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: 14
104
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Thing is, we're not totally talking about probability here. It's not like we're discussing how the towers could have fallen. We're discussing how they "did" fall. Once it has happened, even if it was highly unlikely, you have to look at the possibility. I would think that whole saying about the simplest answer being the right one would say that the simplest answer (structural integrity failure) would be what really happened. But instead, people are arguing that it wasn't what it looked like, but a very meticulously planned and worked out, super complex plan to destroy the towers and start a war for money.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
But structural integrity failure didn't appear to be what the simplest answer was when I watched both towers fall live. I thought they were controlled demolitions at the time. To me, it would seem logical that if there was a lot of structural damage, it would be concentrated where the impacts occurred, so failure would mean the tops of the twin towers would fall over to the side since like in lumberjacking, one side is considerably weaker than the other.

That didn't happen. At all. We saw top-down obliteration at close to free fall speeds. When a steel structured building has never, ever, collapsed due to fire, we saw 3 fall straight down in one day.

I don't know what happened, but I know that "structural integrity failure" does not appear to be the "simplest" answer to me.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Article says one of the maintenance men heard a explosion before the first plane hit.

He was in the basement and the explosion came from below.

His quote and source below.


It was while he was in basements of the North Tower that Mr Rodriguez says he felt an explosion from below. "It was so hard that it shook the foundations of the building and the walls cracked," he said. "The ceiling fell on top of us."

Mr Rodriguez, 45, had worked in the building for 20 years, and survived the 1993 bomb blast. As the sprinkler system came on, he was mentally transported back. It was only then that he claims he heard the sound of the first plane hitting the tower, at 8.46am. "It came from far away - all the way at the top of the building," he said.

(last paragraph) But Mr Rodriguez continues to speak out. Once a prominent magician, he said: "The 9/11 attacks are just an illusion. It never happened in the way they say. It's all manufactured to give the impression that it happened like that."

Source: www.informationliberation.com...


I've been saying all along 911 was a inside job committed by our very own government to incite the American People into war.

A war that has costs us trillions of dollars and many lives.

All for money and power.

And we the People have never held the monsters behind this atrosity accountable.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I've told myself that I would scream if I saw one more post claiming or implying that the angled cuts are evidence of ther*te cuts .

But , I got up , went outside , and calmed down . Because , maybe you are one of those who honestly don't know , and just haven't seen the REAL evidence .

The cuts were made by cutting torches , plube .

They are angled in order to control the direction they will fall .

sites.google.com...

[edit on 7-9-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


ok i am going to play dumb here...there is a fireman still in the pic...the clean up effort did not require firemen to be present.

I have seen your posts...you call people for having opinions...and you try to be little them by over simplifying the facts.

i showed two photos there...the first photo was a actual re inactment by CDI. to show how much work is involved in making a demolition happen in the way of taking down a steel structure...now i have been involved in the dismantling of such structures and you DO NOT cut the Ibeams at an angle like that as you will have an overhead crane to remove the beam as the final torched cut is made...IT IS NOT a tree where you shout timber.

when you have a crane overhead you torch the beam straight across. so that the steel can be controled during the lift. I you cut in that fashion it would be a danger as the beam would have the tendency to possibly slide off the edge...HEALTH and SAFTEY.

that definately not cut for the purpose of removel...so please by all mean go out and yell.....and please let me know if your in the construction trade.

I am dicussing things from experience not from hearsay.

and also like i said earlier...BEING IN THE TRADE...there was far to many coincedences on the day for all the building to come down in a top down fashion....in a building where accidental structural failure occurs there is nothing symetric or graceful in it's demise.

so you my friend can keep on spewing.....but when you start to add to the threads with knowledge,possible evidence,back up to what you imply..then i might possibly start to entertain your viewpoints.....but just screaming cause your viewpoint is not accepted is no way to give valued opinions.

i started with motive....then cause....and soon i will add in effect.

but as for the OS ...complete and utter BS.

these buildings did not fail just by being struck by the planes alone.I showed buildings that have been hit by planes...including the Empire state Building around the the 2/3 point and still stood.plus others....so please go scream....cause i am sure there are many who belive the OS who will gladly hold your hand and be fooled by their precious leaders.





[edit on 113030p://f29Tuesday by plube]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The way I see it, no one should really be trying to prove any specific theory about the tower collapses, rather disproving the theories that can be disproven.

Personally, I don't honestly know for certain what happened. I just know from what I've seen is that it "looks" just like a top-down collapse. It behaves the way a steel structure would and everything, in that rather than tumbling and breaking away the top, it was because only half the floor was compromised that it would appear that the integrity of the structure was taken out. People can say that engineers claimed the building would withstand 707 jet impacts, but unfortunately, they weren't able to "crash-test" the towers to see if that was a fact.

The evidence I have seen points to the towers having collapsed because they were impacted by some massive planes with a lot of fuel that burned for an hour or so before reducing the abilities of the steel to maintain integrity. This is the obvious answer, regardless of what anyone thinks as it was happening or whatever. Just because all that could go through someone's mind is "Oh god, that couldn't have happened!" doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

I'm all for not believing the official story. The government will lie about everything to save face. However, I just can't see the support to say that this was a demolition or any other kind of massive deception.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
One of the things I can't yet understand after watching this video and digesting the previous information that has been spewed at me from conspiracy theorists everywhere is this: Why is it that the buildings in ALL the examples I've seen, when they are being demolished you hear the explosions BEFORE the collapse, and then the collapse creates much less sound? In the WTC collapses, the buildings didn't begin to make a ton of sound until AFTER they began to fall. I watched the video a few times, once with my eyes open, once with them closed. I could not make out "explosions," but sounds of crashing, overall chaotic destruction. In demolitions things are clean and easily recognizable. The towers fell in a very unclean manner, creating massive amounts of noise, parts of them collapsing OUTWARD, etc. The eyewitnesses provided happen to have never seen a building of that size collapse before, so naturally the only comparable item they have is a building being demolished.

This video here explains a number of things about the falling speed and also about how the outside of the first tower collapsed before the rest came with it:

www.youtube.com...


Look closely at this next one. AFTER the tower collapses there are still parts standing that continue to fall slowly after the rest is down.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Varemia]

Why don't you look up the Mandarin Hotel in Bejing. It BURNED FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS. And guess what, It NEVER FELL!!!!!

It did not have the same structural integrity as the WTC buildings, and yet it is still standing? I am a metalurgist/machinist/welder by trade, don't give me any BS. I know metals. Controled Demolition all the way.

www.usatoday.com...




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



Why don't you look up the Mandarin Hotel in Bejing. It BURNED FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS. And guess what, It NEVER FELL!!!!!


OH MY GOD!!!! You mean, a different building, with a different design under different circumstances suffered different damage and there was - hold on to your hat - DIFFERENT RESULTS?????

How earth shattering! What time is the press conference? Can wait to see how the New York Times goes with this one.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Varemia
One of the things I can't yet understand after watching this video and digesting the previous information that has been spewed at me from conspiracy theorists everywhere is this: Why is it that the buildings in ALL the examples I've seen, when they are being demolished you hear the explosions BEFORE the collapse, and then the collapse creates much less sound? In the WTC collapses, the buildings didn't begin to make a ton of sound until AFTER they began to fall. I watched the video a few times, once with my eyes open, once with them closed. I could not make out "explosions," but sounds of crashing, overall chaotic destruction. In demolitions things are clean and easily recognizable. The towers fell in a very unclean manner, creating massive amounts of noise, parts of them collapsing OUTWARD, etc. The eyewitnesses provided happen to have never seen a building of that size collapse before, so naturally the only comparable item they have is a building being demolished.

This video here explains a number of things about the falling speed and also about how the outside of the first tower collapsed before the rest came with it:

www.youtube.com...


Look closely at this next one. AFTER the tower collapses there are still parts standing that continue to fall slowly after the rest is down.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Varemia]

Why don't you look up the Mandarin Hotel in Bejing. It BURNED FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS. And guess what, It NEVER FELL!!!!!

It did not have the same structural integrity as the WTC buildings, and yet it is still standing? I am a metalurgist/machinist/welder by trade, don't give me any BS. I know metals. Controled Demolition all the way.

www.usatoday.com...



Wait, wait, wait. Big difference here. That building wasn't hit by anything. No plane to scrape away the fire-resistant protection on the structure.

That's the big thing. The impact of the planes scraped away the protective covering on a lot of the floor, allowing the fire to seriously weaken them.

You've just been debunked.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


ok i will answer this as gracefully as i can....The planes struck on the side of the buildings..OBVIOUSLY.

one came in fairly straight the other at a fairly downward angle.

the jet fuel expended most of it's energy on the outside of the building...(i did not say all).

the outside of the building was clad in aluminium.
melting point.....Aluminum 660c 1220f

do you see melted aluminium



okay now the gravity question...the building has area specific damage which means that there would not be equal structural failure across the entire floor area.....no i will show you what that means even under controled circumstances....GRAVITY acts equaly over the entire mass.









now see what happens when part failure occurs.

Ok now i will head off a BUT>>>>>

i know some how some ignorance will reveal its ugly head so...before someone says but these were taller....where the planes struck were still taller than any of the above buildings.



now just to follow a point of a poster previous...the madrid building burn hot for 24hours....suprise again as gravity strikes its wear head. where the section of the building fails it acts upon that component.



STEEL structure.

hope this helps a bit in a decent and fair explaination.



[edit on 023030p://f58Tuesday by plube]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


It behaves the way a steel structure would and everything

How do you know how a steel structure would behave under those unique circumstances? What do you have to compare to?


in that rather than tumbling and breaking away the top, it was because only half the floor was compromised that it would appear that the integrity of the structure was taken out.

Could you please re-phrase that?


The evidence I have seen points to the towers having collapsed because they were impacted by some massive planes with a lot of fuel that burned for an hour or so before reducing the abilities of the steel to maintain integrity. This is the obvious answer, regardless of what anyone thinks as it was happening or whatever. Just because all that could go through someone's mind is "Oh god, that couldn't have happened!" doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


How much of that fuel was consumed in the massive fireball we all saw? Percentage wise? Why is the O/S of the government (that you acknowledge are liars) the obvious answer? Did you put it together like they did immediately after the events happened...honestly?

Call me naive or ignorant but when I was at work and heard the towers "fell" I thought to myself two things immediately, first "Umm HOW could they have possibly fallen, how could they have sustained enough damage to have fallen!?". Second I thought "Oh no, those towers are 110 stories tall, they must have caused unbelievable damage toppling over" I got the mental image of them tipping over and wrecking 10 or 20 blocks wherever they came to rest.

When I saw the pictures in the special edition paper they delivered I was literally dumbfounded, I can honestly say I didn't think explosives or government conspiracies until over a year later, but I just could not understand how a jet could make these structures disintegrate like that. Those are my honest to God first thoughts....did you think anything like that initially, did any of you O/S supporters? Lets be real here for one second!

Like I said, I guess I'll never understand your mindsets, I really can't believe what I'm reading from you sometimes. I don't have an agenda and although I'm no scholar I have common sense and am plenty open minded...I've been on both sides.

When I got home on that day, I didn't see the towers collapsing at all...I saw the towers f***ing exploding, pardon my french.

These arguments will never end and we will never be a united country again, we couldn't possibly all agree on what happened on 9/11....and that really does make me sad.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Firstly, melted aluminium has nothing to do with it, thats just a strawman argument.

Secondly, what I do see is a bloody great big hole where something went through.

Thirdly, that hole is in a tubular steel structure that acted as a brace to wind action against the side of the tower, and also supported the floor truss spans out from the central core of the building meaning that the outer wall of the tower is now not doing the job it was designed for, and any loadings that were passing through it are suddenly being absorbed somewhere else.

Now, where are those loads going to? They don't simply disappear.

You can see from the smaller picture that the impact ripped right through the whole floor, and anything in the way of it is going to suffer some serious damage - anything inside that floor is going to suddenly become very bad to be around.

Impacts on steel, at 400mph+, are going to cause bends, massive vibrations through the structure and possibly shearing of welds and bolts. As soon as a bolt or weld fails, the weight it is holding is transferred elsewhere, putting pressure on the other parts of the support. If enough of those parts fail under tension, they will snap - then the load is transferred elsewhere as there is no resistance offered any more... then another joint snaps, and another, and another....

And once the load on the central core becomes too great, then it too will fail at its weakest points, and start to bend/buckle and shear.

The forces involved in the loading on the damaged structure are the dead weight of the tower above the points of failure, and gravity - there is no other force to push in in any other direction. End result, when combined with a fire that may be expanding and weakening the structural steel and suddenly, something gives.

As soon as the weight starts to move, gravity is trying to force it downwards at 9.81m/s2. The structure was designed to cope with its own static weight, and wind loads. It was not designed to cope with a dynamic load impacting down on it from above. As soon as the upper stories exceeded the structural design limits at the points of failure that building was, sadly doomed, and all it was going to do was fall straight down, which it did.

 


This is a theory based on structural mechanics and physics. I say that because no one knows what happened to the towers exactly. People may speculate, they may try and offer opinions as fact, but actually no body knows not even NIST.

As I keep stating, and will no doubt continue to state until the day I move off this mortal coil, 9/11 was the rule, not the exception to the rule. Until Sept 11th 2001 no one had flown two commercial jet liners into two 1300ft+ tall towers. No one, not one single person had any idea before the day what would happen in those circumstances, and no one after the event can say for sure what actually did happen because the buildings were rubble and there was no going back - but frankly anyone that tells you that the only way these towers could come down was through explosives is making it up. They simply do not know.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JKersteJr

Originally posted by Varemia


It behaves the way a steel structure would and everything

How do you know how a steel structure would behave under those unique circumstances? What do you have to compare to?


in that rather than tumbling and breaking away the top, it was because only half the floor was compromised that it would appear that the integrity of the structure was taken out.

Could you please re-phrase that?


The evidence I have seen points to the towers having collapsed because they were impacted by some massive planes with a lot of fuel that burned for an hour or so before reducing the abilities of the steel to maintain integrity. This is the obvious answer, regardless of what anyone thinks as it was happening or whatever. Just because all that could go through someone's mind is "Oh god, that couldn't have happened!" doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


How much of that fuel was consumed in the massive fireball we all saw? Percentage wise? Why is the O/S of the government (that you acknowledge are liars) the obvious answer? Did you put it together like they did immediately after the events happened...honestly?

Call me naive or ignorant but when I was at work and heard the towers "fell" I thought to myself two things immediately, first "Umm HOW could they have possibly fallen, how could they have sustained enough damage to have fallen!?". Second I thought "Oh no, those towers are 110 stories tall, they must have caused unbelievable damage toppling over" I got the mental image of them tipping over and wrecking 10 or 20 blocks wherever they came to rest.

When I saw the pictures in the special edition paper they delivered I was literally dumbfounded, I can honestly say I didn't think explosives or government conspiracies until over a year later, but I just could not understand how a jet could make these structures disintegrate like that. Those are my honest to God first thoughts....did you think anything like that initially, did any of you O/S supporters? Lets be real here for one second!

Like I said, I guess I'll never understand your mindsets, I really can't believe what I'm reading from you sometimes. I don't have an agenda and although I'm no scholar I have common sense and am plenty open minded...I've been on both sides.

When I got home on that day, I didn't see the towers collapsing at all...I saw the towers f***ing exploding, pardon my french.

These arguments will never end and we will never be a united country again, we couldn't possibly all agree on what happened on 9/11....and that really does make me sad.


Ok, it seems I didn't make myself clear enough. What you felt about the event at the time has absolutely no bearing at all on what really happened. Just because you can't accept doesn't make it suddenly not true.

I have a good idea that the majority of the floor that was undamaged would have held on pretty well for being such a strong steel construct. When the part of the floors that were damaged and being exposed to burning fuel and other fires against the then unprotected steel finally gave way, all of the weight of the upper tower rested on the rest of the floor. This is explained in a report about the incident. Then, a force I don't completely understand, but was described as something like plasticity took place in which material on the floors began bowing. The stress became too much and the supports gave way, making the tower begin to fall in the direction of least resistance, also known as the giant hole in the building. Because the other side of the building was still fairly firmly attached to the structure, it basically "held onto" the falling portion and transferred more of its energy to the structure below, causing the systematic failure of the lower structure and the top-down collapse as seen on TV.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JKersteJr
 


Starred you for your comments there....not that it is needed as i too have no hidden agenda....but do believe in common sense...as it is going to be common sense that gets people through things that are coming as a result of this atrocity. The real perps were not some ill trained cessna pilots who just happen to get lucky on three out of four planes crashes.

that we as the people are to believe that the first time since the construction of steel sky scrapers that these three building came down in fashions of a top down collapse and one building was not even struck.

that the fires were soooo intense yet they could not even melt aluminium cladding on the outside of the buildings.

that Silverman uses the term pull it to indicate WTC7 is going to collapse.

That it was necessary for him to take out terrorism insurance and low and behold an act of terrorism occurs.

that it is so convienent that the port Authority now gave over security to a private company that has a major influence from Silverman himself.

that the buildings were so heavily asbestos laiden that it made them worthless...yet we are to believe that they were not fireproofed.

that George bush is not making billions from the weapons sale to go into IRaq and into Afghanistan as a result.

That the world is now being programmed to hate all Muslims for the benefit of Isreal.

that Haliburton is not yet again making billions of dollars in various contracts as a result.

nooooo we are to believe the OS. We are to just shut up and be good little slaves.

I have been trying so hard to keep things in a practical and educated reply by showing and explaining things logically. But, i too am very saddened by the willingness of so many people to just believe that these structures came down do to just planes crashing into them.

I am saddened to know how people are the slaves they have been trained to be.

I am saddened that people are willing to take it up the proverbial A£$ and accept lies.

I hope we as mankind will someday learn we are each and everyone of us special and that we are not the Elites playthings.

but i will keep trying to wake people up and hope for the best....this attack was NOT an act of terrorism....It was and is a continuing act of Elitism....so beware.

Please Let Us Be Enlightened.







[edit on 033030p://f54Tuesday by plube]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


But what if they were brought down by planes, and the terrorists happen to have gotten training from the government?

I have seen on a few shows that flying an airliner is not a difficult thing to do. What is hard is landing it, and most people can do that if they have radio instructions being fed to them from a tower.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Sorry M8 i work in the trade and i have done structural engineering....

and your quoting NIST (that is such a shame...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

your believe the same agency who does not want an open public inquiry to take place...hmmmm flags there.

and you just stick with your one thing...in one instance i may have been able to accept...but in three instances and one of the buidings WTC7 was a different construction and ugraded to bomb proof capabilities on the 23rd floor.

so you take it to your grave with you...but i am going to have to disagree with you and i will go on trying to get the real answers and use my common sense to work things out...you said to me that gravity gravity gravity would do that but i took the time to show you how gravity can work on areas were the structure fails. Did i try to deny palnes hit the building no...

did i try to say it was a missle...no

did i say it was a ufo...no

you have a completly aluminium plane hitting steal....the plane will tear to shreds.

now the melting aluminium is an important point...cause NIST...your god of be all says the fires were soooooo instense it would melt steal.....common sense....the aluminium would melt first.

so you go on and not look at all things possible...i am pointing out things that dont make sense...i am not speculating on what may have brought the buildings down...YET....

and i also showed where a bomber hit the empire state building and a plane had hit (747) a lousy apartment block.....what have you shown....NOTHING.

all you have stated was the same tripe from the OS.

shame.

I am not the only one out there in the highly respected structural engineering world that feels the same.

The wtc was a crime scene that was basically concluded and cleaned up before any decent investigation could be done.

when planes crashes occur they take all the pieces no matter how small or insignifigant...reassemble the pieces in a layout and analyse for ages.

Not any word of the black boxes.....no voice recordings from the plane.

so you go ahead.....be blind my friend.....very sad indeed.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I'm pretty sure the plane did melt. And as for your examples, those were failures on a lower level, causing the building to tip over because the lode was in the ground, not a failing steel construct.

I also love the use of emotional rhetoric in every conspiracy theorist's argument. The whole "it's SO sad to see everyone who is blind!" "Why are people so idiotic and I am plagued by being so smart in a world such as this!"

And stop toting around your profession. Just because a person is an engineer doesn't make them suddenly understand what will happen when an airliner hits the world trade center. Sure, you have a better knowledge of construction and the way things are built so as to not fall down under normal circumstances, but the fact is, the towers are outside your expertise. You just don't want to accept the OS because you WANT it to be false. You can't accept that it might be true, and like a religious bigot you are just putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la la!"

Anyway, that said, I hope we can continue this debate with civility and sound arguments.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


sorry my friend....the planes just in my professional opinion would possibly bring down one...big Maybe one.....but no chance on two steel structures....let alone three, and the third one was not even struck by a plane and TPTB just say it was due to fire......I have shown it over and over....steel structures survive fire ...they dont just disintegrtate.

i am not speculating what brought them down i am just damn sure what didn't bring them down.

The OS is so full of holes that it will never hold water.

any crime scene one should always look at motive...and motive to me in this case is money and false flags.

I am saddened that people are not using common sense...but i do see from the response that some are open to looking at what does not make sense rather than just beliving what they are told by the OS.

and credit where credit is due....all the poor victims of the attacks deserve answers....and the crime scene was just wiped under the table.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


And there's the emotional rhetoric once again "it saddens me." Please, leave that stuff out.

I honestly don't know enough about WTC 7 to determine anything about it. For all I know it could be possible that it was taken down to minimize damage to other buildings while it was impossible to get the fire put out.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
and your quoting NIST (that is such a shame...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

your believe the same agency who does not want an open public inquiry to take place...hmmmm flags there.



I think maybe you should re-read my post again, properly, after having removed your "he's saying something I don't agree with, so I'm going on the attack" glasses.

Seriously. Re-read it properly. Especially the bit after the line.




I am not the only one out there in the highly respected structural engineering world that feels the same.


I am a fully qualified professional Civil Engineer. Thanks.




so you go ahead.....be blind my friend.....very sad indeed.


Again, you really need to read my post properly. You do. Its so damn obvious that you haven't that its almost embarrasing.

Read it again.



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join