9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are no corner columns, only where the two perimeter walls meet.

Ah I forgot about that angle, it's been many months since I worked on this video.

From my findings of the finished corners, there were no windows there, which creates a scenario of, if we're to take this video and that event as literal evidence, then it comes down to either that the video indeed shows the use of explosives, or well we're to not take the event as actual evidence.

I hate to play absolutes, however unless someone can come up with a photo showing windows there that's the way it is. Below are all the images of the corners that i could find, mostly from the interior anyways, and believe me i spent 2 days scouring the internet looking for interior photos for this project"
s24.photobucket.com...

An interior example:

Exterior:

Find the corner-windows!!!

Solid corners ladies and gentlemen... So did the compressed air push thru the drywall/marble-exterior aluminum cladding to make the event in the video occur, or do we just refuse to accept the video anomoly as being any at all????

[edit on 3-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Excellent question.

Would everyone talking about wtc7 and pentagon go to the proper thread. thnx

1) My initial math figures were wrong, and the free fall speed is about 9 seconds for that height. Thanks for the guy who corrected me on that. But after a little research I see that the 10.5 second statistic is based completely on seismic readings which don't come close to telling the whole story. Basically anyone can take readings and bend them any way they want, that doesn't make it true. (Yes I know that includes what I am about to say.) The readings can be interpreted to show closer to 15 seconds for the actual collapse. Obviously it is hard to get an exact time visually because of the smoke and dust....

2) Seismic explosions. This is just ridiculous... "explosions" on a seismometer a mile away would look exactly the same as a building falling down. (Initial big pieces hitting the ground, say from the top of the building, before the majority of the building gets to the ground. This would look a lot like the same thing, and actually supports a slower, longer fall as initial pieces hit the ground, and then seconds later larger and larger pieces start coming down.

3) Collapsing in on itself. Many have stated that the fact the buildings collapsed neatly in on themselves proves controlled demolition. But think about this... You're designing a building that is over 1,000 feet high. If some sort of major structural problem was to happen (like, say, an earthquake) you would not want the building to fall to the side (or to fall on to the other tower next to it) you would purposely design it to fall in on itself to avoid extra "collateral damage." Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet... but the jet they used for the design was a 727, a good deal smaller than the 747s that hit the towers. Also, the towers did, in fact, survive the initial impact of both jets. The reason the towers collapsed is a combination of factors resulting from the jet impact. The impact itself weakened the core steel, and more importantly stripped away the fireproofing from the columns, leaving them exposed to jet fuel fires. Though jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steal (see the next bullet point for more on this) at half of the melting temperature (around 1000 or 1200 degrees) steel looses 90% of its structure integrity. In most cases you might still consider it to be "strong" at this temperature... but we are talking about steel with thousands of tons of building on its weight. It is EASY to imagine how this could collapse a building. Easier than saying that thousands of people helped plan to murder thousands of Americans, and then kept it out of the press. For some reason they could kill thousands of every day people, but they can't stop a couple conspiracy theorists?

4. Molten metal. This has already been stated, but I guess some of you didnt see it the first 6 times in this thread. Just because someone sees a pool of molten metal and calls it steel doesn't make it steel. The building (and the aircraft) had large amounts of aluminum in them. Aluminum melts much easier than steel, and most of the pools of metal that were called steel by people who know nothing about the properties of metal can be explained by this. Why were the pools in the subbasement and not towards the top of the heap? Because they were throughout the heap because they composed a large portion of the facade of the building. And when things melt, they 'drip' down between pieces of a loose pile and pool at the bottom. Think about it.

5. Someone mentioned the impact of a plane not being enough to collapse a building made from noodles or whatever. Anyways, like I said above, the impact of the plane did not collapse the buildings, the ensuing fire and contributing factors from the impact brought it down.

More to come...

Okay based on #3, here is a conspiracy theory for you since you guys love that.

Say they didn't design the building to collapse on itself from the begining. They weren't worried, or didn't care, or whatever. Now flash forward to 1993. A bomb goes off and it is a wake up call for a lot of people (in government). It is well known (and was well quoted around 9/11) that one of Osama's big plans was to lean the towers in to each other to collapse them. Or crash them down on to the rest of the city. This is serious, widely publicised, not a conspiracy theory.

Here is the consipracy: The government realizes this in 1993 and decides to do something about it. What if they purposely weaken the building in carefully calcuated ways so that if any significant damage ever happens to it it will collapse in on itself rather than fall down on the city causing more damage and loss of life. This is a plausable scenario, much more so than an outright government plot to kill people. It shows rash, bad judgement with a genuine desire to help citizens which perfectly describes the US government. Obviously after 9/11 they would not want it to get out that this happened, so they keep it quiet, burry it deep, and lie about it. This helps explain why they have made some odd choices in the investigations and handling of 9/11. Think about it. This is much more plausable than a crazy government conspiracy.

As I said, expecting people, even those working for "the man" to keep quiet about the murder of thousands is not very smart. People don't just look the other way for that kind of thing. But people would keep quiet if my little theory here was really true. They would keep it quiet because it doesn't show any really malice on the part of the government, it just shows stupidity. And we all know the addage "do not attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance." Keeping quiet about the government being ignorant is a lot easier to do than about them killing thousands of citizens.

If you came out with proof that the government perepetrated 9/11, you would become an instant celebrity. Your government job would surely be lost, and regardless of your money situation if they tried to put you in jail people would come to your aid. You would be a hero to people who you finally gave the truth. It is hard to find a reason not to come out about that. but say its just government stupidity. Coming out and showing that gets you 15 minutes of fame and then you get in legal trouble. You aren't a hero, you're just a guy with no job and maybe some time in jail. Its a lot ahrder to justify to yourself.

*shrug* We all got theories... I just think mine makes logical sense, and all of this "government mass murder" # is pretty stupid.

The Captain is the only one making any sense.....I keep reading while you all call each other names because they are not seeing your point of view. I don't know enough about falling buildings to comment. I have seen large buildings go down in Las Vegas, I just feel like everyone is using his or her theroy as if it were "truth" . This happens everytime there is something awful that happens and we question "Why" "How" and whom. Its a wonderful thing when things are explained as to the facts of it, not with all the name calling and speculations. If you "Can" see what millions cannot see....it must be proved, period.

interesting. another possibility is that the terrorists actually took the materials to make thermite and other such explosives on to the plane with them, rigged to detonate apon impact with the steel columns the thermite easily shreds through the plane and the steel supports like alien blood through a predator breast plate. it would have taken some planning but by jove it would work.

another explaination is that the building was infiltrated by the terrorists themselves before hand and THEY rigged the controlled demolition of the building, slightly more plausible. and i would have believed it...were it not for the simple fact that the us government spent 5 billion dollars a month on the war in iraq...and they gained money...the war would have been the end of the administration(just saying the words "bush administration" sends shivers down my spine) in public view, cant go to war without fully knowing you should. it was the event that riled a nation.

Originally posted by samnx2
The Captain is the only one making any sense.....I keep reading while you all call each other names because they are not seeing your point of view. I don't know enough about falling buildings to comment. I have seen large buildings go down in Las Vegas, I just feel like everyone is using his or her theroy as if it were "truth" . This happens everytime there is something awful that happens and we question "Why" "How" and whom. Its a wonderful thing when things are explained as to the facts of it, not with all the name calling and speculations. If you "Can" see what millions cannot see....it must be proved, period.

like mr sparkle said "we all got theories" and everyone is right in their own mind. i havent seen the name calling, but i will agree with you...the good captain has posted some darn good arguements, but so have the rest of them...for and against...and remember

"whether you think you can or you think you cant...your right" - stewie griffon

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ZGhorus]

Originally posted by ZGhorus
interesting. another possibility is that the terrorists actually took the materials to make thermite and other such explosives on to the plane with them, rigged to detonate apon impact with the steel columns the thermite easily shreds through the plane and the steel supports like alien blood through a predator breast plate. it would have taken some planning but by jove it would work.

another explaination is that the building was infiltrated by the terrorists themselves before hand and THEY rigged the controlled demolition of the building, slightly more plausible. and i would have believed it...were it not for the simple fact that the us government spent 5 billion dollars a month on the war in iraq...and they gained money...the war would have been the end of the administration(just saying the words "bush administration" sends shivers down my spine) in public view, cant go to war without fully knowing you should. it was the event that riled a nation.

I appreciate your opinion... And even more I appreciate that you can admit that your point of view is based on the government's subsequent actions and not on some sort of "evidence" that so many people think they have. It is one thing to have an opinion or belief about what happened, it is another to elevate your opinion to the point where you think it is fact and feel a need to push it on others.

Also, if anyone hasn't seen this before, it perfectly describes ATS in my opinion. I especially love it because of the software reference: imgs.xkcd.com...

giggle...i laughed so hard i pee'd a little! i get your point and unsurprisingly i do think i'm right but the thing about the truth is, i could tell you and tell you until i'm blue in the face...you wont believe me until you figure it out for yourself, i prefer to think of my self as a critical thinker rather than a conspiracy theorist. i'm also incredibly paranoid so it has occured to me that threads like this are exactly what the terrorists were hoping for...how many thought about that eh?

whats the best way to bring a government to its knees? make its nation doubt it...hey presto civil revolt nation weakened. so what if the terrorists are smarter than we give them credit for? planned demolition of 3 buildings and evidence to suggest that the government is involved...such as...becoming close friends with them...going into business with them...so on so forth, not a lot of people i have spoken to have thought about this.

Originally posted by MrSparkle

Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet... but the jet they used for the design was a 727, a good deal smaller than the 747s that hit the towers.

This statement is factually incorrect. The WTC towers were designed to withstand the crash of a Boeing 707, a four engine jet over twice as large as a Boeing 727 which is a 3 engine jet. It was a Boeing 767 that hit the WTC not a Boeing 747. The Boeing 767 and the Boeing 707 were about the same size and weight.

I would respectfully hope that the rest of your post is not as factually incorrect as the above statement.

i AGREE they really do look like demolition flashes

here is another vid, has music but great shots.
www.webfives.com...

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by MrSparkle

Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet... but the jet they used for the design was a 727, a good deal smaller than the 747s that hit the towers.

This statement is factually incorrect. The WTC towers were designed to withstand the crash of a Boeing 707, a four engine jet over twice as large as a Boeing 727 which is a 3 engine jet. It was a Boeing 767 that hit the WTC not a Boeing 747. The Boeing 767 and the Boeing 707 were about the same size and weight.

I would respectfully hope that the rest of your post is not as factually incorrect as the above statement.

You win. But don't worry, the rest of my post contained no facts whatsoever. Incorrect or otherwise. :-)

The interesting part is that a B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building some 55+ years prior to 9/11, and yet it barely got a scratch. And the ESB opened in 1931.

That might be because the ESB is basically a giant brick and a b-25 is a very small plane.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by MrSparkle

Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet... but the jet they used for the design was a 727, a good deal smaller than the 747s that hit the towers.

This statement is factually incorrect. The WTC towers were designed to withstand the crash of a Boeing 707, a four engine jet over twice as large as a Boeing 727 which is a 3 engine jet. It was a Boeing 767 that hit the WTC not a Boeing 747. The Boeing 767 and the Boeing 707 were about the same size and weight.

I would respectfully hope that the rest of your post is not as factually incorrect as the above statement.

And this is so misleading it hurts. They are not at all similar. The 767 weighs much more than a 707.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ccaihc]

hmm i beg to differ, the beoing 707 has an empty weight of either 55,589kg or 66,406kg...which unless i'm all screwed up on my weights is 55tonnes and 66 tonnes rounding down...the 767 has an empty weight of 60 tonnes. so on average i'd say they were about the same size. the 707 i think is slightly larger than the 767 but dont quote me on that.

either way mr.lear is spot on.

and i know i cant even begin to claim to know all that off the top of my noggin so heres the link www.airliners.net...

Originally posted by ZGhorus
hmm i beg to differ, the beoing 707 has an empty weight of either 55,589kg or 66,406kg...which unless i'm all screwed up on my weights is 55tonnes and 66 tonnes rounding down...the 767 has an empty weight of 60 tonnes. so on average i'd say they were about the same size. the 707 i think is slightly larger than the 767 but dont quote me on that.

either way mr.lear is spot on.

and i know i cant even begin to claim to know all that off the top of my noggin so heres the link www.airliners.net...

Unfortunately for you the 767 that hit the WTC was not empty.

This is such a silly argument anyways, even if it was a damn 707 that hit, just because a designer says so, doesn't make it so.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ccaihc]

oookay...so if we fill the 707 with people it still weighs the same as a 767, roughly. believe me when i say i would have prefered it to be empty, as would us all. but the fact remains...empty or not...be it a 767,707 or a 666 the building was designed to cope with the impact of a very big plane hitting it at any level...possibly even multiple times!

Originally posted by ccaihc

This is such a silly argument anyways, even if it was a damn 707 that hit, just because a designer says so, doesn't make it so.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ccaihc]

by that same stretch...just because the government says so doesnt make it so! is it so hard to believe that the jet impact alone would not collapse the building? it certainly wasnt the fires because, as i've already said, no steel building before or after 9/11 has collapse due to fires.

According to wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org... and en.wikipedia.org...) the maximum take off weight for the largest 707 model is 333,600 lbs (when empty the plane weighs 146,400 lbs). The maximum take off weight for the largest 767 is 450,000 lbs (when empty the plane weighs 229,000 lbs).

Besides, if you read what I said... the type of plane doesn't matter. Both of the towers successfully withstood the impact of a 767.

Originally posted by ZGhorus

Originally posted by ccaihc

This is such a silly argument anyways, even if it was a damn 707 that hit, just because a designer says so, doesn't make it so.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ccaihc]

by that same stretch...just because the government says so doesnt make it so! is it so hard to believe that the jet impact alone would not collapse the building? it certainly wasnt the fires because, as i've already said, no steel building before or after 9/11 has collapse due to fires.

Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean it will never happen, especially with such a rare design as the WTC design. You can compare smaller, concrete encased buildings to the WTC all you want, that doesn't make them similar in any fashion.

Nice to see that when I debunked you're claim that they're similar planes you just moved on to your next talking point. Sigh.

^^and not only that, the 767 is longer and wider.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]

Originally posted by ZGhorus
as i've already said, no steel building before or after 9/11 has collapse due to fires.

"(04-29) 18:03 PDT OAKLAND -- Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come."

News Story


[edit on 4-8-2007 by MrSparkle]