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.

 

Great video evidence. Math, audio work, documentation

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Video Link - Video

Ok this video is 1hour 23 minutes long! But its *snip* gold. Its not some fat dude spiting crap about shadows or faked mobile calls..
This is evidence, shown with math solutions, documentation, audio evidence - its solid work, seriously.
Once you watch this, you will feel alot better about most of the thing said on ATS.
Anyone who has already seen this will totally agree.






[Mod Edit: removed masked expletive]
Please review this link:
Circumvention Of Censors


[edit on 5/1/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Its google videos too, so you can all watch it with relatively FAST download speed



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
That video is soo bull# and misleading...

For example, they compare Madrid fires with WTC fires, although WTC towers were hit by enormous airplane, and had completely different structure.

I suppose, that at Cardington fire test they didn't have an airplane to crash in to those floors...

Evidence about explosives is very questionable.

They wonder why that tower didn't topple over, though it wasn't even possible, due to tower's construction. Other tower tried to topple, but when structures bent enough, they collapsed.

About that pentagon video... they make the plane to be too long, and don't notice video's crappy quality.

They wonder, why there isn't much parts of airplane visible. They wonder, why airplane's wings didn't go trough the wall.

Argh..



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
They also had documented evidence from the people who designed the towers and quote "the towers were designed to take (2) plane impacts"



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
U know... many buildings have been designed to be strong etc.. even here in Finland, several (atleast 10) roofs have collapsed, due to different mistakes. Engineers aren't perfect.

And the towers took those airplane impacts kinda well, and didn't collapse right after impacts. I doubt that they thought how they would handle all that kerosine.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
you did watch the movie? every last minute of it, cause everything ur trying to counter with is mentioned in it

how do you explain the 8.4 second collapse time? basically freefall colapse? asif the rest of the building wasnt even in the path of the upper debris collapse.
how do you explain the dubious jets of smoke coming from the sides of the building moments before the building started to collapse etc. etc.
Why did building 7 collapse aswell, with the twin towers.
Why did the owner of those towers take out platinum insurance days before the impact?
Again, why did building 7 collapse? it wasnt damaged.
Why is it so curious that the owner only owned building 7 and the twins.. weird

Watch the movie first *snip*
[edit on 1-5-2006 by fennek77]

[Mod Edit: removed derogatory comment directed at another member]
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5/1/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
They also had documented evidence from the people who designed the towers and quote "the towers were designed to take (2) plane impacts"


Yes, they were, but an impact of the largest jet at the time they were built, which was a 707. They also didn't take into account how the impact would blow off the fire resistant material from the underlying steel structure. Do a little research.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
oh
always good to hear new info



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
how do you explain the 8.4 second collapse time? basically freefall colapse? asif the rest of the building wasnt even in the path of the upper debris collapse.
how do you explain the dubious jets of smoke coming from the sides of the building moments before the building started to collapse etc. etc.
Why did building 7 collapse aswell, with the twin towers.
Why did the owner of those towers take out platinum insurance days before the impact?
Again, why did building 7 collapse? it wasnt damaged.
Why is it so curious that the owner only owned building 7 and the twins.. weird


I'll take a stab at your questions.
- If you take a look at vids of the collapse of the buildings, it takes a lot longer than 8.4 seconds. There are some vids where you can see a skeletal structure of the build still there as the dust and debris cloud Surrounds it.

- Jets of smoke coming out the side. If there were explosions that brought it down, there would be a lot more of these so called jets of smoke. All you are seeing is dust being blown out a floor as a window breaks. Try this...build yourself a small house of cards, 3 or 5 stories. put flour on each floor, then collapse it by pushing down on the top. You are going to get clouds of flour pushed out as it goes down....same principle.

Building 7 WAS HEAVILY damaged by the collapse of the 2 towers, and burned for hours before it collapsed. To say it wasn't damanged is ignoring the evidence.

- Platinum insurance? Have any detail on that? I've heard it bantied about but don't have anything to go on. Could just be a coincidence don't you think? I renew my car insurance every year, as does everyone else. Not to hard to believe that occasionally, someone gets in an accident the day after they do so.

Found some info on the insurance policy sort of..


On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

911research.wtc7.net...


So, he bought a bunch of buildings just prior to the event. Of course he is going to take out insurance policies on them.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by sensfan]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

how do you explain the 8.4 second collapse time? basically freefall colapse?


Does this look like a freefall?




how do you explain the dubious jets of smoke coming from the sides of the building moments before the building started to collapse etc. etc.


I haven't seen anything like that! In every video, those "mysterious" puffs of dust appear only after the tower has beginged to collapse.

So PLEASE, show me a video where explosions can be seen before the collapsing starts. If collapses were started with help of explosives, this should be easy job, since there were dozens of video cameras filming the collapse.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The WTC buildings, all 3, fell at NEAR free fall, in the real world that would be impossible without the lower undamaged floors being compromised in some way.

There's a thing called resistance, the buildings had none from undamaged lower floors.

Most of the jet fuel, as you can see in the vids, was burned up in the initial impact, that's what created the big fireballs you see.
Very little fuel would have been left to burn inside the building.
Fuel also burns and evaporates very quickly, if this had been the cause of the collapse it would not have taken an hour.
You can see from the black smoke the fires were cooling down, how does that initiate global collapse?

What fueled the fires in WTC 7? That alone blows the jet fuel theory out of the window.
Office furniture fires do not burn hot enough to weaken steel.
It wasn't the disel fuel tanks, as most of the diesel was recovered after the collapse.


Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

sf.indymedia.org...

WTC 7 was designed to resist the spread of fire to other floors. Pics show this to be the case. Show me a pic that shows enough fire to equaly compromise all the collumns and trusses to initiate a global collapse.


5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.


Not enough of the fire proofing would have been 'knocked off' to cause failure of a 110 story building. WTC 7 had no impact to knock off fire proofing. You do some research. NIST makes it seem so simple, to those who don't want to look further.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
A very convincing video. Addresses a lot of the inconsitencies in details.
No mathe thought.

The start of the video is bad (my opinion) because its starts with 'assertions'. But backs them up later. One or two mistakes in an interpretation of a pic. Forexample the big blue box they carry is a hollow tent.

Anyway there is so much stuff you will start thinking about (if you havent alerady) ..well you have to see it.

Definitive a must see!

hmm saw 3 or 4 good 911 videos now all different but all very good.
would be worth to put them all together maybe. ..maybe not (oversatturation).


-----

"You know, Bernie," I sighed, "it's like he's bragging about a grand accomplishment. You'd almost think it was an inside job."
"Of course it was an inside job," Bernie snorted. "Anyone who can connect even two dots without ramming one up his nose and the other into his forehead knows that..." www.democracymeansyou.com...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464
That video is soo bull# and misleading...

For example, they compare Madrid fires with WTC fires, although WTC towers were hit by enormous airplane, and had completely different structure.

I suppose, that at Cardington fire test they didn't have an airplane to crash in to those floors...

Evidence about explosives is very questionable.

They wonder why that tower didn't topple over, though it wasn't even possible, due to tower's construction. Other tower tried to topple, but when structures bent enough, they collapsed.

About that pentagon video... they make the plane to be too long, and don't notice video's crappy quality.

They wonder, why there isn't much parts of airplane visible. They wonder, why airplane's wings didn't go trough the wall.

Argh..


What about the plane that hit the pentagon and the path it took?

And the fact that it even reached the pentagon?

And the fact that our defense failed 4 times on 9/11?

What about wtc 7? (no way in hell it was "heavely" damaged" and if it was it wouldnt have fallen like that)


WHY THE HELL WOULD THE FBI TAKE AWAY TAPES THAT SHOWED A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON?

Why did people remove evidence from a crime secene?

Why was so little money spent on the investagation?

Why dont they have a offical reason for wtc 7 falling?

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   


quote: how do you explain the 8.4 second collapse time? basically freefall colapse?


Does this look like a freefall?

external image


That isn't freefall no. However you have circled the part of the building which was sent flying upwards by explosives.
The core of the building itself feel within a couple seconds off freefall.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
The video presents documents and evidence of:
- A military scenario where 2 planes are crashing into the towers
- A military stand down because they thought the scenario was being played out
- Defence staff contacting family advising them to stay away from the towers
- Engineers who built the towers said they were made to take an impact
- Engineers said the steel used was tested to withstand 500degrees over the temp
- As the building started coming down, jets came out from precisely 15 floors under, this suggest as the collapse was occuring, lower floors were 'buckled' to ensure a freefall
- They fell too fast to justify the top floors causing collapse
- The chance tower 2 would have collapsed was greatly less than that of tower 1 as the plane impacted in the side, not directly into the center supports
- Tower 7 has no video evidence of fire/debris damage and the fact it fell like a controlled demo was odd
- The fact none of the buildings had any supports left over after the collapse (20-30 floors left) suggest explosions at base level.

STOP IGNORING THE FACTS.
ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GIVES AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT TO COUNTER THESE SMALL PIECES OF EVIDENCE, I WILL STOP ACCUSING

We just want answers!! how hard is it! we have evidence here, very good evidence and it needs answers! If the government is prepared to ignore our calls then that shows they are most likely behind it! omg!

[edit on 2-5-2006 by fennek77]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

The WTC buildings, all 3, fell at NEAR free fall, in the real world that would be impossible without the lower undamaged floors being compromised in some way.


No it isn't... the falling tower had such a huge mass, that it was able to crunch lower structures easily.


There's a thing called resistance, the buildings had none from undamaged lower floors.


If there wasn't resistance, how come it took for towers so long to collapse? As you see, objects at freefall fall faster than that tower collapsed..

koti.mbnet.fi...


Most of the jet fuel, as you can see in the vids, was burned up in the initial impact, that's what created the big fireballs you see.


An how you know how much fuel was left inside the towers?


Fuel also burns and evaporates very quickly, if this had been the cause of the collapse it would not have taken an hour.


Fuel just made fires to spread fast over the floors.


You can see from the black smoke the fires were cooling down, how does that initiate global collapse?


How does black smoke mean that fires are cooling down? Does this look like it's cooling down?



Or this?



Or this?



I don't think so..


Show me a pic that shows enough fire to equaly compromise all the collumns and trusses to initiate a global collapse.


It's hard to get pictures trough the walls.. fires were inside the building.


Not enough of the fire proofing would have been 'knocked off' to cause failure of a 110 story building.


Airplane itself caused massive damage to some floors, and fires finished it. All it's needed, is that one floor falls to other. Foors weren't strong enough to stop that.


What about the plane that hit the pentagon and the path it took?


You mean, that why it made those turns? Well, maybe that's the easiest way to find pentagon from airplane.

www.911myths.com...


And the fact that it even reached the pentagon?


What about it?


And the fact that our defense failed 4 times on 9/11?


Do you mean, that it's impossible?



What about wtc 7? (no way in hell it was "heavely" damaged" and if it was it wouldnt have fallen like that)


This says that it was damaged: www.911myths.com...


From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.




WHY THE HELL WOULD THE FBI TAKE AWAY TAPES THAT SHOWED A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON?


Because they need all the evidence.


Why did people remove evidence from a crime secene?


Well, I think they didn't want those evidences to be lost. Do you mean that they should have left plane pieces to ground?


Why was so little money spent on the investagation?


Because they didn't need more?


Why dont they have a offical reason for wtc 7 falling?


Who "they"? Atleast NIST does. wtc.nist.gov...



That isn't freefall no. However you have circled the part of the building which was sent flying upwards by explosives.


UPWARDS?
Show me a video where I can see that any pars are flying upwards..


The core of the building itself feel within a couple seconds off freefall.


This isn't strange, when you notice how massive that falling tower was.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Im not convinced.
You might be convincing yourself, but the fact you dont seem to acknowledge any of these cirumstances makes me doubt your responses.
You right away declare the video is all crap, its one of the better videos made because it shows information and leaves it upto us to draw a picture.

Can you acknowledge any of the ideas presented?
Is there anything you are acctually willing to debate that supports the theory?

im just curious

[edit on 2-5-2006 by fennek77]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The fact that a knowingly hijaked plane reached the pentagon after a terrorist attack involving planes happend?

What about it? Are you serious?

And the fact that our defense failed 4 times on 9/11?

Our defense worked had worked fine untill 9/11 and it failed 4 times that day.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464
No it isn't... the falling tower had such a huge mass, that it was able to crunch lower structures easily.


What huge mass? The mass under the upper damaged floors was much more massive. Also the structures were turning to concrete dust as they collapsed, there was no mass to impact lower floors.



If there wasn't resistance, how come it took for towers so long to collapse? As you see, objects at freefall fall faster than that tower collapsed..


So what? The buildings , all 3, fell as close to free fall as a couple of seconds, think about that. The resistance from lower floors should have slowed the collapse down as more resistance was created by lower floors stacking up on top of each other. But they didn't do that, they turned into dust, molten and neat lengths of steel.


An(d) how you know how much fuel was left inside the towers?


We don't, but it's not the point. Even if all the fuel went into the building, which it clearly didn't, it still would not be enough to heat up ALL the columns and trusses enough to initiate global failure. Aviation fuel, like gasoline, burns hot but fast. It could not have burned long enough to heat that amount of steel to point of failure.
Black smoke shows an oxygen starved and cool fire. Also no other steel building in history has fallen from fire. You have evidence and historical precedence that is just hard to ignore.



Fuel just made fires to spread fast over the floors.


But where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence of raging fires. Actauly we have more evidence of the oposite.


How does black smoke mean that fires are cooling down? Does this look like it's cooling down?


Well your first pic looks like a vehicle fire, not a building fire but actually yes that fire is possibly oxygen starved and burning relatively cool.
The other two pics look like oil fires, again no comparison sry.
They are also back lit in the photos, you are seeing mostly shadow.


Airplane itself caused massive damage to some floors, and fires finished it. All it's needed, is that one floor falls to other. Foors weren't strong enough to stop that.


Yes to some floors. Do you realize how big the WTC towers were? About 6 floors were damaged out of 110. Think about that...
If it's the plane and fire pls explain building 7??...


You mean, that why it made those turns? Well, maybe that's the easiest way to find pentagon from airplane.


That wasn't my quote you were answering but...LOL

[edit on 2/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

What huge mass? The mass under the upper damaged floors was much more massive. Also the structures were turning to concrete dust as they collapsed, there was no mass to impact lower floors.


Yes.. it was more massive. But it doesn't mean that the falling parts wasn't huge either. Most of the mass was at the steel core. I suppose that less than 10% of floors mass was turned to dust.


The resistance from lower floors should have slowed the collapse down as more resistance was created by lower floors stacking up on top of each other.


Do you have any scientific support to this claim?

Let's assume, that:

* at each collision of floors, 5% of mass is thrown out
* at each collision, energy loss is equal to energy wich first floor gets when it drops one storey. (E = mgh)
* ejecting mass has same speed as falling floors at that point.
* floors are 3.7 m high
* collapse starts from floor 85, and has 15 floors on top of it

It takes only 10.6 seconds to collapse (time to floors reach ground). Final speed is 36.2 m/s, mass is about 19 times one floor's mass.


Also no other steel building in history has fallen from fire.


No other steel builging has been crashed by that big airplane.


Yes to some floors. Do you realize how big the WTC towers were? About 6 floors were damaged out of 110. Think about that...


All it's needed is one floor to fall on other floor... that collapsing continues and will eliminate horizontal support for columns.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join