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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 13
135
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The problem with all this conspiracy nonsense is the numbers. Who knew? How many people had to be involved to plan, arrange and carry out this task? It's nor just a couple. And this is where the biggest problem lies. Clinton couldn't even get a bj without the whole world finding out yet 14 years later it's still silence. Apart from the one man who stood to benefit most. He confessed. On video. To a reporter. Right. Sure...

Damage > fire > loading changes > structural failure > progressive collapse. Sadly that's it. Chaos ensues and our lack of control and order creates the conspiracy. I'll be willing to bet that the majority of people who back the conspiracy ideas first experienced massive govt cover ups while watching the X files. Everything was a cover up there. Never was scully given the rational answer. Always the alternative.

It's progressive collapse. This fell into its own footprint garbage is blindingly obvious. You're trying to put your jenga block tower physics into real life. The majority of buildings are space. They are empty. 50 floors at 200mm thick concrete only gives you a debris pile 10m tall. Jenga blocks are solid so they scatter and spill across the table. Sadly we don't design buildings using entirely solid work areas cos it just isn't practical.




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: wmd_2008

You said you had never heard of any structural engineer who believed that the buildings came down due to demolition. I gave you three names. I believe we're done.


No if YOU check back I said ANY Structural Engineer I HAVE SPOKEN TO does not believe this BS . Unlike you my job involves deal with these people not just selecting names from the net.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: VVV88
None of the black boxes for the four planes were "officially" recovered, is that correct? And how many black boxes from US commercial plane crashes had not been recovered prior to 911?


The boxes for the planes which hit WTC towers were not recovered

Boxes on American 77 which Pentagon were recovered, voice recorder was damaged, flight data recorder information
was able to be recovered

Boxes on United 93 which crashed at Shanksville were both recovered and information able to be read



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Could you please point us to any evidence that shows a flight recorder from flight 77 was recovered? And properly identified and of course contained any useful data that could be shown to correlate to the reported events of the day?

As there is no other physical evidence that is in line with the OS it would be a useful find.

Can you explain, in your own words please, what happened to the wings and engines of the plane? There is zero evidence in the damage to the pentagon and in any picture or video showing these parts of the plane.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
I think, honestly, there is at least a somewhat reasonable explanation for this.
Why not assume that, yes, those buildings were wired, but as a safety measure?
Perhaps this is a long shot, but to me it would make sense to have the buildings wired to demo in the event that their structure was compromised. The reason for this would be to, obviously, save the surrounding buildings from damage caused by a tower toppling over.

Not saying the whole event wasn't shady as hell, but surely the whole thing can't be that covert.


That sounds highly implausible. I can't believe buildings are constructed with pre-installed explosives in the remote chance they've got to demolish one because some other building around it collapsed. Think about that for a second.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
Let's compare that one boom to a real demolition.



Hmmm...something is wrong ?


They used "silenced" explosives to keep people froM knowing. Do let that out.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: Mianeye
Let's compare that one boom to a real demolition.



Hmmm...something is wrong ?

Yes something is wrong.
I noticed a similar type of thing when I moved from City to Open country in Montana.

In your theory, it would be much louder, but two things.
1) They were not using weapons grade thermite on your building. Thermite is quieter.
2) In an open environment, the sound will not be muffled as it would in a place congested with other buildings.

Just as my loud exhaust was quieter with no buildings to reflect the sound.



Thermite; by the way is not an explosive; it an exothermic compound that burns. You would not use it to do demolition on a building in the same way you would use explosives. I've used thermite packs to melt gear, there is no explosion.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
This toppled over nonsense. Go look at the sampoong department store in South Korea. Structural failure. Straight down. That's what happened here. All this primary school nonsense about melting steel. 1st year university level structures and materials. Steel loses 50% of its structural strength at about 500°. Then the graph really plummets. A candle is about 1000°. It's note Tring to bend physics.


Now don't be adding facts to the mix. You'll ruin a good story.


After all you know how good the US Government is about keeping big secrets. After all people still think we went to the moon. Right?





posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO


Really, not one report from ANYONE can agree with your claims of superheated air, a pyroclastic flow, sand blasting or burnt and tossed toys.

The poster I responded to said just that. Firetruck "flipped on its side" and crew killed. You know how heavy a firetruck is?


EVERY report claims the air was warm not more than 100 degrees, not hot, Noone died from the dust cloud, and the cars were tossed BEFORE the dust cloud, and AFTER, but in no way matched some supposed volcanic flow, and people too, for blocks and DID NOT DIE….like a magic carpet.

Hundreds of first responders died that day, only a handful were actually in the buildings.

"Reports" were from survivors, not the people killed, what made you think I said dust clouds killed people? You're talking about further away from the collapse, I'm talking about the down blast up close, not the debris that fell, the initial compressed blast of heated air, and I said like a pyroclastic flow.

The pics I showed of burned cars were just that. Burned and blasted by heat and pressure, not debris.

Try not to read more into what I said. Hopefully you aren't on a cell and can see these. "100 degree air" didn't do this…

link

Do your own digging into disinfo...



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Unknown88
Hello new on ATS and am going to jump right in.
After so many years and it looks to me that nobody is yet to ask the right questions.
All i ever see is the discussion about was it controlled demolition, termite so on.
When in fact that is the least important part of it all.

I don't trust the official story ether, but what was in the buildings they destroyed?
Any sensitive documents in a office building this large, whats the connection?

Look at the corporations in the buildings and find the reason, find ther reason find the means, find the means you find the guilty.

Thanks for reading.



Yes, if you read a few pages back, you would see I discussed this and other motive as well.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Shadow Herder


There are people who claim that there were no explosions.


& now that this has been shared, they will move the goal posts. Again.

Prepare for some mental gymnastics.


The only Mental Gymnastics I see in this debate is by people who have no real evidence to claim what they claim, taking things out of context, manipulating footage and audio, rewriting the statements of those who were there...

A controlled demolition to take down a building like that would require vast amounts of explosives, across the entire structure, and would be CLEARLY VISIBLE to all around it when detonated. The pressure change within that building from any controlled explosion would have instantly shattered every window in that facade.

You cannot possibly change that fact no matter how much you want to believe that this was a deliberate detonation of explosives.

Please explain to me how a building like that can come down with explosive charges without instantly blasting out every window.

And no, I don't know what the explosion was, but then neither does anyone else here. It could have been anything, and the other videos could have been shot at a completely different time during the events.

And, people hearing explosions has already been debunked as being entirely unrelated to building 7, they were talking about the impact of the floors as they pancaked down onto each other in one of the TOWERS. This was entirely accepted, this was a massive event happening with massive confusion. They've just seen two massive towers come down. The sounds of the floors hitting each other and gathering pace clearly sounded to them like explosions, when they WERE NOT EXPLOSIONS.

Damn, I don't know why I bother. There is absolutely nothing about the entire conspiracy theory that has ever persuaded me to change my views, and that's not going to happen with yet another rehash of the same debunked nonsense.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So damaged and for safety reasons they brought it down.


Since when does the FDNY use explosives to demolish buildings?
When did they carry the tonnes of explosives into the buildings?


Some people know.

IF the building was not controlled/pulled that September after noon, the building could of caused more loss of life

What a silly claim, remember...............


The owner of WTC said in multiple instances that it was a controlled collapse. " The smartest thing we thought was to pull it" due to the fact that the firefighters were not going to be able to contain the fires because they had no water, instead of it becoming a towering inferno they had to pull it.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Good thing mister Silverstein had an 'emergency' dermatology appointment which kept him away from the whole scene, he did not come in to work on 9.11



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So damaged and for safety reasons they brought it down.


Since when does the FDNY use explosives to demolish buildings?
When did they carry the tonnes of explosives into the buildings?


Some people know.

IF the building was not controlled/pulled that September after noon, the building could of caused more loss of life


What a silly claim, remember...............


The owner of WTC said in multiple instances that it was a controlled collapse. " The smartest thing we thought was to pull it" due to the fact that the firefighters were not going to be able to contain the fires because they had no water, instead of it becoming a towering inferno they had to pull it.




I can't work out if you are joking or not. You are willfully and purposefully misunderstanding what he is saying. This has been discussed repeatedly. Pull has nothing to do with demolition. Pull it is not a demolition term. You are blatantly trying to bend a fact to your truth. It's misleading and incorrect. It was a towering inferno. You are just choosing to ignore the facts and the pictures that show this. It doesn't need to have flames shooting hundreds of feet into to the sky to be burning. In fact heat is far worse for a building than some scary looking flames. If you wished you could read a structures or materials textbook to help you. I sense you won't. You'd rather persist with this pointless line of twisted reasoning.
edit on 1-7-2015 by scottyirnbru because: Strange layout



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.


Nobody believes that. You've also misunderstood what happened. Carry on though.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.


Nobody believes that. You've also misunderstood what happened. Carry on though.


I wouldnt be suprised if many did believe that nonsense. Americans will believe anything, you say it we will believe it!
1/4th of my fellow Americans believe the sun goes around the earth, I dont expect too much from the people of my country. That way im not very dissapointed with the people. They arent the brightest, nor the sharpest, but they may be the coolest which may mean something to someone somewhere just not here LOL.





edit on 1-7-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

wtc7 myths

As for the jet fuel and steel structure misconception -

People, for whatever reason, fail to gradp the fact that it was not just fire involved. You have massive structural failure from the impact of the aircraft. The interior caught on fire and with the height of the bulding and breaches on multiple sides, in addition to compromised fire control sysyems, plenty of oxygen and high winds added fuel o the fire.

Heat from those fires coupled with steel that was sheered and compromised does not need high heat to further damage the steel.

Finally the wtc designs are not standard. The buildings were designed in a manner that shifted structural support of floors in order to create an open concept. It removed the bulk of support colums you see in other buildings and shifted the load bearing to concentrated points.

Comparing high rise fires while ignoring massive structural failure doesnt work.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




as they pancaked down



Gobble down a pancake!

And then? The core simply vanished? There is no theory for that part, is it?
It's funny. Some folks actually don't know why they bother with this old story and are way too intelligent for conspiracy-theorys, but then they follow their own ones, thinking 'their' believes may have to do something with physics.
Well... they don't.


The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 78th and 79th floors of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another close call at the Empire State Building.[61] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.[62] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was, ironically, lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[63]

en.wikipedia.org...

So the structural engineers did a crappy job and were completely clueless? All it needed was an ironically lost of the impact analysis, so that they could go on to redicule the people who planned this. And now we ought to believe this crap without a single piece of evidence?

Nice try. We don't. And you don't either.

edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: pancakes

edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: more pancakes



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A wwII bomber and 707 cant be compared to the aorcrafts in question or their speeds on impact.

In the scenarios you mention the aircraft are considered to be traveling at normal speed with a level hit coupled with a flight crew that would be trying to avoid and not intentionally crash at high speed.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join