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: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Wow, you really are good at making a lot of noise arn't you?
Lot's to say, nothing to hear.....




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Just watched 911eyewitnesss documentary and definitively it put an end to everything.

I would like to see ANYONE here debunk their research.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano
Just watched 911eyewitnesss documentary and definitively it put an end to everything.

I would like to see ANYONE here debunk their research.


Sure, you can start by looking back at page 8 of this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to get things warmed up.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Sure, you can start by looking back at page 8 of this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to get things warmed up.


Yeah, because nothing else was to be said after Smith pointed that one issue out.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So basically, what you are saying is that you are blind to the inward curvature of the exterior columns that is evident in those photographs starting about the 78th floor. Is this correct?


You mean the aluminum? No, not the aluminum. What little of a curvature there is.


1) there is only an inch or so room between the column cover and the column. The buckling was much greater than that (at least a foot in that photo, much greater than that in the photo from WTC 1)


Out of the three photos you've posted so far, where do you see a foot of buckling?

In this one?



Aside from not looking anywhere near a foot in the first place, it's also exaggerated by the added lines, numbers, the angle of the picture, and the aluminum facades of the above columns apparently sticking outwards directly above the "buckling," but even that may be deceiving. It's impossible to tell. And on top of it all, it's only showing the aluminum.

As Shroud posted, it's pretty much equivalent to this:



Your eyes can be tricked, and those NIST photos combine several elements that conveniently aid just that. Again, the added lines, added numbers, the angle of the picture (slight tilted to the side) and what looks like the bottoms of the upper columns appearing to come off in some places.

I could go on with the other photos but I won't bother. Your second photo just shows a bunch of messed up aluminum, and the third was taken as the cap was tilting. Those are not honest photos. You know this.


2) What "pushed" the column covers inward? can you please explain that?


Heat could have affected the aluminum for one thing, seeing as how it melts at only 600 degrees Celsius. If above facades disconnected from the bottom of their columns, that could've really distorted the appearance of the facades, too, and in your first picture I think that happened exactly, judging by the appearance of the bottoms of the upper columns there. The aluminum wasn't steadfastly connected, though, as evidenced by the fact that so many were hanging off in all manner of directions.


Who said the columns were that hot?

The buckling occurred because the floors inside the building were sagging and failing. This pulled inward on the columns. This was a result of the impact damage and the fire damage to the floor trusses, not the columns.


Ah, sorry. Guess I got that bit of b.s. mixed up. It wasn't the steel support columns that failed and caused global collapse. It was some of the concrete slabs and trusses that failed and cause global collapse.


Like a house of cards, eh, Howie?


Once the exterior of the building started to buckle, the strucutre was doomed.


This is something that NIST has said in their reports, too, though they never quite tell you why there was no going back after only a few bucklings. In fact, they never model or try to explain the global collapses at all. Odd, don't you think? Especially considering a massive budget of millions of dollars?

[edit on 22-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
WTC 5

"Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case."








But yet, regardless of this - only the Silverstein buildings fell!




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Krpano
Just watched 911eyewitnesss documentary and definitively it put an end to everything.

I would like to see ANYONE here debunk their research.


Sure, you can start by looking back at page 8 of this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to get things warmed up.


Thanks AgentSmith to point me out.
But, i dont see any debunk in the nearby pages.
In the video they show "facts" that happened and they proved by A+B that explosions occured and proved using Newtons law how a building could NOT fall that way naturally.


1. Can you* prove that the research they using the Newton's laws to show the building was pulled is wrong ?

2. They show explosion sounds before the collapse, you can hear yourself, there is witness (civilians, firefighters, policemen). What other proof do you want ?

About the WTC7, well there is nothing to discuss about that.
Only a blind person could believe that it collapsed by itself.


*you = ppl that believe in the govt version.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
you guys are getting down to the hard evidence I see. It's good that you aren't just believing what you hear, but rather making an effort to find out for yourselves.

I'll definitely keep an open ear to hearing what you guys are arguing about, with the loose change vid, gov't reports, etc.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by psalm_of_lydia]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by psalm_of_lydia]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by psalm_of_lydia]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Since we are on the subject of proving things.

Can any of the demolition theorists prove:

1: How the bombs were put in the building in the first place. The video seems to imply bombs on every floor. Why did no one notice.

2: The caps did not have enough energy to collapse the building.

3: Bombs are required for the underground fires.



Number one being the key to this whole thing. Please do not use Scott Forbes story, as there has been no confirmation of such an event, nor has there been confirmation of Scott Forbes existence.


While we are at that, I think it is far past the time that all of us come up with some numbers that we can all agree on. For starters let's see if we can come up with a number for the weight of the caps.

I have seen estimates from 45,000 tons down to 20,000 tons. If we are all interested in the truth of that day, certainly we can find a number that we can agree on and then do calculations from there.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
LeftBehind what you just did is what ive been reading for ages around here.

Once bsbray, TheShroudOfMemphis or any other great mind here manage to trap HowardR or AgentSmith and cia., they try to avoid contact.

What do you have to understand is that the govt. is the one hiding evidences and if the ones against them come up with some "facts" that shows they are lying its up to them(you) to disprove.




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

While we are at that, I think it is far past the time that all of us come up with some numbers that we can all agree on. For starters let's see if we can come up with a number for the weight of the caps.

I have seen estimates from 45,000 tons down to 20,000 tons. If we are all interested in the truth of that day, certainly we can find a number that we can agree on and then do calculations from there.


That is easier said than done since there is no way of knowing exactly how they were constructed without as-built drawings. Secondly, if the so called "experts" can't even agree...how can we?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Since we are on the subject of proving things.

Can any of the demolition theorists prove:

1: How the bombs were put in the building in the first place. The video seems to imply bombs on every floor. Why did no one notice.

2: The caps did not have enough energy to collapse the building.

3: Bombs are required for the underground fires.


The first question is b.s. because it's unreasonable to assume we have full knowledge of the event, not to mention it's a disinfo tactic.


14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'


We know that the WTCs were powered down at times for some lengths, and that bomb-sniffing dogs were removed days before the attack, and even have reports of "engineers" coming and going during upgrades, all before the attacks obviously. You guys just always call foul on not being able to prove that what these people say is true, or just coincidence, or etc., which is ridiculous anyway considering the nature of your questioning here. How else could we respond but with testimonies like that? But like I said, it doesn't matter, because it's unreasonable, and a disinfo tactic, to assume we know how every little thing went down.

Two and three are much more reasonable questions, but you know just as well as I that we don't have the necessary figures to do that. Is common sense not enough, dude? Just look at the freaking cap of WTC1 in comparison to the rest of the building.



Especially when that thing crushes every floor below without the collapse speed even slowing down, apparently losing no momentum at all
, there is a problem with it. And remaining perfectly symmetrical and even the whole way down - don't forget that.

It would be easy for a physicist to prove there wasn't enough momentum if he had but one figure that we've been lacking - how much force each floor could withstand before blowing out as they were seen on 9/11. We'd see if the caps provided enough force to do that, as well as pulverize all the concrete, as well as eject 7700-poud pieces of debris 600 feet, as well as provide all the necessary heat for the pyroclastic flows, all while not even slowing the whole way down. Nothing wrong with that, eh?


While we are at that, I think it is far past the time that all of us come up with some numbers that we can all agree on. For starters let's see if we can come up with a number for the weight of the caps.

I have seen estimates from 45,000 tons down to 20,000 tons.


In fact, these are the only two estimates you've seen. One is Eager's, for which he doesn't cite references. Eager also stated that the towers collapsed in 10 seconds (wrong), and was a proponent of the pancake theory (since debunked by both NIST and the Hoboken Video - or really anyone that shows the buildings had core structures). Eager just toots the horn he's handed. The other figure is from Trumpman, who cites inferences from the 2002 FEMA report and personal investigation of other skyscrapers.


If we are all interested in the truth of that day, certainly we can find a number that we can agree on and then do calculations from there.


I agree wholeheartedly. Call up NIST, man. You can get their General Inquiries unit at (301) 975-NIST (6478) or TTY (301) 975-8295, according to their site.

Just call them up and be like, "Hey guys, you know those WTC blueprints? Yeah, all these crazy dudes are saying you blew up the WTC Towers so can you send me those or make them public so they can look at them and do some math?"

I would call, but I'm a psychic of sorts, as I know what the result will be.
But you think the towers fell naturally, so by your logic, they should have nothing to hide. So call them up and see what they say.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano
LeftBehind what you just did is what ive been reading for ages around here.

Once bsbray, TheShroudOfMemphis or any other great mind here manage to trap HowardR or AgentSmith and cia., they try to avoid contact.


Awww.. you think I(we) work for the government? I'm touched, I really am...




What do you have to understand is that the govt. is the one hiding evidences and if the ones against them come up with some "facts" that shows they are lying its up to them(you) to disprove.


Not sure exactly what you were saying, but if you mean the theorists need to come up with the evidence, you're right about that..... The government don't need to prove anything - they're the government (not right - but still the case). And while you're busy worrying about doing that, all our civil liberties are being stripped away.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The government don't need to prove anything - they're the government (not right - but still the case).


So how does that qualify them to be believed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't history show that big government's aren't very trustworthy? Or any institution with unbelievable power, anyway.


And while you're busy worrying about doing that, all our civil liberties are being stripped away.


We can break laws, and live reasonably even while being monitored. I don't care what the government says - my motivation is to just not be arrested, not obey the law. But imagine the people that will continue to die for lies that justify their government's actions. Or the ones that die for no such justification, such as Iraqi civilians or US or UK soldiers. That's a little more important to me. Nothing they can do at all about that.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano
What do you have to understand is that the govt. is the one hiding evidences and if the ones against them come up with some "facts" that shows they are lying its up to them(you) to disprove.



What facts have you bought up Krpano?


If someone claims that the collapse is against the laws of physics, it is up to them to prove it, preferably mathematically. As far as I've seen there is a lot of talk about the physics problems but no actual numbers.

I responded with questions of my own to hold your theory to the same standard of evidence that you hold to the official story. I fail to see how this is disingenous or a disinfo topic.


Originally posted by Bsbray11
The first question is b.s. because it's unreasonable to assume we have full knowledge of the event, not to mention it's a disinfo tactic.



Why is that an unreasonable question? Surely if explosives were planted on every single floor, we would have some witnesses to this. If not, then we should be able to provide a window of time when the offices were empty or down for repair. An operation of that size would leave a lot of evidence laying around. It is unreasonable to dismiss such questions and call them disinfo tactics. This is another example of the double standard of evidence that some of you hold to.


I tried to meet you halfway and you reply with ranting and shouts of disinfo. Eager, while wrong about the 10 seconds, could in fact be right about the 45,000 ton cap weight. He did provide sources so it's not like the trumpman number which in his own words a guess.

Why is it unreasonable to find a number for the cap weight? Couldn't we figure out the weight by comparing similar buildings? I'm sure we can find a figure that all of us can agree on and actually accomplish something here. Sorry if your not interested in that.

Speaking of the caps,that picture proves nothing and is in fact misleading.

Based on a 45,000 ton weight the caps would have hit the next floor with the force of half a ton of tnt. More than enough to destroy the next floor and send debris flying. If more weight is gained during the collapse it just adds more kinetic energy. As it sped up it also gained kinetic energy.

So if the weight I used is correct than there was more than enough energy.

It is not that hard to come up with guesstimates on these "basic physics" problems. Obviously this is a simplified example but it gives a fairly accurate assesment if that indeed was the weight.

So please let's all try to work on something together for once instead of constantly bickering.

Does anyone else have a good estimate for what the caps might have weighed?








[edit on 23-12-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why is that an unreasonable question?


First of all, it assumes that people just waltzed in and hung up explosives everywhere.


Surely if explosives were planted on every single floor, we would have some witnesses to this.


We DO have plenty of reports of events that could've easily been set up to place explosives. You guys just don't accept them. But they've been posted plenty of times. Bomb sniffing dogs being abruptly removed amidst tighter security, "evacuations" of the complex, power-downs (Yes, Scott Forbes. Eat it. You couldn't prove that I actually exist by the internet either, even if you tried. Just suck it up and take it.), "cable upgrades" with engineers coming and going (that link has a lot of info, actually), etc.


Eager, while wrong about the 10 seconds, could in fact be right about the 45,000 ton cap weight.


I love your bias, er, optimism for the guy.



He did provide sources so it's not like the trumpman number which in his own words a guess.


No; he didn't provide sources. And before you pull out that list of references, let me say this again:

He cited no references specifically for the building weight. He cited a general list of references - no footnotes for the weights, or any other critical numbers!!

If any of those references he listed present the total building weight, what that includes and where they got the figure, then show it to me.


Why is it unreasonable to find a number for the cap weight? Couldn't we figure out the weight by comparing similar buildings?


That's what Trumpman did, actually. That and used the FEMA 2002 report. Wanna go with his number? You'd still have to know how much resistance each floor could withstand anyway, so it does us little good now even if we do pick out a cap weight.


Speaking of the caps,that picture proves nothing and is in fact misleading.

Based on a 45,000 ton weight the caps would have hit the next floor with the force of half a ton of tnt. More than enough to destroy the next floor and send debris flying.


Lmao. Reality must be misleading, because that picture is accurate and based upon the NIST report's description of the cap. And destroying the next floor is not a global collapse. Your view of the collapse is really twisted, LeftBehind. You should be clued in by the fact that you have to look at the collapse in small increments, while ignoring the rest of the building, before it even makes sense to you. That's not all-encompassing.


If more weight is gained during the collapse it just adds more kinetic energy. As it sped up it also gained kinetic energy.


It didn't speed up. Sorry. No acceleration, as in, no change in velocity. Neither sped up nor slowed down. Remained constant, as if being detonated in fixed intervals.


So if the weight I used is correct than there was more than enough energy.


Dude, all you did was figure up how much energy it would've produced, compared it to TNT, and said, "Hey! That's a big number. Must've been enough." If the figure you used for weight is correct, your point is still extremely irrelevant.


It is not that hard to come up with guesstimates on these "basic physics" problems.


What you are doing is completely pointless. You figure up a single calculation, and without comparing it to how much the WTC could handle, etc., you just say "I think that would have been more than enough!," missing the point that the whole reason for using math is so you don't have to resort to opinion. What you're doing is laughable in regards to solving anything. You use math to wind up at the same opinion that you started with.

I've stated I don't know how many times that the figure you need, is how much force each floor could withstand before failure as it was seen on 9/11. You can't prove or disprove additional sources of energy without that figure! I realize you're having trouble understanding this, but you must understand that what you are doing is scientifically ignorant and does not arrive at any objective conclusion in the least. Again, it amounts to "Look, big number! I think it was enough."


Obviously this is a simplified example


That's quite an understatement.


Let me say one more time, LeftBehind, that you aren't going to be able to do anything without knowing how well the rest of the building would've resisted the caps. Get it yet? I would love to figure it out, so I can finally prove that the collapses required additional sources of energy, but I'm telling you right now that we need those figures first. Try to think things through a little more, man. The whole TNT business thing just isn't cutting it. You're only arriving back at an opinion. We need resistance figures.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Once again Bsbray you refuse to back up anything and respond with an incoherent rant against me and what I posted. Way to go


I guess Scott Forbes is good enough for you, no wonder you eat up every demo theory available, including Joe Vialls.

We are to believe that one person out of thousands who worked there was the only one to notice a 36 hour powerdown?

Not one other person has confirmed the Forbes story, and since the original email was sent to a conspiracy theorist, it doesn't look too promising that we ever will.

Nice link there with lots of info, here is their version of the power down.


Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.


Surprise, it's Scott Forbes again. His story does not even meet the most basic journalistic standards. But since your whole theory depends on belief it's not surprising that this is held up as fact so much.

While I'm sure you believe that thousands of tons of TNT, thermite, and a small nuke were needed to destroy the towers, common sense says otherwise.

We don't need the numbers to figure out that half a ton of TNT is enough to knock out one floor. Show me one building that would withstand that kind of force being applied on one floor.


But, you'd rathere scream and rant then try to find common ground, so how about you tell us your opinion on how much force is required.

Oh, that's right you don't have any data. So how exactly did you figure out all the basic physics problems when you don't have any data?

How are the holes in the official story so "obvious" that you can treat them as fact, when you have no data at all to back them up?

Why do you insist on saying extra energy was needed? You obviously are completely in the dark and just guessing on your feelings, because as you have said, you have no data.


Do you have anything to bring to the table that isn't based on feelings and opinion?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
We don't need the numbers to figure out that half a ton of TNT is enough to knock out one floor.


I'm looking at the whole collapse. Not one floor. Thanks.

But if you don't need numbers for that, then you shouldn't need numbers to realize something is messed up in that the collapse speeds lost no momentum and were perfectly symmetrical the whole way down.


But, you'd rathere scream and rant


Oh, yeah. I'm screaming and ranting and raving and babbling and gibbering and nothing that comes out of my mouth makes any sense.


And yet here you are, still trying to argue with me.



so how about you tell us your opinion on how much force is required.

What does it matter?

Oh, that's right you don't have any data. So how exactly did you figure out all the basic physics problems when you don't have any data?

How are the holes in the official story so "obvious" that you can treat them as fact, when you have no data at all to back them up?

Why do you insist on saying extra energy was needed? You obviously are completely in the dark and just guessing on your feelings, because as you have said, you have no data.


Do you have anything to bring to the table that isn't based on feelings and opinion?


There you go!

You just attacked both the official story, pancakes and all, and demolition. Neither have the figures you require.


Why do you believe the official story? Guessing based on your feelings, because you have no data?

Oh, wait, yeah, you have data. You've tried to figure up the TNT equivalent of the cap falling, or something. We're really gonna get far with that.


Again, if you want figures, ask NIST. I know that's your biggest motivation for provoking me: you know that I don't have the figures to post mathematics. Otherwise you wouldn't say a damned thing about it, I'm sure. For the rest of us, there's common sense, though. The momentum of 10 or 13 floors isn't enough to turn 97 more into dust. Don't need to math to know that.


[edit on 23-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
And while you're busy worrying about doing that, all our civil liberties are being stripped away.


does that bother you?
because it seems you are doing everything in your power to protect the guilty.

i know why. it's the space alien threat, right? that big and ancient secret of the templars and masons(you are a mason, aren't you, smitty?). there is something bigger than all this, and the deception is necessary, for our own good?

just guessing. i can't think of any other reason to go to such great lengths to protect some of the most heinous criminals in history.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by AgentSmith
And while you're busy worrying about doing that, all our civil liberties are being stripped away.


does that bother you?
because it seems you are doing everything in your power to protect the guilty.

i know why. it's the space alien threat, right? that big and ancient secret of the templars and masons(you are a mason, aren't you, smitty?). there is something bigger than all this, and the deception is necessary, for our own good?


You're incredible man!
Thanks for making my Christmas, I heard some people lose it but you really take the biscuit!
It's because that strange, paranoid (and oh so wrong) way of thinking (or not as it may be) tars us all with the same brush, that conspiracy theorists that deserve to be listened to just get laughed at! You're incredible man! Keep it up




Merry Christmas!, Now go get 'em Tiger!

[edit on 24-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join