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.

 

World Trade Center Documentary

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Modern Marvels is a show on the History Chanel.

This documentary was filmed less than a year before the fateful events of 9/11 and I believe it's an interesting watch. Whether or not you are into 9/11 conspiracies, I think that you owe it to yourself to check this documentary out.

My hope is to give people some pre 9/11 technical data in order to help people decide for themselves what happened that day. My hope is not to change anyone's mind on what happened on 9/11, its my opinion that those that choose to investigate this event have already made up their minds as to what happened. Instead, I just wanted to put up for consumption something that may not have been previously seen by people in order to educate.

Some pretty interesting names associated with the construction of the World Trade Center complex, including David Rockefeller Minoru Yamasaki and Austin J. Tobin.

Also if you are interested in 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Documentaries, I have found thanks to another member a website full of a wide variety of documentary films, they even have a section devoted to 9/11 Conspiracy Documentaries.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Check out Part 5 at 1:55

Building was designed to withstand multiple airplane impacts... hmm



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Hi!

My internet (crappy USB prepaid thing) is too poor for downloading videos but thanks for posting this. I have seen some of the Modern Marvels programs in the past and they usually show how the building was constructed, the materials, the costs, stakeholders, etc. Should make some interesting viewing for those interested in 9/11.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Also take special note in Part 5 - 6:30

They edited the original documentary to insert official story propaganda.

"...intense heat... burning jet fuel... weapon of mass destruction... could never have imagined such a thing..."



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by avatar01
 


Yes I noticed both of those parts as well. It's unfortunate that a clean version of this documentary is not available, but I believe that some interesting things are present in this. Like the Jet airliner contingency in it's construction, the bathtub construction, and what I think is really interesting is the part of the documentary about the 1993 bombing.

The 1993 bombing is very interesting to me because I think that people forget about that. And I also think that people forget that sometimes when a building is compromised, it's not always apparent, even to structural engineers.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Another thing that many ppl miss is that if a building was to fall due to
uneven damage to the building then it would not fall in its own footprint.

It would fall either toward the damage area or the direction the wind
was pushing or derived vector of the two combined.

Not 2 buildings with 2 different impacts with the exact same fall pattern.

Also the video in my signature shows that the firefighters say
the official story is pack of lies.



That video tells me all I need to know to form the opinion that
the official story is a lie.

As for extending that to inside job I do not have evidence as solid
for that argument, thou there are numerous circumstances that
point to the fact that it was at least allowed to happen.

The biggest one would be Sibel Edmonds.

en.wikipedia.org...

To be honest I am surprised she has not had an accident...



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I am awfully curious as to your opinion, whatukno, of 9/11. Official story or conspiracy?

I'll be disappointed if you skirt the question.

[edit - grammar]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by avatar01
Check out Part 5 at 1:55

Building was designed to withstand multiple airplane impacts


Except that was said by someone who had nothing to do with the design or construction, he was the bloke to speak to if you wanted a office refurbished!



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


I don't know.

While it seems odd to me that buildings like the twin towers could have fallen like they did due to fire. I have to admit, I am not an expert. There could be other factors to consider, age of the buildings, strain on load bearing structures, the 1993 bombing, fatigue on the metal due to the decades of swaying in the wind.

I just don't know, to me it seemed logical that the top of the building above where the damage occurred would have simply broken off and fell. But, I am no expert, so I can't reasonably give an opinion whether or not the official story is true.

I have seen a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories brought forth, and there was a time when I believed in the controlled demolition theory, in fact that may be the case too, again, I just don't know.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Concurred. On the fence is the place I hate the most, but I seem to find myself there quite a bit.

The 1993 bombing isn't something I've ever heard discussed by either side of the argument. Do you have any worthwhile links implicating the fire to the building's weakened integrity?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 



The 1993 bombing isn't something I've ever heard discussed by either side of the argument. Do you have any worthwhile links implicating the fire to the building's weakened integrity?


Not particularly no, but the above documentary does illustrate quite well the damage caused by the 1993 bombing.

But an experiment you can try at home is this, take an empty pop can without any dents in it at all and carefully stand on it, you might find that you are able to stand up on that empty pop can without it collapsing, now crease one small dent into the metal and try again, you will see that the pop can's structural integrity has indeed been compromised. This may have been what happened in 1993 which made the destruction possible on 9/11



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


But would the damage to the can be proportional to the damage caused to the towers by the bombings?

I made it through video 2, sounds like I need to complete the series.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Not exactly, however, it does show how something like an empty pop can that is undamaged can withstand a lot of weight, but take just a little bit of that structural integrity away, and that same weight can be disastrous.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The 1993 bombing is very interesting to me because I think that people forget about that. And I also think that people forget that sometimes when a building is compromised, it's not always apparent, even to structural engineers.


Yes, it's very interesting to me as well. Namely, it made the NYPA security realize the WTC was a target for bombers so they implemented widespread security, to the point where a worker on one floor couldn't enter another floor without an ID badge. This is critical because this flies in the face of all the conspiracy theorists who insist the security was all manned by drooling idiots and/or strangers they hired right off the streets, and mysterious work crews could wander anywhere they wanted with a marching band and baton twirling majorettes carrying gigantic boxes labelled, "TNT" without anyone noticing or even remembering.

It's one thing to speculate there's a conspiracy afoot, but it's another thing entirely for conspiracy theorists to stretch the realm of believability to the point where they need to introduce outright sorcery to make their theories work.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
But an experiment you can try at home is this, take an empty pop can without any dents in it at all and carefully stand on it, you might find that you are able to stand up on that empty pop can without it collapsing, now crease one small dent into the metal and try again, you will see that the pop can's structural integrity has indeed been compromised. This may have been what happened in 1993 which made the destruction possible on 9/11


Problem with your example- the 1993 bombing was down in the basement, so that's where all the damage was. In 2001, every single footage of the collapse shows the initial structural failure was up on the ninety somethingth floor, where the planes struck the towers. Whatever actually caused the towers to fall, this is where it happened. It seems blatantly obvious to me that when a building starts falling exactly at the point where something came along and smacked into it, the "smacked into it" part had a direct contribution on the "starts falling" part.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Right, the damage was up on top, which makes me still think that the damaged part should have just fell off. leaving a large majority of the buildings intact, however, both buildings fell straight down, which does not make sense if the top part was the only part damaged.

But, if there was damage to the sub basement structure, the additional damage could have caused the core of the structure to move downward causing the global failure witnessed on 9/11

Maybe I should amend my analogy, maybe crease the pop can near the bottom, bend the metal back out, stand on it, and shoot the side with a bb gun. (I don't actually recommend trying this because if you have friends like I did they would just shoot you with the bb gun.) But the point is, the sub basement already being somewhat compromised, might have made it possible for the upper floor damage to cause the catastrophic global failure that we saw.

Still to me makes more sense than jet fuel melting steel, and makes more sense than mysterious workers wrapping structural support columns with detcord disguised as cat 5 line.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Maybe I should amend my analogy, maybe crease the pop can near the bottom, bend the metal back out, stand on it, and shoot the side with a bb gun. (I don't actually recommend trying this because if you have friends like I did they would just shoot you with the bb gun.) But the point is, the sub basement already being somewhat compromised, might have made it possible for the upper floor damage to cause the catastrophic global failure that we saw.


Question is, though, if your analogy was that a crinkle near the bottom of the can would cause the structural integrity to deteriorate as a whole, why wouldn't any such crinkle have the same effect near the top of the can? In both cases there would still be weight enough to collapse the can coming from above.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Less weight near the top than at the bottom. I'm not saying that it's a perfect analogy by any stretch, I am just looking for real world answers.

I mean even the metal fatigue due to the natural swaying of the building over the years could have had an effect too.

Listen, I'm not a structural engineer, I am no expert on this, I just know what I saw and something doesn't seem so straightforward as two planes hitting the top of the buildings causing them to fall straight down. To me doesn't make any real sense.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The FBI was involved with the 1993 bombing, and that's court-documented fact. Just look up the FBI's informant to the alleged terrorist cell, "Emad Salem."

He provided testimony about the FBI trying to set up that "cell" with a fake bomb for a sting operation, and gave them the idea to explode it in the basement of the WTC Towers, but then then somehow or another they got their hands on a real one instead....


Thanks for posting this documentary. I'll have to have a look, though I agree it's a shame we can't watch a pre-9/11, unadultered version. If they already changed something then who's to say they didn't cut other parts completely out? Maybe it will surface with time.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
The FBI was involved with the 1993 bombing, and that's court-documented fact. Just look up the FBI's informant to the alleged terrorist cell, "Emad Salem."

He provided testimony about the FBI trying to set up that "cell" with a fake bomb for a sting operation, and gave them the idea to explode it in the basement of the WTC Towers, but then then somehow or another they got their hands on a real one instead....


I did, and what do I find but yet more lies being circulated by the conspiracy mongers to get people all paranoid over shadows. The FBI was intending to give them a fake bomb in order to catch them in the act, but a dimwit FBI official pulled the plug on the operation becuase he didn't take Emad Salem's report of a bombing attempt seriously. This "FBI involvement" as the poster manipulated it into is really a sting operation that the FBI incompetence fudged up.

So the question is, if there's so much "blatant evidence" of a conspiracy then why to the conspiracy mongers need to resort to manufacturing their own like this?



new topics




 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join