New video of all three towers , page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 29 times


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:09 AM by lunarminer
reply to post by hackbart


Looks like a window blowing out, due to over pressure, to me.

This would happen as the building collapsed and the internal volume of the building decreases.


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:18 AM by lunarminer
reply to post by Shakesbeer


Yes, the central columns are clearly visible, standing on their own for a short time.

If this was a Controlled Demolition, then it was pretty sloppy to completely leave whole columns intact.


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:30 AM by lunarminer
reply to post by vBreezo


The WTC bombing was in 1993, not 1991.

I seriously doubt that anyone would "put explosives" into the WTC "just in case". If one of the towers collapsed, the loss of life would be so great that it would dwarf the loss of property. Just as we saw on 9/11.



reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:54 AM by Spectre0o0
reply to post by riggins44


as jessie vetura said,as a demolition expert,when you destroy buildings, you try to get as much collateral damage that you can possibly get. there was a minimum of damage to other structures. he was a demolition expertin the navy seals. i'll take his word for it.
he said it was obvious that they were taken down by demolition.
2 weeks before they went down,there was a total electrical shutdown for a weekend ,while the broadband capabilities were upgraded.
with 25 years in cable,and having managed the rewiring of the old park place tower in atlantic city,i can tell you with confidence ,that you don't have to shut down the building to do it. not even a light switch.
the buildings were old and they had been notified to remove the asbestos three times,an impossible feat. also the buildins were losing money at an incredible rate. it was a perfect senario to drop them.

then you have to say to yourself,who benefitted from the demise of these buildings?
i'm tired of typing,so i'll give you a link to a video to watch,which is part 9 of a series. if you really want some info,watch all of them

link to the video


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:35 AM by crookedj0k3r
reply to post by lunarminer


I've worked with some similar concrete methods used to construct the WTC here in downtown Salt Lake City across from Temple Square so I understand a helluva lot of what your talking about and I could not agree more. Stress is a bitch on any given material when it exceeds that material's ideal stress limit.

I'm waiting to see footage on WTC 1 and 2 as well as 7 depicting an unmistakable demolition sequence from the ground up, which is whats typically used to take down monster buildings.

And someone answer me this, other than injecting fear to the nation, why demolish a building with your own citizens in, on and around it? Also spare me the garble on how technologically inferior the building itself was because honestly if they were just looking for a good excuse to update the computers inside the building there are countless other ways to obtain newer machines.


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:49 AM by smokecrops
reply to post by 911fnord


About the tower 7 collapse......

Tower 7 had a subterranean foundation, a sub-level floor or structure, supporting the weight of the building. Meaning just becuase it looks structurally sound, and the outside appears spotless, doesn't mean the tower is safe, or even able to stand. I'm not saying thats the case but you have to understand that entire site (world trade center Plaza) had a huge subway station underneath the street level, and most of those towers were supported many many levels beneath the street. I'm not an engineer I just thought I'd share my observation.

What I was going to originally comment on is your sig, I freaking love Sealab 2021, and Capt. Murphy was my favorite character. I hated when they replaced him with that other dude, thats when I stopped watching that show. But god that show was funny, when Capt. Murphy was still alive.

anyways thats my two cents, good to see someone repping Sealab and [adultswim]


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:31 AM by BlasteR
Originally posted by JustInCase101
reply to post by 911fnord


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

[edit on 1-1-2009 by JustInCase101]


The importance of the videos of WTC7 collapsing has never had anything to do with people dying (at least not in that building). It has everything to do with why not only it collapsed but also the other buildings (where many people did die).. That is why it is important. The controlled way that WTC7 fell in the videos doesn't, IMO, immediately imply that a controlled demolition was the cause. But it is still an important part of the puzzle.. The point is, when you look at what facts we do have (and the videos don't lie) none of it makes a whole lot of sense.

When you look at the big picture or at least what we know about at this point, the events on 9/11 (all of them) just bring up more questions than answers. There are all kinds of really bizarre things surrounding the attacks like the FBI confiscating all remaining aircraft debris and keeping everything from the public for some unknown reason that still hasn't been explained. Because of that, we still haven't seen ANY evidence whatsoever that might link some part of the aircraft debris to any of the individual aircraft themselves supposedly involved in the attacks (which you would think the government would do just to try and set the story straight) It also seemed a little odd that dirt was brought in to cover the damage to the pentagon grounds (which also covered pretty much all evidence remaining in and on the ground at that time). And why would the FBI confiscate the only definitive video of the attack on the pentagon only to keep it secret from the public for some unkown reason? That evidence has much more meaning when you consider

1-the debris and landing gear in the photos shortly after the pentagon attack do not even appear to be the debris of a commerical airliner..

2-the issue of the damage to the pentagon (or lack thereof)..

All of the questionable things that happened that day and all the questions that we still have about what the government did or did not do before, during, and after the attacks all lead to one big questionmark. When you look at what we are told to believe vs. the facts It doesn't seem so odd to question what we were spoon fed about 9/11.. It makes more sense. All of these questionable things just make the WTC7 video that much more important. That is why we are looking at it with a fine-tooth comb.

-ChriS


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:46 AM by drock905
If it was a governement conspiracy and false flag. Which i don't think it was. Why of all the places in the US did they chose the WTC. Because its a symbol? Thats why terrorists would pick it. For an American run plot its almost too obvious and complicated of a choice. It would have taken years of planning. They supposedly rigged the building with explosives and the 10,000 people working in the WTC did not noticing anything, they would have employed thousands of people to set it up the whole plan and no one has talked in 8 years?

If you wanted to do a false flag wouldn't there be much better and easier choices where they could have controlled the circumstances easier and ended with a higher death toll?

examples off the top of my head

blow up a cruiseliner
bio attack
suitcase nuke in a city
blow up alot of planes/trains
blow up the port of LA
set off dozens of bombs in a subway

The US has yet to have attacks of this style. Don't you think if they were concerned with making the population fearful random bombs would have worked better in the long run?

I'm sorry I can't believe that the most complex and intricate plan ever devised in the history of the USA went off perfectly and no one has talked and there is no real evidence.

I think 19 terrorists had a fairly simple plan and got lucky. Its the only scenario that actually makes any sense. The government would not have picked a plan that was so complicated and where there is a huge chance of lingering questions and they couldn't control every aspect of it.


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:48 AM by Jailhouserock
It is obvious you all are really into this. I don't know much at all about explosives and controlled demolitions. The most I can say is large aircraft flew into the WTC at a velocity of some 450-500 mph, created great damage, and the buildings collapsed. It looked like hell on earth. Men make their own kind of hell, and every man makes his own kind of hell.

I heard the comments about bombs, and I also heard possibly and might be. One guy said there was a bomb who was there on the scene.

I will tell you in a nutshell. In Europe I was on the receiving end of many precise, and specifically worded terrorist threats. Later, a train I was on was derailed killing 18 and injuring 65. It was claimed by those responsible
to be an accident caused by negligence. If you had heard the wording of the terrorist threats there is no way you would believe it was an accident.
In the wreckage of August 1, 1980 I clearly heard a man and a woman talking about a bomb, and a second event involving a train and a bomb. The very next morning a powerful bomb ripped through the main train station in Bologna, Italy killing 86 and wounding more than 200.

I tried getting one of the self proclaimed terrorists who had made the threats into court. He totally denied having made any threats or statements at all, and went free. Any witnesses to the threats were afraid to get involved. They were told if they got involved they would be retaliated against, any family they had could get hurt, as would any children they might have in the future, and more.

I am a reliable eye witness to all this; therefore, what I am giving you is not just speculation or guesswork. It is first-hand, primary source information. There is quite a bit more to this than mentioned here.

So, how do you like it when it happens to you?

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:08 AM by mmiichael
reply to post by lunarminer



Thanks very much for the breakdown of how and why the buildings fell the way they did. Your tuning fork analogy made sense but had not occurred to me before.

You used too many scientific words and the logic behind them requires some understanding of physics beyond a Grade 6 science class.

So I expect your post will be ignored while they continue to discuss the secretly planted bombs.


Mike F



reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 04:45 AM by ipsedixit
reply to post by lunarminer


Do you mind citing sources? You are the first person I have read who refers to prestressed cables. I don't mean to be insulting but I have to tell you I have serious doubts about everything you have written.

concretecore.741.com...

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags