Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 31
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
The original torrent has died by now, I should imagine. Here is a live one:

Button Clicky



d1k

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
911 Eyewitness has to be the best 911 video I have seen yet. It has by far the best footage of 911 I have ever seen, not only that but it takes the sights and sounds of 911 as it happened and does an in depth analysis of what was seen and heard. This video just solidified my opinions on what happened. When you see and hear everything that went on step by step there is really no denying what happened.

Heres a link to the Google Video of it but it does not do it justice due to google videos low quality.

video.google.com...



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
New here, been reading the forums for a while. Not a big conspiracy guy, but I believe in my fair share of nonsense going on behind ours backs. Not on this one though. Maybe there's more going on than is being told, but I don't think to the degree that this thread is making it out to be. Please don't flame me!

I watched the 'Inside 9/11' show on National Geographic last night. There was about 4,000 views of the impacts, fires, collapse, you name it. Few things I just can't believe. Yea, sure, they could all be faked, but so could every other peice of evidence out there, regardless of what side is presenting it.

There was a bomb in the bottom of the towers? That just makes no sense to me. You can actually see the area directly over the impact site begin to buckle seconds before the first tower starts to come down. Just before, all the windows start popping out like popcorn, since the steel structure is starting to warp and bend. Then it collapses from the top to bottom, not bottom to top. The second tower goes through a very similar collapse. Except part of it starts to fall out and over the street as opposed to straight down. I've read numerous posts on here that it collapses like a demolition does, but this is not what I see. I have looked at a couple of other sources for this footage as well.

As far as the links posted at the beginning. I just don't get how that contradicts the facts as told by the various footage I've seen over the last couple of years. Most of the evidince there seems circumstancial at best. There seems to be no consideration of the effect of a JP8 fire on the buildings structure. As though a fire from someone smoking in the bathroom, and one with 24,000 gallons of jet fuel would have the same results. Also, the impact of a jetliner does a little more than 'puncture the web' of the building's structure. They claim it was built to take a 707 strike, but can someone show me where they actually tested this theory. They also built the bay bridge in Oakland to withstand earthquakes, but it collapsed all the same.

The clencher to me, is that the few survivors that there were, were all in the 7th floor stairwell and below. An explosion that would bring the whole building down would have incinerated the entire lower section, particuarly the stairwell section.

I think the larger conspiracy, is why the government allowed it to happen. They had TONS of info before it occured, but they deluded themselves into thinking it was all an empty plan.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Yep I agree with Spooner's every word above

Explosions could be electrical mains or gas pipes blowing. There is no proof and no smoking gun that I have seen on this site or hundreds of others. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and theory, but no killer facts.

The number of people needed to wire the towers and the risk of being caught would be far too high. It is just unrealistic.

These buildings collapsed because of their design. They collapsed at different time periods because the plane that hit lowest obviously created more unsupported building weight above it.

In my opinion theories like explosives in the towers and swapping jet airliners for military planes etc are illogical and a diversion from any real conspiracies.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
So Clipper how do you explain the WTC 7 collapse?

No plane impact, different design, different building....

Why were the only buildings to collapse owned by larry silverstein?

Why did buildings that had more damage and were closer to WTC 1&2 not collapse?

How the weight of 15 odd floors compromise 95 undamaged floors bellow them?

Why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over and then have the rest of the building collapse under it? Why did it not continue it's path as you would expect?

What cause the concrete to turn into dust?

Why were the aircraft involved only 20% loaded when all other planes that day were 90 to 95% loaded?

Just some stuff to think about...

[edit on 1/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So Clipper how do you explain the WTC 7 collapse?

No plane impact, different design, different building....

Why were the only buildings to collapse owned by larry silverstein?

Why did buildings that had more damage and were closer to WTC 1&2 not collapse?

How the weight of 15 odd floors compromise 95 undamaged floors bellow them?

Why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over and then have the rest of the building collapse under it? Why did it not continue it's path as you would expect?

What cause the concrete to turn into dust?

Why were the aircraft involved only 20% loaded when all other planes that day were 90 to 95% loaded?

Just some stuff to think about...

[edit on 1/5/2006 by ANOK]


I find building 7 suspicious. I find many things about 9/11 suspicious. I think a conspiracy is likely, but planting explosives in the twin towers is implausable in my opinion. A conspiracy works when as few people as possible know and you don't get caught.

These explosions are a red-herring. The building was ALREADY collapsing at that point from the top down, so they were too late anyway. Fuel, gas, electrics, falling burning debris and many other things could have caused those "explosions."

As for Silverstein. No surprise the WTC was a target. Like the Pentagon and the Whitehouse, it is a symbol of America. However, maybe if the Whitehouse was hit, that would be just a little too inconvenient for Bush.

I don't believe that if Silverstein was in on a conspiracy he would order the NYFD to "pull" the building as in bring it down. Are we supposed to believe they were in on the conspiracy? They lost many men that day. I also do not believe he would freely admit it to the media.

However, I am very open minded to Building 7 being brought down by explosives, but not the twin towers. But I don't see anything strange about the towers collapsing. The tilt of the top of tower 2 was due to it being so undermined on one side and then gravity did the rest straight down.

I think Bush helps Bin Laden and Bin Laden helps Bush (even if Bin Laden is now a fabrication).




[edit on 1-5-2006 by Clipper]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How the weight of 15 odd floors compromise 95 undamaged floors bellow them?

Why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over and then have the rest of the building collapse under it? Why did it not continue it's path as you would expect?

What cause the concrete to turn into dust?

Why were the aircraft involved only 20% loaded when all other planes that day were 90 to 95% loaded?

[edit on 1/5/2006 by ANOK]


I know little of the 3rd building you speak of, so I'll reserve comment till I read into it more.

Well, it wasn't the weight of 15 floors exactly, you had about 30 floors below it that were full of jet fuel. In the second hit, the plane was 10-20 floors lower than the first hit. 24,000 gallons of jet fuel... think of that in terms of volume. You can see that there was quite the explosion when each plane hit. So already you have a few things occuring, a comprimise of structural integrity from the impact, the explosion of from both the impact and the fuel that lit off on impact, followed by what's left of the 24,000 gallon of jet fuel. which will then pour down every available nook and cranny.

The building is supported by a network of steel beams, which support it both through sheel physical strength and geometry. Upon impact both features are now comprimised. Then, give that jet fuel 2 hours to work on the core of the building for 30-40 floors below. You can see that there is a huge blaze all through the building. Once the engineering that holds the building together is comprimised, it's only a matter of time. It didn't really start to collapse from the very top, the upper core of the building started to collapse, the top was 'pulled' through the floors above it, hence the reason you can see the frame of the building 'squish' from top down, and the 30-40 top floors smashed down the rest of the joint.

The 2nd tower tipped due to the location of the hit being lower than the first one, but in this case again, the core of the tower is what starts to collapse. As the core started to give, the top of the tower just leaned the way that had the least support. Since there was more weight up top, it actually had a chance to tip a little as the core started to buckle.

50,000 tons of collapsing steel, floors, desks, and so on will cause concrete to turn to dust rather quickly, and compressing superheated air will cause a mini explosion all by itself when you add atomized jet fuel into the mix. Just like what occurs in your car's motor. Compress an area full of fuel vapors, air, and then add some embers from the floors above starting to fall through, and BOOM! If the air is hot enough, you don't even need a spark, just like a diesel engine.

The burning jet fuel is the key here, that's why they choose cross country flights. Most bang for the buck.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by sp00ner]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by sp00ner]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner

Well, it wasn't the weight of 15 floors exactly, you had about 30 floors below it that were full of jet fuel. In the second hit, the plane was 10-20 floors lower than the first hit. 24,000 gallons of jet fuel... think of that in terms of volume. You can see that there was quite the explosion when each plane hit. So already you have a few things occuring, a comprimise of structural integrity from the impact, the explosion of from both the impact and the fuel that lit off on impact, followed by what's left of the 24,000 gallon of jet fuel. which will then pour down every available nook and cranny.



I find it kind of funny there was the start of an explosion before the plane's fuel supply was even touched. The jet fuel virtually was exhausted when initially catching on fire. The general impact of the plane itself wouldn't of did much to hurt the structural steel, it's aluminum. If anything could of caused any impact, would of been the engines.



The building is supported by a network of steel beams, which support it both through sheel physical strength and geometry. Upon impact both features are now comprimised.

It wasn't the general impact that comprimised the steel however.



Then, give that jet fuel 2 hours to work on the core of the building for 30-40 floors below. You can see that there is a huge blaze all through the building. Once the engineering that holds the building together is comprimised, it's only a matter of time.


Hahaha Jet fuel doesn't live that long under those conditions - not 2 hours by the most bit.



The 2nd tower tipped due to the location of the hit being lower than the first one, but in this case again, the core of the tower is what starts to collapse. As the core started to give, the top of the tower just leaned the way that had the least support. Since there was more weight up top, it actually had a chance to tip a little as the core started to buckle.


The 2nd tower tipped quite a bit, talk about mass alieviation of mass in the direction the building was falling. As it was tipping over and even after, the building was still collapsing - How can the rest of the bottom floors be taken out when the mass is taken away, causing a huge reduction in force. Even after the force was weakening up, it was falling pretty fast.


Oh by the way, if buildings can fall perfectly down like that, especially when they're around 1,000+ ft tall - why don't we just set all buildings on fire at certain floors to weaken the steel... Hmmm just doesn't make sense to hire demolition experts anymore huh?



[edit on 5/2/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper

Originally posted by ANOK
So Clipper how do you explain the WTC 7 collapse?

No plane impact, different design, different building....

Why were the only buildings to collapse owned by larry silverstein?

Why did buildings that had more damage and were closer to WTC 1&2 not collapse?

How the weight of 15 odd floors compromise 95 undamaged floors bellow them?

Why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over and then have the rest of the building collapse under it? Why did it not continue it's path as you would expect?

What cause the concrete to turn into dust?

Why were the aircraft involved only 20% loaded when all other planes that day were 90 to 95% loaded?

Just some stuff to think about...

[edit on 1/5/2006 by ANOK]


I find building 7 suspicious. I find many things about 9/11 suspicious. I think a conspiracy is likely, but planting explosives in the twin towers is implausable in my opinion. A conspiracy works when as few people as possible know and you don't get caught.

These explosions are a red-herring. The building was ALREADY collapsing at that point from the top down, so they were too late anyway. Fuel, gas, electrics, falling burning debris and many other things could have caused those "explosions."

As for Silverstein. No surprise the WTC was a target. Like the Pentagon and the Whitehouse, it is a symbol of America. However, maybe if the Whitehouse was hit, that would be just a little too inconvenient for Bush.

I don't believe that if Silverstein was in on a conspiracy he would order the NYFD to "pull" the building as in bring it down. Are we supposed to believe they were in on the conspiracy? They lost many men that day. I also do not believe he would freely admit it to the media.

However, I am very open minded to Building 7 being brought down by explosives, but not the twin towers. But I don't see anything strange about the towers collapsing. The tilt of the top of tower 2 was due to it being so undermined on one side and then gravity did the rest straight down.

I think Bush helps Bin Laden and Bin Laden helps Bush (even if Bin Laden is now a fabrication).





[edit on 1-5-2006 by Clipper]


Have you seen the film of all different eye witnesses that mentioned hearing and getting blowed away by explosions did you???(few pages back)
You seriously think they are all faked??

Seriously..the only ones debunking in here are consciously trying to keep people in the dark for one reason or another with arguments that dont add up for one bit.
But im 100% sure that 99% of the proper debunkers know the story.



[edit on 3-5-2006 by motionknight]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by motionknight]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Lets say that all of this is true.....what would happen to the American Government? I'm just curious. Would their be revolts and what not?.... I honestly believe that this video has some good theories, If it's true...man...that would just blow my mind away.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poison
Lets say that all of this is true.....what would happen to the American Government? I'm just curious. Would their be revolts and what not?.... I honestly believe that this video has some good theories, If it's true...man...that would just blow my mind away.


Hey man, this is our reality... i sh** you not.

I was startled too when i realised that the crazy conspiricy freaks were right, about a year ago.
You just live your life in the best way you can and see this crazYness for what it is..
Has been going on since civilization..its all about power and money..it was and still is.
sad but true..

[edit on 4-5-2006 by motionknight]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Nothing abnormally catastrophic would happen. IF this actually made it to trial, then whoever the scape goats they can come up with, would stand trial, and that'd probably be the end of it.

That is unless the movement for truth about 9/11 gained so much momentum and everyone became educated that it became a real important issue. But since an ideal is suppresed, it's not going to happen that successfully.

The same can apply to anything that goes against what most are told through TV or by the government: i.e. issues with the ozone, pollution, global warming, world hunger.

Unless something major happen to spark the American public, nothing major will happen, I'm sure those responsible, however few it may be, have contingencie plans in the case that they are exposed.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The more I learn about the twin towers construction style which was unique for the time (maybe not so much today...), I am increasingly believing that demo of some sort had to happen to bring the buildings down cleanly.

The outer shell was made to be literally self upporting because it was the main part of the building taking the wind load that such a hugh building would take.

The outer wall was attached to the floors via steel clips which could easily shear if pressures increased but of course I don't know the overstrength levels engineered into the components.

The floors could have collapsed but not the internal column system nor the outside shell just from the fires as we have been told.

What I am saying is that several floors of the building have collapsed within the super structure while most of the building would remain standing.

Last time I checked concrete was not the best fuel for a fire and the towers did have a lot of concrete in them due to the style of construction used.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The more I learn about the twin towers construction style which was unique for the time (maybe not so much today...), I am increasingly believing that demo of some sort had to happen to bring the buildings down cleanly.

The outer shell was made to be literally self upporting because it was the main part of the building taking the wind load that such a hugh building would take.

The outer wall was attached to the floors via steel clips which could easily shear if pressures increased but of course I don't know the overstrength levels engineered into the components.

The floors could have collapsed but not the internal column system nor the outside shell just from the fires as we have been told.

What I am saying is that several floors of the building have collapsed within the super structure while most of the building would remain standing.


Without the floors providing the nessessary rigidity, what would prevent the exterior walls from buckling?

Without floors transfering the nessessay lateral stability from the exterior walls, what would prevent the core columns from folding over?

Google the Euler equation



Last time I checked concrete was not the best fuel for a fire and the towers did have a lot of concrete in them due to the style of construction used.


4 inches of deck thickness over an acre of floor space is a lot of concrete?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Without floors transfering the nessessay lateral stability from the exterior walls, what would prevent the core columns from folding over?


You should have your posts peer-reviewed Howard. I don't think nessessay is a word, but I guess I just *can't* know for sure until it's reviewed by people with Ph. D.'s in the relevant field of American literature.

For the outer columns to buckle, significant force would've had to have been applied one way or another to move them out of place. It isn't a matter of what was stopping them from being moved, but what could've moved them in the first place.

The core structures had their own lateral stability. It wasn't as great as what the exteriors were designed to carry from great wind, but we have structural engineers on this board who have posted before explaining how we can tell that the core structures had their own lateral stability regardless of the outer columns. You've seen these posts before.

Are you a structural engineer?

Or a hypocrite?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
It's evident from the video's (911 Eyewitness, etc.) that the core columns remained standing AFTER the collapse. What would then cause those columns to vaporize and drift away post collapse?

Certainly if the pancake theory is applied those columns would have collapsed along with the rest of the structure simultaneously or remained standing after the collapse. There is no question that explosives were used on all three buildings IMO.

For those skeptics who argue that the explosives could not have been planted prior to 911, how were the explosives planted in building #7? Don't tell me that you believe #7 collapsed under pancake theory as well?

Everyone lives his or her dream, but do try and wake up to this reality for a moment or two.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
For the outer columns to buckle, significant force would've had to have been applied one way or another to move them out of place. It isn't a matter of what was stopping them from being moved, but what could've moved them in the first place.


Wrong.

All columns will buckle if sufficient loads placed on them. The load at which a column will buckle is defined as the critical buckling load. This load can be mathematically determined for a column with a given length, a given cross section and a given modulus of elasticity.

If any one of these parameters changed, then the critical buckling load for the column will change.

The formula for determining this upper load limit is called the Euler equation:


>>>>>> ( Pi ) squared * (I) * (E)
(P) = -----------------------------------
>>>>>> (L)squared

Where Pi = 3.14. . . . . .
>>>>>> = spacers to make the formula line up properly
P = the critical buckling load
I = the minimum moment of inertia ( a value based on the geometric cross sectional shape of the column)
E = The modulus of elasticity
L= The effective length of the column.

Since the exterior columns were pinned in place by the floor slab connections, the original length of the column would have been the distance between those connections or the distance of one floor apart.

What would happen if one of those floor slabs were to fail so that it was no longer providing lateral support for that column?

The length between the pinning connections will double.

Look at the formula above again.

Notice that the length is in the denominator of the fraction, and that it is squared.

This is known in science as an inverse square law. There are numerous examples of inverse square laws in nature.

If you double the effective length of the column without changing any of the other values, the Critical Buckling Load will be cut down to one fourth, or 25 % of the original load.

Quite a big drop of, don’t you think?

And if by chance, two adjacent floors were to fail, the length of the column between pinned locations will triple, and the Critical Buckling Load will drop down to a mere 11 per cent of its original value.


[edit on 5-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The core structures had their own lateral stability. It wasn't as great as what the exteriors were designed to carry from great wind, but we have structural engineers on this board who have posted before explaining how we can tell that the core structures had their own lateral stability regardless of the outer columns. You've seen these posts before.

Are you a structural engineer?

Or a hypocrite?


No the core structure did not have it’s own lateral stability, and I do not believe that a licensed structural engineer has ever made that claim.

Aside from the hat truss, some diagonal trusses in the basement levels and on the mechanical floors, there were no diagonal trusses in the core of the building.

Some buildings use masonry walls in the core areas to provide lateral stability. For the WTC towers, the infill walls were drywall.

Thus the core walls did not have any lateral stability.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
All columns will buckle if sufficient loads placed on them.


The loads didn't increase between impacts and collapses.

So all the junk you post about this is irrelevant in this situation.


What would happen if one of those floor slabs were to fail so that it was no longer providing lateral support for that column?

The length between the pinning connections will double.


Yeah, and some trusses might fail if they can't support the weight of an extra floor. This is what denythestatusquo was saying.

You're getting there.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Thus the core walls did not have any lateral stability.


Then why did WTC1's core structure remain standing after the collapses of the trusses/perimeter columns as one can observe in the Hoboken video?

And what exactly was its collapse mechanism, since it fell straight down too? Are we to believe that the massive core columns couldn't support their own weight, and were crushed straight downwards like a soda can by the elevators and stairwells built around them?





new topics




 
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join