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.

 

Extremely powerful new clip by 911eyewitness

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iwasneverhere
Someone previously mentioned the possibility that maybe the bright flashes were electrical shorts. I can see how thats possible, however I think due to the structural damage I would have immediatly cut the power to prevent more fires caused by electrical sources.... just a thought


Shorts would trip the breakers and they would stop.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468


Also, a 1000 lb TNT explosion is roughly the same force as 4.0 earthquake (Source)

With all those facts laid out, does it now make more sense to you, just how much force would have been behind a controlled demolition of the WTC towers?


Actually you just made Siegels case


That source shows 1 Kiloton (not 1000 lbs) for a 4.0.


The case they made was for half kilo ton, a peanut sized directional bunker buster styly WMD for each tower. Easily making the 2.1 and 2.3 recorded forces. The fact that each of the peaks started before the building collapse is telling.


It finally explains the pulverization of the cement.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
as well as evidence of radiation at 'ground zero' on 9/11, mini nukes would give off EMP waves which (depending on the payload of the device) will cause a localized black out. Co-incidentally, there was a localized blackout just around the time of the collapse.

No surprise there then.

home.debitel.net...


Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA


Seems there is even more to calling it a 'ground zero', which is usually the term associated with a nuclear explosion (like hiroshima and the test sites in nevada) I thought that tag was bizarre since this was a building collapse, not a nuke site !!

It appears to make more sense now.

Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.



if its accurate that would explain how the core could get so incredibly hot in so little time, the huge amounts of steel soak up the radiation like a sponge! Since there really isnt many other realistic explainations for how the ENTIRE core would heat up to such a temperature and vapourize, this provides something fairly feasible to explain it. Although i may not believe it entirely to be correct it could be closer to the real answer of how these towers were brought down.

www.saunalahti.fi...



[edit on 29-6-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by obsidian468


Also, a 1000 lb TNT explosion is roughly the same force as 4.0 earthquake (Source)

With all those facts laid out, does it now make more sense to you, just how much force would have been behind a controlled demolition of the WTC towers?


Actually you just made Siegels case


That source shows 1 Kiloton (not 1000 lbs) for a 4.0.


The case they made was for half kilo ton, a peanut sized directional bunker buster styly WMD for each tower. Easily making the 2.1 and 2.3 recorded forces. The fact that each of the peaks started before the building collapse is telling.


It finally explains the pulverization of the cement.


I hate to quote entire posts, but in this instance, for recording my error, and my rebuttal, I feel the need to do so.

The above post I made was incorrect. You are right in correcting me in saying that it's 1000 tons of TNT, not 1000 lbs of TNT that can be equivalent to a 4.0 earthquake.

That's what I get for posting while drunk.



Anyway, what I meant to state is that each tower would have needed roughly 10,000 lbs (5 tons) of TNT, but that amount would need to be spread across all 110 stories of the tower. I do believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Make no mistake about that. I do, however, feel that the mini-nuke theory is completely asinine. Conventional explosives (likely TNT, Dynamite or C4) spread across the entire 110 stories of the tower would easilly explain the pulverized concrete. The towers would not be able to be brought down so neatly with just an explosion in the basement. The laws of physics prevent this from happening. Given the way the towers were constructed, with four seperate sections, each bearing their own weight, with structurally reinforced members between each of these sections (the maintenence floors - three in total), would have to each have been detonated in sequence, to ensure a neat collapse in upon itself. Without the destruction of the structural members on each of these floors, the towers would have likely snapped, and fell horizontally, onto other buildings in the surrounding area.

Additionally, the concept of a mini-nuke being detonated in the basement completely contradicts federal reports as well as eye witness reports stating that the central towers (most of the 47 internal support towers) were still standing a story or three above street level after the collapse. A 1/2 KT nuclear blast would have certainly destroyed every trace of the bases of these towers, as it was only a 12.5-15KT bomb that wiped out an entire city (Hiroshima), which was largely built to withstand sideways force, as Hiroshima does reside in Japan, which is known for it's earthquake activity. Modern large nukes (in the 50MT plus category) would decimate everything from DC to Baltimore (if dropped at a known target point - the Pentagon) and would have severe collateral damage in the forms of EMP and radiation damage as far away as NYC. That said, where was the EMP blast from these mini-nukes in the WTC towers? Surely it would have knocked out power for blocks around? Also, where's the radiation sickness? Not one case was reported.

As far as the radiation detected in the rubble from the WTC towers, it was roughly on par with the concentrated radiation of all of the smoke detectors, computers, monitors, and other electronics that were destroyed that day. The radiation levels that are present in most typical household and office style electronics is amazing, especially when condensed to a pile of rubble from two 110 story buildings, packed with such electronics.

Controlled demolition, yes. Mini-nukes, almost certainly not. Before anyone claims Hydrogen Bombs when trying to explain away the lack of EMP and radiation sickness, keep in mind that even the most sophisticated H-Bomb requires a nuclear blast to set off the chain reaction. This small core fission reaction will still contaminate an area at levels far higher than were seen at the WTC sites, and for several days. This means that most of the surviving police and firefighters (not to mention special personnell that were brought in after the collapses) would be at least showing signs of severe radiation sickness, if not dead. As yet, I have heard no reports to this effect. One would think that if a civillian firefighter or police officer was suffering from these effects (especially of the hundreds on site that day), at least one would have come forward so far. To the best of my knowledge, none have.

Finally, I also do not dispute the concept of possible basement explosions preceeding the blast, as weakening the basement supports first would ensure a total collapse of the buildings. That said, it would only take about 250-500 lbs of TNT to cause this initial weakening, and the rest would have to be used on the 110 above-ground floors to ensure an implosion type effect as the towers fell. Even so, anyone remember the WTC attacks in 1993? Remember how much smoke and debris was ejected from the basement levels of the buildings in that attack? Remember that the 1993 attack, even as devastating as it was, did not bring the towers down (even considering that they destroyed three floors, each almost 30 inches thick, as well as a concourse level above ground)? There was significantly more explosives used in the 1993 bombing (two large vans, loaded with fertilizer based explosives - easilly purchased from your local hardware/lawn and garden store - roughly equivalent to 1000 lbs of TNT in each van).

The biggest difference is that the 1993 blast was from a centralized location, and did very little to compromise the integrity of the support structure. The damage looked a lot worse than it was. Even a significantly larger blast would still do little to compromise the integrity of the support system, unless it was specifically planted to direct the blast charges into the support structure, much as would happen with a controlled demolition.

Even with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear blasts (which are FAR larger than anyone is claiming for the WTC collapse on 9/11), there were still standing structural members of buildings, not far from ground zero. This suggests to me that structural integrity, even in buildings erected before 1945, could withstand a centrallized blast. The WTC towers were completed in 1971, with a greater structural knowledge than the designers of buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have had at the time.

Frankly the mini-nuke idea is laughable, particularly with one as small as 1/2 KT.

[EDIT: spelling]

[edit on 6/30/2006 by obsidian468]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I heard that with convential explosives the amount required would be so great there would need to be a large payload on each floor, so much so that the wtc staff would be climbing over demo. boxes to get top their desks. A building gets pulverised to dust on the order of 30-300 microns across, is there enough energy and force to create such fine powdering of a building and its entire contents possible with convential explosives, including bringing the core to the point of evaporation?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by obsidian468


Also, a 1000 lb TNT explosion is roughly the same force as 4.0 earthquake (Source)

With all those facts laid out, does it now make more sense to you, just how much force would have been behind a controlled demolition of the WTC towers?


Actually you just made Siegels case


That source shows 1 Kiloton (not 1000 lbs) for a 4.0.


The case they made was for half kilo ton, a peanut sized directional bunker buster styly WMD for each tower. Easily making the 2.1 and 2.3 recorded forces. The fact that each of the peaks started before the building collapse is telling.


It finally explains the pulverization of the cement.


I hate to quote entire posts, but in this instance, for recording my error, and my rebuttal, I feel the need to do so.

The above post I made was incorrect. You are right in correcting me in saying that it's 1000 tons of TNT, not 1000 lbs of TNT that can be equivalent to a 4.0 earthquake.

That's what I get for posting while drunk.




Actually it was a 1 megaton Atom bomb creating a 4.0 and your mistake is blatant dis information the way it was offered. The rest of your stuff is pretty much the same stuff repeated. Laughable and will later be attributed to drunken brains or distraction of the football game .


Since most people only remember the big mushroom of larger blasts from raw nukes long ago, the 50 years of secret advances in using them to bust bunkers, buildings and as tactical weapons is now dawning on us.

Get the waste they washed away for 100 days! Fires burning the soles off firefighters feet every 4 hours while billions of gallons of water wash the scene. That water was contaminated as was the air and people are dying from the scaring now.


When you see it in this DVD you do not need the roadmap.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468

Even with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear blasts (which are FAR larger than anyone is claiming for the WTC collapse on 9/11), there were still standing structural members of buildings, not far from ground zero. This suggests to me that structural integrity, even in buildings erected before 1945, could withstand a centrallized blast. The WTC towers were completed in 1971, with a greater structural knowledge than the designers of buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have had at the time.

Frankly the mini-nuke idea is laughable, particularly with one as small as 1/2 KT.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exploded 1,000 feet in the air, in order to spread the blast
wave across a wider horizontal area. This is done for the sole purpose of killing more people,
and doing more damage with a wider radius firestorm instead of blowing up huge clouds of radioactive debris that would occur should the bomb hit the ground and create a massive crater.

A massive crater at WTC would be covered up by the two massive buildings that collapsed into it.

See building six which experienced an enourmous explosion at approximately 9:02-9:04 AM.
It contains an 8 story crater, and was never hit by a plane.

Follow along at 911Studies.com for a few pages.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by Legalizer]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Actually it was a 1 megaton Atom bomb creating a 4.0 and your mistake is blatant dis information the way it was offered. The rest of your stuff is pretty much the same stuff repeated. Laughable and will later be attributed to drunken brains or distraction of the football game .


Check ths source again. It clearly says 4.0 earthquake = 1000 tons of TNT = 1KT

Outside of that, read the post a little closer, and with an open mind. Try to refrain from insults, and look at the imformation provided objectively.


Since most people only remember the big mushroom of larger blasts from raw nukes long ago, the 50 years of secret advances in using them to bust bunkers, buildings and as tactical weapons is now dawning on us.


I'm well aware of tactical weapons such as briefcase nukes. I still have seen no hard evidence supporting anything more than residual radiation from the electronics in the building.


Get the waste they washed away for 100 days! Fires burning the soles off firefighters feet every 4 hours while billions of gallons of water wash the scene. That water was contaminated as was the air and people are dying from the scaring now.


And just where is the evidence for this? This is the FIRST time I've heard about this "evidence." And don't say that it's on a DVD available for $29.95 on some website. If someone really had such hard proof, they'd be offering it up for free. The royalties from their story in Hallmark Movies and the latest Hollywood bastardization would make them millions, and they'd never have to sell a DVD.


When you see it in this DVD you do not need the roadmap.


See it on DVD huh? How much is this one going to cost me? See above if you don't get the sarcasm.

[EDIT: spelling]

[edit on 6/30/2006 by obsidian468]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exploded 1,000 feet in the air, in order to spread the blast
wave across a wider horizontal area. This is done for the sole purpose of killing more people,
and doing more damage with a wider radius firestorm instead of blowing up huge clouds of radioactive debris that would occur should the bomb hit the ground and create a massive crater.


Are you implying that a 1/2 KT (500 tons of TNT) nuke would even be remotely comparable to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts? I think there's a few million Japanese that would disagree.

The reason that a nuke used as a WMD is detonated over the ground - the closer such a bomb i detonated to the ground, the less the blast is. Theoretically, even a 2KT bomb detonated in the basement of the WTC towers (either one), would have directed its blast mostly downward and out towards the sides, were it would hit much reinforced concrete and limestone. The upward blast would do little more than the 1993 WTC bombings did - take out a few floors, and cause panic. I still seriously doubt that such a blast would totally vaporize all of the central support columns and cause the entire 110 stories above ground to fall perfectly in upon itself. It may be just me, but it all seems just WAY too coincidental for my tastes.


A massive crater at WTC would be covered up by the two massive buildings that collapsed into it.


Actually, even a multi MT nuke wouldn't leave that much of a hole when detonated underground. Take a look at satellite photos from Nellis Test Range, specifically the area just NW of area 51, where all the nuke testing occured up until the international nuke testing ban.


See building six which experienced an enourmous explosion at approximately 9:02-9:04 AM.
It contains an 8 story crater, and was never hit by a plane.


Ever stop to think where the emerging remnants of the plane that hit WTC 2 landed? In every bit of video that we can see the plane hitting WTC2, it clearly hits a corner of the building, and a fireball is ejected through the far side. All clips cut away shortly after seeing the fireball, leaving everyone to wonder what exactly happened to the plane. It's possible, if not likely that the remnants of the plane hit WTC 6. It's also possible, if not likely, that the footage of the explosion at WTC6 was doctored, to try and hide the coverups of controlled demolition. It is pretty convenient, wouldn't you think, that WTC6 suffered damage through all 8 stories?


Follow along at 911Studies.com for a few pages.


Seen it... limited merit, limited credibility. I was able to find major problems in most ofhis 9/11 photos, just by being on the site, and having a look around, four days after the attack - long before I know about this guy's photoanaylisis. I honestly can't trust much from him.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by obsidian468]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
here is a take on things i dont see people mentioning:

another point to consider is if a mini nuclear device was used, then perhaps you could shift some of the blame away from the government for the responsibility(!)

If just a single device (or possibly a few) were used it would of made the whole plan much easier for foriegn terrorists to achieve, just setting up a device in the basement, maybe even driving a van into the correct spot or similiar. But then why would the terrorists bother with the planes? Perhaps there really was a device on/in the planes too.

Whats more if the government knew it was a mini nuke, they still would want to keep that information from going public to prevent the terrorists full psychological effect - that terrorists were not only able to crash planes into our buildings but possess and are able to set off advanced nuclear devices in the heart of NYC and couldnt stop it happening.

Still, thats not to say it wasnt a staged terror attack set up by the government powers/or branches of it, as they are the ones with the capabilities and motives to do so. Perhaps from their view, they had no choice, the stocks were heading for a crash and something had to be done, we either sacrfice 4000 civilians in a controlled and staged terror attack, letting us destroy whatever economic data tied to the trade centers relating to the coming crash, and give us an excuse to create a profitable war and save our economy through manipulation, or we do nothing and lose millions of civilians in an economic crash, letting everyone die, sounds just like the sort of decision they would make if that were the case, and possibly the only options that fit in todays regieme.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
another point to consider is if a mini nuclear device was used, then perhaps you could shift some of the blame away from the government for the responsibility(!)


I'm not so sure. From what I understanding, building a small nuclear device requires more skill than building, say, what we dropped over Japan. Those bombs used very little of their critical masses (around 1%'ish) to cause their explosions. For a small bomb, unless you want to run the risk of extreme radiation and possibly a much bigger explosion than would be convenient, you'd want to have a smaller critical mass and have a much higher percentage undergo fissure.

Now a "dirty nuke" is just high explosives with radioactive material around it. Rogue terrorists could do that just as easily as they could get their hands on radioactive material, which would be the hard part. But the explosion would just be more like setting of some sticks of dynamite with uranium or something around it. It wouldn't do much damage to anything at all, but it would probably make a lot of people sick.

They have you thinking that the country with the bigger nukes, or more big nukes, is better of, but you can't use the big ones anymore without huge international backlash. They're pretty useless to our military. I think they just went small under our noses instead.
Hell, you even hear them talking about using "strategic mini-nukes" or something to that nature on certain facilities in Iran now.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I agree its fairly obvious that the complexity of such bombs can only suggest they came from a major military source, but that doesnt mean to say they are not of a foreign source.

I am sure most of us here have heard about these terrorist organisations trying to get hold of nuclear devices through buying them on the black market (which is terrible in itself!) rather than going through the trouble of trying to building them, even reports (although not so much) about these small suitcase nukes. Usually such devices are just generalised to the public as 'WMD' or 'nuclear devices'

www.nationalterroralert.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
BTW, go Steelers!!!!! I'm originally from the Pittsburgh area and go to the 'burgh lots. "Yins guys wanna go downto'n an get some pop an'at" The Pittsburgh people will get what that means. Take care.


Its, Do younz' wanna go downto'n and get some pop and perogies or hogies and bla bla.

Anyway thermite reaction to metal...

video.google.com...

This is an interesting video on thermite and what it can do to metal..

They use a car as a reference, it puts a hole in the engine block.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 6/30/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Actually it was a 1 megaton Atom bomb creating a 4.0 and your mistake is blatant dis information the way it was offered. The rest of your stuff is pretty much the same stuff repeated. Laughable and will later be attributed to drunken brains or distraction of the football game .


Check ths source again. It clearly says 4.0 earthquake = 1000 tons of TNT = 1KT

Outside of that, read the post a little closer, and with an open mind. Try to refrain from insults, and look at the imformation provided objectively.


It was you who hide behind the alcohol laden brain excuse my friend. When you put the jacket on you must wear it.




And just where is the evidence for this? This is the FIRST time I've heard about this "evidence." And don't say that it's on a DVD available for $29.95 on some website.

See it on DVD huh? How much is this one going to cost me? See above if you don't get the sarcasm.


No, you can get the DVD from the DVD tree in your backyard along with all the other films you have. Are you one of those people that rather steal a copyright work rather than buy it? I got it for almost half of that on Ebay for a legit original.


As your posts confirm, the educational value of that DVD alone is worth double what your friends are selling it to you for. Even their site has it for $20. Who is ripping you off or is that your fine sarcasam again? Sarcasim works well on the Internet you know?


If you don't get the sarcasm then you never cared anyway.


I wonder how you comment so much about this stuff never seeing it? Do you use some kind of kinetic memory to visualize reality without knowledge of what it really could be?


After all you change a kiloton into 1000lbs in one beer.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
So I got a bunch of warnings without any reasons. This is a strange place. Was that for calling out the drunk guy for passing off bad information as authoritative?


I don't know anymore. I guess I will just present what I can then.

Here are some of the clips and reasons I found on the nuke evidence that you might like to explore:

The pulverization of all the concrete into very fine dust ( above 700 C required all over)

WTC1 Thermonuclear Hydrogen Bomb
video.google.com...

Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall down)

Ejecting 22 ton outer wall elements up to 200 meters (Amex building 175 m)

330 tons of outer wall columns ripping off in one of the pictures (15 elements)

600 foot ejection of 100 ton steel sections
video.google.com...




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
The pulverization of all the concrete into very fine dust ( above 700 C required all over)


Doesn't really require a nuke. Or explosives of any kind. Or even a fire. It happens whenever two concrete slabs hit eachother at high speed.



Ejecting 22 ton outer wall elements up to 200 meters (Amex building 175 m)
330 tons of outer wall columns ripping off in one of the pictures (15 elements)
600 foot ejection of 100 ton steel sections
video.google.com...


A bit misleading. That's not what they really weigh. Not the fragments that got ejected, that is.


Dae

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Im surprised no-one has commented on the firetruck that got sucked underneath tower four. Sounds like an explosion that created a vacuum that sucked everthing in and down, very far down,


Originally posted by Draconica
Then again there is reports about a fire truck recovered after being "sucked" down 40 below street level. Couldn't a blast below the truck account for it falling to such great depths? (Whew! I know I'm gonna get reemed for suggesting that one...
)


[bold mine]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazyJones

Originally posted by ChapaevII
The pulverization of all the concrete into very fine dust ( above 700 C required all over)


Doesn't really require a nuke. Or explosives of any kind. Or even a fire. It happens whenever two concrete slabs hit eachother at high speed.



Ejecting 22 ton outer wall elements up to 200 meters (Amex building 175 m)
330 tons of outer wall columns ripping off in one of the pictures (15 elements)
600 foot ejection of 100 ton steel sections
video.google.com...


A bit misleading. That's not what they really weigh. Not the fragments that got ejected, that is.


Not at all you are quite wrong. Check the math again, 15 elements, that is the correct weight.


Only a WMD could account for the pulverization. Nobody is trying it on with the pancake thing anymore.


Here watch and learn:


NOVA cointelpro CG of towers
video.google.com...

Collapse review for WTC1,2,7
video.google.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Not at all you are quite wrong. Check the math again, 15 elements, that is the correct weight.



Ah, yes... But that is irrelevant. What matters is what they weighed individually. Not what the pieces weighed in total.



Only a WMD could account for the pulverization. Nobody is trying it on with the pancake thing anymore.



But there is nothing wrong with the pancake explanation...



video.google.com...


I've seen a few of these videos, and they all contain skewed facts, inaccurate data or outright lies. For instance:

"Pancake theory impossible using the laws of science"
- Presented without arguments, and completely untrue.

"Office fires had negligible effect on the steel structures"
- Untrue. The heat will weaken them long before it melts them. The sheer mass of the floors above, will then do the rest.

"The buildings fell in just 10 seconds"
- This lie is at the heart of so many stories about the collapse. While the calculations and assumptions made upon that figure might be completely accurate, they are still based on a lie, which makes them untrue. The buildings did not collapse in just 10 seconds.


video.google.com...


Newtons laws of physics? I fail to see why they prevent what we see?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazyJones

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Not at all you are quite wrong. Check the math again, 15 elements, that is the correct weight.



Ah, yes... But that is irrelevant. What matters is what they weighed individually. Not what the pieces weighed in total.



Wrong again, 15 elements are 15xweight. Pushing out a 15 element section needs the force to pugh out 15 pieces at once.





But there is nothing wrong with the pancake explanation...


You are of course out of air here.




I've seen a few of these videos, and they all contain skewed facts, inaccurate data or outright lies. For instance:

"Pancake theory impossible using the laws of science"
- Presented without arguments, and completely untrue.



Pancake totally bogus

NOVA cointelpro CG of towers
video.google.com...



"Office fires had negligible effect on the steel structures"
- Untrue. The heat will weaken them long before it melts them. The sheer mass of the floors above, will then do the rest.

Projectile Motion WTC1 with cannon ball
video.google.com...



"The buildings fell in just 10 seconds"
- This lie is at the heart of so many stories about the collapse. While the calculations and assumptions made upon that figure might be completely accurate, they are still based on a lie, which makes them untrue. The buildings did not collapse in just 10 seconds.

video.google.com...

Newtons laws of physics? I fail to see why they prevent what we see?


Yeah, well, what can one say. Did you not have a man once said "A sucker born every minute." Well you are fooled again on 911 if you think those buildings did not come down in 10 seconds. Hollow shells melted from the inside.


South Tower Collapse Detonation Zone
video.google.com...

Freefall Speed Experiment for WTC7
video.google.com...

WTC1 Thermonuclear Hydrogen Bomb
video.google.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join