It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 51
135
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:20 AM

originally posted by: scottyirnbruThis imaginary hinge point you are treating it as an actual hinge.

You said it quite well: the imaginary hinge. Of course, there MIGHT have been a real hinge, but I fail to see how that could have escaped the attention of the inhabitants of the Towers for years

You want it to pivot over that point.

To be more accurate: I'd expect the seemingly uncompromised top part to continue it's movement to the left. It did not, which surprises me.

That would only be the case if the centre of gravity had moved past that point.

If you were right, the top would not have started toppling to begin with, as the centre of gravity surely had not moved past that point then. But it did, we can clearly see it. It did because gravity pulled on it equally, but the exoskeleton below the 'left' part of it was missing and so there was less resistance there. The top toppled, and it seems to have done so as a whole. Now, that's a lot of moving mass, we do agree. Given that you seem to assume that the lower part of the building applies a symmetrical upward force over the entire width of the building(1) and given that the mass of the upper floors was already moving to the 'left' I would have expected the inertia to be big enough to make the toppling continue. But that did not happen. Why not?

1) the idea that a building, consisting of an exoskeleton, floors and a core should apply a constant upward force over the full width of the building against the 'upper block' is quite impossible and only that fact alone should have shown another type of collapse.

As it is its still within the building this vertically is still the direction the load is travelling. You've also ignored the possibility that other columns on the opposite side from your hinge point are providing resistance.

Well, let's see: if some parts of the lower part of the building offer more resitance than other parts, I would have expected a non-symmetrical collapse. Instead, we see an almost free fall speed symmetrical collapse. Interestingly enough, the building does not slow its collapse either, notwithstanding the fact that the lower portions of the building were constructed with much thicker steel girders and columns than the upper parts. But we also see a lot of debris shooting out of the building, we see pulverisation - all in all a lot of energy is consumed, but still there seems to be plenty left to crash the ever stronger beams of the lower floors. And that top, that fell down as a whole - did you see what happened to it?

I could not see anything, to be honest - too much dust. But you can see the rim of the roof, totally intact, falling down - and then somehow it dissolves. Magic? No of course not. Alien ray. Told ya.

Dust.

Great Scott Danny - dust indeed

We should find ourselves a pub and celebrate that we at least agree on something here (other than that the buildings disappeared)

Dust it is. And a LOT of it. Inches and inches settled down, and strangely enough some of the dust seemed to continue to pulverise while on the ground. But let's not go there for now, you're already having enough trouble with me as it is.

It's dust from a collapse. It's an end result and to be expected as opposed to a cause or something that's occurred by the addition of your flyer saucer guys.

I don't know if they were in a flying saucer, actually. They use a lot of seemingly impossible stuff and I'm not sure how it works. BTW, even the term 'flying saucer' is somewhat dubious, Arnold never said he saw 'saucers', he merely reported that their movement was like as if one makes a saucer skip over water. What he saw looke a bit like a crescent / flying wing. Anyway, I digress.

I'm not waving a scientific red flag. I'm pointing out that you've abandoned science completely and are advocating an entirely fictional alien ray.

That is a statement, but you fail to prove it. I am simply - like you - stating a theory as if it were a fact. Like you are absolutely sure that your theory is correct - so am I. We both provide fake proof: we both weren't there to see what happened, the evidence was transported away at break neck speed, some of it is intentionally witheld from the publc. So, actually, we don't have much to go on, other than that - I think we can agree here - it is stunning and totally unbelievable what we are assumed to believe.

Had anybody told me the day before what would happen I'd probably would not even have considered it a valid scenario for a low-budget B-movie. Come on, not one, not two but five planes highjacked, nobody does anything to stop them, pilots that aren't even able to fly a Cessna properly but manage to perform like stuntman on that infamous day - planes that disappear into thin air, the president not being brought into safety, contradicting stories everywhere. Bah, humbug. I probably would have said that this scenario was so totally unbelievable that we'd better make another movie involving an..

Alien Ray. Told ya.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 08:31 AM

Perhaps you do not completely understand the meaning of "conspire" or "conspiracy"?

If the official story were true, it requires that certain people conspired to commit the acts we saw that day. Therefore, the official story is by definition, a conspiracy. Thus the term Official Conspiracy Theory when referring to that fantasy.

Yes, taking the country to war was very much one of the purposes of the false flag at WTC that day. There were other purposes too, no doubt, but taking the country to war was indeed one of the reasons for the attacks.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 08:40 AM

originally posted by: skyeagle409

What do you mean it's false? I saw the pictures myself of the structural steel pieces blown out sideways. One piece in particular was stuck in the old American Express building, I saw it myself.

They were not blown sideways by explosives, they were thrown by the collapse. Ever wondered why the steel beams of the 1993 WTC 1 bombing were not thrown sideways and why the steel beams remained standing within the huge bomb crater?

You might be gullible enough to believe that nonsense, but I'm not.

Simple physics demands that force is required to move objects. Gravity provides force, but it is all straight down.

Something else provided force, and quite a bit, to move that piece hundreds of feet sideways.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 08:59 AM

originally posted by: Salander

Perhaps you do not completely understand the meaning of "conspire" or "conspiracy"?

If the official story were true, it requires that certain people conspired to commit the acts we saw that day. Therefore, the official story is by definition, a conspiracy. Thus the term Official Conspiracy Theory when referring to that fantasy.

Yes, taking the country to war was very much one of the purposes of the false flag at WTC that day. There were other purposes too, no doubt, but taking the country to war was indeed one of the reasons for the attacks.

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with us going into Iraq. Stop trying to tie together two events that had nothing to do with one another. We went into AFGHANISTAN after 9/11 directly because of 9/11. And with good reason. We DID NOT go into Iraq because of 9/11.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:01 AM
You know, the continual ability of one member to post this alien ray garbage is really lowering the credibility of the mod system on this site. Let me guess. . . I'LL get booted for this post, but another member will still be permitted to post childish and trolling alien ray post and after childish and trolling alien ray post for days on end, right? Great work, guys.
edit on 27-7-2015 by jaffo because: Content, manners.

edit on 27-7-2015 by jaffo because: Content, manners.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:05 AM

I hope you're not suggesting that you yourself were involved in the planning of either 911 or the invasion of Iraq?

Otherwise, how would you possibly know these things?

911 was the predicate, the cornerstone, the reason for existence, of The Global War On Terror if you are familiar with that term. It is the gift that keeps on giving for those in the arms industry. 14 years later the GWOT is still running on all 8 cylinders.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:06 AM

originally posted by: Salander

I hope you're not suggesting that you yourself were involved in the planning of either 911 or the invasion of Iraq?

Otherwise, how would you possibly know these things?

911 was the predicate, the cornerstone, the reason for existence, of The Global War On Terror if you are familiar with that term. It is the gift that keeps on giving for those in the arms industry. 14 years later the GWOT is still running on all 8 cylinders.

Show me EXACTLY where at ANY POINT IN TIME 9/11 was stated as the basis for involving us in Iraq. I know, I know. . . I have to "see through the BS" or some such thing, right? I have to "connect the dots" right? Give me a break.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:12 AM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
But the amazing thing here is that inertia seems not to work as you'd expect. The top topples - but instead of continuing the motion (inertia) it somehow stops this movement, crashes right through the remaining 80 floors of concrete and steel that were still standing and then we seem something quite impossible happening: the entire upper block turns to mostly dust way before the remains of this block hit the floor.

Inertia and GRAVITY worked exactly as expected. You want to entirely remove one to support your notions when that clearly isn't possible.
The top of the building collapsed on one side, this didn't remove the effects of gravity on the mass of that structure. The structure is still being pulled down, and if there is no greater force pushing it from that direction that is where it will continue to go.

Your theory of inertia supposedly requiring the top of that building to keep moving to the side rather than down REQUIRES a greater force than that of the mass and gravity bringing it DOWN.

Clearly that is not the case, and clearly that building acted in ways entirely consistent with all known laws of physics.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
But it is halted if it meets solid steel and concrete. We can see this demonstrated in the picture above: the top leans over to the left because that's the path of least resitance. What should have happened is that the top floors should have continued their path along the line of least resitance. That did not happen because the lower parts were magically disappearing in clouds of dust.

No, it doesn't simply "stop" when meeting steel and concrete, and this is the fundamental flaw in your theory. It might, if the weight and mass of the object were not multiples of what the structure beneath can hold!

Can a piece of paper prevent a brick from falling?

You're using a very simplistic model to come to your conclusions, selectively ignoring various factors which are fundamental to understanding how these buildings behaved.

And no, they didn't "magically" turn to dust, they were crushed by the thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel collapsing onto them, the mass of weight being dropped onto an already weakened structure which couldn't stop that movement even if it were not already weakened.

If you drop thousands of tonnes of concrete onto a brick, do you not think that brick would disintegrate?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
So, what you assume happened is that the top - more or less as a whole - fell down on the lower floors. Am I correct? So, you assume that the sheer weight of these falling masses immediately and without much noticable delay ripped the core apart while also turning the entire structure into rubble, right? The rubble then fell downwards and hit the next floor etc. - right?

Again with the claim of "without much noticeable delay".
There was a delay, and it was entirely consistent with scientific knowledge, only the conspiracy theorist likes to pretend that it wasn't.
We all know that these towers DID NOT collapse at "free fall speed" as so many of you insisted for several years. We know that the timing of those collapses is entirely consistent with scientific reality.

And, unless you have some kind of magical method of seeing everything happening behind that cloud of debris, you didn't see anything that we didn't see.

You seem to want to keep interjecting your own opinions of what was happening in that mess of debris as though you know it to be true, when you don't have any better of an idea than the rest of, and we are all basing our conclusions on science rather than belief.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Methinks you're waving one of those red flags again: referring to authority instead of evidence. My method is just as "scientific" as yours, we both try to make sense of what happened using the data we have. I'm merely not as easy convinced by authority, scientific or not.

Lets see...
You claim to know what was happening in that mess of debris, when you know nothing more than what we all saw, and what science and rationality confirms, yet you claim that others are basing their opinions on authority instead of evidence?

All of the evidence shows the same thing:

Two planes flew into those buildings, weakening the structural integrity of the outer and inner supports.
The floors buckled due to extreme heat and the method of construction.
The weight of the upper portions then collapsed onto concrete and steel floors not intended to be able to support even a fraction of that wight.
These floors then collapsed, as is expected.
This then added even more weight to the next... and on and on.
The concrete was pulverized and steel was twisted and bent, as we would expect considering the sheer force and weight of the structure collapsing.

It seems that most have no clue about the massive forces we are talking about here. The mass of that structure was entirely capable of pulverizing everything beneath it. This is not a mystery to anyone who actually understands that we are talking about hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:25 AM

If you cannot perceive it in 2015, you will never understand it.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:51 AM

But the heart of the reason, Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American Century. In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons" postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."

www.aljazeera.com...

The New York Times and the PBS program “Frontline” report that an Iraqi defector, an army general, claims that the Iraqi military trained Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. These claims could not be substantiated and one of the defectors is later exposed by Mother Jones to be using a false identity.

www.investigatingpower.org...

During the second day of hearings featuring Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, the echoes of Sept. 11 reverberated through the chamber. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a presidential candidate, got Petraeus to repeat his belief that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror." Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), another White House aspirant, complained about the timing of the hearing because it "perpetuates this notion that, somehow, the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Exactly enough?

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:32 AM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruThis imaginary hinge point you are treating it as an actual hinge.

You said it quite well: the imaginary hinge. Of course, there MIGHT have been a real hinge, but I fail to see how that could have escaped the attention of the inhabitants of the Towers for years

You want it to pivot over that point.

To be more accurate: I'd expect the seemingly uncompromised top part to continue it's movement to the left. It did not, which surprises me.

That would only be the case if the centre of gravity had moved past that point.

If you were right, the top would not have started toppling to begin with, as the centre of gravity surely had not moved past that point then. But it did, we can clearly see it. It did because gravity pulled on it equally, but the exoskeleton below the 'left' part of it was missing and so there was less resistance there. The top toppled, and it seems to have done so as a whole. Now, that's a lot of moving mass, we do agree. Given that you seem to assume that the lower part of the building applies a symmetrical upward force over the entire width of the building(1) and given that the mass of the upper floors was already moving to the 'left' I would have expected the inertia to be big enough to make the toppling continue. But that did not happen. Why not?

1) the idea that a building, consisting of an exoskeleton, floors and a core should apply a constant upward force over the full width of the building against the 'upper block' is quite impossible and only that fact alone should have shown another type of collapse.

As it is its still within the building this vertically is still the direction the load is travelling. You've also ignored the possibility that other columns on the opposite side from your hinge point are providing resistance.

Well, let's see: if some parts of the lower part of the building offer more resitance than other parts, I would have expected a non-symmetrical collapse. Instead, we see an almost free fall speed symmetrical collapse. Interestingly enough, the building does not slow its collapse either, notwithstanding the fact that the lower portions of the building were constructed with much thicker steel girders and columns than the upper parts. But we also see a lot of debris shooting out of the building, we see pulverisation - all in all a lot of energy is consumed, but still there seems to be plenty left to crash the ever stronger beams of the lower floors. And that top, that fell down as a whole - did you see what happened to it?

I could not see anything, to be honest - too much dust. But you can see the rim of the roof, totally intact, falling down - and then somehow it dissolves. Magic? No of course not. Alien ray. Told ya.

Dust.

Great Scott Danny - dust indeed

We should find ourselves a pub and celebrate that we at least agree on something here (other than that the buildings disappeared)

Dust it is. And a LOT of it. Inches and inches settled down, and strangely enough some of the dust seemed to continue to pulverise while on the ground. But let's not go there for now, you're already having enough trouble with me as it is.

It's dust from a collapse. It's an end result and to be expected as opposed to a cause or something that's occurred by the addition of your flyer saucer guys.

I don't know if they were in a flying saucer, actually. They use a lot of seemingly impossible stuff and I'm not sure how it works. BTW, even the term 'flying saucer' is somewhat dubious, Arnold never said he saw 'saucers', he merely reported that their movement was like as if one makes a saucer skip over water. What he saw looke a bit like a crescent / flying wing. Anyway, I digress.

I'm not waving a scientific red flag. I'm pointing out that you've abandoned science completely and are advocating an entirely fictional alien ray.

That is a statement, but you fail to prove it. I am simply - like you - stating a theory as if it were a fact. Like you are absolutely sure that your theory is correct - so am I. We both provide fake proof: we both weren't there to see what happened, the evidence was transported away at break neck speed, some of it is intentionally witheld from the publc. So, actually, we don't have much to go on, other than that - I think we can agree here - it is stunning and totally unbelievable what we are assumed to believe.

Had anybody told me the day before what would happen I'd probably would not even have considered it a valid scenario for a low-budget B-movie. Come on, not one, not two but five planes highjacked, nobody does anything to stop them, pilots that aren't even able to fly a Cessna properly but manage to perform like stuntman on that infamous day - planes that disappear into thin air, the president not being brought into safety, contradicting stories everywhere. Bah, humbug. I probably would have said that this scenario was so totally unbelievable that we'd better make another movie involving an..

Alien Ray. Told ya.

Unless of course the columns in that area failed first, then yes it would have turned there first. So that deals with that.

Dust continues to pulverise while on the ground? What do you mean?

Science is replicable in experimentation. I can hear steel and watch it fail. You can't show me an alien or indeed any evidence of aliens. One is science. One is a fantasy.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:36 AM

originally posted by: Salander

Perhaps you do not completely understand the meaning of "conspire" or "conspiracy"?

If the official story were true, it requires that certain people conspired to commit the acts we saw that day. Therefore, the official story is by definition, a conspiracy. Thus the term Official Conspiracy Theory when referring to that fantasy.

Yes, taking the country to war was very much one of the purposes of the false flag at WTC that day. There were other purposes too, no doubt, but taking the country to war was indeed one of the reasons for the attacks.

Gibberish. Some semantic gymnastics to get to the point where you can say official conspiracy story. Pfft. Behave. Which one of the 50 different conspiracy stories is the official?

I told you. War is out. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that was a war. So no. You aren't getting that.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:41 AM

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Inertia and GRAVITY worked exactly as expected. You want to entirely remove one to support your notions when that clearly isn't possible.

I don't want to remove gravity nor inertia, thank you (shiver)..

But if you - like me - believe that both forces are constant why then did the top of the building stop its sidewards motion to replace it with a sudden downward motion? Assuming the resistance of the lower 80+ floors was more or less a constant and assuming that the mass of the top of the building was sufficient to crush these floors, I still don't understand how it is that a toppling over action stopped. It should have continued - it did not.

The top of the building collapsed on one side, this didn't remove the effects of gravity on the mass of that structure. The structure is still being pulled down, and if there is no greater force pushing it from that direction that is where it will continue to go.

Agreed, I haven't denied gravitation in as far as I know. So, the top starts to topple, roughly 100.000 tonnes of steel and concrete - still stifly interconnected - starts to move to the left - why didn't that movement continue?

Your theory of inertia supposedly requiring the top of that building to keep moving to the side rather than down REQUIRES a greater force than that of the mass and gravity bringing it DOWN.

It's simple: we do agree - I hope - that the top of the building acted as if it still was in one piece, right? That only would be logical: fumes do not dissolve weldings and nuts and bolts. So, this massive 100.000 tonnes "block" starts to topple over, we see this, don't you agree? So, now part of the rim now dangles over thin air, don't we agree? Thin air has less resistance than 80+ floors of concrete and steel, I hope we can agree on that too?

Gravity pulles everywhere - so it also pulls at that rim. No resitance below that rim. So the rim shold be pulled over further - by gravity. And the initial toppling should have continued - inertia. This is worsened by the fact that the remaining 80+ floors DO resist the part of the top that is not leaning over that far. So, if you know it, pleaes explain to me: why did the top not continue it's movement to the left? Was it inertia that failed? Gravity changed so it pulled less over thin air than over 80+ floors of building?

Clearly that is not the case, and clearly that building acted in ways entirely consistent with all known laws of physics.

I hope so, I never said the building wasn't acting according to laws of physics, which to the best of our current knowledge can't be so. I only say that the behaviour of the building only can be explained if additional energy was supplied somehow.

No, it doesn't simply "stop" when meeting steel and concrete, and this is the fundamental flaw in your theory. It might, if the weight and mass of the object were not multiples of what the structure beneath can hold!

Can a piece of paper prevent a brick from falling?

We're talking about massive amounts of welded and bolted together steel, reinforced with concrete. This is not about a brick and a piece of paper!

You're using a very simplistic model to come to your conclusions, selectively ignoring various factors which are fundamental to understanding how these buildings behaved.

Your brick and paper model is not simplistic then?

Anyway, yes, I try to use a simple model for starters. If that already points out serious flaws in the official theory, I don't feel the need to overcomplicate things unless somebody explains to me why the simple model is flawed. So far, you're only telling me "you're wrong because I say so". Likewise.

And no, they didn't "magically" turn to dust, they were crushed by the thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel collapsing onto them, the mass of weight being dropped onto an already weakened structure which couldn't stop that movement even if it were not already weakened.

Again, the lower 80+ floors weren't substantially damaged in as far as we know.

Again with the claim of "without much noticeable delay".

Free fall or near free fall.

There was a delay, and it was entirely consistent with scientific knowledge, only the conspiracy theorist likes to pretend that it wasn't.

Likewise I might say that there was almost no delay and it was entirely consistent with scientific knowledge if somehow the 80+ floors below the top were crushed / removed by an external force.

And, unless you have some kind of magical method of seeing everything happening behind that cloud of debris, you didn't see anything that we didn't see.

That's exactly what I said - read again, this is what I wrote:

I could not see anything, to be honest - too much dust. But you can see the rim of the roof, totally intact, falling down - and then somehow it dissolves.

(That, BTW, was the dust that was denied to have existed by some here).

So, we agree: nobody saw what happened - we just saw the building collapse. And fast! According to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. This means that the towers fell within somewhere between 1 to 5 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. But there was no vacuum - each floor had to crush down on the next, and had to resist air whilst doing it. Any idea how big the resistance of air is when you try to drop down a 40.000 sq. feet floor on it?

and we are all basing our conclusions on science rather than belief.

I can assure you I'm well aware of scientific principles. And the tendency of people with any given model in their head to explain away inconvenient facts.

It seems that most have no clue about the massive forces we are talking about here. The mass of that structure was entirely capable of pulverizing everything beneath it. This is not a mystery to anyone who actually understands that we are talking about hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel.

80-90 percent of that 'massive' construction was - thin air. Air that was largely held in place by windows and the exoskeleton. The resistance of that air alone should have sufficed to slow down the collapse significantly. It did not happen. Also, the kinetic energy stored in the building must have been used to pulverize the concrete - we agree: nobody could see much, due to all that dust.

So, yes, large amounts of kinetic energy were released, we agree. But still it is impossible to compress air without using up part of that energy. It is also impossible to turn concrete into dust without wasting a lot of that kinetic energy too. And ripping apart the entire core - any idea how much energy that takes? Then we have a top that acts as if it was a whole - it topples, the rim hovers over nothing but still the top does not continue its topple, but instead "chooses" to fall down right trough 80+ floors of solid steel and concrete - at (almost) free fall speed.

I don't know about your science - but it reminds me of that of Lord Kelvin.
edit on 27-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he made spelling errors and probably introduced new ones correcting these..

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 12:01 PM

originally posted by: scottyirnbruScience is replicable in experimentation. I can hear steel and watch it fail. You can't show me an alien or indeed any evidence of aliens. One is science. One is a fantasy.

You can't come up with a working model that explains how the WTC buildings fell unless you accept that additional energy was added. Not even NIST can. Their model of say WTC7 was visually flawed beyond belief and is not even open to public inspection. Their pancaking theory was just that - and later formally withdrawn due to massive resitance by "fools" like me. Had we not said anything they would have gotten away with their "scientific" nonsense.

Alien ray. Told ya.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 12:31 PM

You might be gullible enough to believe that nonsense, but I'm not.

It is a scientific fact. The blast wave will simply flow around a steel column like wind flowing around a flag pole.

Explain why multiple explosions failed to throw the steel beams in the photos.

Photo-1

Photo-2

Simple physics demands that force is required to move objects. Gravity provides force, but it is all straight down.

Something else provided force, and quite a bit, to move that piece hundreds of feet sideways.

Since it has been proven no demolition explosions occurred, the dynamics of the collapse of those buildings were responsible and you can see it all in this video. Notice that no demolition explosions are seen nor heard as WTC 1 collapsed. You will also notice that debris and dust plumes are outpacing the collapse of WTC 1, which proves that WTC 1 is not falling at free fall speed.

WTC 1 Collapse Video
edit on 27-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 01:02 PM

If the official story were true, it requires that certain people conspired to commit the acts we saw that day.

Let's take a look at the terrorist who were responsible for the 9/11 attack

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

A martyr video from hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi was shown in April 2002. But this new hour-long video contains images of each of the hijacker teams that hijacked Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 on September 11. These images show pictures of each hijacker in the team floating over a background.

Last Will and Testiment of the 9/11 Hijackers

9/11 Hijackers

And remember, countries around the world, including Muslim countries, sent warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would use aircraft to attack America. In 1995, the Philippines warned the Unted States of the Bojinka Plot, which was a plot to use airliners to kill thousands of people.

The plot also targeted CIA headquarters, but the plot was broken up in the Philippines. One of the terrorist who escaped was Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed WTC 1 in 1993 and nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attack.

Yes, taking the country to war was very much one of the purposes of the false flag at WTC that day.

That is false. First of all, the Taliban of Afghanistan, was another government that sent warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden would conduct a terrorist attack against America.

Taliban Warned United States of Huge Terrorist Attack

Late July 2001: The Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learns that bin Laden is planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack is imminent, and will kill thousands.

He learns this from Tahir Yildash, leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which is allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sends an emissary to pass this information on to the US consul general, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services," also attends the meeting. The message is not taken very seriously; one source blames this on "warning fatigue" from too many warnings. Also, supposedly the emissary was from the Foreign Ministry, but didn't say the message came from Muttawakil himself.

The emissary then takes the message to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. They also fail to take the warning seriously.

[Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

Taliban Warns of huge Attack

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil. Mr Muttawakil, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the Arab and other foreign militants in Afghanistan, learned of Osama bin Laden's plan in July.

Neither organisation heeded the warning, which was given just weeks before the 11 September attacks.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia. Some of these warnings include the following:

March 2001 – Italian intelligence warns of an al-Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al-Qaeda cell in Milan.

July 2001 – Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al-Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.

August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

August 2001 – The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al-Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.

September 2001 – Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

There were other purposes too, no doubt, but taking the country to war was indeed one of the reasons for the attacks.

That is false! International warnings, including a warning from the Taliban, that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were planning a terrorist attack in the United States is proof that there was no False Flag.

Further proof was the admission of Osama bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack.
edit on 27-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 01:14 PM

911 was the predicate, the cornerstone, the reason for existence, of The Global War On Terror if you are familiar with that term.

We can take a look here to see who was responsible for the Global War on Terror, since it was Osama bin Laden who declared war on the United States.

The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Al Qaeda's Second Fatwa

The following text is the fatwa published on Feb. 23, 1998, to declare a holy war against the West and Israel. It is signed by Osama bin Laden, head of al Qaeda; Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Jihad Group in Egypt, and other Islamic terrorist groups.

www.pbs.org...

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 01:17 PM
Pay special attention the section regarding free fall.

edit on 27-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 03:51 PM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruScience is replicable in experimentation. I can hear steel and watch it fail. You can't show me an alien or indeed any evidence of aliens. One is science. One is a fantasy.

You can't come up with a working model that explains how the WTC buildings fell unless you accept that additional energy was added. Not even NIST can. Their model of say WTC7 was visually flawed beyond belief and is not even open to public inspection. Their pancaking theory was just that - and later formally withdrawn due to massive resitance by "fools" like me. Had we not said anything they would have gotten away with their "scientific" nonsense.

Alien ray. Told ya.

Why is this idiotic drivel, which is nothing more than a complete logical fallacy, still being allowed to post on this board, mods? What does this guy have on ATS?!

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 04:36 PM
Well...

NYC Fire Dept. Lt. D. Rastussio:
"...it would come down on its own, or it would be taken down."
(min. 24:30)

top topics

135