New video of all three towers , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 29 times

Topic started on 1-1-2009 @ 10:12 AM by 911fnord

Just wanted to post something I found over in reddit.com new high quality versions of all three tower demolitions take a good look and tell me what you think.

YouTube Link

Just wanted to add that the person that took these videos does not want to be contacted....lets focus on what the videos are showing.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by 911fnord]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 10:19 AM by mr-lizard

I say controlled demolition.

Without a doubt....

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 10:40 AM by 911fnord

basically its as simple as this... I have studied almost every possible explanation of 9/11 and not one has answered the question of why wtc7 fell. Im not on vendetta here but I do want to say to all the 9/11 debunker types, LOOK AGAIN! and when one of you can honestly explain how a fully intact building collapses on itself I still will not respond cause it freaking hopeless...after a couple years it has been made very clear to me...ppl dont come here to discuss this topic they just come here to spout their various fear.
FNORD.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by 911fnord]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 10:45 AM by bsbray11

Great video! You can actually see the damage that WTC2 caused to WTC1 as it fell. I think that's the first time I've actually seen that. I could see a little more of WTC7's collapse, too.

Thanks for the post. Nice Bob Dobbs avatar, too.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 10:56 AM by 911fnord

reply to post by bsbray11

Thanks brother!! For many years I have seen the principia and book of subgenius are deprogramming tools for religion and the NWO in general...but thats whole other thread. The video I posted is the best quality I have seen to date. The video is very telling I am glad the person that took this decided to release it. FNORD.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 10:58 AM by Swampfox46_1999

Once again, I am surprised that the towers stood as long as they did from the damage they suffered from the airliners. As for "demolition" still do not see any evidence of that.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 11:06 AM by phinubian

These videos look like they are taken almost from the same vantage point of the video of the lady that took the "what we saw video" www.abovetopsecret.com... , but they are better evidence of some great explosive force happening after impact had occurred long before so how is that explained?

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 11:12 AM by RFBurns

Thats high quality? I beg to differ. And why does the video, just before the south tower begins to collapse, edit from a zoom in looking at a puff of smoke comming out of the side of the south tower, and then suddenly we see debris already falling almost half way down, then the camera zooms out?

The north tower part, extremely pixilated and doesnt even show the begining of the collapse.

The footage I got on the day all this happend, raw footage I should also add, recorded on a DVD from the ABC live news feed right off the network affiliate sattelite, is FAR better than this stuff.

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:31 PM by 911fnord

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:35 PM by zz2000

WTC7 doesn't seem to collapse towards the other towers as would be expected if the base of the building on that side had been structurally weakened by the debris from the other fallen towers. It collapses uniformly across the entire building which would only happen if there was an equal amount of damage to all sides of the base of the building which wouldn't be possible.

Controlled demolition.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:35 PM by 911fnord

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

I hear you but seriously dude look at wtc7 and please tell me how thats not controlled demolition? I will be open to your explanation I honestly am one of the few ppl here that is interested in the 9/11 events and is still open to be proven wrong.

Honestly.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:56 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by 911fnord

Well, first off, contrary to popular belief, WTC 7 didnt fall into its own footprint. There are other videos that should it with a distinct lean towards the tower wreckage as it falls, which would confirm that the collapse started on the tower side of 7, not in a uniform manner. In addition, 7 came apart to the point that it hit the building at 30 West Broadway, causing enough damage that 30 West was eventually torn down. None of the videos show any evidence of demolition charges going off at the same time in a ordered manner.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:56 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by 911fnord

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:05 PM by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Once again, I am surprised that the towers stood as long as they did from the damage they suffered from the airliners. As for "demolition" still do not see any evidence of that.

It's helpful to have Swampy in a thread sometimes because he is intelligent enough to highlight points that clinch the truther case by stating that the opposite is true.

The above quote highlights two important points.

1. The planes didn't knock the buildings down. They stood until the firemen were on the verge of putting out the fires and then had to be blown out of sequence of the impacts to keep the fake scenario going.

2. The speed and symmetry of the collapse argues strongly for controlled demolition.

Well, first off, contrary to popular belief, WTC 7 didnt fall into its own footprint. There are other videos that should it with a distinct lean towards the tower wreckage as it falls, which would confirm that the collapse started on the tower side of 7, not in a uniform manner.

If you look at the collapse of WTC7 in the footage posted by the OP, you can observe the corner of it as it falls dropping vertically for several floors before leaning toward where the other towers stood and away from non-Silverstein owned property across the street from it.

Unquestionably it started to fall into it's own footprint which argues against a collapse initiated by asymmetrical damage cause by other collapses. It then, part way through the collapse, started to lean away from surrounding property and property damage claims.

Hats off to Controlled Demolitions Inc. and others in the industry for setting such high standards of demolition control. Of course I am not alleging that they had anything to do with the controlled demolitions we are discussing. But through their fine work they do demonstrate that the kind of control I am talking about is certainly achievable.

In addition, 7 came apart to the point that it hit the building at 30 West Broadway, causing enough damage that 30 West was eventually torn down.

Nobody's perfect, but who would have predicted so little damage near the WTC, if only informed that the towers had collapsed?

None of the videos show any evidence of demolition charges going off at the same time in a ordered manner.

What is easier to believe, that thousands of nuts and bolts and welded joints accidentally failed in an ordered symmetrical sequence causing two 110 story buildings to drop in around 17-19 seconds, or that these thousands of nuts and bolts and welds were coaxed into their coordinated behavior with a little help from electronically sequenced explosions?

YouTube Link

[edit on 1-1-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:12 PM by Swampfox46_1999

And the belief that everything was symmetrical, shows just how little some on this board have studied the collapses or their wreckage pattern.

They stood until the firemen were on the verge of putting out the fires and then had to be blown out of sequence of the impacts to keep the fake scenario going.

Except from the aerial videos we have of the Towers we know that in neither case, were the fires almost gone. In addition, we know that there were no firefighters in WTC7.....next?

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:27 PM by JustInCase101

reply to post by 911fnord

im pretty sure we all know wtc 7 was demolished, why it was demolished who knows alot easier to claim a total loss on a building then damages, wtc 7 also fell alot later so a hastey demolition could have been set up for an insurance scam. im also pretty sure a couple of people involved came forward already. as for the other 2 towers they fell and the elevator shaft was intact for a long time meaning the weaked outer edge fell out first which was the reinforcement of the strong main column so once the outer ring of support fell u see the main support column fall shortly after.

p.s no one died in wtc7 so who cares no one lol.
edited for ps

[edit on 1-1-2009 by JustInCase101]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:32 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by JustInCase101

Lets see, we had just watched two buildings collapse after airliner impacts and fires. NYPD and FDNY reported that WTC 7 was so heavily damaged it was going to most likely fall as well....and you think people were crazy enough to go in and wire a 47 story building for demolition??? Not to mention it would take a full demolition crew a few MONTHS to wire a building that size....

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:35 PM by alienj

reply to post by 911fnord

Is there a reason that you guys don't understand that there were several stories of underground complexes beneath all those structures. My god you had several hundred thousands of tons of material blow out all the underneath supports of all those building that were eventually taken down. Not only did you have all the subbasement structures completely obliterated after the "very first" building come down but you also had ground level devastation that no building is built to withstand. I realize as I type that its so useless, i know this is so by the number of rational explanations put forth time after time and the countless irrational rebuttals and berating these people get when they do try to explain to you conspiracy theorist scientific explanations for this. Its so simple not only did they take massive damage from 2 very large buildings coming down less that a block from them, they also took untold damage in the structures below street. Its time to put this to rest, let families with love ones be able to go on with their lives without having to log onto a website and have all those memories dug up time and time again.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:36 PM by tide88

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Once again, I am surprised that the towers stood as long as they did from the damage they suffered from the airliners. As for "demolition" still do not see any evidence of that.

Me neither. First off with all that smoke rising it is impossible to tell how fast the buiding fell. Also with WTC2 he shows how much damage the building has. Close ups of it. And you can clearly see that a good part of that building is still standing after initial collapse. If it was demoed would the whold building collapse to the street. If anything, this video proves there was no demo. Thanks. As for the person who asked about building 7. When the trade center collapsed, tons of debris collapsed into that building. It did considerable damage to it. Watch around 2:47. You can see half the building still standing after the initial collapse. Finally a video that proves no demo. Thanks!

[edit on 1-1-2009 by tide88]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:41 PM by pteridine

reply to post by ipsedixit

Buildings are not demoed top down. The pancake collapse was just that. No seismographic indications of explosives were noted and the amount of explosive to do the job would have been large. It would have been tough to set it up, and really tough to set it up, unnoticed. The speed of fall of a collapsing building and a demoed building are the same. Explosives do not speed up the fall. Large structures are not "blown up," they have the supports blown sideways and fall due to gravity. Fall rate is not a diagnostic for demolition.
WTC#7 was seriously damaged from impacts of WTC collapses. Those buildings did not fail symmetrically; check the videos you posted. Fires burned for many hours. No explosions were detected seismographically. No explosions from HE were heard. There was no time to rig a building that was burning and leaning. Firemen couldn't get in so how could anyone else? A quickie job would have required so much explosive that the blast would have been really obvious.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^