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 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Yet another proof, smoking gun, nail in coffin that falls flat on its face.

Does it not occur to truthers that if you can't come up with anything to convince anyone but fervent believers, after 8.5 years, perhaps there isn't anything ?




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Yet another proof, smoking gun, nail in coffin that falls flat on its face.

What fell on it's face? I didn't see that anywhere in this thread. You also didn't even attempt to try to debunk my last post right before yours.



Originally posted by Alfie1
Does it not occur to truthers that if you can't come up with anything to convince anyone but fervent believers, after 8.5 years, perhaps there isn't anything?

Fervent believers? Just over a month ago, AE911T announced it has gotten 1000 architects and engineers to support them. Now they're approaching 1200. AE911 and the rest of the truth movement is now growing exponentially by the day. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.





[edit on 28-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Fervent believers? Just over a month ago, AE911T announced it has gotten 1000 architects and engineers to support them. Now they're approaching 1200. AE911 and the rest of the truth movement is now growing exponentially by the day. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.


Many PhDs were fooled by Uri Geller.

Acquiring large numbers of people rallying around ideas does not lend any credence to the ideas being truthful or correct.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So what we are seeing is mostly conventional explosives or nanothermite? Which is it in the video? What percentage of each and where would each be placed within the structure to bring it down?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Acquiring large numbers of people rallying around ideas does not lend any credence to the ideas being truthful or correct.

This isn't just "people" rallying around a cause. These are architects and engineers that know that three WTC buildings could not have collapsed the way NIST would have us believe. Plain and simple.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I'll refer you back to the post that you replied to me from. Most of your answers are there.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I don't think there was as many fooled by Uri Geller, not in the numbers. There could have been some that were duped but I don't think it was ever a large number nearing a thousand. In fact, if there were large numbers of scientists believing, then a lot more notice would be given to such, even beyond what he achieved without such.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Can you please clarify for me:

If you are possitive of the use of nano thermite charges.
1.- How many would be needed to produce what we see??
2.- How would they be placed and where in the building??
3.- Why don´t we hear any explosions during the collapse??
4.- How could these devices be installed throughout the whole building without being noticed??
5.- What time do you estimate it would have taken to rig the building with these devices??
6.- What kind of technology was used to start them off in secuence??
7.- Why didn´t the airplane crash start a chain reaction of all these devices?? (Specialy in the 2nd tower that was hit lower.)

Thanks.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by rush969]


hello all,
Now I know this wasn't really directed towards me, but I have seen few if any be able to actually answer those questions properly so here goes.

1.Perhaps trillions, if not quadrillions of tiny nano particles(nano-thermite) specially blended in a couple hundred drums of paint. I also have here a few thermite experiments(not nano-thermite as it is military grade stuff. So keep in mind it cannot be applied in paint form as the nano stuff can) note the car one specifically(2nd and 3rd experiments about 2 min in). As it shows the raw power of the substance.
Thermite melts straight through car
2.It could have been applied as a sealer for the elevator shafts to help "prevent damage"('
') until that dreadful day. It could have been applied to all the pillars in the parking garage. As they are usually painted so people don't smash into them. It also could have been applied anywhere else they saw fit.
3. Unless in a sealed container thermite doesn't really explode it will fizzle and sound more like someone welding as can be heard in the above video.
4. The paint crews probably didn't even know that they were painting explosives all over the buildings. So how could anyone else?
5. With maybe ten or more crews on each building a few months tops. Although time is almost irrelevant as this type of red flag op had been in their play book for 2 decades if not more. oops just wikied it myself and it has been around for twice that and is called operation northwoods. So they could have been preparing for this since or before the first bombing of the trade centers.
6.Quite simple really. Could be mini- remote detonators,some other kind of remote detonator. Also from what I have deduced from the reports is that the explosions in the lobby that came from the elevator shafts were the elevators themselves falling and that could have also possibly triggered the nano-thermite. As there was also reports of plumes of black smoke coming from the shafts and as you can see from the video. Thermite makes alot of what people... black smoke. Lol I have always wanted to do that.
7.For this last little dandy of a question I would actually have to agree with your hypotenuse. The planes very well could have started the whole thing and the nano-thermite could have been painted on in such a way that it all was connected and boom goes the dynamite(or nano-thermite lol I would have just put that there in the first place but that seemed to have just ruined the sanctity that family guy gave to that phrase..lol('
'))

So coupled with the fact that nano-thermite is extremely versatile, the "gov' ment " cannot be trusted, they had this planned out back in the sixties to start a war with Cuba, but Kennedy who liked the cigars said uh-huh you aint takin my duchie wraps away from me!!!jp jp.. and once again the government who has shown time and time again that the majority of them are liars, perverts and hell bent on making a dollar(which mind you war has almost always been monetarily fruitful for the U.S.. As they sell weapons to both sides or they go to war to secure their precious black gold reserves and then say we are running out when they will have tankers full of the stuff sitting on standby til the price spikes.)

Whatever the case may be. Those douche bags will stop at nothing to ensure they stay on top even when the SHTF.
PEACE,
JC



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by spy66
 


I didn't say you would see a shockwave what i was pointing out is that unless the OP videos were filmed at a good few hundred frames per second they cannot show anything re what he claims.


To be honest. If the video shows detonation on the outside of the building. That would mean that the charges are placed on the out side of the towers.

I cant see anything in the video that can resemble a detonation on the outside of the building.

But since a shaped charge is put on a column it would shoot out a lot of debris in the opposite direction the shaped charge is aimed at. The reason for that is that the debris always moves in the direction of less resistance.

The debree that is shown leaving the building beneeth the colaps is what possels me. Why would so much dust leave the lover stages of the colapsing bulding, unless there was a explotion there?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Take a very close look at the OPs video. Notice how the debris accelerate out of the lover levels under the collapsing top part of the building. The debris suddenly accelerate faster then the initial collapse, and than keeps on at a steady pace down.

The other thing that supports a explosive take down is the angel the collapsing top part of the building is tilted at when the initial collapse occurs. See the angle of the top section at: 0:04 seconds. At that angel the top part of the building would have fallen of the intact bottom part of the building. Unless the floor beneath it was cleared by charges and termite.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I've HAD it with the 9/11 stuff.

No one, No One is ever gonna know what happened on that day unless someone who had something to do with the Collapse comes forward with absolute, un Contradictable evidence of involvement of the collapse of the Twin Towers.

All I know is, If I ever live in a Tall Tower, I am going to have a Closet full of Parachutes and a Hang Glider sitting in the Spare Room.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I still haven't seen evidence either way that gives me a definite conclusion on WTC 1 and 2. If demolitions were used, they definitely weren't the standard kind for bringing down a building.

With a standard demolition, and I'm only going on what I've seen on TV, there are numerous explosions occurring simultaneously...like a whole floor at a time. They aren't small explosions either like a little plume of smoke shooting out here and there. Also, when you watch a demolition, the explosions are obvious and visible...you can clearly seem them in spite of the debris cloud produced by the collapse. The explosions are always happening just a level below that cloud...not in the middle of it.

I still can't rule out this scenario though...especially having heard Silverstein say he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7 with his own mouth. Why the H-E-doublehockeysticks was WTC 7 pre-wired with explosives?

All of this coupled with the reports of the powering down of the towers just a couple days prior to 9/11 makes the whole thing sound very suspicious. I hope someone finds some hardcore evidence someday. Keep searching and questioning. S&F for you.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Take a very close look at the OPs video. Notice how the debris accelerate out of the lover levels under the collapsing top part of the building. The debris suddenly accelerate faster then the initial collapse, and than keeps on at a steady pace down.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]
More than that, some of the debris seems to show an accelerative force away from the building.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by spy66
Take a very close look at the OPs video. Notice how the debris accelerate out of the lover levels under the collapsing top part of the building. The debris suddenly accelerate faster then the initial collapse, and than keeps on at a steady pace down.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]
More than that, some of the debris seems to show an accelerative force away from the building.


The other thing that supports a explosive take down is the angel the collapsing top part of the building is tilted at when the initial collapse occurs. See the angle of the top section at: 0:04 seconds. At that angel the top part of the building would have fallen of the intact bottom part of the building. Unless the floor beneath it was cleared by charges and termite.

If you keep an eye on the top left corner of the top part of the collapsing building after 0:04 seconds. You can see that the angel increases as if it is being destroyed by the lower intact part of the building. There is now way in hell that top part of the building could totally destroy the intact standing part of the building.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Suppose you have the following column:

|
|
|

What happens if floor 3 (the top one) collapses on the other two?

1. the other two collapse as well.
2. the other two magically disappear.
3. none of the above.
4. the other two do not collapse at all.

Well, the correct answer is 4:

If a specific floor in a building supports all the floors above it, then if those floors collapse, the floor underneath will not collapse.

It's simple physics: when the upper floors collapse, the lower floors have to support less weight than before, and therefore they do not collapse!!!

We can see this in the video posted by the OP: the top of the collapsing tower falls on the rest of the tower and the rest of the tower does not collapse! it's only when the falling top disappears 100% that the rest of the tower falls. This can mean only one thing: demolition.

The weakening of the steel columns seems like a serious argument in favor of the skeptics, but there is a serious problem with it: the steel columns in the floors lower to the impacted floor were not affected by the fire. We can see it in the videos: the fire is minimal and it is local to the impacted floor. There is no way that the steel columns in the lower floors were weakened in any way to cause such a catastrophic failure.

And then we have the problem of WTC7. Personally, I think its destruction is the most ridiculous thing to happen in the history of skyscrapers worldwide. Buildings do not fall like that, except if they have a serious problem...or if they are demolished.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 
That's what I meant in my first post at this thread. There are photos that clearly show that the top, falling portion literally fell off and disintegrated from the rest of the tower, leaving practically nothing to fall on to the remainder of the tower.

This picture gives some idea of what I mean, and also gives the lie to the idea of lack of sunlight..the only thing I and others dispute in this thread.

911research.wtc7.net...




These next pictures show much of the mass of the upper part of WTC2 simply falling and disintegrating in portions almost like 8x4's. The steel columns should have been for three stories, I don't know the sizes of the aluminium cladding.

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

digitaljournalist.org...
Edit to sort pictures correctly.



[edit on 28-3-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by rush969
 


I just have a question for you.

1. How many people in that building would know what a Termite charge would look like?

2. How many common people would on daily bases look around for termite charges within the buildings structures?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


I'm pretty sure Orkin would know what they look like ande would look for them



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by rush969
 


I just have a question for you.

1. How many people in that building would know what a Termite charge would look like?

2. How many common people would on daily bases look around for termite charges within the buildings structures?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


I'm pretty sure Orkin would know what they look like ande would look for them


LoL. Yeah i spelled Thermite wrong. Not always that easy to get the English right. Sorry


I bet they would find bugs as well lol.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by mnemeth1
 






Also, as far as nano thermite, is not one of the by products severe UV light ? Would this not have been seen anywhere during the cutting of the columns by ANY of the survivors that were escaping. I am pretty sure it is stronger than a tig weld reaction
so would not some of the people have said they were blinded? Just a question...

[edit on 28-3-2010 by esdad71]
The frequency and intensity of the UV emission depends on the particular oxidizer used. KMgO4 would likely cause eye damage if directly viewed by an unprotected eye.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


No I want specifics. I repeated what you did say. I think you should read your own posts. If you feel it was done in a specific way I would like to know, in your professional opinion, what was used?

You see, if you wanted to post, that I feel it was nano-thermite that was 'ignited' by radio frequencies or laser. Then once they were initiated semtex was used to create larger explosions to cover the thermite. This would be an answer. What do you feel was used and in what capacity?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join