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.

 

9/11: More Proof of Controlled Demolition @ World Trade Center

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
In this video I saw years ago show some amazing footage. In the footage you can see flashes and evidence of some detonations used in the demolition of th WTC on 9/11. Aside from the bad music at the beginning, it is a good video.


What do you guys think?




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Its hard to say it wasn't demo. I still try to think of how it could have happened without any conspiracy, and its pretty hard to last a minute really. I think demo.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I am trying to find another video which shows these flashes.
The best part is the detonation that can be seen travelling upwards diagonally during the clip of the street level witnesses running away.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Thanks...that video just confirms the fact that there were NO explosives, NOR demolitions.

A few "puffs" (from air that had to go somewhere) ejecting during the actual collapse. (Compare to real CD videos, to see the difference).

Finally, the remaining portion that did NOT fall, as shown. Clearly indicative of a collapse, initiated merely from the damage at the upper levels, and gravity doing ALL of the work on the way down.

Because, IF it was really a controlled demolition, the INTERNAL structures would be targeted, mostly....and would NOT remain standing, as seen in the video.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your opinion is just that an opinion and one other thing is that your opinion is not based on any facts but just assumptions. Thats ok.

Watch the video carefully and dont be swayed by the usual "nothing to see here" approach which is usually solicited by the usual suspects here.




edit on 12-9-2010 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Check out at 2:01 of the video. Look at the bottom side and front face as the building collapses also at 3:05. You can see detonations travelling upwads and are quite clearly not "air puff" as some whishfull thinker hopes it to be.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
A few "puffs" (from air that had to go somewhere)

Gotta love this programmed, unprovable response. No other building collapse has exhibited those puffs except controlled demolitions, yet people still try to make up theories out of thin air to explain them away, even though there's no possible way they can prove their theories because there's no other building collapse that exhibits these puffs except..........................controlled demolitions, period.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
ejecting during the actual collapse. (Compare to real CD videos, to see the difference).

I've got plenty of videos of controlled demolitions that show puffs happening during collapse. Debunkers' lack of research only makes them say such false things.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Clearly indicative of a collapse, initiated merely from the damage at the upper levels

Let's pretend other buildings have been initiated at the damaged levels. Are you ready?





Any building can come down any way, and be initiated anywhere, a controlled demolition company sees fit. Never, ever, underestimate the art of controlled demolitions, or the people that make them happen.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Me and a friend where at the base of wtc on a tour we made when visiting NYC,
looking at the towers and taking pictures of the surrounding areas when the cab driver who was our "tour guide" makes this remark :

Enjoy the view cause its the last time you´ll see em ,

it was to the day, 6 months prior.
i still look at the photos from time to time and reflect on whats happened since then ,

but riddle me this ,

why did he say that ?

you drove a lincon towncar 90´s model dark in color , if we ever meet ill buy you a round of beer and a good meal at place of favour.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
It isn't your normal CD. If so the building would come crashing from bottom to the top. Like this:


If you want to let the people believe the collapse is due to the airplanes, you'll have to bring it down from the point of impact. Therefor the explosions go for top to bottom. Like shown in the first post. Just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Have seen this video several times . Still , to this day , I see no flashes other than the flashes created by sunlight on the lens of a camera . This is total bunk and serves only as a reminder of why I no longer take the TM seriously . There are NO explosive flashes in that video . None . Nada . Zilch .

I see two puffs of exhaust , exiting the combustion chamber through the most vulnerable points on the cylinder wall , due to the tremendous force of compression that is being applied by the massive piston from above .

Funny , how that video no longer looks like CD to me once I have actually studied 9/11 with an unbiased perception of things .

Two puffs . Overhead costs for CD are going down at an alarming rate . Ever the closer to proving one thing ...

CD was not needed , nor was it employed .

Therefore , it cannot be proven .



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Endpoind
 


Actually , if you watch the video again , you can clearly see the first exhaust plume lower-left . The next one is seen toward upper-right .

Serving to prove , that this certainly wasn't some top-notched , super-duper , AAA , top shelf secret government-agent controlled demolition conspiracy .



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
CD was not needed

Your opinion is based on all of the other steel-structured highrises that have completely collapsed due to fire. What buildings were those again? Oh wait.........



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




I dunno, but it is still hard to see why all these buildings collapsed so conveniently. Above vid sure looks like a controlled demolition.

-v



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


And your opinion is based upon one set of events that occurred that day . With nothing to corroborate your opinion , other than the events of that day .

What you fail to understand and comprehend , bonez , is that a 100-story steel-structured high-rise can and will collapse due to an airplane impact and subsequent fires weakening the structure .

This is indeed a fact , and has been proven .

9/11 proved that .

Tower 2 collapsed from a plane and fires , thereby proving that it was not impossible for tower 1 to suffer the same fate .

A truly rational mind would see that this negates the tired old fable of "no other steel highrise had never ... "


By the way , how's the documentary coming along ? Looking forward to seeing it . Hopefully , you are presenting both sides of the story ? You will also be interviewing those who don't hold the same opinion as yourself ?

If not , why ?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
What you fail to understand and comprehend , bonez , is that a 100-story steel-structured high-rise can and will collapse due to an airplane impact and subsequent fires weakening the structure . This is indeed a fact , and has been proven .

You're not basing your opinion on any facts. It's theory, opinion, and conjecture, period. Those towers were designed to withstand jetliner impacts, and steel-structured highrises have always withstood fires. For you to say otherwise goes against all available history and evidence that we have available.

Maybe in some alternate reality/universe your claims may have merit. But not in this reality. There's no possible way you can prove your claims, so I don't understand why you or other debunkers continue to look foolish by typing them.

You can't just say "Oh look, we have 9/11, so it can happen." The rest of us will say "Oh look, we have our entire history and the available evidence, so no it can't happen."



Originally posted by okbmd
By the way , how's the documentary coming along ?

The documentary is on hold pending the review of all the new videos being released by NIST, due to a court order.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Delft University, McCormack Palace, Kader Toy Factory........

Reason buildings dont collapse from fire is that the fires are fought and extinguished before the structure reaches
collapse

At WTC WAS NO FIREFIGHTING for reason that no FF were unable to reach the fire floors. The sprinkler and standpipes supplying water were destroyed. Also most buildings on fire dont have airplanes ploughing into them causing massive structural damage and stripping the fireproofing from the steel

WTC was unusual case in which all the systems needed to control and extinguish fires were destroyed



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Its McCormick Place


The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate suppression. Thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard[/ex

Sorry for error....

Building still collapsed do to fire..



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're not basing your opinion on any facts. It's theory, opinion, and conjecture, period. Those towers were designed to withstand jetliner impacts, and steel-structured highrises have always withstood fires. For you to say otherwise goes against all available history and evidence that we have available.

Hello there BoneZ. It's been a long time. I thought I would come back on here to have a look at how the Truth Movement is doing 9 years after 911.

I must say that I am unhappy with the current state of things, why are you still repeating silly claims like this? Of course, the facts you mention in your post are right, the towers were designed to withstand jetliner impacts and there certainly isn't any example of a structure as large as the WTCs collapsing before, by fire or by any other means.

However, that does not mean at all that a fire induced collapse theory goes against 'all history' and 'all evidence'. It's well known that temperatures of 800+C significantly weaken steel, and there can be little doubt that these temperatures were achieved in the WTC. This can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by physical modelling of the towers, which has been done.

We know without doubt that the only thing stopping fires such as this from causing structural failure is the fireproofing applied to the columns and beams. However, you know (or should know) the ratings of this fireproofing, and how likely it was to detach from the steel when suffering a significant impact.

If you really want to say that you know for sure that the fireproofing could survive the impact, then perhaps your statement might hold some validity. However, we both know that you cannot say such a thing, and that without fireproofing there is a mechanism for fire (+ damage) induced collapse which is fully supported by both the history of structural fires and the available evidence for that day.


You can't just say "Oh look, we have 9/11, so it can happen." The rest of us will say "Oh look, we have our entire history and the available evidence, so no it can't happen."

If that is what the 'rest of you' will say, then you have committed a logical fallacy. An occurrence of something proves it can happen. A non occurrence does not prove it cannot happen. Until recently, humans had never accelerated particles to the energies achieved in the LHC, it was a first in history for this type of experiment. Does history prove that in fact they didn't do this? That it can't happen?


The documentary is on hold pending the review of all the new videos being released by NIST, due to a court order.

Is there a website I can download these videos?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Delft University

You must not have actually read what was posted. That Delft U. building did not completely collapse from it's fire. Only the top half of that part of the building collapsed. The lower half and the rest of the entire building around and below the local collapse still remained standing. You have failed with this comparison.



Originally posted by thedman
McCormick Place

That was not a steel-structured highrise and thus not comparable.



Originally posted by thedman
Kader Toy Factory

Also not a steel-structured highrise and thus not comparable.



Originally posted by thedman
Reason buildings dont collapse from fire is that the fires are fought and extinguished before the structure reaches
collapse

Fires fought or not, steel-structured highrises have burned for hours without collapse and you expect everyone to believe that fire caused the South Tower to collapse after 56 minutes. Not having it.


We're not trying to say that fire can't weaken steel. There can and will be local collapses. But not the entire building from top to bottom. You will never find a steel-structured highrise that has completely and globally collapsed due to fire. That is a fact that you need to come to terms with.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bonez ,

I know I have asked this question numerous times and I don't think you have ever answered it so , I'll ask it again .

How many of those steel-structured highrises , that never collapsed from fire , had a comparable design with the WTC ?

How many of those buildings were tube-in-tube ? How many used the same lightweight floor trusses as in WTC , floor trusses employed to not only support the floors but , trusses that also kept the perimeter columns in an upright position , connecting them to the core columns ?

How many of those buildings employed box columns as structural supports ? How many of those buildings had steel that was as thin as 1/4" , used as support structure ?

How many of those buildings had been shown to have had a cheap , second-grade fireproofing installed , that was falling off of the steel DURING CONSTRUCTION ?

How many of those buildings had commercial airliners crash into them at 500mph ?


If your answer to ANY of the above questions is ZERO , then NONE of those building fires are relevant . PERIOD .

By saying that all those other highrise fires can be used as a standard , you are being deceitful bonez . There are those on here who will believe you when you tell them that . And I know that you are smarter than that so , it is not ignorance on your part .

So , why do you do it ? Why do you compare lightweight bar-joists to heavy-duty I-beams and H-beams ?

There is no way to honestly say that a comparison can be made .




edit on 12-9-2010 by okbmd because: ETA



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join