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.

 

The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Let's evaluate .....


Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this [color="#FFA500"]orange and [color="#FF0000"]red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
This EMS Captain, is describing something she experienced with her own eyes and ears because she was at the scene. She states that she seen orange and red flashes occuring around the entire building,and with each orange and red flash came explosions which got bigger, all of which travelled up and around the building. Now, this is incredible testimony, but this begs you to ask the question, "What would people have seen or heard if the towers were actually demolished"? Will not people see flashes of light accompanied by a loud explosions which would travel around the entire building's parimeter until it's fully collapsed? Yes, exactly; that is exactly what people would see. A lot of people on 9/11 have very similar testimony which matches up accurately when it comes to hearing explosions and flashes; they all saw the same phenomenon but through different preceptions. Based upon what many of these credible first responders and hero's claim they saw, there testimony EASILY fits the description of a Controlled Demolition, hands down, you cannot argue against this. Why? You cant argue against it because if there really was a controlled demolition on 9/11, the testimony of what people saw and heard would be exactly the same as what is shown above!

With the eye witness testimony as evidence, if you try to argue against the Towers being demolished what your really implying is that there is no way to distinguish between the testimony of a controlled demolition and testimony of building collapsing naturally. When in actuality, there is a large difference between what people would experience in seeing a controlled demolition and what people would experience in seeing a building collapse naturally. All of what we saw on 9/11 shown all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Let's clarify.....

The Towers cannot exhibit a gravity driven collapse sequence while at the same time maintaining all the characteristics of a controlled demolition; this is a contradiction.

The characteristics included:
1.Radial symmetry:The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions. This is a verifiable fact, steel ton girders were found 500ft away from the actual debris perimeter. A gravity driven collapse would not produce such an effect. The towers also fell vertically, straight down, the centered collapses meant the falling mass followed the path of maximum resistance. That's the opposite of how we would expect a structure to behave when it falls within any kind of natural process. Even if the towers were made out of legos or clay, we wouldn't expect them to collapse in such a dead-centered fashion. There are many examples in history of steel-framed buildings undergoing unintentional collapses as a result of severe earthquakes, but no such collapses have been vertical global collapses like the collapses of the Twin Towers and building 7. On the contrary, steel-framed buildings destroyed by earthquakes have toppled.




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Continued......

2. Rapid descent:The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum. The towers fell with little to no resistance. You have 110 story buildings falling within the range of 10-15 seconds. How do you get 110 floors, with floors under the impacted floors undamaged, to fall within 10-15 seconds, straight down? The popular belief is that the buildings pancaked, despite the explosions occuring along with flashes of light, alot of people just figured the buildings were pancaking;this is proven to be false. With the pancake theory, it requires 110 floors with intact concrete (a lot of mass) hitting the below floor and then those hitting the next floor, from that theory you would expect to see at the end of the collapse, a whole stack of floors piled upon each other with the spindals of the core columns standing once the collapse is completed. But that is not what we see, we see dust being produced from the very start of the collapse, at the top. If there is dust being produced where is the mass which causes the collapse? As a set of floors hits a stationary floor that would slow the collapse down but to get the collapse to be rapid, you would have to have the mass moved out of the way. Now what can move mass out of the way in order for a collapse to be rapid? Explosives, exactly what Eye Witnesses were describing, along with flashes of light.

3.Demolition waves:The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times

Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times

The Eye Witness reports are consistant with this characteristic of a synchronized row of explosives which are only seen in controlled demolitions. In the picture below we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what appears to be rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. The demolition wave is actually advancing ahead of the actual collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down! As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel which is ejected out horizontally at high speed. To account for this phenomenon of very rapid ejection of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Continued.....

4. Demolition squibs:The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.


Debunkers claim these are not because of explosives, but are from air being compressed and push out because of the pancaking floors, but this also has been proven false. Through photos and video it is evident that the squibs contained thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But the problem is, these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus, the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there would be no source of the dust for the squib, besides explosives.

Up above is also a picture of the second plane hitting the South Tower, this was taken from frame by frame. In the picture the plane's nose has just begun to approach the building yet CLEARLY we can see towards the right,a synchronized row of explosives detonating BEFORE the plane even fully impacts the buildings. Debunkers have no logical explanation for this phenomenon, mainly because they refuse to consider explosives as a hypothesis. But as stated, you clearly see explosions occuring before the plane fully impacts, this photo alone gives great credibility to the fact that the planes were nothing more but diversionary blast for pre-positioned explosives to go off, making the real culprit appear as the planes. This is made even more credible when you consider the testimony of William Rodriguez a janitor who worked in the Trade Centers for 20 years, he states there was a large heavy duty explosion within the buildings basement seconds before the first plane actually impacted. He states this was a totally seperate event, occuring in close time proximity of the first plane's impact. Surely this adds stardlying revalations to the truth about 9/11 which has yet to be uncovered.

5.Pulverization and Pyroclastic Flow:The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust. The identifiable material within the rubble can be classified into just five categories:
1.pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
2.pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
3.unrecognizable pieces of metal
4.pieces of paper
5.dust. There isnt concrete present ANYWHERE.



A worker at Ground Zero describes what was found in the rubble in the way of objects other than the Towers' steel.
"You have two 110 story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big: (makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust."-Testimony from Naudet brothers Documentary 9/11/01

6.Global Collapse.The Towers were destroyed entirely, their steel skeletons were shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.

I rest my case. Case Closed.

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 29/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I have been waiting for this all day. You sure took your time for this


This is fantastic piece of evidence.

The plane has not even hit the building and already there are explosions seen.

Great work Urban


I look forward to the debunker's responses.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Yeah great thread! First time I've seen the pic with the plane impact and explosives going off before it hits....

Another one, like the South Tower tilt, that will probably be ignored by the de-bunkers cause there is no explanation other than planted explosives.
Either that, or the building anticipated the impact and was crapping itself...lol



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The explosion happening in the building at the same time the plane hits is a fake pic



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   


Yeah great thread! First time I've seen the pic with the plane impact and explosives going off before it hits....
Thx, it shocked me myself when I seen it, just another thing the public overlooked as the planes impacted. Everybody couldnt help but be focused on the plane, but afterwards, when I started hearing all this testimony about explosions, I started playing the video back looking at the building. I'm not sure, but I also think the guys from Loose Change has a picture like this.




Another one, like the South Tower tilt, that will probably be ignored by the de-bunkers cause there is no explanation other than planted explosives. Either that, or the building anticipated the impact and was crapping itself...lol
Ouch! Ouch! Dont hit me dont hit!! (Building tilts....)




The explosion happening in the building at the same time the plane hits is a fake pic
The picture was taken from a clip of the plane impacting from PBS Nova. So, um no I didnt digitally edit it.

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
The explosion happening in the building at the same time the plane hits is a fake pic


Out of all the information provided in the above post, you only commented on 2 % of the info


How about this, what are the characteristics of a Controlled Demolition?

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yes that pic is fake. Other than that outstanding. Anyway you wont help the blind see the light.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Proof its fake????????? The Burden of proof is on you. Currently, Im trying to see if I can get the same thing from different angles. It is always good to duplicate. And out of all of the characteristics stated in the post, you choose to debunk 0 of them, good job!

"Hellooooooooooooooooooooo, is there any debunkers out there?"

I really dont want this post to get swept under the rug, all I want is a formal intellectual discussion, no flames, no jokes, no insults. I simply want to know how can buildings perform a "natural gravity driven collapse" yet show all the characteristics of a controlled demoltion.......

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I agree they used explosives to destroy the building, that picture is fake though (the one with the plane and the row of explosives) its two different frames pasted together.

I would like to know what sort of explosives you think they used, why there was no copious traces of c4 or other conventional explosives, and what kept the fires burning for 3 months and made those pools of molten steel.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by An Urban Legend

Where in the world did you get that image? From video, if so which one? I've not seen that pic or noticed that fram in any video I've seen so far, but if that pic is real then I don't see anyway out of concluding that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
Great Post, I know the frustration of trying to get people to see the trees in the forest.
I don't know if you have read this thread or not, its a long one but there's a pile of information there you might find of interest on controlled demolition as well.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Suspects...
www.ilaam.net...
Motive...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Method...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Premeditation...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Damn, that's almost the makings of a criminal indictment.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by An Urban Legend

Where in the world did you get that image? From video, if so which one? I've not seen that pic or noticed that fram in any video I've seen so far, but if that pic is real then I don't see anyway out of concluding that the WTC was a controlled demolition.


Its not real, I have the original footage here on DVD and those explosions happen later, its two different frames pasted together.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Well dont put fake pictures up and maybe I would comment on the other 98%.
Why would I say good job when there is a fake pic.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
Its not real, I have the original footage here on DVD and those explosions happen later, its two different frames pasted together.

I'd still like to know the source of that image, if it's fake then it would be good to know if the OP made it, or if they picked it up somewhere, and from where if they did so we can add them to the BS'er list.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I didnt make a "fake picture" actually......its a frame by frame from physics911.net...#

I couldnt have known its fake! Anyway, reguardless if it is a fake or not I would like responses to the rest of the information of the buildings collapes, photo aside.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
phsyics911.net says this about the image...
"This frame, allegedly from a news video shown on the PBS program NOVA"
Anybody collect NOVA episodes by any chance?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   


I would like to know what sort of explosives you think they used, why there was no copious traces of c4 or other conventional explosives, and what kept the fires burning for 3 months and made those pools of molten steel.
For this, I have no answer. But what I do have is eye witness testimony, pictures of squibs well below the demolition wave, and we have molten steel under all 3 buildings. Yes, it burned for months on end, but the cause? We dont know. Steven Jones would argue thermite. But what's not mistaken is, there were definately bombs in those buildings.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The air rushing out from the collapse is whats causing the debris to feather outward. There's a tremendous amount of weight falling consecutively flat planes collapsing against each other pushing air out in a uniform ^ pattern. I'm no debunker and believe someone else did this, but I think the plane impacting the building at that speed would do the trick. Like a domino effect. Building 7 on the other hand is more suspicious in how it came down.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
First can people please not call me a paid debunker or debunker because that's plain fustrating and just lets me exercise a nice feature of ATS. The Ignore button.

It's impossible for it to be a gravity collapse as per controller demolition. When the building starts collapsing the floors in the bottom are stationary. How can it be NOT a pancake collapse if the floors below it are not falling?

Also you cannot compare Earthquake collapses with what happened at 9/11. TOTALLY diferant things.



Up above is also a picture of the second plane hitting the South Tower, this was taken from frame by frame. In the picture the plane's nose has just begun to approach the building yet CLEARLY we can see towards the right,a synchronized row of explosives detonating BEFORE the plane even fully impacts the buildings.

So... A commerical airliner was flown into a PRECISE part of the building where explosives were rigged...?


Debunkers have no logical explanation for this phenomenon, mainly because they refuse to consider explosives as a hypothesis.

Someone else could say:

Conspiracy theorists have no logical explanation for this phenomen, mainly because they refuse to consider that it is completely illogical and stupid to think that an airliner was flown PRECISELY into a specific part of a building.

Other than those great post.


P.S. Nice avatar.... LOL!

[edit on 28/6/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

[edit on 28/6/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join