Twin Towers then you have to look at like for like .

The buildings shown by truther sites are CONCRETE STRUCTURES with steel, but even with those the steel FAILS , THE STRUCTURES DON'T FALL due to the DESIGN / CONCRETE also none of those examples used have aircraft impacts.

After the collapse of the Towers initiated the floor slabs fall internally this is THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE you people seem to think that can't happen, that is why I show that example, a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE can happen and have happened on various occasions.

The top slab of that building fell onto the one below and even although none of the slabs below had damage or a fire the collapse continued to the ground.

I now hope that is SIMPLE enough even for YOU to inderstand.


No, I don't. Almost though, Keep at it LOL.

So lets recap so you know where to start in your next attempt. The picture you posted of a building that is claimed to have pancaked. They are 2 completely different structures, so don't compare how it pancaked just know that it did. Don't compare the 2 just compare the part that they both collapsed but NONE of the characteristics between the 2 collapses... don't compare those.

"Various occasions" ??? What other occasions other than the still image you posted??

Someone accused me of cherry picking in another 9/11 thread but what your doing takes the cake.


Maybe if I type this s l o w l y it will sink in, When the collapse of the Towers was initiated the floor slabs collapsed internally that allowed the walls to basically peel away from the structure.

Truthers DON'T believe that a progressive collapse of the floor slabs happened BECAUSE they claim it can never happen because of a failed understanding of Newton's Laws applied to this event.

That's why I showed that picture of a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.

Also YOU don't seem to understand what progressive means.


originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not sure, nothing to compare it to. I don't even know if WTC could be properly clocked after the top falls under the dust cloud. What is known is that it was a steady fall that until we could no longer see it, was falling the same speed that it started. Which does not make "progressive". I would like to compare it to the collapse WMD posted but we cannot compare the speed, only the fact that it collapse.


progressive:adjective--- 1. happening or developing gradually or in stages.


edit on 23-9-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

So what if I am not qualified to ask questions,


I'm just gonna LOL at this and leave it at that, because....


the question should still have an answer that is believable.



If you're not qualified to ask questions, but do it anyways, then there's np way for you to determine what is believeable or not, And so you fall back on common sense again. Which fails under these circumstances, cuz as you admitted, there is nothing to base your common sense on.....


The OS pushers act like because there is no "like for like" comparison, and the story is being told by "credible" sources, that that is the end of story.


Not true. We back the os cuz there are no credible alternate theories.


I have never claimed to have all the answers, but I would have to be a fool to not question what really happened.


This commendable.

Just don't ignore answers when they are given to you.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008


Maybe if I type this s l o w l y it will sink in, When the collapse of the Towers was initiated the floor slabs collapsed internally that allowed the walls to basically peel away from the structure.
Emphasism mine



Does that pic look like the walls were '"peeling"? Or blowing to bits? I can only assume that dust cloud exiting the building is what happened to the "slab", since very little if any was found in the ruble. So did the slab collapse? or was it blown to bits? if the slab was crushed between the downward force and the structure below, then it would it not have remained in the rubble?



This pic shows some of the outer walls falling in bigger pieces, but it seems like - at least in initially - that the majority of the exterior walls were blown apart. And the concrete slab; You say that the slabs stacking on each other was the weight that caused the collapse, but all of the photos show the concrete being completely victimized and ejected from the building along with the exterior walls. There barely any concrete in the debris, yet you attribute the weight of it to what caused the progressive collapse? or was it the weight of the floor trusses alone?

It is kind of interesting, in that first picture above it shows the top section seems to be tilting hard to one side,which you would think would make the side of the tower that the top is tipped towards, collapse ahead of the the other side of the tower where the top section is tipped up. But the tower underneath is collapsing perfectly vertical where it doesn't seem like weight of the collapse has even made it there yet.

at the 50 second mark you can clearly see the top tipped off the side, yet the building kept collapsing at a consistent speed.



VID LINK,


Truthers DON'T believe that a progressive collapse of the floor slabs happened BECAUSE they claim it can never happen because of a failed understanding of Newton's Laws applied to this event.


Where are the floor slabs? I think to claim that means that there would have to be a tally of how much weight in concrete was removed from the debris. There is such a record but I cannot find it. materials were separated for recycling so there is a log somewhere of how much concrete was hauled out in chunks.



Also YOU don't seem to understand what progressive means.


progressive:adjective--- 1. happening or developing gradually or in stages.


Now I know you are barely reading my posts. I have said multiple times that it is not progressive because it started falling at the same speed and fashion all the way down the tower. progressive means it started one speed and fashion and progressed to another, it didn't. The roof progressed to near free fall speed but the plumbs blowing out of the building never sped up from the moment they started.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join