Ground Zero Footage

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

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.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

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.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

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.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

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.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Some pictures are worth thousands words :

Yes, that's a very clear indication that the raging fires were pushed out of the building by all of the rushing air from the floors crashing down.

Watch a video of an actual controlled demolition... the explosives used don't produce a giant fireball.

If the truthers were able to produce ONE piece of evidence that held up under even the most basic scrutiny, I'd be willing to listen. I've never seen anything that is halfway legitimate. It's all speculation by people who are clueless. You're gonna have to come up with something more than "I don't think the building should have fallen that way."

You speak with such an air of confidence. Yet you have no idea what you are talking about, Mr physics expert. LOL.

Never before nor since has any steel structure behaved according to your cockamamie "physics."

If what you were suggesting had any kernel of sense in it, controlled demotion would only need to fire off the top couple floors. Sorry. Stuff ain't like that.

Israel did 911 with micro nukes.
a reply to: 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.

originally posted by: mcChoodles

You speak with such an air of confidence. Yet you have no idea what you are talking about, Mr physics expert. LOL.

Never before nor since has any steel structure behaved according to your cockamamie "physics."

If what you were suggesting had any kernel of sense in it, controlled demotion would only need to fire off the top couple floors. Sorry. Stuff ain't like that.

Israel did 911 with micro nukes.
a reply to: Answer

I speak with confidence because it's not hard to see what occurred on that day. You buy into cockamamie theories put forward by morons who have nothing to back their story except "I don't think it should have happened that way." I base my opinion on what I can clearly see in the videos of the collapse combined with the opinions of people much smarter than you or I who actually know how this sort of stuff works. What are you basing your opinion off of?

A building the size of the WTC, designed the way it was designed, would absolutely come down if the top several floors were allowed to crash down on the remaining floors. The reason controlled demolitions aren't done that way is because the building doesn't come down inside its own footprint, just like (contrary to truther belief) the WTC failed to do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm. There were two towers collapsing. They have mass. The movement of said mass may have caused materials to destruct. Have you ever crushed a concrete cube in a lab? Sometimes quiet, usually very noise. Ever tested the tensile strength or compressive strength of steel? Usually noisy. To say everyone heard explosions is wrong. You have hundreds of people experiencing an unprecedented event and you expect them to understand fully what happens. Unlikely.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

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.

Hmmm. There were two towers collapsing. They have mass. The movement of said mass may have caused materials to destruct. Have you ever crushed a concrete cube in a lab? Sometimes quiet, usually very noise. Ever tested the tensile strength or compressive strength of steel? Usually noisy. To say everyone heard explosions is wrong. You have hundreds of people experiencing an unprecedented event and you expect them to understand fully what happens. Unlikely.

Then you go tell all the first responders and everyone that survived that what they heard was wrong. They are not going off memory since the testimony I am referring is from the footage on the ground on 9/11.

One quote I can remember from a senior fire fighter "It's like they planned to bring down the building, boom, boom, boom" I'm busy right now but the footage is easy to find if you care.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

And yet there is no evidence of explosives. Weird. Tell me this, how many people would need to be involved to make this happen? Pick a number. A realistic one. Explain how they've managed to keep it a secret. Clinton got a cheeky one in the oval with one person and that got out.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

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.

Hmmm. There were two towers collapsing. They have mass. The movement of said mass may have caused materials to destruct. Have you ever crushed a concrete cube in a lab? Sometimes quiet, usually very noise. Ever tested the tensile strength or compressive strength of steel? Usually noisy. To say everyone heard explosions is wrong. You have hundreds of people experiencing an unprecedented event and you expect them to understand fully what happens. Unlikely.

Then you go tell all the first responders and everyone that survived that what they heard was wrong. They are not going off memory since the testimony I am referring is from the footage on the ground on 9/11.

One quote I can remember from a senior fire fighter "It's like they planned to bring down the building, boom, boom, boom" I'm busy right now but the footage is easy to find if you care.

www.debunking911.com...

It's all about context.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And yet there is no evidence of explosives. Weird. Tell me this, how many people would need to be involved to make this happen? Pick a number. A realistic one. Explain how they've managed to keep it a secret. Clinton got a cheeky one in the oval with one person and that got out.

When in doubt, fall back on: "the government is too stupid to make a plan like this let alone keep it secret"

since every single conflict the US has been in since WW1 started with a false flag operation, I think there is plenty of precedent to believe it could be done again.

12:05 engine 55

Rip Peter.

We will never forget.

Amazing footage

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And yet there is no evidence of explosives. Weird. Tell me this, how many people would need to be involved to make this happen? Pick a number. A realistic one. Explain how they've managed to keep it a secret. Clinton got a cheeky one in the oval with one person and that got out.

When in doubt, fall back on: "the government is too stupid to make a plan like this let alone keep it secret"

since every single conflict the US has been in since WW1 started with a false flag operation, I think there is plenty of precedent to believe it could be done again.

Every conflict starts with a false flag. Every conflict. EVERY CONFLICT. Sheesh. All those textbooks and museums and stuff. They lied to me.
I'm not saying that the govt is too stupid to plan this. In fact the ludicrous nature of what you suggest sounds entirely like the govt planned it. I mean, they could have accomplished the exact same thing with a massive truck bomb at the base but whatever, 4 planes is fine. I'm saying they can't keep secrets. Lets start a list and build some numbers to begin with. Can we agree the Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld knew? That's 3. Some Norad people. Shall we say 5? That's 8. Silverstein, he knew. And the guys who programmed the planes to do this flying thing. And the guys who laid charges in 3 buildings. And then the people who worked at the airlines who needed to know cos they were gonna use the planes as weapons. Oh, and the investigators who hushed it all up. I'm going 300 people at a minimum so far. All keeping a secret about how they killed 3000 people and got away with it for 13 years. And all so they could....start a war? No wait, they did that in Iraq with a lie. Hmmm.

I have seen a lot of 9/11 videos, and this one is pretty good. You almost feel like you were there on that day. ~$heopleNation

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.

Hundreds of tons of steel and concrete slamming down doesn't go quietly. There was a lot of very heavy debris falling that morning and amid the chaos, every loud boom could have been interpreted as an explosion. Have you ever heard high-tensile materials snap under a load? That could have been another source of the booms heard.

originally posted by: hellobruce
The path of least resistance is straight down

I had to raise my eyebrow to this statement. o.O

The path of least resistance will never be through the building itself. The path of least resistance will be the path of least force. It is the opposite of least force if the building is falling through itself as opposed to falling outside of itself.

The only way the fortress of steel straight down below becomes the path of least resistance is if the resistance is removed.

Kind of like this: