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.

 

Only 56 Minutes - South Tower

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Until now I never gave this much thought, but come on it was on fire for ONLY 56 minutes, and then it fell???

Now if you believe this was a CD, there are 2 reasons why this may have happened.

1) The controller made a huge mistake and brought down the wrong tower at the given time, when he was told to.

2)And this one really scares me, since the other tower had already been on fire for a while, evcautions were already happening in the South Tower by some. So to kill more people they blew it first on purpose!!!
If that is true, I don't know how much more evil you can get.




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Interesting theory, one of the best causes to cast suspicion on the official theory that the towers fell due to fire...

I've seen this discussed on other forums too, it remains at the forefront of the 9-11 conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Forget it.

Most people can't see through their own two eyes because they choose not to. They would rather have people they "trust" to interpret what they see for them.

These people are complete cowards.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The fire fighters reached the floors where the plane (which never was) “hit” in the South Tower first, before arriving at the upper floors in the North Tower. When they started radioing back what they were seeing they had to be silenced, but quick.

That’s the depressing truth.
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
This is truly odd,and the second tower to be hit wasn't even hit in the center and it still managed to fall straight down.Why didn't it topple?56 minutes of fire and a plane impact ,in my eyes,aren't enough to cause the collapse we saw on 9/11.
edit:grammer

[edit on 16-8-2007 by crowpruitt]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I posted this in another thread and it needs to be put in this one.

Just one thing that bothers me about this, why bring down a tower LESS THAN 1 HOUR LATER after it was hit. Wouldn't you wait until most were out.
OR is that the biggest error of the day, whoever is in control of the operation tells the controller blow the first building that was hit. And he accidently does the second building that was hit.

Imagine the reaction, "NOT THAT ONE YOU **** **** *****"!!!!!

Controller "Oooopppppsss"

To me that is one of the biggest glaring questions, that building burned for less than hour, most Americans think the first building hit came down first beacuse it burned the longest. Wrong!



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
The fire fighters reached the floors where the plane (which never was) “hit” in the South Tower first, before arriving at the upper floors in the North Tower. When they started radioing back what they were seeing they had to be silenced, but quick.


I agree with this. I think the "plan" was sold to the heavy neocon behind the scenes guys on the basis of minimal loss of life. Hit the towers with the planes and then evacuate the survivors of the plane hits before blowing the buildings.

Unfortunately the FDNY guys were a little too gung ho. They got into position where they could have doused the fires in the South Tower and wrecked the "cover story" i.e., the plane hits, which were to be used to explain the collapse of the buildings. Consequently the South Tower had to be blown first, ahead of schedule and out of sequence, since it was the second tower hit.

Even worse, once they had blown the South Tower, they were forced to blow the North Tower ahead of schedule too, because if they had stuck to the plan and evacuated everyone from the building they would have had to explain why the first tower hit stayed standing so much longer than the second tower hit.

This was a major eff-up in their plans. If it hadn't happened the whole hornet's nest around 9/11 would have been much, much smaller.

This and other things are discussed in the thread "Devil in the Details".

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 3-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Unrelated to the firefighters: Is it possible things were rushed because of a partial, natural "collapse" of WTC2? The infamous tilt, I mean. I only bring it up because of footage that shows one of the corners buckling. It's the only part of the collapse that seems like it would be caused by the initial damage, be it plane or explosives.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Saidin
 


Great videos, it really amazes me that the top portion of that town never hit the ground, it just evaparated in thin air.

My opinion, is the builings had explosion all through them.
Reading the Government version of thier Lies, of how the building fell dose not stand up to Science that has been persented to us.

Seen how the top portion fell, if it did fall the way the Government said it did ,then we should have seen slabs of broken concrete at the base of the towers and the rest of the tower should have been still standing.

But that not what we see here is it. The Debunkers will keep shoveing the NIST report down our throats. (likes its the Holy Bible.)

Folks, the deunkers will be in this thread in a few min....just watch and wait.





[edit on 8/3/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained


9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


Well, Cool Hand Luke has solved the South tower pan-cake therory.

Just close this thread, there nothing more to discuss.

Thanks for the video Cool Hand Luke, now I know what happened to the South tower.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


Thanks for posting. After watching the first video, I am left wondering why/how the floors beneath all collapsed as well.



[edit on 8/4/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


In the second video I was curious as to why they jumped away so fast from their photo "evidence" of 25% of WTC-7 being "scooped out...by debris." So when I paused it to look closer, all I saw was flame coming out of the windows on one floor. Where is the "scoop?"



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Yeah. And thanks to the video I finally figured out where all the molten metal came from too, since the video agrees that the fires weren't hot enough to melt metal. They must have brought molten metal in crucible trucks to the site and poured it into holes leading to the basement, so everyone could wonder about it as they cleaned up the mess afterward. A real showman's touch.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I think the reason they demolished the South Tower first, even though it got hit second, is because the missile impact was lower than that of the North Tower. Since they used "pan-caking" as the explanation, it only made sense to drop the tower with more floors above the damaged area. I think they were thinking it seems logical that more floors equals more downward force equals faster collapse. It would make sense in a pan-cake type collapse, but it was in no way a pan-cake collapse.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Niobis]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



I am left wondering why/how the floors beneath all collapsed as well.


Gravity. This vid gives you a better look.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Topple-Over" Scenario


9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained


It's tough to see through the smoke from all the fire going on that side of the building. But if you look closely at the ones in this vid, you can see substantial damage.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
56 minutes of fire and a plane impact ,in my eyes,aren't enough to cause the collapse we saw on 9/11.


9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Niobis
 


9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 

The 9/11 Debunked videos that you keep posting are propaganda exercises designed to mislead the innocent. Anyone who has been around this topic for a while would not take videos like this seriously. The sound tracks are nice though. Very soporific. They would make good sleepy time listening. D'oh! I wonder if those sneaky filmmakers meant to put people to sleep, or should I say, back to sleep.

Here's a link to a discussion of the NIST report, for serious people.

911research.wtc7.net...







[edit on 4-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join