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.

 

Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Actually, the outer skeleton supported upwards of 40% of the tower's weight. It was like a gigantic wire screen cage, if you will...



Do your research before you speak, you'll get called out here.




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
also someone tell what or how you would expect to see the buildings to come down if it WAS NOT CONTROLLED manner. In other words in what manner would it have to fall for it to be as reported?



Building 7, IMO, should have toppled more than it did. That was a 47 story building that should have at least been 5 (very conservative estimate IMO) stories out of the footprint. The columns above the so-called base damage were still there. Meaning that when they hit from a fall, they would create a moment and drag the rest of the building in that direction. Not just fold in on itself like 7 did. Just my opinion, but I could be wrong as I'm not a dynamicist.

1 and 2. IMO, shouldn't have globally collapsed.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberTruth

Originally posted by apex
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


Yes, but if thats the explosions, where is all the smoke from them, or the ejected debris? You need some evidence that those flashes aren't just objects floating through the air with the sun glancing off them. Steel is rather strong, a small flash that even without accounting for the lens flare looks to be only a window or so in height cannot really do that much. All other videos posted here to prove controlled demolition have been of so called 'squibs' not flashes of light.


Well,

I definitely don't think its floating objects.

My guess would have to be that it is steel cutting charges which would give off a lot of light because of the intensity and heat but not a lot of sound or compression. They would probably pop and fizzle more like a flash bulb or a sparkler type torch. - These cutting charges are meant to cut and melt steel rapidly(not blow it apart)

The explosive charges which create squibs which apparently can be seen as the building collapses - are used primarily for disintegrating and blowing apart concrete - which as in the case of the towers- is seen to have disintegrated into small particles and dust.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]


Steel cutting charges? Squibs?
Maybe you should get an engineering degree, read the reports, then come back and post. These "theories" have been debunked in such detail that there is no more question.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
There is no reason for build to fall to the right or left, it would just fall straight down just like the videos show.


Question:

Do you consider this to be straight down?

www.iwilltryit.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Has anyone thought about arc welding and its use as a demolition charge? I know it can weld steel, so I'd imagine that it could be reversed and used to melt through steel connections?

So, it could be an electrical arc, but used in a sinister way. Any thoughts? Or am I out in left field here?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
well i hate 911 post. I don't understand why people think an airplane hitting a building wouldn't bring it down. I'm supprised it held up for as long as it did.

I do have question if controlled when was the explosive put in. If before how would make sure the wiring charges and whatever would hold up to the impact and fire. If after what nut would try and go up there with demo stuff strapped to his back?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Maybe you should get an engineering degree,


Check.


read the reports, then come back and post.


Check. Well, at least most of the important parts.


These "theories" have been debunked in such detail that there is no more question.


Really? I still question.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
If after what nut would try and go up there with demo stuff strapped to his back?


What kind of a nut would intentionally fly a plane into a building?

I'm not saying I believe that the terrorists did run up with explosives. But, the fact was: people reported explosions, three buildings fell mysteriously, and the institutions set to "investigate" the failures of said buildings were either stonewalled or didn't even test for explosives. Again, why? Why all the secrecy if there is nothing to hide?

That initself is a conspiracy to at least hide the truth.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
Actually, the outer skeleton supported upwards of 40% of the tower's weight. It was like a gigantic wire screen cage, if you will...



Do your research before you speak, you'll get called out here.


Yes, but 40%, when damaged and without the Core at all, I think it would fail under those circumstances. And even if it could theoretically support it, could it do it when a good deal of the columns are taken out. I believe I saw once on here, not exactly sure when, that if the core was taken out, the columns would be pulled inwards by the floors attached to them (no longer attached to the core, since it is no longer there), causing them to fail vertically causing the collapse.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Nobody when up while everything was burning with jet fuel. And i am not suprised people reported explosions...

An airplane hit a building what do you think is going to happen.
Think this out. How on earth would the gov. Plan all this out? The simple answer highjackers did it.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
Nobody when up while everything was burning with jet fuel. And i am not suprised people reported explosions...


I didn't say they did. Just a possibility. What would a suicide bomber care about burning jet fuel anyway?


An airplane hit a building what do you think is going to happen.


Less than what we saw.


Think this out.


I have.


How on earth would the gov. Plan all this out?


Pretty easy. I've been studying it for only 3 years and I can think of many possibilities to do what we saw. Or do you think the government planned 9/11 on 9/10 if they did it?


The simple answer highjackers did it.


I don't dispute highjackers. There has to be a patsy to blame.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I personally was across the street from madison square garden that day, 7th and 33rd. I personally didn't hear them.
After I went to work for Empire BlueCross BlueShield in 8/02, I spoke to about 2 dozen survivors on the first anniversary. Because of all the stuff on the net by then, I finally thought it was appropriate to bring it up.
EBCBS lost 14 people that day.
Before than, I didn't want to reopne a painful memory unless they brought it up to me.
I asked them about the CD theory, specifically if they heard anything. They told me they didn't hear anything close to a huge boom or explosions.

They also said if there was anything to the theory, they all would be at the white house demanding answers because of the people they saw cut in half and jumping out of windows to avoid being burned to death would deserve to have someone fight for them, but they all felt there is nothing to the CD theory, because they were there that day and didn't see or hear anything to support a CD thoery.

don't forget there are about 10 million people within 2 miles of downtown manhatten on a weekday if you include NJ, SI, Brooklyn, Queens, etc.

if you have 5 million witnesses saying they heard something, show me. If it's a few people, don't bother

cheers



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Steel cutting charges? Squibs?
Maybe you should get an engineering degree, read the reports, then come back and post. These "theories" have been debunked in such detail that there is no more question.


I didn't know I needed a degree in engineering to have common sense and a functioning analytical mind as well as the ability to read and disseminate relevant facts and information.

If it helps you to know - I personally doubted 911 controlled demolition theories myself until a structural engineer made it a point to educate me on the impossible nature of the "Twin Towers Collapse" at free fall speed straight down into itself and into the ground.

Perhaps you need to go seek out a structural engineer and educate yourself on this matter.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dwight Howard
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Priest, not only are you saying the WTC1/2 weren't CD, you're claiming WTC7 wasn't too!?

If so, I can't take you seriously!


Of course I am.

can you take this seriously ?

I challenge you to read every word on this page. Every word. I challenge you to read it with an open mind, rather than just skimming it looking for points to argue. Consider the qualifications of the people invloved, and what they are saying. What's important is they expose Alex Jones for not using a complete quote. I challenge you to spend a minimum of 30 minutes looking at the link I'll provide, carefully considering the facts they put forth.

There are many videos, graphs, quotes and information to consider. Please take the necessary time to understand what they are saying.

external link



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


I'd encourage you to check out my thread on the free fall fallacy. the towers simply did not fall at free fall speed. In fact, they fell almost exactly as fast as engineering priciples would predict.


ATS link



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Pay close attention to the areas where the flashes happen! - In some of the shots, you can clearly see puffs of white smoke coming out of the same area right after the flashes. People who are throwing around crap like "its doctored" with out providing any kind of evidence should be ignored until they at least present some supporting info



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberTruth

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Steel cutting charges? Squibs?
Maybe you should get an engineering degree, read the reports, then come back and post. These "theories" have been debunked in such detail that there is no more question.


I didn't know I needed a degree in engineering to have common sense and an a functioning analytical mind as well as the ability to read and disseminate relevant facts and information.

If it helps you to know - I personally doubted 911 controlled demolition theories myself until a structural engineer made it a point to educate me on the impossible nature of the "Twin Towers Collapse" at free fall speed straight down into the ground.

Perhaps you need to go seek out a structural engineer and educate yourself on this matter.


[edit on 7-12-2[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]




i work for an engineering firm and have asked the struc. People about . Only one out of 15 people said something was fishy. The one who said it fishy is known to smoke a little weed every now and then,.. He's also got the nickname ''sharp knife

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
i work for an engineering firm and have asked the struc. People about . Only one out of 15 people said something was fishy. The one who said it fishy is known to smoke a little weed every now and then,.. He's also got the nickname ''sharp knife
[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]


Wow!,

If the people at your firm find this type of total structural collapse within the realms of normal - Could you please do me a favor and send me a list of structural projects(buildings, bridges, etc.) your firm has worked on so I know what structures to avoid being around in the future?!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
My take on this video is that the flashes appear to be some type of explosions. I counted at least 7 flashes that emitted smoke through a blown window due to some sort of small explosion. Several other flashes which appear to resemble all of them as a colective don't emit any smoke. And since I can't find anyone mentioning this, did any of you happen to notice at 1:02 of the video, what appeared to be a more noticable explosion that is clearly seen as the smoke makes a huge shift change, as if something went off and the blast altered the smoke?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
In my personal opinion, I believe that video was altered. Although I do believe the 9/11 tragedy was an inside job. Allow me to make some notes as to why.

1. Both towers fell at nearly free fall speed, averaging 10 floors per second, resulting in a total of a 10 second fall. You would think if a Boeing 707 hit the top of the towers, they would receive some type of resistance.

2. The towers were both designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 747, although most of the engineers believed they could withstand multiple impacts.

3. My numbers might not be right, but they are awfully close; both towers had nearly 50 main support beams, all of which were designed to hold the towers structurally intact if several of them failed. So allow me to ask, what are the chances of a plane taking out dozens of support beams, not only once, but twice in a row?

4. How do you explain eye witness reports of explosions in the WTC basement levels seconds BEFORE the planes hit?

5. Fire fighters found pools of molten steel four days after the towers collapsed under the debris. The molten steel was temped 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel even burns. Can you say Thermite? Better yet, a scientist actually found particles of Thermate, a chemical used in the demolition of buildings.

6. World Trade Center 7, which collapsed hours after the towers. The reason for the building collapsing was said to be due to fires, although there were only fires on two or three floors, although the building had a total of 47. If you watch a WTC 7 video closely, you will notice that the infer structure of the building collapsed first, resulting in the building falling in on itself instead of out, which meant the core support beams were demolished.

7. Standard procedure for NORAD, is when a commercial air liner is hijacked, they are to scramble F-16's. Get this though, one the day of 9/11, NORAD was running war game exercises. It gets even better, one of their exercises was based on a commercial air liner getting hijacked. War games allow for false blimps to be shown on radar, confusing the pilots. Gets even better, guess who was in charge of the exercises? Everyone's favorite Dick Cheney.
Also, in the past, NORAD ran exercises citing that commercial air liners being hijacked and used as weapons; guess what one of the targets where? Non other than the Trade Center.

8. Lastly, what are the chances of both towers collapsing? Both at free fall speed?

I could go on, but I believe I have said enough. I only have two words for you.
"Controlled Demolition"

But don't believe me, do your own research.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join