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.

 

"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I had to dig back a few years on ATS and found this thread from 2006 about that "911 Eyewitness" video, and how there is evidence of tampering BY the original creator of it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I recall seeing this video years ago too, and those "explosions" heard, was nothing more than wind on the microphone.

I found this video on youtube which gives us an example of wind noise on the mic. It sounds an awful like "explosions" doesnt it?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

When I listened to this new one you posted, I noticed the sounds were taken out until and only until the collapses. That never sat well with me because I dont like being deceived (not by you sir, just the material produced). And especially by someone who is claiming to telling the truth. And how do you know he didnt also edit his video and cancel out the noise until the right moments? If you are going to be suspicious of anything the debunkers say, why not use that same vigor with those in the "truther" circle? They have been busted before for editing and manipulating videos.



[edit on 8/12/2009 by GenRadek]




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I had to dig back a few years on ATS and found this thread from 2006 about that "911 Eyewitness" video, and how there is evidence of tampering BY the original creator of it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=212971

I recall seeing this video years ago too, and those "explosions" heard, was nothing more than wind on the microphone. Now get this, I still remember the original video, and the wind was more audible throughout the video.

I found this video on youtube which gives us an example of wind noise on the mic. It sounds an awful like "explosions" doesnt it?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

When I listened to this new one you posted, I noticed the sounds were taken out until and only until the collapses. That never sat well with me because I dont like being deceived. And especially by someone who is claiming to telling the truth. And how do you know he didnt also edit his video and cancel out the noise until the right moments? If you are going to be suspicious of anything the debunkers say, why not use that same vigor with those in the "truther" circle? They have been busted before for editing and manipulating videos.



Or you could just watch the 911 archives at the top of the page and see all the networks report explosions. Then you wont have to rely on "truthers" you can rely on MSM.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Ah yes, explosions are heard during a multistory fire AFTER two planes hit two buildings. Who would have thought that explosions would be heard during a fire?

No seriously, if you are going to go down that road, then every fire which I have seen on TV and news, and read about in the papers, every report of explosions in the fire MUST be because of explosives then, right?

A car fire has explosions, a house fire has explosions, a plane crash has explosions, a plane slamming into a building and then burning for an hour an a half WILL HAVE EXPLOSIONS. That is another thing I dislike about "truthers". They turn to such nonsense and spin it into something sinister. Rather than thinking logically and going, "hmm a large aircraft has just plowed into a building, and about 10+ floors are on fire. What can go boom inside?" The list is quite long. And rather than logically going through all the very possible NON-explosives/demolitions/nukes/etc sources, no they have to automatically jump to "OH explosions were heard, that means there were bombs inside blowing up." Thats not logical thinking there. Then using eyewitness accounts, taken during the action, describing the events, saying they heard explosions, and twisting that into meaning bombs, is also dishonest and irrational. Then by that account, when people talk about a tornado shredding their house up, and saying it sounded like a freight train going through, then by God, there WAS a freight train rolling through their house, on magic tracks and there was no tornado. How is that for logic? (unless the twister did in fact pick up a freight train and threw it into their house, well then that would be an exception.
)



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Good points raised.

I rarely trust media as it can be manipulated easily to favour any side of any argument.

What I trust is the opinions of witnesses, people who were there, people who suffered through this.

I have seen countless reports by people, fire-fighters, office workers, Police, reporters, even caretakers from those buildings, all stating that they heard explosions prior to and during the incident.
I have seen countless interviews where people state that they saw, with their own eyes, flashes, explosions, detonations of devices beneath those towers.

They hallucinated? They imagined it?
Some people suggest that they thought this was a terrorist attack and that they subconsciously created these things in their minds to support what they feared. But at that time, those people on the ground knew very little, they know something had hit the towers. Probably planes. There was little info to suggest to them on the ground that this was a terrorist attack. And if people never expected something like this to happen, why would those specific people, with their limited access to actual information on what was happening all across the country, why would they make that leap of a connection?

However you look at it, the evidence stands that this was not what the official story states happened.
The evidence shows that, AT THE VERY LEAST, your government has failed in its duty to adequately investigate the worst terrorist attack to have ever occurred.
AT THE VERY LEAST, that should cause the vast majority of the American public to be suspicious of the scenario of that day and the official response of the American Government.

Even without the PROVEN TRACK RECORD of the American Government having planned other events for similar reasons and with similar disdain for the American People, the public has A DUTY to be suspicious and to demand an adequate investigation into the FACTS of September 11th 2001.

I cannot prove or disprove a theory, I can only work with the evidence and facts that I have access to and form my opinion from them. But the FACTS AND EVIDENCE clearly show a justification for people to demand a true and complete investigation to include all the facts as they stand.

Whether you believe that the American government had a hand in this atrocity or not, their handling of the aftermath has been below basic standards and completely inadequate. No one can deny that there are serious questions about the official story.

No believer in the official story can seriously suggest that everything is covered and everything has been answered, clearly it hasn't.

Believers in the official narrative, if they have not a moment of suspicion, or a questioning doubt, are complete idiots quite frankly.

A person would have to be dead from the neck up to blindly accept what the official statement represents; a whitewash, a cover-up, a falsehood refusing to answer relevant questions and blatantly refuting what was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people on that day.

Other buildings showing similar collapse are just one aspect of this scenario. There are a hundred and one other equally disturbing questions about this event that the Govt. refuses to answer. There are a thousand other items of evidence which suggest that their version of events are not only improbable, but impossible.

Ultimately, I don't care much about the collapse and the science behind it, because either side can argue until they are blue, and nothing will likely come of it. But I know what I saw, and I saw three buildings come down in what appeared to be a controlled demolition.

I do care about the supposed terrorists who are still alive,
the delay of defences,
the use of exercises to delay and distract,
the timing of Bush stating he "saw" the first plane hit,
the dumb look on his face when he sat there in that classroom,
the passport found in a square mile of complete devastation,
the denial by Osama bin laden that he planned anything,
the CIA involvement in the financing of Bin Laden,
Operation Northwoods,
the reporting of the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed,
the discovery of explosive residue at the scene,
the removal of evidence for destruction,
the unprecedented "maintenance work" carried out a few days before on the upper floors,
witness reports (by Police Officers!) stating that the Pentagon incident did not happen the way it was reported,
the missing CCTV footage,
the inconsistencies in the falling of the light poles,
the "drills" conducted by government agencies
the small hole in the Pentagon that supposedly was caused by a giant plane,
the complete destruction of jet hitting the ground and ending up in a neat hole,
the "squibs"

Really, I could go on for hours.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


Again -- do any of you have any answer for this?!:

If what these people are calling "explosions" was really the sound of high-explosive demolition charges, then why is there no recording of the very distinctive sound they make? As I mentioned I was not impressed with the recordings supposedly offered, and gave reasons why it did not impress me. Do you have any arguments against them?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by mike3
 


Uhhhhhh.....

A few holes in this theory when it is applied to the towers.

A) This is a demolition. The building was prepped to collapse. Unless the 'skeptics' want to admit that the towers were prepped in the same ways then the two cannot be compared.

B) That is a very short, rectangular building. The floor the was removed was in the middle of the building. The towers had unequal damage up near the top third of the buildings. They had MUCH MORE REINFORCED structure below the impact zones still providing a great deal of support. If anything, with the uneven damage, the tops should have collapsed off and slid to whatever side had the most damage.

C) Explosives were used in this demolition. Dun dun duuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnn!

[edit on 12-8-2009 by dariousg]


A. What sort of "prep" do you think was done, and what evidence do you have to back up that this was what was done here?

B. Huge holes were formed by the plane's impact. So the beams holding up the top areas were already way overtaxed and even distorted. And why should to tops have slid off instead of causing failure of the structure beneath? The impact forces generated would be extraordinary. You think it'd be "reinforced" to take a burst of force hundreds to even thousands of times the static weight of the structure?

C. Evidence?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Mike, for the love of god watch the video I embedded.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Right, but now we can agree that there were numerous explosions on 9/11. Your just assuming it has to do with the fire and what not. (perfect cover btw for someone who might have been using real explosives)

The fact that they "hid" the fireman testimony for so long and a lot of it had to do with hearing explosions and or seeing "flashes" tells me there is more here then meets the eye.

Judging by the way those buildings came down and all the circumstances surrounding such, I don't trust the explanation that the explosions were not explosives.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by mike3
 


No explosives huh?

I call complete BS.

Find me a man willing to be paid to go into a building like that and structurally weaken it "just enough" to allow a collapse at any time.

What, did they all just sit around and wait for it to go? Did they shoot out structural supports from a safe distance?
I know, they went into the future and established that it was going to collapse on its own on a specific date and just evacuated it and filmed it!


It's called "controlled demolition" for a reason, its demolition is controlled by man.

Seriously, the stupidity of some people astounds me.


PROOF no explosives were used:

www.youtube.com...

Listen to the audio. Do you hear the very loud banging sounds like those generated by explosives? I don't think so. Look at any video of an explosive demolition from similar distance and compare.


[edit on 12-8-2009 by mike3]

[edit on 12-8-2009 by mike3]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by mike3
 


Mike, for the love of god watch the video I embedded.



Yeah, I did. Why do you think I didn't?

Now can you answer my question or not?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


Again -- do any of you have any answer for this?!:

If what these people are calling "explosions" was really the sound of high-explosive demolition charges, then why is there no recording of the very distinctive sound they make? As I mentioned I was not impressed with the recordings supposedly offered, and gave reasons why it did not impress me. Do you have any arguments against them?



Sorry that you aren't impressed Mike but there is one clear explosion I can point you to.


Don't know what else to tell you.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


I have seen this particular video numerous times brought up as PROOF of explosives. Yet what do I see exactly?

Fire fighters, in a daze, calling loved ones. There is a lot of dust in the air. This would mean this was taken immediately after the first or second tower collapsed. Now obviously, vehicles were buried under the debris, or crushed, some with ruptured fuel tanks catching fire or exploding. You have hundreds of rounds of ammo buried in the debris from the WTCs and police equipment. You have gas lines disrupted. Oxygen tanks from the aircraft which may have not exploded yet from the fires. You have pressurized tanks from firefighters buried in the debris or crushed. Fuel tanks from WTC7 possibly catching fire from the debris and exploding. Debris falling. There is a whole list of possible explanations for that particular explosion sound before getting into bombs.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The video in the OP is Apples-to-Oranges because for that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of that building, they made 50% of the building collapse on 50% of the building. The WTC's would have been 10/90 and 15/85 percentages.

I really doubt that if they only dropped the top 10% of the building in that OP video, it would have demolished the remaining 90% of it, but we'll never know.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Okay, so what about the sub basement explosions prior to the first plane's impact? Or the molten metal? Or the diagonally cut core columns? Or the little shards and unreacted capsules of what scientists have been referring to as "nanothermite"?


[edit on 12-8-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


GenRadek, it's your choice to live in fiction. I can't get mad at you about that. I chose reality in 1996. So I'm a "realist" now.

I listen to people without bias. Do you know how to do that?

On page 1 I made it clear that the OP's video was a CONTROLLED DEMO. I embedded a video of eyewitnesses saying that they witnessed/heard/saw explosions.

GenRadek, I know you are of college age and a bit naive but hopefully one day, you will have an awakening much like I did in my early/mid twenties.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
Also, the things called "explosions" sound more like wind ruffling the mike, not blasts

They sound like wind to you because you don't know what you're listening to, haven't got to proper sound system to fully hear what you're hearing, or are just making things up to explain away the evidence, i.e., denial disorder.

See, there is no magical wind that can blow across the mic at the exact time of all 3 towers collapsing and for the exact duration. How could the wind know to blow at the time of each tower's collapse and for the duration of the collapse?



Originally posted by mike3
and that some of those happened way before the collapse is very telling. You don't just set off charges at random intervals way before the "big show"

You do if you're weakening the structure before collapse and trying to make it look and sound as little like a CD as possible.

Not to mention, the one's that happened "way before collapse". Did you actually count the one's in the south tower? There were 9 or 10 large explosions over several minutes in the south tower before collapse. I posted a testimony from a first responder who said the same exact thing and testified to the same number of explosions in the same building before collapse. That means the video and the witnesses corroborate each other.

Your excuses to explain away the evidence are meaningless when witnesses and video corroborate each other.



Originally posted by mike3
You posted a video showing a demolition of a skyscraper. Did you compare the very sharp and distinctive sound to that in the other? Notice the difference?

No two demolitions are the same. Sound, vibration and where the debris lands can all be controlled by delays and timing of the explosives.



Originally posted by mike3
B. Huge holes were formed by the plane's impact. So the beams holding up the top areas were already way overtaxed and even distorted.

That is complete and utter, uneducated BS.

You can count how many exterior columns are damaged on each tower. NIST says 33 on the North Tower and 35 on the South Tower. We'll go with 34 since it's right in the middle.

Then NIST estimates 6-10 core columns were severed or severely damaged from the impacts (although I believe that number is significantly lower). We'll go with 8 since it's right in the middle.

The towers had about 240 exterior columns and 47 core columns. That equals 287 columns. Total damaged columns is 42. 42 divided by 287 columns gives us 15% of the total columns of a tower were damaged and only in a localized area. That means 85% of the structure in the impact areas alone, was intact. Not to mention the other 105 floors that had no impact damage and were completely intact (until the explosions started going off in the basement and other levels unrelated to the fires).

15% damaged columns in a WTC tower compared to 100% damaged columns in your video. Big difference there.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I had to dig back a few years on ATS and found this thread from 2006 about that "911 Eyewitness" video, and how there is evidence of tampering BY the original creator of it.

There is no evidence, that's only someone's opinions. Opinions aren't evidence.



Originally posted by GenRadek
I recall seeing this video years ago too, and those "explosions" heard, was nothing more than wind on the microphone.

Complete BS. How would magical wind blow at the exact time of all 3 towers and for the duration of all 3 towers' collapses?

Denial disorder, read about it in my signature.



Originally posted by GenRadek
how do you know he didnt also edit his video and cancel out the noise until the right moments?

If you watched the video, you would know there were 9 or 10 loud explosions before the south tower collapsed. I posted a testimony from one of the first responders that recalled that exact amount of explosions in the south tower before collapse. In otherwords, the video and the witnesses corroborate themselves.



Originally posted by GenRadek
If you are going to be suspicious of anything the debunkers say, why not use that same vigor with those in the "truther" circle?

I absolutely do. However, wind can't know when to blow across a microphone at each of 3 different collapses and for the duration of each of those collapses. And also, the first responder testimony corroborates the pre-collapse explosions found in the video. Those facts alone tell me that the video is genuine.

You don't want to believe a conspiracy, so naturally you'll tell yourself that the explosions are just wind. It's something easy to make up to tell yourself so that you can sleep at night. It is understandable. Denial disorder makes people do crazy things.



Originally posted by GenRadek
a plane slamming into a building and then burning for an hour an a half WILL HAVE EXPLOSIONS. That is another thing I dislike about "truthers". They turn to such nonsense and spin it into something sinister.

That is something I dislike about debunkers. They ignore the evidence or spin it or make things up to explain it away so they can sleep at night. There are dozens of witnesses who's names are public who heard and witnessed the explosions in the basement levels.

Listen to what FDNY firefighter John Schroeder had to say:



That's the short version of his interview. If you want to watch the 40-minute version, it's on Google video.

Now read more witness testimony and view some images from the basement explosions:

www.studyof911.com...


Plenty of evidence of bombs in the basement levels with smoke rising from the bases to prove it, on top of the images of the damaged lobby and the witness testmony.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
No explosives? So they "PULLED IT" eh?

(pulled out the remaining supports after gutting the building, causeing the collapse.)

Interesting, where have I hear this "Pulled It" term before...


Lets see them try this on a 100 story reinforced steel structure, with a steel inner core, and use the (well give them 5 floors), lts say the 72nd-77th floor, the Pull out the remain supports, and see what happens.

I highly doubt you'll see global collapse.

Sorry, but this video is full of fail.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Mike, take a good look at these pictures of the South Tower WTC2 collapsing..



Pictures 1-2-3 show how we would all expect the collapse to happen, if the initial impact combined with the alleged heat, were the cause. It`s text book stuff like felling a tree, an area of damage causing a void and gravity taking over, the top 30 storeys or so have leant over and look like the proverbial felled tree, as we would expect, but, hold on, the huge chunk of building is not going to topple over at all, in fact it is disappearing and being turned to dust before our eyes.

Now, still looking at pictures 1-2-3, I have marked with an elliptical shape and arrowed the dust cloud starting to form, this is appearing completely out of context to how the collapse should be heading, in fact if you look at picture 1 you will clearly see the dust cloud has started several storeys beneath the top section collapse, which is heading away at an acute angle.

Picture 4, there is now no trace whatsoever of the top section now, it has been obliterated, what destroyed 30 plus storeys in this short time?, as by all accounts it should have toppled off independently and hurtled downwards.

Picture 5, another angle clearly showing some powerful kinetic energy being displaced with brute force.

Picture 6, the explosion just right to the number 6 can also be seen in picture 4, what caused that?, if it was down to the many fire induced highly explosive materials people keep in high rise towers, why did it wait for the collapse to explode? - as we are led to believe that the various fires spread through the buildings where hot enough to weaken tempered steel, thus initiating the collapses, but not as it seems, hot enough to ignite highly combustible materials.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


And here's another image of the south tower compared to a known controlled demolition:





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join