WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

Topic started on 22-6-2012 @ 01:22 PM by GoodOlDave

While bumbling around Youtube, i came across this video. Apologies if this have been posted here before, but I have my doubts since this footage exposes some of the lies the "9/11 inside job" proponents are spinning so I have no doubt this would be swept under the rug. Please watch...

YouTube Link

After careful review of the video, several important observation are immediately visible...

LIE NUMBER ONE: there were no fires in the towers.

Advance to .56 and you can see the fires in the building with your own eyes, particularly how widespread the fires were. When the tower collapsed you can see flames coming out several floors down and across

Also, advance to 1.15, which shows a close up of the exact point where the tower began to collapse, and you will see fires burning in the interior of the structure.

LIE NUMBER TWO: the towers collapsed symmetrically.

Although this can be seen in several points, the clearest point is at .46, where you can see when the collapse began, the upper section of the south tower actually toppled over and fell down approximately at a 45 degree angle while dramatically caving inward. The reason for this becomes obvious when it's pointed out that the upper section fell toward the bias where the plane impacted into the building, like a chair falling when one of the legs is cut.

Plus, advance to 1.06, and you will notice something incredible- approximately half of the exterior section of the building was standing upright by itself for several seconds. The only way this can be physically possible is if the interior floors of the structure had been stripped off until it collapsed in turn.

LIE NUMBER THREE- the towers were brought down by demolitions

Point 1.17 shows the precise location where the south tower began to collapse. You will note there are NO explosions, NO bright flashes, NO debris beign thrown clear, and NO pyroclastic clouds at that point. You WILL, however, see what was arguably the strongest point of the building (the corner) being weakened to the poitn where it caved inward like crushing a beer can.

Still not convinced? Take a look at this video- the collapse of the North tower...

YouTube Link

You can see throughout the first 30 seconds there was a fire burning throughout almost the entire floor, several floors below the impact area (that long orange line). Plus, at .31 you can see a crystal clear view of the center section of the building collapsing before the left and right sections did. This means it did NOT collapse symetrically, but that some sections collapsed while other sections on the same level remained upright for a few moments. It can be seen even more clearly at 1.40.

This wasn't even remotely a controlled collapse, as the videos themselves show they collapsed in as completely a nonsymmetrical way as it gets, and this wasn't even remotely a demolition, as there wasn't a single explosion, not a single flash nor a single pyroclastic cloud at the points of collapse where demolitions would have to be if they were the cause of the collapse, but rather fires and the crushing of structural supports. Since it's also irrefutably been show there were fires burning in these locations, and since it's also irrefutably been shown the collapse began literally at the point of impact of the planes, it necessarily means that a combination of impact damage and loss of structural integrity from the fires were the cause of the collapse, regardless of whatever beef it is you have with NIST, FEMA, or Jar Jar Binks.

I invite anyone to point out why anything I said is incorrect.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 01:47 PM by exponent

reply to post by GoodOlDave

FWIW Dave the buildings collapsed somewhat away from the impact point. This is because the plane impact drove flammable debris deeper into the building, and by the time the fires had progressed to that point the building was significantly weakened.

WTC1 collapsed on the opposing side
WTC2 collapsed on the adjacent corner.

Still, truthers don't actually want to look at this, because it might imply the plane was responsible for collapse. I doubt we'll see many in this thread.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 01:48 PM by easybreezy

meh,, all you really need to know is here

seriously all must watch this, confirms without doubt, they were demolished

Google Video Link

un debunkable

edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 01:58 PM by Myendica

Well.. This raises 1 question for me. Pardon me if you already know the answer.. But if it wasn't symmetrical, the collapse that is, then how did it crush every floor down? How does 1/10 or even 1/5 of something, standing straight up, not falling symmetrical, destroy the remaining 9/10, or 4/5 of itself? Eta:. So if it wasnt symmetrical, wouldnt a large portion of it still have been standing? And by standing, I mean for an extended period..

edit on 22-6-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:05 PM by theMediator

It pain me to see some still think 911 wasn't an inside job.

Connect the dots, deny ignorance, follow the money.

Mix everything in the oven at 375 for 1 hour.

Spray with a little common sense, serve and enjoy.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:17 PM by GiodanoBruno

reply to post by GoodOlDave

For someone who has no clue about construction ,you sure claim and blindly believe events that transpired minutes before and during the collapse..Since you have so much time debunking a video(which I might add videos do not support OSers or Truthers argument at any point). Why don't you try debunking my simple "signature".

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:21 PM by AzureSky

What they tell us is that three buildings collapsed because of two planes crashing into them, and fire. Yet the buildings were built to withstand planes, and fire.

Even if the twin towers were brought down by those planes.
What about WTC7? Did it just collapse on its own after burning for a few hours? (no, it did not)

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:23 PM by forall2see

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the upper section of the south tower actually toppled over and fell down approximately at a 45 degree angle while dramatically caving inward.

Looks more like a 20 (ish) degree tip to me.

ETA just to back up my post. I have almost 20 years in the field as a master carpenter and building design consultant. I have spent countless hours working with structural engineers and I stay up to date with the latest designs in the industry.

I understand what it takes to both create and destroy these types of buildings and I can tell you that on that very day of 9/11, when I saw the first tower crumble, the first words I spoke were mention of it having been controlled. The second tower only justified my beliefs.

And then theres Building 7.... many other threads on that one.

edit on 6/22/2012 by forall2see because: Hydration

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:25 PM by intrptr

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Thank you Dave. Most tear jerking. All those people; all the war, death and destruction since. These are interesting times.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:27 PM by AzureSky

Originally posted by forall2see

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the upper section of the south tower actually toppled over and fell down approximately at a 45 degree angle while dramatically caving inward.

Looks more like a 20 (ish) degree tip to me.

I can see a bit of a collapse and the kinetic energy applied through the plane making it tip this way, but... it still doesn't explain how the entire building below it became a pile of rubble.

It just doesn't make sense.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:33 PM by Internet Explorer

*Me reads some of Good Ol' Dave's past posts which involve nothing but supporting the official story and/or throwing mud at those who disagree*

HELL, YOU LOOK TRUSTWORTHY!

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:34 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Myendica
Well.. This raises 1 question for me. Pardon me if you already know the answer.. But if it wasn't symmetrical, the collapse that is, then how did it crush every floor down? How does 1/10 or even 1/5 of something, standing straight up, not falling symmetrical, destroy the remaining 9/10, or 4/5 of itself? Eta:. So if it wasnt symmetrical, wouldnt a large portion of it still have been standing? And by standing, I mean for an extended period..
edit on 22-6-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

The answer is that the perimeter wall held about half of the load, so what happens is that the debris gets 'funneled' between the strongest columns. These columns were right in the centre and right on the outside, so the debris itself ends up impacting the floors. These were huge (1 acre approx) and massively weaker than the columns.

As a result, the perimeter units get pushed outwards, the core was stripped of its outer layers, and the floors collapse entirely.

That's how it crushed itself. Think about it as a stack of floors held up by the columns. If the upper section falling one floor will destroy the next floor down, then it will fall another floor height, then it will destroy the next floor etc.

It's a progressive process, that's why it's known as 'progressive collapse'.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:35 PM by exponent

reply to post by Internet Explorer

So let me get this right. If someone supports the official story because they've investigated it and not been convinced by the conspiracy theories, they are suspicious?

Do you find everyone who disagrees with you suspicious on every topic? Because if you do then I can't think how you would ever be able to look at things without bias.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:37 PM by hdutton

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Help me understand this a little better.

You say there was fire in the buildings !!

What was burning for so long and how hot were these fires ?

After the top floors of the buildings fell all the way to the ground, what was used to crush them into powder ?

At the end of one of the videos, we see the core of one building stand briefly, then it appears to turn to dust before it fell over.

What would cause this ?

I really don't want to be classed as "one of those crazy truthers", I just can't figure out the answers to my questions. I am hoping someone with far more intellectual power than myself can help me.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:41 PM by exponent

Originally posted by hdutton
Help me understand this a little better.

I'll answer these too because I have some spare time.

You say there was fire in the buildings !!

What was burning for so long and how hot were these fires ?

Office furniture and paper etc was burning for this long. The fires approached 1100-1200C at roof level.

After the top floors of the buildings fell all the way to the ground, what was used to crush them into powder ?

Nothing, they weren't turned into powder. The dust produced by the collapses was primarily gypsum and fireproofing etc. There was some concrete in there but not an excessive amount.

At the end of one of the videos, we see the core of one building stand briefly, then it appears to turn to dust before it fell over.

What would cause this ?

It was covered in dust and fell downwards. Even if it looks like it turns into dust, there's literally no possible mechanism for this to happen, so when we eliminate the impossible the logical explanation is that it was the dust covering the beam that hung in the air.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:43 PM by easybreezy

reply to post by AzureSky

lol kinetic energy, there would be none of that, seeing as the plane was well crashed long before the collapse...

now watch the video i posted

then ask questions... if you don't watch the video, and still ask questions, no one will answer, as people are getting sick of repeating the facts over and over and over. because someone doesn't want to do there own basic research.
when the material is provided to them on a silver platter

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:45 PM by Myendica

reply to post by exponent

and I just cant buy that. The perimeter wall held half the load? I dobt buy that either.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:47 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Myendica
Well.. This raises 1 question for me. Pardon me if you already know the answer.. But if it wasn't symmetrical, the collapse that is, then how did it crush every floor down? How does 1/10 or even 1/5 of something, standing straight up, not falling symmetrical, destroy the remaining 9/10, or 4/5 of itself? Eta:. So if it wasnt symmetrical, wouldnt a large portion of it still have been standing? And by standing, I mean for an extended period..
edit on 22-6-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

Are you asking what what the physical progression of the collapse was? After watching the video you can see there's literally no way you can explain it other than "every way you can think of", since there isn't any one single standard way they fell. The section of the south tower extrnal perimeter standing erect after the floors had been stripped off from it is one way, while the video of the north tower showing the initial collapse shows the floors didn't even fall as a single unit. Some sections of levels began collapsing before other sections of the same level did.

...and yes, a large section was standing even after the collapse-

Take a look at the firefighter to the lower right of the standing sections for scale.

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:48 PM by Internet Explorer

reply to post by exponent

Of course not. But spending all your time on ATS doing NOTHING but arguing about 9/11 while being a bit of prick to everyone who disagrees is quite suspicious to me

I actually come here to find some good counter-arguments to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but Dave and all the other lackies are 10x more talented at throwing insults at people (without getting banned) as they are at actually producing a convincing argument *shrug*

reply posted on 22-6-2012 @ 02:48 PM by exponent

reply to post by Myendica

What sort of evidence would you like to convince you? The blueprints of the WTC were leaked a while ago and you can see with your own eyes the size of the perimeter columns and the design of the load carrying structure.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^