It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEW PROOF that all the wtc had preplant explosive up close

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by IrishCream

Sure no problem, mate....

understandable though....all we see nowadays is evil taliban that - evil taliban this....although they never attacked america

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by Gaderel

You are absolutely right. Steel will deform under intense heat and load-bearing columns will collapse bringing down and entire skyscraper.
Problem is that only a few floors were on fire yet the entire building fell into it's own footprint. The resistance of the undamaged floors would provide enough resistance to both slow down the collapse and make it's fall asymmetrical. To fall the way they did (all 3 towers) required that vast majority of those load bearing columns collapse simultaneously. This can only happen by controlled demolition, not by fire or accident.
The speed of the collapses, the pools of molten metal that burned for weeks, the pyroclastic flows and the samples of thermite found on steel samples all support this conclusion.
The "evidence" for the plane/fire collapse theory is a computer program designed by NIST.
Believe as like. I do not question your intelligence, patriotism or motivations. Your spirited comments tell me that you truly do care what happened that day.
I hope that I can disagree without being disagreeable.
Respects, ATA

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:58 AM
Am I missing something, or, at the beginning of the video, just after the clip of Bush's blunders in his speech, am I seeing explosions going off up the side of the building before the plane hits?

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:06 AM
Re Bush's speech

I wonder why he felt the need to add: 'That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people." I mean, wouldn't that be obvious. Or could this be an example of someone over-detailing a point, because they've lied - a commonly known phenomenon?

I dunno, but nothing about the way this speech is delivered has a feeling of authenticity to me. It's more like a second grade actor reading a script, and bungling it.

edit on 16-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Gaderel
This video, proves nothing. Those flashes are either debris or windows blowing under pressure. You don't need demolition charges to bring down a building, 1 aircraft and subsequent fire is more than enough.
can you explain to me why the empire state building was hit by a plane and didn't collapse? also your statement doesn't even address building seven. Care to comment on that?

Im so sick of armchair engineers rolling out the proof of the week. Lets break this down.

SO are you a certified engineer or just another arm chair? honest question, if you have a degree in engineering fine, otherwise you aren't qualified to make that statement while addressing these issues either. that aside, you do have the right to speculation, like everyone else.

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire." Ive heard this one a few times here, and frankly its a crock. Builders coat steel in fire retardant like vermiculite etc for a reason. Steel weakens under fire. I dont mean a single beam sitting in a fire even for a few days. I mean steel under load, with a few hundred tons of other steel and concrete attached to it. It will bend, it will fall. It will collapse. Period.

Can you prove that a steel frame building has collapsed due to fire? I do agree that steel weakens during fires, it twists it buckles it loses strength fine. But it doesnt do it as suddenly and explosively as we saw in 911. I believe the buildings would have collapsed at the points of impact, but not the whole building. the top would have twisted a bit before falling away from the rest of the building. You definitely wouldnt see such nice 45 and 90 degree angles on some of the beams in the rubble. It would indicate a snap if nothing else. Hot steel doesnt snap. another thing is the distance from the base that these planes hit. There is no reason given that explains why the base and sub structures failed.

also I would love to hear your theories on the other two crash sites.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by wcitizen

I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but Bush says "explosives" were at a point high people above could not get free. If that were the case, the "explosives" would be at a low point, making the trapped people higher, as it turned out, it was the opposite. Bush definitely pulls a Freudian slip by mentioning explosives. The fact that this guy wasn't impeached is beyond all rational comprehension...oh wait, it was Pelosi that pardoned him by ignoring Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against Bush, my bad. However, sadly, not a single congressman is a 9/11 truther, that's the enduring tragedy.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:01 AM
Another argument by analogy.

The "truthers" (liars) are going to need some actual concrete evidence to support their claims rather than these web video analyses that offer nothing new and simply regurgitate old, long debunked arguments. 9/11 madness indeed.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by filosophia

Yes, exactly. The whole bungled thing is full of holes.
One day Bush and his buddy Blair will be tried for their crimes, along with all those who helped them and those who stayed silent.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by ExtraordinaryIntelligence
reply to post by knowneedtoknow

What a load of Snip That proves absolutely nothing! No actually, it does, it proves that you and the "9/11 was an inside job" promoters are snip

You people make me sick! You run your mouths with your snip theories, with NO respect for the people who lost their lives in the planes on 9/11. What do you want us to think next, that all the passages are locked up in a secret government warehouse, give me a break!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

edit on 16/9/2010 by Sauron because: removed profanity

I don’t know about the claims of the OP, but the idea that you are concerned about the victims and family members is laughable, what people like you are saying is "we must not investigate for the sake of the victims " .

I don’t know who is worse, your kind, or those who talk of holograms and aliens knocking down the towers, all I can say is that something really stinks about 9/11, as someone who still lives with the effects of that day, I wonder where you get the balls to attack anyone who asks questions about 9/11?

The first responders are dying and suffering, tens of thousands of rescuers denied healthcare by the Republicans (I bet you are one) and this was the best place to voice your outrage?

With friends like you, who needs enemies?

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

the concrete evidence is unreacted nano thermite found in the dust particles of the collapse, however, for most people the video analysis is enough proof to debunk the government's myths of al qaeda. While not every video analysis is 100 percent accurate the major investigations have already been documented, and now the truth is simply being preserved and shown to more and more people, which will be on the underground level since the mainstream can not risk admitting they were wrong this whole time. As the years go by, people will know who the real liars are. Each state-run educated generation will grow up on the lies of the state, but eventually when they have the opportunity they can see both sides of the story and make up their mind on their own.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

I would agree that it collapsed inside a relatively small area, but I wouldn't say inside its own footprint. Its debris field was contained, but not within its own boundaries.

Consider its not just the central columns that fail; for the upper levels to fall the external framework must fail too, Once both the inner and outer supports are compromised, the entire weight of those upper floors will collapse onto the floor below it, which will then immediately collapse, and so on and so forth, the weight constantly shifting and growing in size as each floor is compromised. As the mass falls and collects another floor, it increases in Force as well. Is it any surprise then that the lower structure is literally pulverized as the mass, velocity and thus force increase throughout the collapse?

With the amounts of force is it any surprise to see beams shear? No.

With the amount of heat generated from a fire at altitude being fed massive amounts of air and massive amounts of fuel, is it a surprise that the fire got hot enough to melt steel? No.

Now also one thing that needs to be remembered, the WTC wasn't entirely made of steel. Inside there are millions of different fittings, miles of wiring, miles of plumbing, office furniture & trinkets, all made from alloys and metals of differing melting points. Just because you see a pool of metal or a molten metal flow, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be steel. It could be one of a hundred different metals found in a large commercial building.

The structure of the building wasn't designed to take an unsupported weight of 100's of tons on top of it, no structure is. Its designed to spread the weight throughout the structure evenly. As soon as that is compromised and the top section is unsupported in this fashion, the entire structure will collapse. Its not like knocking a milk carton off the top of the tree stump.

If the WTC bombing had been successful, and had destroyed the base supports of the building, then yes, the WTC would have had a far greater debris field. It would likely have killed MANY more and in a much quicker fashion with no chance of escape.

WTC7, its my understanding that this building caught an engine from one of the planes in the teeth, which then caused another fire, which would have burned in a similar manner to the other two. It took hours for it to finally succumb and collapse after the fire department couldn't get the fire under control, understandable in the circumstances. Obviously it took a lot longer to get to a point of catastrophic failure, but that can be explained through the absence of accelerant fuel. The building though would have been full just as the WTC of fuel, paper, carpet, furniture, gas lines etc.

Someone asked about the Empire State building. Smaller fire, smaller aircraft, smaller fuel load.

Loaded weight: 33,510 lb - Less mass, less penetration
Maximum Speed: 275 mph - Less potential velocity = less penetration
Fuel Capacity: 670 US gallons - Less fuel load

767 200 series
Loaded weight: 395,000 lb - 10 x the weight
Maximum Speed: 568 mph - 2 x greater potential velocity = greater penetration
Fuel Capacity: 23,980 U.S. gal - 35 x the amount of fuel

The math determines the result. A 767 is a far bigger fuel air bomb than a B-25 Mitchell.

I think many here underestimate the capabilities of fire, fuel and air. We used it to form metals in the shapes and characteristics we wished for over 2 thousand years, it should not be underestimated in its capabilities to compromise them.

I apologize ATA if you took any offense to my little tirade before, but I was getting a bit frustrated.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Gaderel

No problem here. Regardless of what we believe on this issue I'm glad to be able to discuss it with civility. That is what I feel really sets ATS above other sites, that T&C are observed by the vast majority of the members and when it isn't the Mods do a great job of keeping things calm, my hat is off to them.
It's understandable that this issue gets people's ire up - it's damn important!
Peace my friend

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:33 PM
Isn't the motto here at ATS "Deny Ignorance"?!?!

Really, this is one area (religion being the other) where I get heated

There is MUCH video evidence that supports a controlled demolition. Video evidence is aloud in a court of law! This is not a lie detector test, this is not he-said-she-said testimony! There is video, audio and personal experience testimony to what happened on that day, PERIOD! You can say "engineraly (total sp) speaking" this is possible or, "you have to prove your theories"!! NO, No, no; you have to prove your theories because we have FAR more evidence than you do, end of disscussion!

You have an "Official Story" presented by people who the demolition of these buildings and the whole event, if truth be told, would financially benefit. We have video, audio and personal experience testimony evidence. I'm tired of people saying that the burden of proof is on the truthers. In any court of law, the person who the suite is being brought against has the burden of proof. We're saying that something is not right and now YOU have to prove why and how it is perfectly plausible!

edit on 17-9-2010 by IrishCream because: typo #1 hehehe

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by filosophia
the concrete evidence is unreacted nano thermite found in the dust particles of the collapse,

It was not actually, but even if it was are you saying the building was bought down using explosives, or thermite?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:51 PM
My question to u is what do we do now? What do we do now that we know it was a set up? How do you go against the largest government in the world? I saw in interview with a man who inspected the sight and saw were the stell beams had been cut in an angel just like how they do for a that we know there were no weapons of mass destruction, now that we know it was set up? What do we do with a governement who will openly attack its own citizens that pay the taxes that keep this country running?! Im 24 and I will NEVER forget how I felt that day as I watched in fear!!! I was 15 and couldnt believe my eyes, Ive grown alot since then, and I can not explain how angry I am at my government or the Shadow governement for putting us in a useless war! Im angry at how the governement allowed the banks to cause the housing bubble and then stole from us to bail them out when we need it the most!!! I am angry that they could do such a thing to their own citizens...are we not what we fight? Does making thier citizens live in fear of terrorist, make THEM the very thing which we have been fighting? TERRORIST?! They are terrorizing their citizens and need to be over thrown!! How dare we tell every other country NOT to have nuclear weapons, yet we are LOADED with them!? What right do THEY have to be the global bullies?! What do we do now?! If we dont find a way to stand up for ourselves, what will they do next? or is it already to late?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in