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.

 

Improbable Collapse - new 9/11 video

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
There's yet another video out on the subject of 9/11.

It's called "Improbable Collapse: the Demolition of our Republic", and I've been watching it here on Google video.

It seems pretty good to me. One thing I've learned is that you can actually see the radio tower on the WTC building falling into the building before the rest of the roof starts to fall. This is shown very clearly in the film, and it seems to me yet more solid evidence of the "controlled demolition" theory.

There's also a concerted effort to pull together the various reports of explosions in the buildings. One is left in no doubt that many, many people witnessed explosions there that day.

It hits all the usual targets, of course, but without sensationalism. And seeing the WTC7 collapse from several shots, again, I'd never noticed that the raised structure on the roof collapses before everything else.




posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Yes it's very strange how the top of the building implodes like that.

I guess it was due to the impact of the plane, and the ensueing fires that weakened the steel enough for the hat truss, and the 47 boxed columns underneath it to totally collapse with great symetry.

As far as WTC 7 is concerned. . .

Shhhhh. . .



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
64 views and no replies?

Some feedback would be nice.

I'm doing this to bump but also to check out some new features of the redesign.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Wow... spooky. Did that post just as the first reply came in.

But I still can't edit my posts. Just checking.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Good vid with plenty of facts. I prefer this type of doco.

But .. once again they include USELESS and distracting crap:

The scene at ground zero where a 911 truther is arguing with the crowd is silly.
If I believed the official story, I'd think this guy was nuts too.

And the "lawyer in the courtroom" sequence near the end is pointless as well.

There's more than enough excellent Jones and Griffin footage .. they don't need that other foolishness.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I agree. The end rather spoilt what had been a very decent effort: the courtroom summing up was hammy and unnecessary, and there was also that awful echoing "you know what to do... you know what to do... you know what to do..." I know what to do... advise people that they can stop watching when the lawyer comes to sum up at the end. Turn the rest of it off, folks... nothing to see here.

BUT, most of it was pretty damn good imo



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I have just sat and watched the film

A few months ago I mocked someone who posted a thread regarding a controlled explosion bringing down the towers.

After watching this film a think there is more evidence pointing towards this being an 'inside job' that against.

Just watching tower 7 coming down in such a fashion gave me butterflies in my stomach.

What can we do about this though ?
Apart from passing on the information.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
I have just sat and watched the film

A few months ago I mocked someone who posted a thread regarding a controlled explosion bringing down the towers.

Dont feel bad, I used to do that to, untill I took an honest, unbiased look at all the information out there.



After watching this film I think there is more evidence pointing towards this being an 'inside job' than against.

Just watching tower 7 coming down in such a fashion gave me butterflies in my stomach.
Its not just this film, its many more just like it, and its other things like the inititial desire by the feds to forgo an investigation. Its the shoddy 9/11 commission, the piss-poor NIST report, the lack of media coverage about serious questions and so on.



What can we do about this though ?
Apart from passing on the information.


Continue what you are doing. Talk to everybody you can, tell them not to believe you, tell them to look into it themselfs. Anyone with any degree of intelligence and courage can look into 9/11 and see that the official story is bullocks. (it does take courage tho, and that is what most are lacking)

Dont give up, spread the word far and wide, encouraging people to look into it and make their own decisions, continue your research and arm yourself with the facts.
Dont waste your time trying to convince people, just inform them. Some people will not see it or admit it, thats fine, move on to the next person. Cast not yee pearls before swine.

Good luck and God Bless.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Just watched the film, very interesting. I also watched 911 Mysteries, another thought provoking film.

Now one thing has got me thinking. Les Robertson, one of the deigners of WTC says that it couldnt have collapsed. The guy from UL says the steel is up to spec and couldnt have collapsed. The impression I get is that everybody involved with the buildings construction says it couldnt have collapsed.

WTC 1 & 2 were, from what I understand, unique buildings. A central core and outer wall supporting floors, so that there were no support columns in the office space. Provides more rentable space.

Say the designers got it wrong. It wasnt as strong as they thought it was. UL certified the steel, the building collapses. Both groups either say they were wrong and face possible lawsuits, or they just keep saying it couldnt have happened.

I will probably be shot down in flames on this one, but I want to see what other people think.

regards

beagle



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
It's certainly a possibility.
Usually the most simple explanation is the ACTUAL explanation so you could be right.
It's such a big issue - it's almost as if I don't want to beleive the evidence put forward in the film so in a way I hope you are right.
Either way a detailed investigation needs to be carried out to look at this other evidence.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I cannot wait to see the video tomorrow. This computer at work doesn't have speakers.


[edit on 6-12-2006 by notsosmart]



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Well, I saw "Improbable Collapse: the Demolition of our Republic" this morning. Overall, I like the presentation of 911 Mysteries Demolitions better. But, Improbable Collapse is a good subliment to 911 Mysteries. There appears to be quite a few testimonies to the explosions going off before the collapse. The fact the way WTC 7 came down the way it did, without that much significant damage to bring it down in the first place, bothers me.

Some of you didn't like the courtroom thing at the end. I didn't mind it since it was just a closing argument done in a courtroom fashion.

But, overall, if I were to show someone new to the idea of the 911 conspiracy, I would show 911 Mysteries Demolitions first.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Yes it's very strange how the top of the building implodes like that.

I guess it was due to the impact of the plane, and the ensueing fires that weakened the steel enough for the hat truss, and the 47 boxed columns underneath it to totally collapse with great symetry.

As far as WTC 7 is concerned. . .

Shhhhh. . .




They 94 box columns in the 2 buildings would have needed to be heated from the point of impact down to the bottom floors all evenly at temperatures greater than what the NIST report said were achieved to have a symmetrical collapse.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
shocking video thank you very much



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
Now one thing has got me thinking. Les Robertson, one of the deigners of WTC says that it couldnt have collapsed. The guy from UL says the steel is up to spec and couldnt have collapsed. The impression I get is that everybody involved with the buildings construction says it couldnt have collapsed.

...Both groups either say they were wrong and face possible lawsuits, or they just keep saying it couldnt have happened.


The guy who said the steel was up to spec was fired for saying so by his own company. That doesn't make sense in terms of the theory you're advancing, but does in terms of powerful interests silencing a dissenting voice. Also, I don't believe the architects are facing any kind of lawsuit, although if there is one, please feel free to post a link.

And of course none of this accounts for WTC7. When I saw the towers go down it looked suspicious, but when I later saw the tapes of building 7, that's when I started being very, very sure indeed that something was wrong. Obviously even the collapse of building 7 doesn't give you that feeling, but it was what made my mind up.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Hi Rich23 thanks for the reply.

Well for starters, I havent got any theory to advance
I'm just sitting here sharing my thoughts and speculations to see what you all think. I havent really thought about 911 before, but found this site, read some threads and watched those films. That got me thinking (not a good idea:lol


Les Robertson when questioned about the collapse, says that he designed WTC to withstand a 707 impact. The films go on to prove that a 767 couldn't have brought the buildings down. A fire couldn't have brought the buildings down. But they fell down anyway.Poor design? Why not? If it is, then old Les has a lot to loose. Reputation for starters, and like I said before the possibilty of law suits. And no Rich23, as far as I'm aware theres nothing on the web relating to Les being sued for the WTC collapse. Hey he even helped NIST do wind load calcs on the WTC
NIST press release clickety click!
A conflict of interest? Or the best man for the job?

Now the guy from UL. Yes he was fired.
You say it makes sense "in terms of poweful forces silencing a dissenting voice" Thinking about it I'd say yes, you could be right. But my take of the "silencing" is of a man who was drawing attention to his companies role in the certification process and saying "Hey, its all OK 'cos it's properly certified!" UL don't want attention drawn to their certification process.
"Nothing to see here, move along!"
Why not? The buildings collapse and your reputation could be damaged. The guy thought he was doing them a favour. They see it as attention drawn to them at the wrong time.

Now WTC 7. That could have been CD. Old Larry sees a chance to cash in the insurance, gets some guys in from the mob. BOOM!! Laughing all the way to the bank!

So Rich23 thats my random thoughts of "a bear with little brain".
Was it all controlled demolition and govt conspiracy?
I don't know.
Was it bad design, years of poor maintenance and then a cover up to protect the guilty?
Why not?
It's simpler than suitcase nukes.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
Hi Rich23 thanks for the reply.

Well for starters, I havent got any theory to advance
I'm just sitting here sharing my thoughts and speculations to see what you all think. I havent really thought about 911 before, but found this site, read some threads and watched those films. That got me thinking (not a good idea:lol


Les Robertson when questioned about the collapse, says that he designed WTC to withstand a 707 impact. The films go on to prove that a 767 couldn't have brought the buildings down. A fire couldn't have brought the buildings down. But they fell down anyway.Poor design? Why not? If it is, then old Les has a lot to loose. Reputation for starters, and like I said before the possibilty of law suits. And no Rich23, as far as I'm aware theres nothing on the web relating to Les being sued for the WTC collapse. Hey he even helped NIST do wind load calcs on the WTC
NIST press release clickety click!
A conflict of interest? Or the best man for the job?

Now the guy from UL. Yes he was fired.
You say it makes sense "in terms of poweful forces silencing a dissenting voice" Thinking about it I'd say yes, you could be right. But my take of the "silencing" is of a man who was drawing attention to his companies role in the certification process and saying "Hey, its all OK 'cos it's properly certified!" UL don't want attention drawn to their certification process.
"Nothing to see here, move along!"
Why not? The buildings collapse and your reputation could be damaged. The guy thought he was doing them a favour. They see it as attention drawn to them at the wrong time.

Now WTC 7. That could have been CD. Old Larry sees a chance to cash in the insurance, gets some guys in from the mob. BOOM!! Laughing all the way to the bank!

So Rich23 thats my random thoughts of "a bear with little brain".
Was it all controlled demolition and govt conspiracy?
I don't know.
Was it bad design, years of poor maintenance and then a cover up to protect the guilty?
Why not?
It's simpler than suitcase nukes.


Welcome Smoking Beagle!

If you dont mind, here are a couple of MY answers to your points...take them for what you want....just thought id throw my 2 cents in.

The design was for a plane lost in fog..or an accident. It did NOT take into account getting slammed at 400 or so MPH or the jet fuel that was in there. The buildings did in fact survive the impact of the planes. It was a combination of fires, and the impact.

Larry did not benifit from the towers collapsing. Since when is the MOB control demolition experts?

Not sure where you are going wit hthe suitcase nukes... radiation levels at Groud Zero did not support any type of nuclear device.

Have fun searching around..this is a great site to learn from !



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Hi Rich, Your thread made me think of a couple of things, one, people above the impact floors were obviously unijured so one presumes the structure must be ok as per the mobile calls. The second is have any of the families of loved ones lost mentioned anything in conversations with people in the buildings, I mean the occupants would of been unaware of the impending collapse so they would of continued with their calls untill the buildings fell.

There must of been hundreds of people making calls to home and family right up to the point of collapse, surely some must have mentioned hearing explosions in the building or anything else. I find it very strange that no one has come forward with such information, it must exist if only in the minds of family relatives. These poor souls would have assumed that they were going to be rescued so I'm sure they would have relayed the events as they were happening.

Have family members been told to keep quite on this matter, have they recieved threats etc. There must be some info regarding this matter so why have we not heard anything after 5 years especially in light of the lets rock phone call.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Well, Beagle, once you start in on that slippery slope by accepting the possibility that WTC7 was demolished, you then have to accept that it therefore must have been prepared for demolition in advance of the day. You don't bring down a building that size in one day, there are no reports of explosives being brought into the building on the day, and you don't bring explosives into a burning building... so where does that leave you?

Looking at a big hole, thinking... it's a bloody big rabbit lives down there, do I want to see how deep it goes?

It's also interesting that according to the movie, you won't find clips of the collapse of WTC7 anywhere but on the net - they won't show it on TV. That tells me that a) the media is under tight control on this one and b) the footage looks suspicious and rightly so.

Edit: Larry Silverstein did, as I understand it, benefit from the "collapse" of those buildings - the fullest explanation is in 9/11 Mysteries. From what I remember he took out insurance specifically against the possibility of terrorist attack and then actually went to court (and won) to argue that both towers went down undertwo separate terrorist attacks, so he collected twice on his insurance.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by rich23]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Rich, Your thread made me think of a couple of things, one, people above the impact floors were obviously unijured so one presumes the structure must be ok as per the mobile calls. The second is have any of the families of loved ones lost mentioned anything in conversations with people in the buildings, I mean the occupants would of been unaware of the impending collapse so they would of continued with their calls untill the buildings fell.

There must of been hundreds of people making calls to home and family right up to the point of collapse, surely some must have mentioned hearing explosions in the building or anything else. I find it very strange that no one has come forward with such information, it must exist if only in the minds of family relatives. These poor souls would have assumed that they were going to be rescued so I'm sure they would have relayed the events as they were happening.

Have family members been told to keep quite on this matter, have they recieved threats etc. There must be some info regarding this matter so why have we not heard anything after 5 years especially in light of the lets rock phone call.


Magic...there are several 911 calls that have been released. I listened to one actually that has a man talking to a 911 operator when the building collapses.

If you are in danger...and you have time to call loved ones...you do it. THEN you spend the rest of that time trying to SURVIVE!!

Oh..and the phone call was "lets roll".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join