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.

 

WTC North Tower collapse in chunks

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Well, until yesterday I never would have believed what
video I saw. But it was there right in front of my eyes.
Sure enough the North Tower collapsed in chunks.
In this sequence of still photos you can clearly
see sections of the building falling off to the side
which gives credibility to the pancake theory.
The top section of the building just snaps off.
Which up to this point I just didn't believe.
But to some folks they're not gonna believe it either.
I don't know if this topic has been done before
but if it has, please forgive me. I just wanted to
bring it up. The video that I got these stills from
is here as it gives a different angle of the collapse
of the North Tower and shows the building came
down in chunks and DID NOT fall straight down
in it's footprint. So for those of you who think they
came down in their footprint, check this out

Do I think the government is still lying? Yes !!!
But this sheds new light on my rationale for
control demolition. As this collapse was definitely
not controlled.

video here:
North Tower Collapse ~ Different Angle











posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
In this sequence of still photos you can clearly
see sections of the building falling off to the side
which gives credibility to the pancake theory.


Uh, how?

In case you need to be reminded, "pancake theory" holds that the floors pancaked one-on-top-of-another to cause the collapse. Also in case you need to be reminded, even the NIST team refutes pancake theory, insisting instead that the buildings began to fail from sagging (not instantly-free-falling) floors, supposedly significantly deflecting enough outer columns to cause the entire buildings to fail there. No one has analyzed the global collapses and there is no "official story" there.


The building falling apart in big chunks debunks pancake theory, showing the failures were NOT floor-by-floor.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Uh, how?
The building falling apart in big chunks debunks pancake theory, showing the failures were NOT floor-by-floor.

I don't know about that. It would appear to me that
the floors were failing and the core was still to some
degree intact in these stills. Else the top section falling
off to the side would have nothing to bounce off of.
Also the pancake theory only works on those floors
underneath the impact area. This big chunk shown was
the very top chunk of the building. Any thoughts on that ?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
I don't know about that. It would appear to me that
the floors were failing


Floor-by-floor? How does that possibly correspond to what you just pointed out?


Also the pancake theory only works on those floors
underneath the impact area


It doesn't "work" either way. No one endorses it anymore, no one ever tested it, it was and remains a "thought experiment" of sorts that is totally unjustified in the real world. Can you cite for me a credible source for the "pancake theory"? NIST is the latest the federal government has to say about the collapses, why don't you look there?


This big chunk shown was the very top chunk of the building. Any thoughts on that ?


Yes: the core was severed by explosives on the nearest mechanical floor. Thus WTC2's entire top began to rotate, for example, before the vertical collapse began. Watch for yourself.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The pancake theory has been debunked by many people and on many forums.As mentioned above even NIST refutes this hypothesis.
What remained after the collapse of WTC 1&2 doesn't support the hypothesis as well.
There are a lot of pictures showing what a building looks like after a pancake collapse.Just google those two words and compare them to the WTCs.
Some people(professional and amateur) put the collapse at 13 seconds which is only 2 seconds slower than free fall speed.
I have no doubt that large chunks of the building fell off, I have plenty of photos that prove that but they are pictures of the outer steel portion of the building.
What happened to the steel core of the building if this pancake collapse occurred?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Wow, I got some catching up to do. I was under the assumption
that the government's pancake theory was the official story
of the collapse. I hadn't heard any different til now.
Anybody got a link to that NIST report ?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
Wow, I got some catching up to do. I was under the assumption
that the government's pancake theory was the official story
of the collapse.


Why does it matter? What makes their theory automatically right, when the first one that FEMA came out with is suddenly so obviously wrong? Do you realize how much information you aren't aware of?

What disappoints me, is I know you're just wanting to argue with someone about it. You'll read the NIST report and take it as true word just like you did FEMA's theory, and you'll never know the better, because you have no idea what in the HELL you are talking about. But you don't care, do you?

[edit on 18-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
If these images do anything, they beg the question: if the entire top section of the building rotated off and to the side, where did the energy to bring about a global collapse come from?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
If these images do anything, they beg the question: if the entire top section of the building rotated off and to the side, where did the energy to bring about a global collapse come from?


Rofl, this is a good presentation of the fact that the "pile driver" theory doesn't have much of a "pile driver" for either building once the tops fell off.

Another thing that gets me, is that you'll notice the collapses don't even slow down even though they're losing so much mass over the sides (demonstrable by how little was left in the footprints). They kept going and going at the same rate rergardless of how much mass was "falling" above them.





It looks like the top disintegrates before the collapse even moves lower than the impact floors.


Anyone ever noticed that when WTC1 starts to collapse, the upper floors all fold down onto the impact floors before the collapse moves beyond that point? Almost as if someone were waiting to bring the top down before actually collapsing the building from the impact site down?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
When the top part of the South tower slides of to the side, it desintegrates in mid-air. How could that have happened without the use of explosives? This has always stood out to me, regarding the WTC collapses.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Hello everyone,

I noticed something in the vid that I'd missed before. Watching the giant antenna it first appears to tilt slightly then just before it disappears it seems to straighten up. Any one else notice this?

Also, if I'm reading the drawings here correctly, it appears the antenna base is mounted directly to the top of some of the steel core columns. (Note: the drawings above are not "official" and were "leaked" back in March of this year by an anonymous "whistleblower," read about it here)



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Hey Bro !!! Thanks for posting that



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
I noticed something in the vid that I'd missed before. Watching the giant antenna it first appears to tilt slightly then just before it disappears it seems to straighten up. Any one else notice this?


FEMA noticed it and said it suggested an initial failure in the core of WTC1. NIST later came long and extensively tried to disprove the fact that it began moving first, so it wouldn't negate their hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Our Government can pull out a telescope and view a planet
80 light years from our own and even tell if it's
got water, inhabitants or even structures AND
even an atmosphere that we could survive in.

But it can't determine what caused a few buildings to
collapse in our own backyard. That is so freakin sad


To tell ya the truth, I'm embarrassed to be called
an American after 9/11. And what's even worse ....
there is nothing I can do to change it



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





It looks like the top disintegrates before the collapse even moves lower than the impact floors.


You know when I first saw the collapse on the day, I saw it after I imagined it since I was told about the events but I wasn't immediately near a television. When I saw for the first time the collapse of the Towers, I knew right away something was not right, but I couldn't articulate it at the time.

I didn't believe in any thing beyond what we were told and I believed that for several years.

The way you described it though brings back to mind exactly what I felt but couldn't articulate back in '01.

The collapse just didn't make sense because I imagined it to collapse much different from what I saw, and when I saw it I felt like it was strange.

That is a good description. It is totally counter-intuitive


[edit on 20-11-2007 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Anyone ever noticed that when WTC1 starts to collapse, the upper floors all fold down onto the impact floors before the collapse moves beyond that point? Almost as if someone were waiting to bring the top down before actually collapsing the building from the impact site down?


Yes. Which to me is an indication that the start of collapse came from the core and not the exterior as NIST wants us to believe.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
But it can't determine what caused a few buildings to
collapse in our own backyard.


Can't or won't? Something to think about.


To tell ya the truth, I'm embarrassed to be called
an American after 9/11.


Don't be embarrassed. It's not our fault.


And what's even worse ....
there is nothing I can do to change it


That's what they want us to think. That way they get away with anything they want. Don't let them.

"Get up, Stand up........Stand up for your right"

The genius Bob Nesta Marley.




top topics



 
0

log in

join