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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Ian....

Playing devils advocate here but, you do realise that the pentagon was made of reinforced concrete and not steel. The pentagon walls are much stronger than the tower's walls were, etc. Comparing apples to organges when you try to compare the towers with the pentagon. As far as what else you said...I agree...it doesn't sit well. And obviously it doesn't sit well with many people or why would we have to have so many reports, investigations and committees?


I agree fully with Mac, Ian you can't just drop all the technical data "i dont like to get into the technical side of things" ...

This is the way how we can seriously clean up to "story" from all the crap.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Thanks for the info Smith. The one thing I'm seeing a lot of though is "ripped off at weld". Why is it then that they say the connection bolts are what failed? I could see it happening though if they designed it to only have 2 bolts?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Thanks for the info Smith. The one thing I'm seeing a lot of though is "ripped off at weld". Why is it then that they say the connection bolts are what failed? I could see it happening though if they designed it to only have 2 bolts?


I'm not sure what you're getting at but it would have been a combination of things throughout the structure. There are plenty of examples of various failures at different points - have a read it's pretty long though.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Quote:
“Can't you see that spreading lies and deception for financial or personal gain, when you know it's wrong is immoral, dangerous and irresponsible?”


Kind of like purchasing airline stock KNOWING that it will go DOWN, DOWN, DOWN!!!

Yet that fact gets no play in our government controlled media.

But on the other hand someone trying to make an honest buck selling a book is the danger!!!

What a sick world.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
When I get time...I'll read through it. What I ment was...as far as I've gotten...it says a lot about welds failing. Thanks anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdefab01
Kind of like purchasing airline stock KNOWING that it will go DOWN, DOWN, DOWN!!!

This was quickly dismissed in several independent financial news sources within days after the attacks. The put/short speculative activity was discovered to be within normal expectations in an industry that was already going through some public financial trouble. Not to mention that during the time of the attacks, speculative day trading like that was nearly as popular as online poker is now.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
There were massive solid steel columns that were literally snapped like twigs in the collapse. Showing bolts that failed in the process of a building that literally disintegrated into millions of pieces seems a bit moot. You might as well throw a television off a twenty-storey building and then pick up a piece of glass out of the bits and say, "See? This is why the television disintegrated". What matters is how all those columns failed at once and the collapse initiated, and then how the lightest, weakest, top 10% of the building managed to plough through the remaining 90% of progressively stronger structure, pulverizing it into sticks and dust in a matter of seconds. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, but if that link breaks, the entire chain full of links does not break or disintegrate in a chain reaction (bad pun, I know). That's what redundancy in a structure is for.

But MacMerdin is right. The strength of the joist assemblies and connections is consistently underplayed.

* Each truss was actually a "double truss", with two trusses sandwiched together.

* In addition to the spanning trusses each span was also strengthened by perpendicular bridging trusses.

* In addition to the two bolts in the truss seat was also the two 1" thick bolts in the damping unit.

* Gusset plates connected to the perimeter columns were fillet welded to the tops of the trusses.

* At every second column panel were 24" x 18" steel plates connected to the perimeter columns, covered with shear studs and set in the concrete slab of the floor. Further 6' long steel bars were welded between these and the tops of the truss cords.

* A steel sheeting was placed over the top of all this, connected to the joists by tall shear studs, and possibly welded to the gusset plates and the 24x18 plates.

* 4" of concrete, steel-reinforced, was poured over the top of all of this, sealing the gusset plates, the top knuckles of the truss rods, the shear studs, the 24x18 steel plates and everything else in concrete.

There's more which MacMerdin will be able to decipher better than I can here:

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 2005-12-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by zer69

I agree fully with Mac, Ian you can't just drop all the technical data "i dont like to get into the technical side of things" ...

This is the way how we can seriously clean up to "story" from all the crap.

I dont ignore anything, i am not profane!

The issues are infront of us, you can not be 100% sure eitherway, and if any of you believe that you are, then its inconsistant to only point out the inconsistancys in an alternative view, or mainly suggest that it's all crap



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Thanks WCIP....

I'm reading through stuff right now. I found this interesting though.


High impacts that create notches can also lead to brittle fracture at stresses that are less than the dynamic yield strength. This is also true if triaxial stress conditions exist from constraint.


from here: 911research.wtc7.net...

This is interesting because it says that high impact (which would have occured) can lead to brittle fracture. So much for my malleable steel theory. Don't like being proven wrong but I must admit it when I am.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Thanks WCIP....

I'm reading through stuff right now.


Keep in mind that one of those is a straight reproduction of the FEMA report, Mac.
The other link was provided as an annotation to that. Do a search on that site for info regarding the truss connections, etc. You'll be surprised what FEMA and NIST glossed over, or straight out omitted. Kind of like the 9-11 Commission completely omitting the implosion of an entire 47-storey building.

[edit on 2005-12-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Seven of the WTC Hijackers found alive

David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton stated he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for September. According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors, they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. After 9/11

In 2003 a Canadian team conducted experiments[9] to determine if cell phones could be used from civilian aircraft flying at cruising speeds and altitudes. Their findings concluded the probability of a typical cell phone making a stable connection to a cell on the ground is less than 1%. Anecdotal evidence provided to the team by airline passengers in other parts of the US and the world corroborates their findings

finish your story children you country is only under attack, and i'm a sitting duck



Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command]
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)
Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
"Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes. It kind of dissipated".
...
"That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke".

Are these some of the ppl talking crap?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I was wondering.....where were the expansion joints in the towers? Has anyone come across anything dealing with where and how they were constructed? There had to be some kind of expansion joints somewhere to compensate for temperature variation (expanding and contracting). This probably has very little to do with anything but was just currious.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I was wondering.....where were the expansion joints in the towers?


Are you talking about the rubber dampers connecting the bottom chords of the floor trusses to the exterior walls?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The dozens of photographs are relevent along with what caused each joint to fail as this can help show if explosives were used or not. If there were a line of explosives down the tower as some would lead us to believe then it would be evident from the steel left over.
Some of the photographs are of exterior and central columns - some of which ones directly impacted by the aircraft and should show signs of explosives being used.

There are a number of explosive theories and they include this line of explosives down the whole building and explosives on the damaged floors initiating the collapse. It would be very hard to conceal this sort of evidence I would imagine and you would think it would be evident in the photographs which it apparantly is not.

I still can't understand what the problem is with understanding why a progressive collapse would occur if the top ten stories gave way, surely it's pretty obvious that the structure may be able to withstand columns being damaged but not 10 storeys collapsing down suddenly - you can't compare the two.
The stress that would be put onto the bolts and welds would be immense, far beyond their design capabilities.
The building was designed to withstand severe structural damage and stay standing to a point, having looked around briefly on architectural forums I get the impression that buildings are designed to not suffer any significant collapse for a period of time long enough to enable evacuation. The fact they stayed up long enough to enable a significant number of people to escape, even with a lot of the fire proofing destroyed, shows that this happened.
However no-one can say that a building like this is designed or realistically capable to withstand a sizeable chunk of it's mass to suddenly collapse down onto the floors below and still stay standing.

People also keep saying about witnesses saying it sounded like an explosion when the towers fell... I'm just curious what other word anyone would use to describe 500,000 tons of steel and concrete collapsing to the ground?
A gentle rumble? A loud thud?


[edit on 19-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a question for anyone willing to take the bait:

what do you think would give way first?



  1. the columns
  2. or the floor structure


in the case of falling cap?



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Great thread,dl ing the vid now.
Does this fotage fit with hat the wtc janitor William Rodriguez witnessed?
I think it does.
Another point,itsvery interesting to see how this subject is being disscussed.It seems that the tide is turning--more people used to disagree with evidence like this,now it seems that more people agree with them.
Last week while i watched "space cadets" on uk tv,i couldn't help thinking that humans will,collectivley and subconsciously "know the truth." All the cadets sussed out subconsciously that they were not in space,but their conscious minds still believed that they were in space.
I think that this phenomena happens alot,especially when we are fed GARBAGE by the big mainstream channels on such matters as Vietnam,JFK,911 etc.
I think its a kind of defence mechanism,like the way we can often tell when people lie to us.
We are tough to fool.....
Where there is smoke there is fire.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
If there were a line of explosives down the tower as some would lead us to believe then it would be evident from the steel left over.


Sorry ol' chap but that is almost impossible to tell as most of the steel from the WTC was shipped to china for recycling BEFORE any examination could take place.

Why was that? I wonder........

Just a thought



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian

Originally posted by St Udio
Is someone claiming that the blast of smoke/debris
some levels below the collapse
was caused by planted, demolition explosives??

? could be that a stairway door (or elevator terminus) was opened and the accellerated debris blew out like a cannon, taking out the window glass!?

sorry, i don't see proof or demolition evidence

thanks,
i await reports & analysis from ats posters on the link which
wecomeinpeace has shared ....
(as i am not quite adept at all these downloading maneuvers with various
programs that need to be added to my PC Machine)


Did you have a look at the Loosechange911 trailer?
how can you just ignore what the firemen and the police were saying?
do you think they were lieing?
or is it that they were not capable of knowing the diference between blast of smoke/debris and explosives?




A short time before 9/11 the man who owned building 7 (this building being the home to the FBI, CIA and other government agencies) bought the all the buildings in the world trade center and he took out one of the largest insurance policies ever. On 9/11 this man was interviewed on WMHT I believe and there he said that they "deceided to pull building 7". This is a term used in by demolition crews. Mind you that it takes a great deal of time to set a building up for demolition, nothing of the sort could be done in a single day. This was planned and carefully executed. Matter of fact, one of the Bush brothers headed up security for this very building, and does it surpise you that his last day of work was 9/10?

As far as mistles go, I have seen footage suggesting there was something attached to the bottom of one of the planes. However logically speaking, it makes no sense to fire a mistle at a building that is already being hit by a fully fueled plane. Something of this nature would only draw more attention to the sitution. I would have to imangine that the mistle would detinate regardless of wheather or not it was launched.

These buildings were built on the premis that planes could possible fly into them. This making sense seeing that they were so tall and have two major airports near them. They shouldn't have fallen, fire alone could not have heated up the metel supports to the point of melting, this is not possible.

NORAD held drills months befor on the assumption that planes were going to flown into buildings. Some of these buildings included The world trade center, pentagon and white house. Therefore on 9/11 NORAD stood down, assuming that this was yet another drill.

This was all just one elaborate plan on behalf of the Government? I'm not really sure, but I will never doubt that they knew, and failed to protect the people that they govern.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by emmileigh510]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
do you guys have any other method of downloading this video? It seems the piratebay bittorent link is going extremely slow (hasn't started yet), and the other links just don't work for me.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Did you have a look at the Loosechange911 trailer?
how can you just ignore what the firemen and the police were saying?
do you think they were lieing?
or is it that they were not capable of knowing the diference between blast of smoke/debris and explosives?


A blast of smoke and debris IS an explosion.

What sounds do collapsing buildings make?








It is commonly claimed by controlled demolition theorists (CDTs), hat the fires in the WTC towers were cool and oxygen deprived. If this is the case, then the CDTs have to concede the probability of smoke explosions.

Something to think about, at least.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join