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: 33
135
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The NIST report has been debunked, through testing and examination by professionals in the fields of engineering and demolitions,


Here in another video showing you the NIST report was debunked.


Column 18 was the column the failed yet it was not damaged by fire or collapse.




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
The NIST report has been debunked, through testing and examination by professionals in the fields of engineering and demolitions,


Here in another video showing you the NIST report was debunked.


Column 18 was the column the failed yet it was not damaged by fire or collapse.


Sorry, no it has not. Raising questions and not following up on them is not debunking. The report has withstood all of the half-a55ed YouTube arrows thrown at it. Because it's what happened.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Yes it has, avoiding evidence and proofs while attempting to change the subject shows that the evidence, experts and professionals in the field have debunked the NIST report and just confirmed what everybody knows about World Trade Center 7 controlled demolition on September 11th after 5pm.




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Yes it has, avoiding evidence and proofs while attempting to change the subject shows that the evidence, experts and professionals in the field have debunked the NIST report and just confirmed what everybody knows about World Trade Center 7 controlled demolition on September 11th after 5pm.



Please show point by point EXACTLY what has been "debunked" and tell us EXACTLY who has "debunked" it, how they "debunked" it, and what peer-reviewed journal backed their conclusions.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: DerekJR321
WRONG.. the energy would have dissipated. 10 floors can not crush 90.


10 floors crush the floor underneath, then 11 floors crush the one underneath, then 12 floors crush the one underneath, then 13 crush the one underneath etc. etc.


That is not how the conservation of energy principal works. Please read up on it before saying I'm wrong. What you are describing is the "pancake theory" which has been shown to be false too many times for me to even bring up. Never mind the FACT that WTC2 started to tip and then proceeded to go straight down.



originally posted by: hellobruce

Also.. the ejected beams fell at the same speed as the towers.


Wrong again, just watching a video it is clear the debris falling off the buildings is falling faster than the building collapse.


On this you are correct. After reading what I wrote, and seeing your post I went back and reviewed. So I concede here.



originally posted by: hellobruce

Towers 1, 2 and 7 could not have collapsed at near free fall speed


Still wrong, tower 1 and 2 did not fall near free fall speed - just watching a video that is clear to see!

As we see, "truther" physics is apparently different to real world physics!


Perhaps I used the wrong word here. The term "Free Fall" measures acceleration, not speed. The speed of the fall is what is important. I'll quote NIST on this one...



NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).


NIST agrees that the towers fell at or near free fall speed. That is for buildings 1 & 2. For 7, its the same thing. For me to believe that the building simply "failed" and fell at the speed it did.. I would have to accept that every truss, every bolt, every rivet, every core column failed nearly instantaneously. The floors would have had to offer little to no resistance in the collapse. Even with the massive weight being pushed down upon the remaining structure, you are talking about so many structural failures. I just can not accept that. Not for the speeds at which we SEE the towers fall. Never mind how much debris is ejected during the collapse (unlike 7, which just fell). However, if you were to tell me that the core columns were cut from beneath, and THEN the building collapsed.. I could possibly accept that.

And who is to say that there weren't any explosives in the basements? Did they look? Did they test? Is that SO far fetched to believe? It was tried in 93 (all be it, by the FBI).

I have seen plenty of people say the official story is true, but never WHY it is true. People like me who question don't ever get answers. Just dejected and brushed aside as some "conspiracy nut". No.. I don't believe there were alien death rays, or holograms or any of that nonsense. Planes DID hit the buildings, the buildings DID collapse. But NIST does a half azzed attempt at explaining things and then expects the world to just say "okay.. well.. the government wouldn't lie to us". Sorry.. I don't accept that. Why didn't NIST cover the ENTIRE collapse of #7? Why did NIST brush off all suggestions of explosives, using decibel levels as their excuse? Why was less money spent on investigating 911 than the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense? Why was all the steel shipped off as fast as possible, thus destroying evidence? Why did two 110 story tall skyscrapers collapse due to a plane strike and office fires? You know.. had the top of #2 fell over like I thought it was going to, I would never even question this. But I'm not stupid. And there is WAY too much "off" when it comes to 9/11. And too much has happened BECAUSE of 911 to just accept lies.





edit on 6-7-2015 by DerekJR321 because: typo



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerekJR321
That is not how the conservation of energy principal works.


Yes it is, except
in the bizarre world of "truther" physics.


On this you are correct. After reading what I wrote, and seeing your post I went back and reviewed. So I concede here.


You are very confused, you actually watched a video of the WTC 1 or 2 collapsing, yet you still claim


NIST agrees that the towers fell at or near free fall speed. That is for buildings 1 & 2.


You just watched a video showing that the towers did not fall at free fall speed, but as expected the debris falling from them did, then claim that they fell at free fall speed!

You watched a video that clearly shows the towers did not fall at free fall speed, then made a false claim that they did- why?


I just can not accept that.


You so badly want to believe a silly conspiracy theory that after watching a video that shows you are wrong, admitting you were wrong, you still claim the towers fell at free fall speed!!


And who is to say that there weren't any explosives in the basements?


As none of the buildings started collapsing from the basement, how could there be? Also how did they smuggle the explosives in past the bomb sniffing dogs?


Did they look?


Yes they did.



People like me who question don't ever get answers.


You get answers, but as they destroy your silly conspiracy you just ignore them - case in point, your claim that WTC 1&@ fell at free fall speed, you admitted that the video shows they did not fall at free fall speed, then claimed that they did!


Why was all the steel shipped off as fast as possible, thus destroying evidence?


It was shipped to Fresh Kills, where it was again examined.


You know.. had the top of #2 fell over like I thought it was going to, I would never even question this.


Truther physics at work again, just why would it have fallen over? - For that to occur the pivot point would have to have been strong enough to support the weight of all the floors above it, and if you knew how the building was designed you would not make that claim.


But I'm not stupid.


Yet you watched a video, admitted that the building did not fall at free fall speed, then turned around and claimed it did!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   


The NIST report has been debunked, through testing and examination by professionals in the fields of engineering and demolitions,

You are using un-named sources on YT as evidence.
You can't do that in the real world.
Try posting from sources who put their balls on the line.
Richard Gage doesn't count since his whole career is perpetuating the 911 conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
NIST claims it would of took around 9lbs of explosives to take down Building 7 on column 79 but they discount it because they claim no blasts were heard on video when new released videos clearly show.

Interesting that NIST doesnt say that it couldn't of been controlled demolition because the collapse was messy, no, it discounts it on some unbroken windows and no explosions caught on video but that was before the Freedom of information release of wtc 7 from nist which you can see on the first page of this thread







edit on 7-7-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
originally posted by: LaBTop on page 21 :

David Chandler : So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.


SOURCE

EDIT : Now start reading from this page 24 on, to the end (now page 33), and you have all the reasons to confront all these OS Trusters with.
I have other things to do there, for example, I'll put Reheats "debunking of the NoC theory" signature line in its right destination, the dustbin.

Btw, that OP its low explosion sound in his WTC 7 collapse video, I have a much better one in my signature LINKS at the bottom of all my posts, and a lot more videos and evidence that the OS-Trusters have no answers for. They were there for many years already...
My post from the above page 24 link asks a few nagging questions, for which I never got a satisfactory answer, by any of the usual OS Trusters.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru :

www.nist.gov...

Question 11. They do deal with it.


They do NOT ! :


Question 11. : -snip- During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. -snip-


David Chandler : They just walked away from it without further comment.
Read the lines above that red text again, NIST still acts as if a period of free fall acceleration is totally in synchronization with their artificially chosen FAR TOO LONG stage 1, 2 and 3 periods.
Only their period 2 is of importance for our discussion : there were during a period from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds = 2.25 seconds long, NO MEASURABLE RESISTIVE FORCES acting on the thundering down visible, exterior building parts.!

You can ONLY cause such effects with the aid of E X P L O S I V E S !!!!!

EDIT : And those remarks about handhold seismographs registering NO explosions around Manhattan has been thoroughly debunked by me (read my ANALYSIS signature link).
I phoned the office where that short lived ATS member worked, who wrote here that he worked for the firm that had those handhold seismographs operating on 9/11 in Manhattan, and he was an EDITOR for their monthly papers, and they were awfully sorry, but all seismograms from those handhold seismographs of the day of 9/11 were lost from their archives.....
After that, he disappeared for ever from our forums. You can find our little confrontation in the ATS archives, use the search function.
I really really would have seen those seismograms, I assure you that I could have pointed out the signs of explosives on them.
That's why they are "lost" conveniently now.
edit on 7/7/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
NIST claims it would of took around 9lbs of explosives to take down Building 7 on column 79 but they discount it because they claim no blasts were heard on video when new released videos clearly show.

Interesting that NIST doesnt say that it couldn't of been controlled demolition because the collapse was messy, no, it discounts it on some unbroken windows and no explosions caught on video but that was before the Freedom of information release of wtc 7 from nist which you can see on the first page of this thread








Its kind of a waste of time to attempt to convince someone that wants to believe something the opposite. Due to the laws of physics not allowing jet fuel to cause a building to collapse in a demolition type of fashion, the entire official story is BS.
edit on 7-7-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

In that article, Shapiro reports that on September 11, 2001, Silverstein had a discussion with his insurance carrier about demolishing Building 7. Specifically, Shapiro states:


“Shortly before the building [Building 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein…was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.”
source



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”


Well there we have it follow the money and all kinds of good information starts to come out.

Any more information on other uses for the building? Perhaps anything else to do with money, dept, lending, important documents someone wanted gone, or credit as well?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

So at what point DO YOU start to time the collapse then ?

Will be back later.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Doesn't matter if it took 10 or 7 seconds at this point since it has been proven World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition, Larry SIlverstein was on the phone with his insurance company mentioning if he could control demolition the building.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
since it has been proven World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition,


No that is just a silly conspiracy theory, not based on anything factual.


Larry SIlverstein was on the phone with his insurance company mentioning if he could control demolition the building.


That is just another silly conspiracy theory, based on hearsay.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


Instead of just reading the cherry picked lines, you should read all that Mr Shapiro said




April 22, 2010: Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.

In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.

I was there.

I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks. Governor Ventura has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting these intellectually dishonest views. He should be ashamed of himself.



Oh and we did fallow the money.

www.9-11commission.gov...



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DerekJR321

The difference is between having physical, possible future evidence, vs. having any other technological cover up. "We didn't back up hard drives", ect.

What would have been the outcome if they kept it up? Because obviously, there exists a narrative that anyone would attest to, "Oh yeah? Well I won't talk about the other buildings, but look at building 7".

With that risk, as seems the case, why go for it? A hardware crash or whatever would surely be more believable than a structural collapse. And even with a structural collapse, not many really even know about it. So how much more unseen would an irrecoverable hardware, information crash be from fire?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

So at what point DO YOU start to time the collapse then ?


Wrong question.
There was a period of 2.25 seconds DURING which free fall acceleration took place = NO RESISTANCE = EXPLOSIVES are used.
Show me a NATURAL collapse with such a FFA-period in it, AND YOU WON this debate.

Funny enough, you WON'T ever be able to find that, because it's UNNATURAL and will NEVER EVER happen.
You Trusters always try to sneak around the meat of the matter. We Doubters concentrate on the meat.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

5. WTC SMOKING GUN PROOF OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION CHARGES by john sosman (view his 75 video's) :
www.youtube.com...
This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :



See my point 5 in my Final Conclusion chapter of that huge post. So you can read the explanatory text too.

This other post point 5, higher up, is also a good one :

5. The most important video, "9/11 WTC Detonations Finally Revealed" from -BoneZ- does not get one word to address it, from them. Because at last you can hear clearly the first detonations that forced that top-part of WTC North to collapse in on itself, downwards. And pulverized a great deal of that top-part already.

www.youtube.com...





top topics



 
135
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join