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 Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 12
104
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
There are real world situations that have occured similar to 9/11 and none of the buildings collapsed. On one day three highrise buildings fail two of similar construction and one completely different.


Sat 28 July 1945 - Empire State Building, New York, USA
At 9:40 am, a twin engine B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith, Jr., who was flying in thick fog, accidentally crashed into the Empire State Building (102 floors) between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the Catholic War Relief Office were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and another plummeted down an elevator shaft. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. Fourteen people were killed in the incident.




this one a 747 hit and yes major damage but building still stands



and there has been many highrise fires of intense heat and longer burn times than those of WTC...also the fire on the WTC was oxygen starved so the heat would not have been as intense as being suggested by the OS this is high octane jet fuel...it would have produce a much whiter smoke if the heat was to be as intense.




FIRST INTERSTATE BANK FIRE - Los Angeles, CA, US


The 62-story skyscraper suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through to the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. There was no damage to the main structure and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.


another two examples





madrid fire



when people say that truthers dont provide real world examples think again please...as we all just want the truth not the BS the OS story spews out at us.


source


Fire Ravages Caracas's Parque Central, Region's Tallest Tower
Fire destroyed the top third of the east tower of Venezuela's Parque Central, South America's tallest skyscraper. The Caracas landmark was empty, and the cause of the fire isn't known. At least 15 firefighters were treated for smoke inhalation in the Venezuelan capital, Metropolitan Fire Chief Rodolfo Briceno said in a televised press conference. The fire, which began about 1 a.m., spread from the 34th floor to the top of the 56-story building, Briceno said. The fire didn't affect the shorter West tower or an adjoining apartment center. Briceno said he couldn't rule out that the building might collapse because of the heavy structural damage. `The sprinkler system didn't work. There's no water pressure up there. Military helicopters were ferrying in water to dump on the blaze. Firefighters were evacuated from the tower, and neighboring buildings also were cleared. The building, erected between 1978 and 1984, houses government agencies including the Infrastructure Ministry and the Civil Aviation Agency. The Sofia Imber Museum of Contemporary Art, Latin America's largest collection of modernistic works, is also partially housed in the tower's base. Briceno said it was too early to determine the cause of the blaze.


note it is said may collapse but didn't



source

so just to say i personally dont believe the OS....and also ...i remember watching the news reports and i remember hearing the first statements of people talking of the boom boom boom...and then how the buildings fell.

will there be a smoking gun....who really knows, but just too many coincedences on one day...three buildings one not even struck....collapse in a freefall fashion and the debunkers say the truthers need to get a grip...i don't think so.





[edit on 013030p://f27Monday by plube]




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
It has been proven a number of times that the buildings did not fall in free-fall time.

This vid demonstrates that there was plenty of resistance on the way down that made it very much not free-fall speed.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
9-11 was clearly an inside job, many puppet politicians from the Previous administration are mass murderers and should be in jail but they are still stealing from America cause they are protected by the NWO Elites. The Trade center bldgs killed 3000, phony wars in Afghanistan and Iraq killed approx 1 million so for all cause Saddom did not want to be controlled by the coming NWO; doesn't someone needs to answer for all this?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTruth
9-11 was clearly an inside job, many puppet politicians from the Previous administration are mass murderers and should be in jail but they are still stealing from America cause they are protected by the NWO Elites. The Trade center bldgs killed 3000, phony wars in Afghanistan and Iraq killed approx 1 million so for all cause Saddom did not want to be controlled by the coming NWO; doesn't someone needs to answer for all this?


Congratulations on your second post.

Please try to post information and debate related to the topic matter of this particular thread.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I will correct my words slightly...and use the word near freefall...just to make some people happy...but it is a term in demolition as even in controlled demolition it does not fall at exactly freefall speeds...and it will still be accelerating .....but also two pictures of note are these two.


This picture shows how Shaped Thermite charges are used to instantly cut through large steel columns to effect a controlled demolition.





And now we see pictures taken after the Towers had collapsed. Recognize anything?





source

and just a note...IT has not been proven they did not fall at near freefall speed...heck watch it for yourselves....count the seconds...taking into account it is accelerating due to gravity 9.8m/s2 simple really.

then calculate the number of floors and the deceleration due to pancaking.

it will not add up....but it is basic physics....so you do the math rather than just accepting what is told by the OS.

planes hit it...YES but only two of the buildings

did planes bring it down...no definately not in WTC 7.

but if people choose to be blind then their loss



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
It has been proven a number of times that the buildings did not fall in free-fall time.

This vid demonstrates that there was plenty of resistance on the way down that made it very much not free-fall speed.

www.youtube.com...


"Plenty" of resistance, come on bro...maybe it wasn't actual free-fall speed but 6 seconds off, is that really that significant of a difference that you feel the need to split hairs and point it out. 8-10 floors collapsing per second into the path of most resistance doesn't happen without some "help"

BTW, about those cores that you can see standing for a few seconds after the collapse, what happened to them? Yeah, they turned to dust.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The fact that those buildings did not collapse does not mean no building will collapse as result of fire. Implying otherwise is faulty logic. Anyone should face the fact that it is pretty much impossible for us to know what is possible and what is not, we can merely speculate on it. Thats what this all is, speculation.

In my view there are many points again the controlled demolition theory. Apart from the technical and logistical difficulties, I even find the motives questionable. I don't think things would be that much different if they did not collapse. If the government is really that sinister they can just do another attack in order to get political support.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JKersteJr

Originally posted by Varemia
It has been proven a number of times that the buildings did not fall in free-fall time.

This vid demonstrates that there was plenty of resistance on the way down that made it very much not free-fall speed.

www.youtube.com...


"Plenty" of resistance, come on bro...maybe it wasn't actual free-fall speed but 6 seconds off, is that really that significant of a difference that you feel the need to split hairs and point it out. 8-10 floors collapsing per second into the path of most resistance doesn't happen without some "help"

BTW, about those cores that you can see standing for a few seconds after the collapse, what happened to them? Yeah, they turned to dust.


I sure hope you're not being serious. If you are, then this is a sad, sad day for humanity. Here the argument is that the building falls at free-fall speed, something that can only happen with no resistance, ie. demolitions placed at the perfect points to allow it.

I provide PROOF that they fell at a slower rate than free-fall, 5-6 seconds difference. You push it aside like psssh, doesn't matter. That was part of your entire argument! You can't just ignore it now that it doesn't support you.

Then, you refer to the core that stood for a moment. You say, "Yeah, they turned to dust." No, they didn't turn to dust! They collapsed without the support from the floors around them which had already collapsed. The rubble piling up at the base of the towers probably increased the instability of the core.

The point is, you can't just ignore evidence and use rhetoric to support your belief. We're not talking philosophy here, but factual information. Consider everything, not just what you want to consider.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

I sure hope you're not being serious. If you are, then this is a sad, sad day for humanity. Here the argument is that the building falls at free-fall speed, something that can only happen with no resistance, ie. demolitions placed at the perfect points to allow it.

I provide PROOF that they fell at a slower rate than free-fall, 5-6 seconds difference. You push it aside like psssh, doesn't matter. That was part of your entire argument! You can't just ignore it now that it doesn't support you.

Then, you refer to the core that stood for a moment. You say, "Yeah, they turned to dust." No, they didn't turn to dust! They collapsed without the support from the floors around them which had already collapsed. The rubble piling up at the base of the towers probably increased the instability of the core.

The point is, you can't just ignore evidence and use rhetoric to support your belief. We're not talking philosophy here, but factual information. Consider everything, not just what you want to consider.


Oh I'm quite serious, and free fall speed has NEVER been MY argument, because it doesn't have to free fall in order for alarm bells to go off in my head...just in the vicinity. In actuality those buildings, if they were pancaking should have taken FAR longer to collapse. I guess I will never understand your point of view, when I watch the videos of the collapse, I see a building being blown up floor by floor (just as the firefighters said) and seemingly accelerating on the way down and that's what I saw from day 1.

Another question, if the floors are pancaking than shouldn't there have been a stack of floors at the bottom of the rubble pile, at least a few? Nope, they seemed to have turned to dust as well.

Need I post for the 1000th time the "spire" video where the core just disintegrates before your eyes?

I don't deal in rhetoric sir, and I don't label your arguments or insinuate anything about your theories so why don't you have some respect. Do you have any opinions on the video of the WTC Construction Managers comments about the building that I posted on page 11?

[edit on 9/6/2010 by JKersteJr]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


wow and i am once again stunned by ignorance...who would have thought that a concrete stucture would colapse like that..WOW...i am truely amazed...NOT!!!!

the towers are a STEEL frame construction....with a STEEL i-beam central core....man talk about apples with oranges there.

you my friend can believe what your goverment tells you...but i think you really could use some lessons in contruction and the difference in the materials that were used...also did you know that the 23rd floor of WTC7 was upgraded to be bomb proofed.

possibly not.

but here again to people some pics of the building of the twin towers.











STEEL STEEL and even more STEEL....WOW i am really suprised.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JKersteJr
 


If I look at that clip posted earlier in this thread, it looks very similar to the collapse of the WTC to me.

www.youtube.com...

No explosives.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Awesome post.

I thought somewhere I had seen a list of previous steel structure building plane impacts / fires collected.

Now, I have a bookmark! *'d!



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


did you read my first post in here....the jewish connection...the buildings needed to be brought down....they were wortless the land was valuble.

If they stayed standing they would have been repairable and that would not have been of any good when it came to the insurance payout....which Silverman had insured the buildings for the act of terrorism.

as for the goverment....i myself do use the word goverment..but i use the word Elite with it...as i stated the goverments think in short terms where as the Elites of the world think in longterms.

We all assume the goverment but we always seem to neglect the controlers of the goverments...the Elite are not the politicians they run the politicians.

things are not political that is used to keep the slaves happy(We the people). This was Monetary....and most things are monetary just as wars are monetary.

presidents,prime ministers political leaders are the puppets of the Elite and they use the goverments as the scapegoats...just as they have done in 9/11.

So i choose not to belive the PTB on this issue and i will continue to try to waken others to the fact...the truth is not what happened with 9/11...the truth will be who set 9/11 up.

follow the money trail....that is why i dont belive the OS.

Are there evil people out there who want complete and utter control over all things that happen in this world of ours...I personally believe so.

So i for one will not allow myself to be lead down the proverbial path to slaughter without at least standing up for the truth.

common sense tells me that three buildings do not come down in such a fashion with two completely different angles of being struck and to fall in that fashion.

and the WTC7 to fall in a demolition style with a central dipping without even being hit by a plane....in a random set of events like this at least one building would have had a horizontal topple.

cause on that day i would have gone out and bought a flippen lottery ticket cause i would have had better odds of winning the big prize than to have three buildings come down vertically.

I thank god myself that he blessed me with common sense...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JKersteJr
 


If I look at that clip posted earlier in this thread, it looks very similar to the collapse of the WTC to me.

www.youtube.com...

No explosives.


The video I was referring to is on page 11, it is the WTC Construction Manager well before 9/11 saying that the towers were built to be able to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. He also says he believes it could withstand multiple impacts.

The video above while insightful really doesn't prove anything, they may not have used explosives but the building was prepped to fall like that. You and O/S supporters will have us believe the towers just came down on their own...simply because of jet fuel.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
It has been proven a number of times that the buildings did not fall in free-fall time.

This vid demonstrates that there was plenty of resistance on the way down that made it very much not free-fall speed.

www.youtube.com...


The fact that they would fall any where even remotely comparable to free fall is the issue.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Varemia
It has been proven a number of times that the buildings did not fall in free-fall time.

This vid demonstrates that there was plenty of resistance on the way down that made it very much not free-fall speed.

www.youtube.com...


The fact that they would fall any where even remotely comparable to free fall is the issue.


Thank You!

Everyone is so overly involved with details they fail to see the simple truth.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Steel girders will get ripped apart just as concrete will crumble under stress. This isn't a super-building. If a large mass of steel mesh is dropped on another mass of steel mesh, it is highly likely that they will cause each-other to collapse. Notice in videos of the collapses that the top of the trade center will tilt as it begins to fall. This implies a failure of the steel in that area, the lode being pulled out from the rest of the floor, and then the rest is elementary. Upper part falls on lower part, everything goes.

And for the record, there isn't a bunch of floors layered together specifically "because" this was a steel structure. The floors became ripped apart during the impacting process.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It seems to me the insurance companies, often owned by banks, are those elites. They won't let anyone screw them that easily. And if they smell fraud, they will do some investigating of their own, especially with such large sums at stake. So that theory doesn't really make sense to me.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JKersteJr
 


I gave my comments on that clip already. I am not trying to make you believe anything, I am just sharing my opinion on the matter. In fact, I would not even be that surprised if explosives were used, at least not in the trust in the government sense, but it does not seem the most obvious explanation to me.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


When steel strustures fail they twist and buckle ...THEY DO NOT disintegrate as concrtete does ...i work with both types of materials and i as many know the difference.

now if it was a straight forward collapse the buildings would have twisted and buckled in different ways they would not come straight down...especially in all three instances as the forces would not have all been the same.

I am glad that there is still some common sense out there and people are not believing the tripe that is being fed to them.

now on the levels that the planes dis strike they did not strike evenly one came in fairly level and the other came at a slight downward angle...now that angular strike alone would have caused the buildine to topple akwardly as the steel buckled and twisted.

just food for thought back in 45' there was two atomic bombs droped on two cities hiroshima and nagasaki...this was japan and there was not a great deal of steel type structures in the city at the time but here is some interesting steel structures that had the best chance of suviving the blast.

so please do not prtend to tell me how steel responds under heat....in the nothingness the steel remains.





just imagine how the less substantial steel even survives a atomic bomb.

but you go ahead and keep being fooled...if it makes you feel better.

the way to get the towers to come down in such a fashion is to create simultaneous structual failure....like i say...follow the money trail and look at what the Elite want us to believe...they want us to belive the world should go against Islam because it is causeing grief for a precious jewish state.....

OMG they have succeeded with so many people....and that is a shame.

I hope for your sake that you dont actually think that a few under trained haphazard arabs could have got aboard sophisticated aircraft after training on cessnas and strike buidings while subdueing hundreds of passengers on a plane.

i have posted decent replies over and over with loads of info and possible senarios which could be resonable...where you come back with one or two youtube videos.

and i do this to try and change your mind...not a chance as i think you have gone to the dark side already and notihing anyone says will sway your view to open possibilities...but,in these exchanges i see some people at least thinking which is a step in the right direction.

Please Let Us Be Enlightened.







[edit on 053030p://f05Monday by plube]



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join