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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 40
4
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The basement blast came from the explosion in WTC 6. The base of the crater in that building was below ground level. This is why those in the basement levels experienced an explosion. This explosion also explains why WTC 7 was so heavily damaged in the south-west corner of the building. Also, flying super heated steal beams flew out of WTC 6 and hit the upper floors of the surrounding buildings and started the fires. The blast at WTC 6 occurred around 9:03 AM seconds after the second plane hit WTC 2. Jules Naudet has footage of the event.




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hector
The basement blast came from the explosion in WTC 6. The base of the crater in that building was below ground level. This is why those in the basement levels experienced an explosion. This explosion also explains why WTC 7 was so heavily damaged in the south-west corner of the building. Also, flying super heated steal beams flew out of WTC 6 and hit the upper floors of the surrounding buildings and started the fires. The blast at WTC 6 occurred around 9:03 AM seconds after the second plane hit WTC 2. Jules Naudet has footage of the event.


Thats ONE explosion does not explain all the other explosions described by the witnesses.

~Peace :Cool:~

Lobby The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby.

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Lobby The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby.



While I am on the proponent side of "jets didn't do it", I can fully comprehend the damage in the lobby from the jet impact[s], unless you are seeing something I do not. There's no suspension in steel building [less California, w/ lead embedded rubber foundations], basically the lobby felt the recoil effect of the impact above. The steel shook all the way down, so the windows frames also mementarily warped, causing braekage. Were there any pictures on the wall, I would venture say those fell as well.

Not trying to dis your thought, as I do believe there were other explosions outside jet fuel, but movement in steel above, is movement in steel connected below, just at a lesser degree each successive floor.

Misfit



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Lobby The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby.



While I am on the proponent side of "jets didn't do it", I can fully comprehend the damage in the lobby from the jet impact[s], unless you are seeing something I do not. There's no suspension in steel building [less California, w/ lead embedded rubber foundations], basically the lobby felt the recoil effect of the impact above. The steel shook all the way down, so the windows frames also mementarily warped, causing braekage. Were there any pictures on the wall, I would venture say those fell as well.

Not trying to dis your thought, as I do believe there were other explosions outside jet fuel, but movement in steel above, is movement in steel connected below, just at a lesser degree each successive floor.

Misfit



Thats very true. The reason I brought up the lobby is because of William Rodriguez who FELT an explosion underground BEFORE the plane hit the top.

I was just listening to an interview with him and he says the media manipulates his story. Everytime he tried to bring in the possibility of explosives the media edited it out. I believe CNN done a full report into what he had to say they literally spent an entire day recording what he and others had to say but then didn't air his story.

The guy who he saved from an explosion in an elevator stated to him that the explosion of fire came from BELOW not from above. Which completely debunks the "jet fuel did it" theory. True the momentum of the plane hitting the top of building with great force would cause significant damage throughout the building but for jet fuel to explode when its not there is very difficult to explain away.

~Peace
~

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Hunting - I do understand your point of view, completely.

But...I'm not sure I could take witness accounts as gospel, specially in this unique situation.

Why?

Because most witnesses are not professionals in demolition or explosives, and what they thought they saw and heard might not actually relate at all to what they actually did see and hear.

Many years ago, I was standing in a service area of the docks, about to go and QA some ptfe-coated nuts and bolts which were sitting waiting to be taken onto one of the rig platforms. We heard a huge bang and the next thing we knew there was a fire on the dry-docked platform and evacuation measures were hurriedly being carried out.

After the investigation, it was shown that there was no bomb, but a chemical fire had started and led to the explosion (and thankfully there was no loss of life); had you asked any one of us present at the time, we would have all sworn that "it sounded like a bomb", or even, "a bomb must have gone off". Indeed, my own testimony included words alluding to the same; because I genuinely thought I did witness a bomb going off. If you hear a huge bang, and see flames afterwards, it's a natural assumption, no? I think it is - but it's not a given that the explosion would be the result of a bomb.

And I was, of course, wrong. There had been no bomb. An explosion, yes, but no bomb.

Even eyewitnesses can be mistaken - not least if they've witnessed something that's never happened before. This of course applies to both sides of the debate though...if we're to believe any witness, we must first understand their own level of familiarity with the topic, and their understanding of what could happen in similar circumstances.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Hunting - I do understand your point of view, completely.

But...I'm not sure I could take witness accounts as gospel, specially in this unique situation.

Why?

Because most witnesses are not professionals in demolition or explosives, and what they thought they saw and heard might not actually relate at all to what they actually did see and hear.

Many years ago, I was standing in a service area of the docks, about to go and QA some ptfe-coated nuts and bolts which were sitting waiting to be taken onto one of the rig platforms. We heard a huge bang and the next thing we knew there was a fire on the dry-docked platform and evacuation measures were hurriedly being carried out.

After the investigation, it was shown that there was no bomb, but a chemical fire had started and led to the explosion (and thankfully there was no loss of life); had you asked any one of us present at the time, we would have all sworn that "it sounded like a bomb", or even, "a bomb must have gone off". Indeed, my own testimony included words alluding to the same; because I genuinely thought I did witness a bomb going off. If you hear a huge bang, and see flames afterwards, it's a natural assumption, no? I think it is - but it's not a given that the explosion would be the result of a bomb.

And I was, of course, wrong. There had been no bomb. An explosion, yes, but no bomb.

Even eyewitnesses can be mistaken - not least if they've witnessed something that's never happened before. This of course applies to both sides of the debate though...if we're to believe any witness, we must first understand their own level of familiarity with the topic, and their understanding of what could happen in similar circumstances.


I know what your saying. Sometimes witness testimonies could become distorted. The thing is the guy didn't see the explosion, he felt and heard it. As he was one of the rescuers of people in the first WTC attack in '93 and working in the Towers for 20 years (2001) I figured his account of things could be worth listening to.

I listened to a Alex Jones show with William Rodriguez, Greg Szymanski and Craig roberts all having comments of their own.

Another thing that Jones said was on the day of the attack, a family friend who is a structural engineer rang his show that night claiming "It was the most beautiful top down demolitions he had ever seen."

He also claimed that the 1 & 2 implosions were different because of the way they were wired. In particular WTC 7 fell symmetrically while so did 1 & 2. The towers fell from the top down while WTC7 was blown from the bottom up.

Without doubt I think we can say from all the other witnesses that THERE WERE bombs in the building.

I always take a story with a pinch of salt but when you have 50% of New Yorkers believing there was some sort of cover-up to do with 9/11. I think we need to start asking the American Government some serious questions. Especially when you have 11 people all repeating the same info. That there were bombs/explosions going off. Its a difficult situation.

~Peace
~



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'm still wondering why the roof collapsed first, and the walls then proceeded to expand while creases and streamers of smoke appeared across the building's face, all while the building was just beginning to fall. Well, I'm not really wondering; I know why.




Video of Building 7 Collapsing

Is this really going to result in this?



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Firefighters interview

Secondary explosions
...Then they a saw secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses...

Heavy duty explosion
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway,
there was a heavy duty explosion."


Witness to explosion
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard
a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we
had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
might not last."


Secondary devices
"The Chief of Safety of the fire department of New York City told me
he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device--that is,
another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he
could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices
that were planted in the building."


Eye witness
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions ... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of ... tip
over and fall in on itself."


Eye witness
"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."


Eye witness
"45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was an
explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."



Eyewitness Louie Cacchioli, FDNY firefighter:

""
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I
was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in
position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We
think there was bombs set in the building



BBC

I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.

"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.

(...)

Stephen Evans, BBC's North America business correspondent, was on the ground floor of the centre when the first plane crashed.

"There was a huge bang and the building physically shook," he said. "Seconds later there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook again.

(...)

Computer networks analyst Boris Ozersky said he was on the 70th floor of one of the buildings when he felt an explosion.




Prison planet

""
... I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police
Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul,
along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious
cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was
stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center
in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of
the towers. He explained to me that, "many other firemen know there
were bombs in the buildings
, but they're afraid for their jobs to
admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."
Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as
the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag
order down the ranks. "There were definitely bombs in those
buildings,"
he told me.


WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

Are You you calling these people liars?

People who WERE there. They were IN the buildings. You know what. I would take the witness account of these people more seriously than that of ANY Federal institution.

~Peace
~

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]



great rebuttal.

and i completely understand why some might not take the eye witness accounts as 'gospels' due to the fact people can misconceive things but when they are witness accounts stating they heard explosion prior to the planes even hitting the buildings, thats an eye opener.

if the gas tanks were mainly in the upper levels, why did WTC 7 collapse from the bottom? that's quite a contradiction don't you think?

please, please, please take into account other information that doesn't just fuel your beliefs. i take my time to read the witness claims that support my contrary belief but the overwhelming evidence of my beliefs simply outweigh it.

and why would the media not even air any other source of evidence? isn't it the media's job to give us different perspectives of a story, even if it's one that we might not agree on? sounds like they were forced to keep certain things under wraps.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Conspicuouz]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   


if the gas tanks were mainly in the upper levels, why did WTC 7 collapse from the bottom? that's quite a contradiction don't you think?


If you watch the videos of WTC 7 collapsing you will see the first part of the building to collapse it the Pent house on top of the building.

Howard, If the fire on the lower levels of the building caused WTC 7 to collapse, why was the Pent house the first thing to collapse?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Because in a controlled demolition you need to cut the central core columns so that the outer edges of building falls inward on itself to minimize the damage to surrounding structures.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
It took literally thousands of e-mails and phone calls to the local media to
convince them that they must cover the Karl Rove scandal.

The same should apply here.

We have every right to know the real truth, but it will take tremendous public pressure
to convince the media to dig deeper.

Otherwise those who benefited from this mass murder will succeed while the truth will continue
to be dismissed as nothing but theory, driven by liberal politics.

We lost nearly 3000 souls in the WTC/Pentagon attacks and now another 1800 brave souls
have perished fighting a manufactured military conflict and another 20,000+ troops have been sent home with battle scars that with haunt them for the rest of their lives.

The surviving families of these events need to know that they have our support
and that we will not rest until justice prevails.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Silverstein admitted it on pBS when he stated we decided to "PULL" the building. The word "pull" in its self is a demolition term. Also the math "rate of fall" is conclusive with that of a demolition. Can anyone name ANY other modern building that has burned and fell within hours of a fire?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911hoax
Silverstein admitted it on pBS when he stated we decided to "PULL" the building. The word "pull" in its self is a demolition term. Also the math "rate of fall" is conclusive with that of a demolition. Can anyone name ANY other modern building that has burned and fell within hours of a fire?



Can anyone name ANY other event that has even remotely resembled two fully fueled aircraft crashing at full speed into two tower structures?

This was a unique situation, with unique results.

To try and compare it with incidents that share no or too few similarities is futile.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Can anyone name ANY other modern building that has burned and fell within hours of a fire?


If that haven't happened before it doesn't mean it's impossible. There could be those fuel pipes that feeded local fires, and the structure of WTC7 allowed the collapse proceed sideways fast.

And there is a picture of WTC7:



Sorry I didn't find it in bigger scale. But you can see that there was very much smoke comming from several floors.

It took about 6.5 seconds to collapse.. width was 150 m.

s = ½at^2 so a = 2s/t^2 = 2*150m/(6.5s)^2 = 7,1 m/s^2 = 0.72g

So it wasn't freefall. Tell me if some values are incorrect.

WTC 7 collapse looked like controlled demolition, because the collapse started from bottom.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464
It took about 6.5 seconds to collapse.. width was 150 m.

s = ½at^2 so a = 2s/t^2 = 2*150m/(6.5s)^2 = 7,1 m/s^2 = 0.72g

So it wasn't freefall. Tell me if some values are incorrect.


Where did you get the figure of 6.5 seconds, and why are you using the building's width to calculate fall time?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
DAMN
I meaned height...

And I looked that 6.5 seconds from this video: koti.mbnet.fi...

It's hard to estimate the time because it goes behind the buildings. I would say that it collapsed in 6 to 6.5 seconds.. In freefall it would take 5,53 seconds.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
"Can anyone name ANY other event that has even remotely resembled two fully fueled aircraft crashing at full speed into two tower structures?

This was a unique situation, with unique results.

To try and compare it with incidents that share no or too few similarities is futile."

THATS MY POINT......like he say'z


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

- - -Various quotes and movie links - -

Eye witness
"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."



Your whole theory goes right out the window with that one quote, or are you honestly trying to convince me that a collapsing building will make no sounds at all when it falls?

It is obvious from that above quote that the so called explosions and bangs were nothing more than the sounds of the building collapsing.


As for Paul Issac


"Although Isaac isn’t a scientist, engineer or explosives expert, it doesn’t really matter.

Oh, yes it does. Especially if your want to compare his opinions with those of scientists, engineers or explosives experts.

What matters is that someone invest the time and energy to investigate 9/11 in the wake of hasty conclusions arrived at by both government and the media.

So NIST spending three years researching and examining evidence is hasty?




Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I
was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in
position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We
think there was bombs set in the building


So if there were bombs going off while he was in the building, how did he make it out alive?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas


WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition



I thought we went over this in another thread.

The events that this guy is describing were caused by the fuel spilling down the freight elevator shaft and the subsequent fuel air explosion.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz

"Can anyone name ANY other event that has even remotely resembled two fully fueled aircraft crashing at full speed into two tower structures?

This was a unique situation, with unique results.

To try and compare it with incidents that share no or too few similarities is futile."

THATS MY POINT......like he say'z


Yeah it was a unique result alright


Dudes just because something hasn't happened before it doesn't mean there's a possibility of physics acting in a totally new and unique way...

We haven't seen a cruise missile slam into the WTC either, but I can bet you it still wouldn't cause the buildings to collapse neatly in on themselves.

And again what about building 7? You all keep forgetting that one when it doesn't fit your story. It wasn't hit by an aircraft, it supposedly fell neatly in it's own footprint, with very little resistance, due to fire and damage on one side. C'mon, a brain dead vegetable would find that hard to believe.

I mean, you base your theory on the uniqueness of airplanes hitting a building right? Then building 7 is a HUGE hole in your theory....
So what happened? A unique fire we've never seen before? Unique damage from the unique WTC 1&2 and the unique aircraft that hit them?


How old are you Sven, 8? Why do you even bother posting? You add nothing to the debate


[edit on 7/8/2005 by ANOK]




top topics



 
4
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join