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 Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

Did you know....

One of the supposed hijackers (well 6 of them are still alive but for my example I will just use one) still works for Saudi Airlines to this day?

edit on 14/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Clarification

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Corruptedstructure

But those are suppose to be molten rock from an iceage 20,000 years ago


Do you really think that any sane architect would not fill up that huge hole when he started to lay the foundations?

Educate youself, my treat.

The site of the World Trade Center was located on landfill, with the bedrock located 65 feet (20 m) below grade. In order to construct the World Trade Center, it was necessary to build the "bathtub," with the slurry wall along the West Street side of the site, to keep water from the Hudson River out.

This method was used in place of conventional dewatering methods because lowering the groundwater table would cause large settlements of nearby buildings not built on deep foundations.The slurry method involves digging a trench, and as excavation proceeds, filling the space with a "slurry" mixture, composed of bentonite which plugs holes and keeps water out. When the trench was dug out, a steel cage was inserted, with concrete poured in, forcing the "slurry" out.

The "slurry" method was devised by Port Authority chief engineer John M. Kyle, Jr. Towards the end of 1966, work began on building the slurry wall, led by Montreal-based Icanda, a subsidiary of an Italian engineering firm, Impresa Costruzioni Opere Specializzate (I.C.O.S.). It took fourteen months for the slurry wall to be completed, which was necessary before excavation of material from the interior of the site could begin.

Construction of the World Trade Center

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Usual lie

The "hijackers are still alive" delusion came from confusion of people with same/similar names

It has been debunked for years except the lunatic fringe refuses to let it go.....

Like how many John Smith do you think there are.......

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by ProudBird
Newark to San Francisco, as well. United 93.....if it had been a Continental flight they had chosen, out of Newark, then it could have been more full....since Newark is (was) a major hub for Continental.

But, NONE of that matters, ultimately....

Yes, what bearing does that have compared to the bulidings collapse.

Once a key part of a story is undone, the rest must fall.

ETA what an interesting flight for you to pick for a comparison,
I must say, very interesting.
edit on 14-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
Frank A Demartini

Manager , WTC Construction & Project Designer.


Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. "

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.


One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads

This research took me 50 seconds.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: my html blows

edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by Gestas

Nice to see that video still working,
Thank you and hope everyone watches that.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by thedman

debunking source, please?
Do share with us a few links, snippets or articles.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
OK ATS'ers, who can help me out here? I saw a video of a "famous" American (possibly Canadian, for a foreigner the accents do sounds "similar") demolition engineer walking through a building as part of his survey prior to demolishing it and he said, and I quote:

"I haven't seen beams like this since the world trade center..."

I'm not 100% sure if the building he was surveying at the time was in the US but I do remember and cannot find that video now. I do not know the guys name either. Help a brother out?

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:11 PM
The "HIJACKERS" should not be the focus right now.

The focus should be the fact that


It was stated he was helping evacuate people.

Frank A. DeMartini


reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

I will see what I can dig up.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by ProudBird
Where have all the "DEWs" gone, since this? (Since the complaint says they are "known to exist"?? By whom? Who "knows"??)

Well I know
But it would take a whole thread to present stuff I already posted many times. You should ask your old buddy IgnoreTheFacts about those, considering what his dad did for a living

Why weren't they used in Iraq? Why hasn't Iran been taken down, reduced to rubble? Or North Korea? China? This magic device could destroy all of the Chinese ICBMs in their silos, one whoud imagine.

Seem to recall North Korea's Nuke test missile mysteriously blew up... and I hear Russia is blaming us for their recent mysterious bad luck on launches

The USA would be the supreme, and completely and utterly the most powerful force to reckon with on this planet.

Well it doesn't work like that... but that doesn't have a lot to do with this thread

You laugh at the court case. If they didn't have any evidence, it would not have gone as far as it did. The companies involved, like Raytheon were named not frivolously... You can jump up and down all you like but it won't change the facts.

And somehow, these "magical weapons" did not have any collateral impact on any of the surround buildings?

Why would they? Beams can be focused

The only collateral damage was from the debris, from the collapses themselves. Collapses that were self-initiated, due to the severe structural damage from airplane impacts, and uncontrolled fires.

No airplane hit WTC 7 and it had very little fire damage but it still miraculously fell into its footprint

Finally, what was the disposition of this frivolous lawsuit? Was it tossed out, much like the April Gallop nonsense?

If it was frivolous those filing it would have been thrown in jail. It would never have gone before a judge if they didn't have enough to proceed. Of course it got thrown out eventually DOH... they weren't about to let it go the full trial

A while back there was a guy here... also a pilot... by the name of Weed Wacker... I recall there was a challenge between him and John Lear to do a flight simulator test to prove whether or not it was possible for inexperience pilots to pull off that maneuver... I wonder what ever happened to that?

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Unfortunately, the case was dismissed in 2010 by the SCOTUS. How come I'm not surprised ...

We expected as much... but it went three years

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:24 PM
Search youtube for

"Home tests"

Seriously guys all the evidence is out in the open still just dig around and don't shy away from the quest for truth.

Just difficult because there has been quite alot of Structural Engineers commenting what happened on September 11th 2001 was not physically possible with the stated official facts.

I would go as far as to talk to friends and family within any form of armed services to simply discuss and ask questions.

Anyway I am out of here before the reptilians attempt to make me drink some coke.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Intersting, I am on that now as you wish.

I dont know if this is on the right path, can you take a look and
let me know.

Also found on goob tube
edit on 14-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Gestas

One question.

Where any of those buildings hit by fully fueled commercial airliners at full throttle?

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by AGWskeptic

These are follow up replies to my previous posts please stop being ignorant.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Gestas

One question.

Where any of those buildings hit by fully fueled commercial airliners at full throttle?

This building is not designed as well as the WTC was.

edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by TheOriginalGeeza
Why is it so hard to believe that Muslims hijacked planes and attacked the United States?

Because 6 of them were still alive afterwards

Because Bin Laden was blamed but even the FBI said he was NOT wanted for the tower attack

Because Bin Ladens family was FLOWN out of Las Vegas when all other planes were grounded

Because Bush said Iraq had nothing to do with it... we just went in anyway

That for starters

Why do YOU need so desparately to believe Muslims did it?

I personally think the building owner who wanted them demolished and got paid DOUBLE in insurance had something to do with it
I think the fact that the Enron records were in building 7 had something to do with it...
Rumsfeld announced the day before that TRILLIONS were missing from the Pentagon budget..

The next day we forgot all about that missing money, we forgot all about Enron and just where did all that gold in those buildings go?

Follow the money... you will always find the true perps

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by LaBTop

Glacial pothole

Archbald Pothole is 38 feet (11.6 m) deep and 42 feet (12.8 m) wide at its maximum diameter. The pothole cuts through layers of sandstone, shale and coal. A pothole, in geologic terms, is a hole that is worn into the bedrock of a stream in strong rapids or at the base of a waterfall. The force of the water spins rock fragments, sand and gravel into a small indentation in the bedrock. After years and years of constant spinning, the stones and sands carve out an elliptical hole. Potholes are also formed by the action of glacial meltwater. Archbald Pothole is an example of just such a pothole.

remember when kid my uncle took me and my brother there........

Ok, however, it is NOT the pothole in my photos :
Panoramic view of the pothole at Archbald Pothole State Park which is a PA state park in Archald, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania in the United States. Panorama of 2 .
And this is the link to your text, you forgot to include :

Well done, thedman ! Thank you, I did not found that interesting piece of good information.
At last someone who follows good advice, and did Google it up.
There's however another long article to be found, with these two WTC cleanup photos I posted, in it.

My only question still stands :
Why was this WTC pothole not filled up in the 70ies with concrete? It is wide enough to have been noticed by the hammerers and concrete-porers to have been filled up with softer soil or stone pebbles(so they must have noticed that it was not solid bedrock, as the rest obvious was), or did they drill holes in the bedrock with a screw-jack and stick a plastic pipe in it and filled those with re-bars and concrete, as we now have to do, when the surrounding area can not be disturbed by ramming the wooden or concrete poles in the soil.(what's the proper term in English? ?Ramming? ?poles? in the soil? )
I am so old that steam power still was used to ram the wooden poles with the cast iron ring on top into the soil, with a heavy iron ram block. A very long and loud process.
And in rock they had to drill with steam power, and fill good old fashioned steel pipes up with re-bar enforced concrete mix. And then the floors were encased, filled with re-bar and concrete poured over the re-bars and connected pole heads. You probably use other modern words to describe the tools, but my dictionary is a bit old and British based.

While we can see that at the moment that the photo at the WTC site was taken, they were filling it up with concrete, before they were going to lay the new lowest basement floor for the rebuild of the new WTC complex.
There's a steel pole to be seen sticking out the bedrock in the back wall of the pothole, so they were planning to fill the hole up to the top and place re-barred poles in its surface layer, to have a correct pattern of re-barred poles sticking out of that bedrock and the hole its newly flattened surface.

Why was this not done already in the 70ies then?
Because this was a fresh found, or on 9/11 created/melted pothole? It was perhaps not present in the seventies?

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Nope, that's a talk, the video I'm referring to is of a demolition expert walking through a building with a camera filming him and then he made the comment I posted above. Wouldn't surprise me if it's gone from youtube, it was a while ago I saw it. Thanks for thinking along with me though.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Ok, will keep checking for that info. In the mean time,
I am glad to find the one I just posted.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by jeantherapy
Look at 2:16 at the upper right of the frame, you can see something appear briefly before it seems to disappear, doesn't look like an aircraft to me, more like a little missile coming down.

Thank you!
I noticed that, it so quick its hard to determine anything. However
if I had to guess, I would say a missile, that would explain the speed.

Going to watch a again.

ETA: watched several times...the object at 2:16 ...I dont know what that is
however it does not appear to continue on into the second tower,
it appears to move off into another flight path.

edit on 13-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

You can see it come in from the upper right. Then it disappears...whether from editing or just getting lost in the background as noise from the extreme zooming used to get the shot. 9-11 was probably a false flag of some sort, with some elements of our government at cause. However, the towers were hit by planes.

Follow the moving object you see from the top right until it disappears, then measure a continued path and it leads right to where the plane hits on the other side of the building. The "explosion" seen on this side is the "exit wound" of the strike.

I'm amazed though, that with all the publicity about how good we are with drones and the like, not many people seem to consider that they were most likely flown remotely. We do pinpoint bombing in other countries that way.

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in