What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I went to a thread that had a link about this mysterious event(can't remember which thread). Do any people on this board talk about it? You problably have but I'll explain anyway.

WTC 1 goes down but a small part of the building is left sticking straight up in the air(like a spire I guess). This is truly trippy. The spire stands for awhile then starts in fall, but for some reason, it just turns into dust, for no apparent reason. WTF.

Is anybody else interested in this? Here is a link to one video;

WTC 1 Spire

There are better videos of this.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Yeah, it eventually fell straight down from the base like a conventional demo.

What's interesting, is that (since it obviously wasn't stable) parts of it fell off as it stood there. And guess how they fell? Like trees! They tilted and fell off to the sides, just as one would expect of a tall unstable structure like that. But then the bulk of the structure fell straight down upon itself from the base, again, like a conventional demo would have.

I thought it was trippy the first time I saw it, too. I thought it was photoshopped, but as I watched the video I realized it was totally real. It totally blows current pancake theory out of the water: the core structures didn't pancake. Those beams and concrete still stood after the perimeter columns and trusses were blown away, and then they somehow fell down upon themselves in an obviously separate event by a separate mechanism.

Have you seen WTC2's core still standing? I was skeptical of it too at first but I've seen it from various angles so I suppose it's legit for now. WTC2's "spire" is more like a block of steel and concrete sticking up in the air; it was in much better shape than WTC1's.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Have you seen WTC2's core still standing? I was skeptical of it too at first but I've seen it from various angles so I suppose it's legit for now. WTC2's "spire" is more like a block of steel and concrete sticking up in the air; it was in much better shape than WTC1's.


No I haven't seen WTC 2's spire. I just recently starting getting into this whole "conspiracy theory" about 9/11. I did believe(not entirely) at first that the planes did take down the towers. But what started me doing more research on the subject was WTC 7. I couldn't recall seeing that building collapse on 9/11 or the days following. So I think the first time I saw it fall was a few months ago and I couldn't f'ing believe what I was seeing.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Here are two images in which you can see WTC2's core structure still standing even as the perimeter columns and trusses had fallen away:



So the pancake collapse theory doesn't work for either tower. The cores did not pancake.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If the core was left standing in both cases, what were these basement mini-nukes we're all looking forward to in the new 911 Eyewitness DVD for then? And how did they leave the core standing too?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
"Take down. Take down. Everybody's busted"



Yeah how did they take down the core? How did the outer shell designed to be self supporting fall down like a curtain to the floor?

Dynomite!!

I just love how the 911 spook crew comes in to demo the truth movement.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
If the core was left standing in both cases, what were these basement mini-nukes we're all looking forward to in the new 911 Eyewitness DVD for then? And how did they leave the core standing too?


Even if micro nukes were used, they wouldn't use them to knock out the perimeter columns. That wouldn't work and also wouldn't make any damned sense when considering how the perimeter columns were blown out. But something did bring the cores straight down after the rest had fallen away.

How would you explain such core structures falling straight down without explosives at the base, Smith? Wouldn't have to be micro nukes by any means. Any conventional demo, HE's at the base. It's also obvious that the cores did not pancake.

The falling of both of those cores straight down must be some totally new collapse phenomena, eh? Sort of like another "progressive collapse." I wonder what they'll call this one, though, since there wasn't any "pancaking" in these cases. They just fell straight down from the base. Usually they just those demolitions, but if anyone ever presses them here I'm sure they'll come up with a new fancy type of collapse and have it published in all sorts of engineering journals for people to study for years to come. Scary stuff.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Without guidance by the cores, the towers might have toppled over, which would have meant too much destroyed real estate


They Skimped !


btw, GREAT PIC of wtc2 core !! got a larger variant, maybe?

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Since I can't start my own thread on this topic im going to hijack this one.

The wtc spires are THE smoking gun that the trade centers were brought down by black tech.

Both cores survived the destruction only to be vaporized . Why?

Because the concrete that connects the inner and outer supports were destroyed. That created a lot of dust to hide the destruction of the spires. And let the outside facade fall away.

The core of wtc 1 stood for 14 seconds.

Did it fall into the basement floors? No there were only 7 subfloors and the spire was 60+ stories. Also there was no damage to the tub.
did it fall over ? No we can clearly see it fall straight down and if it did fall over it would have hit something adjacent buildings . Something
did it simply fall on top of the debris? No you can clearly see from pics of the 11th and 12th that there is no 60storiea of columns there?

So where did it go? Once we have ruled out the possible whatever is left however inprobable must be the truth.

Weapons beyond our knowledge were used .

Your stance?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


so no one will even challenge this? No debunker approaches?

Can noone show ANY evidence for those columns after the collapse?

You realize the this means "we" win? Or will this thread become the plotonium of 9/11?

so hot noone will come near it?

Don't we now have to admit 9/11 was for lack of a better term " faked"?

Why does no one talk about the spires?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Since I can't start my own thread on this topic im going to hijack this one.

You bumped a 6 year old thread to post nonsense. Nobody is replying to you because nobody really understands what has motivated you to post this.


The wtc spires are THE smoking gun that the trade centers were brought down by black tech.

Both cores survived the destruction only to be vaporized . Why?

They weren't brought down by 'black tech' and they weren't vaporized'. Core columns are everywhere in the debris and immediately obvious from their unique sizes and shapes.


Because the concrete that connects the inner and outer supports were destroyed. That created a lot of dust to hide the destruction of the spires. And let the outside facade fall away.

There was no concrete connecting 'inner and outer supports'. The concrete was in the floors.


Did it fall into the basement floors? No there were only 7 subfloors and the spire was 60+ stories. Also there was no damage to the tub.
did it fall over ? No we can clearly see it fall straight down and if it did fall over it would have hit something adjacent buildings . Something
did it simply fall on top of the debris? No you can clearly see from pics of the 11th and 12th that there is no 60storiea of columns there?

So where did it go? Once we have ruled out the possible whatever is left however inprobable must be the truth.

It fell straight down. It essentially dismantled itself at the weld planes and became part of the debris.


Weapons beyond our knowledge were used .

Your stance?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebra.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


show me one picture( and there are many pics of the debris pile on and after 9/11) of that steel in the debris pile. Just saying they are there isn't enuff. Pics or it didn't happen.

Btw thanks for showing no evidence. Again proving my point.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


so no one will even challenge this? No debunker approaches?

Can noone show ANY evidence for those columns after the collapse?

You realize the this means "we" win? Or will this thread become the plotonium of 9/11?

so hot noone will come near it?

Don't we now have to admit 9/11 was for lack of a better term " faked"?

Why does no one talk about the spires?


Probably because noone...or perhaps it's just me...has an inkling of what your point is.

The video posted by the OP is no longer available, so I will post one of my own that shows the physical progression of the collapse of WTC 1. It includes very good footage of how the spire fell-



Please review and cite those points in the video that you have concerns with, because from where I sit there isn't anythign unusual about how the spires behaved during the collapse.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by exponent
 


show me one picture( and there are many pics of the debris pile on and after 9/11) of that steel in the debris pile. Just saying they are there isn't enuff. Pics or it didn't happen.


Fair enough. Here are several photos taken at multiple angles of a core column that was recovered and preserved in the collection at the hanger at JFK. Being a core column it is one of the very components that would need to have been sabotaged, and the only damage I see here is from the mechanical forces caused by the collapse of the building itself.

What is your point?













posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I will review you via when I get to my computer.

My point is that after the collapse of both towers there were spires .

wtc 1's was over 60 stories. Those steel beams should have landed right on top of the debris piles.

But the photographic record show no sign of that steel. And its a lot of steel. The pics of the piles of rubble taken on 9/11 and the few days after refute the claim that the spires just fell.

Now if the arnt in the pile where are they?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I will review you via when I get to my computer.

My point is that after the collapse of both towers there were spires .

wtc 1's was over 60 stories. Those steel beams should have landed right on top of the debris piles.

But the photographic record show no sign of that steel. And its a lot of steel. The pics of the piles of rubble taken on 9/11 and the few days after refute the claim that the spires just fell.


....and the video I just posted irrefutably showed the spire on WTC 1 falling along with the rest of the building. Unless you're suggesting the spire was sucked into a black hole on the way down, I still don't understand what your point is.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


those are pics of the columns in A warehouse. I never said there weren't columns found.

I said that they arnt ON TOP OF THE DEBRIS PILES.

at aprox 1:30 into your vid there is dust falling DOWN out of the windows(?) of the tower BEFORE it collapsed . That is the concrete floors being turned to dust and gravity pulling it down. I notice the huge plumes erupting from the top also.

can you find pics of this steel on the debris pile? I can't .



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I will review you via when I get to my computer.

My point is that after the collapse of both towers there were spires .

wtc 1's was over 60 stories. Those steel beams should have landed right on top of the debris piles.

But the photographic record show no sign of that steel. And its a lot of steel. The pics of the piles of rubble taken on 9/11 and the few days after refute the claim that the spires just fell.


....and the video I just posted irrefutably showed the spire on WTC 1 falling along with the rest of the building. Unless you're suggesting the spire was sucked into a black hole on the way down, I still don't understand what your point is.


The spire stood for 14seconds after collapse. That is not "falling along with the rest of the building"



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I think he means the standing remains of the steel core (spire) not the actual antenna mounted to the top of the building.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


so no one will even challenge this? No debunker approaches?

Can noone show ANY evidence for those columns after the collapse?

You realize the this means "we" win? Or will this thread become the plotonium of 9/11?

so hot noone will come near it?

Don't we now have to admit 9/11 was for lack of a better term " faked"?

Why does no one talk about the spires?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)


SS, DT.

It's been talked to death.

Micronukes, feh.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join