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.

 

Watched the history channel documentary and some things caught my attention that does not make sense

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
So I watched the history channel last night and saw a 2 hr documentary on 911, I figured why not watch and listen to the official story one more time. This documentary was a really good one and focused on a lot of the people involved but a lot of things came out that I have never heard.

In the documentary they tell which floors failed causing the total collapse and I found this to be strange since one of the WTC's came down in less than an hour after being hit and it took 13 seconds to come down, but they are going to name specific floors that collapsed causing the others to collapse, note they were not the impact floors.

Now I just found this strange how could anyone tell specifically which floors failed, sorry I did not expect to see anything new and did not have pen and paper nearby to write them down they only told them once, they named about 4-5 floors per WTC, the only number I recall for sure was the 50th floor in one of the towers.

Another fact that I recall I found really interesting is that they told the seismograph showed the impact of the towers coming down was felt all the way to New Hampshire, sorry it told the specific town but I did not write it down and can't find it now.

Am I the only one that finds all of this strange? Anyone else watch this show? Here is a link telling about the documentary and two air dates for it to be shown again. You can also order it but as I said it will be shown again.




www.historychannel.com...

Countdown to Ground Zero:
Friday, August 18 @ 8pm ET

Countdown to Ground Zero:
Saturday, August 19 @ 12am ET

A gripping, dramatic look, with the most recently released materials, at the extraordinary events of September 11th, 2001...not just this infamous day in history, but also how this day came to be through the dramatic stories of people whose lives converge at a moment when history turns. We'll recount the story of Al Qaeda's agents as they plan and execute the most deadly strike on the US since Pearl Harbor. It's also the story of the men and women who were attacked in the World Trade Center, and of the heroic rescuers who risked everything to save those trapped inside the doomed Twin Towers. And finally, it's also a political action thriller. It portrays FBI agents and counterterrorism experts in the months leading up to the attack as they desperately try to convince key players in both the Clinton and Bush administrations of the dangers of Al Qaeda and the possibility of a deadly attack on US soil.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
So I watched the history channel last night and saw a 2 hr documentary on 911, I figured why not watch and listen to the official story one more time. This documentary was a really good one and focused on a lot of the people involved but a lot of things came out that I have never heard.

In the documentary they tell which floors failed causing the total collapse and I found this to be strange since one of the WTC's came down in less than an hour after being hit and it took 13 seconds to come down, but they are going to name specific floors that collapsed causing the others to collapse, note they were not the impact floors.

Now I just found this strange how could anyone tell specifically which floors failed, sorry I did not expect to see anything new and did not have pen and paper nearby to write them down they only told them once, they named about 4-5 floors per WTC, the only number I recall for sure was the 50th floor in one of the towers.

Another fact that I recall I found really interesting is that they told the seismograph showed the impact of the towers coming down was felt all the way to New Hampshire, sorry it told the specific town but I did not write it down and can't find it now.

Am I the only one that finds all of this strange? Anyone else watch this show? Here is a link telling about the documentary and two air dates for it to be shown again. You can also order it but as I said it will be shown again.




Good question. Interesting too. Seeing how the 50th floor of neither tower was hit.

news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I also watched the show and what caught my attention was that they said the jet fuel would have all been gone within 10 minutes.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by n1ghtwalker
I also watched the show and what caught my attention was that they said the jet fuel would have all been gone within 10 minutes.


Of course, which is why NIST tried to pin the causes of the collapses onto office fires. They did a lab test and a computer simulation, too, btw, and in neither could they get a whole floor to fail, and thus totally failed to support their primary assertion. And yet somehow their report is.. scientific? Definitive? "Final"?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by n1ghtwalker
I also watched the show and what caught my attention was that they said the jet fuel would have all been gone within 10 minutes.


Of course, which is why NIST tried to pin the causes of the collapses onto office fires. They did a lab test and a computer simulation, too, btw, and in neither could they get a whole floor to fail, and thus totally failed to support their primary assertion. And yet somehow their report is.. scientific? Definitive? "Final"?


Well they are the NIST. One of the people who I frequently talk to about this pointed at the NIST report. I started typing their website in when I noticed the link ended in .gov. I needn't look no further.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Yeah if they expected 10-14 minutes of jet fuel (less for the South Tower) to produce enough HEAT to weaken the structural supports in the World Trade Center, then they need to reexamine their theory again.

Office fires to weaken the supports in the World Trade Center? Make the bolts in the truss seats snap somehow cause the whole "buckling reaction" that HowardRoark claims to of happened all that once, even though buckling now was seen to of occured earlier.

The World Trade Center was overengineered, it wouldn't take borderline weakening to cause significant damage to cause critical mass to be reached, thus causing gravity to bring down the building, go back to the drawing board.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Another thing that caught my attention is they told how two of the terrorists had purchased Stanley boxcutters at the Walmart and gave the time and I think it was actual footage of this from the security cameras, but here is the thing I have been told boxcutters were not allowed even before the events of 911, someone suggested that what the gov. was calling boxcutters were actually small knives but this documentary names the actual brand of boxcutters but yet I've read on a a lot of websites that you were not allowed to carry boxcutters on board even before 911. Does anyone know if that is true? I've searched to see if I could find an link that lists what was allowed before 911 but can't find one. Anyone know or have a website ith that info? TIA

Another thing they show the airline controllers see that the second plane is off course and the airline controller says, " Heads up, looks like we've got another one." Why didn't someone notify the authorities in New York that another one was on the way, since one of the towers had already been hit?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The reason that they couldn't get any supports to fail in all of the experiments was due to a mistake on the testers part. The tests were conducted with the fire-proof foam on the supports--the force of the impact was the actual culprit. This is b/c the force broke off the fire-proof foam and the impact cause the metal to warp (take a paperclip and bed it for a while and then touch where it bent at--its warm) thus, the metal would not be able to support the stress of the upper floors. (i can give you worked out statistics if you so desire)

And the misconception about boxcutters being allowed is that you were allowed to have a bladed obeject pre-9/11, but it had to have a blade under 3"

[edit on 14-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Another thing that caught my attention is they told how two of the terrorists had purchased Stanley boxcutters at the Walmart and gave the time and I think it was actual footage of this from the security cameras, but here is the thing I have been told boxcutters were not allowed even before the events of 911, someone suggested that what the gov. was calling boxcutters were actually small knives but this documentary names the actual brand of boxcutters but yet I've read on a a lot of websites that you were not allowed to carry boxcutters on board even before 911. Does anyone know if that is true? I've searched to see if I could find an link that lists what was allowed before 911 but can't find one. Anyone know or have a website ith that info? TIA

Another thing they show the airline controllers see that the second plane is off course and the airline controller says, " Heads up, looks like we've got another one." Why didn't someone notify the authorities in New York that another one was on the way, since one of the towers had already been hit?


in the initial reports on 911 i specefically remember them saying 'improvised weapon possibly made out of a razor'. led me to believe they meant like a gillette. i never researched it but i am 100% that was the initial prognosis from at least one live news source.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by misguidedprophet
The reason that they couldn't get any supports to fail in all of the experiments was due to a mistake on the testers part. The tests were conducted with the fire-proof foam on the supports--the force of the impact was the actual culprit.


There have been tests on unprotected steel in the past. Bare steel loses only half its strength when heated all the way to 600 C. And then it just begins to sag.

There is no evidence of steel reaching those temperatures at the WTC pre-collapse. NIST corroborates this with the steel they tested, and the visual evidence also corroborates this, as 600 C steel glows in broad daylight. The only glowing metal was the bright orange metal flowing out of the corner of WTC2 that most official conspiracy theorists claim was aluminum (which still will not glow like that until extremely high temperatures).



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
...please do some research of your own insteadof regurgitating false information

[edit on 15-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Misguidedprophet, prove yourself useful to the community instead of giving brief biased comments without any valid argument. That appears to be the trend these days with people supporting the official theory, they start with small words until they find they can make up and confuse more things if they make larger bundles of useless arguments.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The impact was not lateral. It was done at an angle. I believe with the intention to lop the towers into the Federal Reserve.
If you notice the angle of descent, if they had been successful, it would have succeeded in crippling the economy, which was there intent.

/
|
...FR.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
You have anything to back this up??

I would rather go with the alien thoery before this one.. Call it a hunch but I doubt that man.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Explain the pitch roll. If you were just wanting to do damage to the single target, you would pitch forward and try to nose-down for maximum impact.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Well the documentary specifically says Stanley boxcutters which is a name brand boxcutter not an improvised tool, during the inital reports no one really knew but apparently now they are saying they know the name brand of the boxcutters, and if I am correct they have footage of the purchase, for sure a location, date and time it was purchased and also they know who made the purchase.

9/11/01 the only day that three steel building collapsed from fire but it is instead the question of how do they know specifically which floors failed causing the pancake theory they are talking about? They specifically name floors and say they are weakened and caused the pancaking freefall. It is the specifics I am questioning, how do they know? Where did they get the info from for this answer?

These weakened floors are not the impact floors with the first building to collapse to do so within less than an hour and only 13 seconds of footage showing the collapse, since that is how long it took for the first building to start the descent downward and to hit the ground, thirteen seconds for a 110 story building to collapse to dust. How can they say they know specifically which floors failed? How could they gather that kind of information based on less than an hr and thirteen seconds of footage of the collapse? They did not tell that in the documentary unless I missed it making that cup of coffee, they said it as though it were accepted fact. How do they know specifically which floors failed? Why would floor 50 fail as opposed to floor 46 or floor 23, why specifically that floor and how do they know specifically that floor and specifically the other floors named?

Here is a very interesting link.

www.plaguepuppy.net...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
*sigh* I have watched this whole assertion from day one - it evolved from missiles hitting the towers and pentagon (and sure-fire evidence to back it up - just like everything else), to government issue jets, to computer-controled commercial liners, to demolition, and God-knows where it will go to next.

It's the behavior pattern of a group that refuses to accept what has happened, and constantly defending an alternate reality. And the behavior pattern of those leading the denial matches those taken by many evil leaders in the past.

But I've listened and watched and considered for myself and come to the same conclusion every time 'new evidence' has been 'found' that 'proves' 9/11 was a conspiracy born of our own government.

They can point to specific floors in theory. Just like they can determine what caused a plane crash from a plane. The report states the most likely cause and places. It's not intended to be a 'this is what happened - now accept it as the God-given truth!' - it's intended as the most likely course of events that took place after long hours of research and experimentation to discern the cause of the incident.

As for the 50th floor colapsing, this is actually not surprising. To start off, you have jet fuel burning inside of the towers.... the 15 minutes is bogus - there is no way of knowing as the fuel-air mixture was unknown, as was the surface-area of the given amount of fuel, as well as what affects the increase in temperature caused. There was clear evidence of 'accelerant' fire in the WTC even right up to their colapse given by the thick black smoke which occours in the 'improper' fuel-air mixture of petroleum-based products.

Paper, or 'wood' fires also reach temperatures capable of melting steel. You're also forgetting one of the nice properties of steel - one that can give it great fire resistance, and incredible weakness. It ducts heat along its structure. So, while the steel without fire proofing is being heated up to sagging temperatures (which is amazing the structure didn't colapse then) - it's ducting as much heat as it can both up and down the structure. However, there, it cannot be given up to the air so readily as the fire-proofing acts as an excelent insulator.

At some point, the heat in the lower floor's steel supports will be enough to cause the steel to sag and colapse. In this case - that happened to be the 50th floor.

It was the right combination of overhead pressure, heat, and time. It could have happened on floors above it, and it could have happened on floors below it - but this floor just happened to be the 'critical point'.

The box cutters also pertain to only the individuals seen on camera - the others may or may not have purchased the same thing - and may or may not have improvised a different weapon.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
the 15 minutes is bogus - there is no way of knowing as the fuel-air mixture was unknown,


NIST, a government agency, gives a similar time frame. It's because the smoke turned from a lighter color, to a darker one. Efficient fuel-to-air ratio, to a less efficient fuel-to-air ratio. And it happened somewhere around 10 or 15 minutes into the fires, and so it's generally agreed upon by both sides that this is what happened.


Paper, or 'wood' fires also reach temperatures capable of melting steel.


Nope. I don't think you've done as much research as you suggest.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I was watching a show on Spike TV the other night and it showed a truck on fire underneath a steel bridge. As the truck burned you could watch the steel girders of the bridge heat up, sag and then finally fail. All of this took place in about 20 minutes elapsed time. The video had a time counter visable. I think the show was "Amazing Videos" or something like it.

I'm not going to go into the subject of the failure of the trusses again. That has been beaten to death in other threads.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
That's interesting Jim C, if you can find a link to that specific video on like www.youtube.com or Yahoo! Video, that's be sweet.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join