The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

Also try a different browser.
At home IE has issues with ATS.
Chrome has been no problems.

a reply to: LaBTop

I think David needs a refresher course.

First of all his so called explosive ejections what I see is dust forced out under pressure due to the mass falling from above.

Now before you claim air has to be contained before it can be pressurised it DOESN'T . Any large surface area moving will pressurise the air in front of it.

He also claims that his so call explosive outbursts keep pace with the falling debris REALLY that's not what I see.

That's me at 2:46 so far in his North Tower Collapse video and already he looks an idiot!

What he sees as two waves are actually THIS, Floor slabs are dropping internally they are lower than the wall collaspe front, the walls don't collaspse until the loss of the truss connections and impact from falling debris.

I am now at the 3:59 and we get that truther claim that all the concrete is turned to dust, good entertainment this LaBTop.

David has probably NEVER been on a construction site in his life he has NO idea what other materials help produce that dust cloud.

Nothing new just the same old BS from another person with NO understanding of the construction of the Towers and how that helped with the collapse.

And while you guys are at it, try if you can, a rebuttal of this post of mine :

Seismic evidence for explosives, by me, and Dr Rousseau, and Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross.
And it is in my sig-link named EVIDENCE, my post's last link text is self explanatory.

Then go here which is my sig-link its huge LIST post, and find that David Chandler constant collapse acceleration S-graph, showing no deceleration during its measured first 3 seconds of the North tower collapse. While the French natural collapse video shows deceleration already after 1 second.

This is the one I asked you to prove wrong.
It's this video of David Chandler, titled "What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like", it shows the best of all what that S-diagram of the WTC-1N tower top should have looked like.
While combined with my other diagrams after that video in my LINKS post. Here is that video from David Chandler :

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LaBTop

HE doesn't get it and YOU don't get it the top floors DON'T CRUSH the bottom of the tower material collapsing internally falls on the FLOOR SLABS they fail and drop internally the outer walls peel away due to impacts and lose of restraint because of missing trusses.

The FLOOR SLAB connections are the same all the way down the building ( apart for service floors) they were designed for the static load and a safety factor.

The FALLING mass generates loads EXCEEDING what the connections could support.

Comparing the Verinage demolition technique is not the same the floors of those structures don't fall internally, mass is different and materials are different.

Using YOUR and HIS logic I can win a F1 Grand Prix using this



After all it has 4 wheels an engine and I can drive it

a reply to: LaBTop

And while you guys are at it, try if you can, a rebuttal of this post of mine :

Seismic evidence for explosives,

You keep jumping around.
Classic conspiracy technique.

Have you noticed you are almost alone in your belief(s)?
Where are the masses of people who are supposedly joining the conspiracy side?

originally posted by: LaBTop
You will read the full 101 pages with more and more rising awe... It is a 1998 court deposition by the daughter of Albert V. Carone, Mr Tyree used to work as a Green Beret hit-man for mixed Military/CIA assignments. And was known by the deponents father, Mr Carone as "Sandy". The following is a short (smile) excerpt of the 101 pages long 1998 court deposition,

Interesting stuff I had not heard of before...

I knew about Chip Tatum but this was all new to me.

I found a 10 min. video of the deposition with this search but I suspect that it will vanish soon as there appears to be only one single copy of it online. Well, maybe two

a reply to: wmd_2008

Simple answer to a simple post :
You have a Boom, you get a collapse.
NIST was not interested in the collapse. Only what caused it.
We say a Boom.
They said it was Sagging Trusses.
I proved that's a joke.
Doubters prove there must have been a Boom by measuring the acceleration.
When you measure no deceleration at all, you know there must have been a Boom.
Followed by more Booms.
Thus, you go find those Booms, as _BoneZ_ and myself did, and we found them, see my signature LINKS, EVIDENCE.


Start using punctuation, you come over as an uneducated person.
Or explain why you obviously can't use it.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Very good find.
Because the expressions on a persons face, and the pauses, can't be read in an excerpt.
Her overall face expressions indicate a constant amazement that her interrogator seems to have no clue how her real day to day life must have been.
Sitting at a kitchen table at home, and hearing her father telling all these terrible things, as if it was routine, which it certainly was.

When are the bulk of the Americans and all of us, gonna understand, that use of arms causes an endless loop of increasing violence.
And that a standing army is basically a bunch of too young guys and galls with a license to kill, to murder other people.

PRECIOUS PEOPLE !

Who have been declared human waste by candidates they have voted into power, while not knowing at all if their intentions are good, or not.
Their decisions to vote, influenced by massive amounts of money spend on clever mass psychology weapons.
While candidates are chosen far in advance by those who really rule :

FILTHY PEOPLE !

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

And while you guys are at it, try if you can, a rebuttal of this post of mine :

Seismic evidence for explosives,

You keep jumping around.
Classic conspiracy technique.

Have you noticed you are almost alone in your belief(s)?
Where are the masses of people who are supposedly joining the conspiracy side?

The reality is, that I am for many years already, jumping on you guys at every thread I start, in their later pages, when you come in with your stale techniques, and I invite you to answer my signature links, which you never do (except some, who are not worth answering, since they have no clue at all how science works).

And I am certainly not alone. Which you know very well, it's the reason you are here.

Those masses you mention, have seen the FEMA camps, the ongoing breeding of low wage slaves, the massive arming of police, the thinning of the laws, set up for the coming uprisings, their rulers expect.
Who know you can't go on forever, without breeding disgust, followed by armed resistance.
Classic fascist-conspiracy technique.

History repeats itself endlessly, until really enlightened chosen ones rule.

a reply to: LaBTop



But there was no boom before collapse. Remember? Explosives make a loud boom, louder than anything else in the area at the time. It would be heard for at least a mile in every direction not to mention the echoes in between the buildings. So no, you have not solidly proven it, because of this simple little fact. Thermobarics, whatever, make a loud boom. A VERY loud boom. This was not seen nor heard anywhere and any time prior to collapse. Sure, people heard softer explosions, of which the origins are fare more mundane and common in any massive commercial/airliner fire, including structural members failing, but nothing was heard of the actual demolition variety. You cannot hush thermobaric bombs. I dont care how super theoretically you claim you can, reality shows you cannot. Just like how faster than light is theoretically possible, it is impossible to do it today.

Also in regards to seismic evidence, how is it that ACTUAL geologist and seismic experts do not find any evidence of explosives used on 9/11? What are your qualifications and expertise to comment on this? How many seismic events have you personally studied which included explosives, especially these "thermobaric" devices? Cause obviously you must have some serious experience and background on these things to be coming to such conclusions when even independent professionals from around the world cannot find any such things. Wait, don't tell me, were you a developer on these special thermobaric devices that you know such intricate details and how they would appear on seismographs and how they are specially silenced so that no one can hear them unless you are right next to them?? Were you one of the secret riggers that is coming out??

a reply to: LaBTop

If you were at all familiar with the design of the WTC Towers you would see how the floors managed to collapse internally the way they did. Its actually frighteningly simple how. For someone that is dead set that secret hushaboom thermobarics were planted in the WTC to do what they did, you really are havig a hard time understanding or figuring out just how the floors could have done all of that without any extra help from magical explosives. It was a runaway collapse that was aggravated by the way the floors were built and connected. In fact, Verange style demolition only partly describes the mechanisms seen with the WTC. The floors of the WTC were all separate units, that were independent of the other floors. When five or ten came down on the floor below, it failed and added to the falling mass. Each floor taken out added to the dynamic mass going down and THAT is why they fell. The exterior columns remained standing until enough horizontal support from the floors went away that they too tipped and fell over or were pushed out by the falling mass above. Core columns behaved similarly but they too stood longer due to their designs, until they too could not beat gravity and damage. They fell straight down due to the lower base of the core taking damage from the collapse and/or getting pushed by the debris.

GenRadek.
Your first post. Your first allinea, all about Booms.
""But there was no boom before collapse. etcetera..."" rant.
And that, after one may presume you have viewed and read my 3 signature LINKS.
Its videos ...and LISTENED to the FOIA freed video of the WTC 7 pre-collapse low frequency TB-sound 1 second before that east penthouse begins to sag into WTC 7's roof....and the _BoneZ_ video, of the tower collapse onset, with explosive sounds in a rapid cadence going off.
You guys do have a complicated selective memory problem, it seems.
You also conveniently forget my two LINKS videos about the muffler blankets. And the implication of one seeing getting blown out of the top of a tower.
You also forget about my LINKS video from that man getting interviewed at a 9/11 remembrance event one year later at Ground Zero, who evidently was raged about the fact that he heard lots of explosions during both Tower collapses, but when returned home in the evening, he was perplexed to hear not one of them in the endlessly repeated news garbage spilled over us, with those endless repeats for weeks to come of those collapses.

Your second allinea, the seismic evidence remarks :
""How is it that ACTUAL geologist and seismic experts do not find any evidence of explosives used on 9/11?""
Aha, the same selective memory problem, hitting head on.
Already forgotten to read my link to Dr Rousseau, an actual geologist and seismic expert?
Can you lead me to one other actual seismologist than Dr Rousseau and me, (and besides the LDEO ones), who actually did try to find evidence for explosives in the seismic records of 9/11?
Did you know (I wrote about it many times already, oh, well, that pesky memory thingy again with you guys), that NIST swiftly removed ALL seismic reports from their online repository pages, after I publicized my seismic evidence for foul play in the WTC 7 collapse in late 2005 and in 2006? It is also cleansed from the History Commons site, the WayBack engine, literally everywhere. Try to find the second 9/11 seismic revised report Kim Young wrote for NIST. You can't, its totally cleansed from the NET. When a reporter asked Kim Young about it, his answer was that he did not kept copies of it, the whole report was strictly held by NIST. Where you can't find it, whatever you try. Do you really think any scientist tasked with reporting on the most important event of the last 50 years, not keeping ONE copy of his own report?

Your thermobaric bombs remarks :
Again, that problem with your memory.
Forgot about my extensive, link-littered post about them, a few pages back? Really?



Your second post.
Compressed : NIST denounced the pancake theory, which you try to reanimate again.
You're about 10 years overdue with such a stale theory.

And listen carefully, make no mistake :
NIST spend not one scientifically sound word about what happened after their idiotic sagging trusses caused the initiation of the events, according to them.

Which sagging trusses seen through windows NIST-theory, I solidly proved to be humbug science, since those windows were in front of perpendicular spread out floor panels, and definitely not in front of parallel spread out floor panels.
Find the link to my other thread posts evidence that NIST is purposely twisting their own investigation results to their liking, one page back.

If you can't realize I just proved NIST's initiating event for both Twin Tower collapses a total fabrication, and thus the rest of their report in flagrant contradiction with real science, I advice you to seek professional help, in the form of a real neutral and independent scientist.

I have given you the long treat again.

But let's keep it by one amazing fact :
How can you write those two rants, and not one time address what I presented to you :

The constant collapse acceleration S-diagram from David Chandler, showing no deceleration at all in those long, first THREE seconds of the North tower collapse.
The French collapse measurement indicated deceleration already after a short ONE second.

That whole rant is worthless, if you can't come up with a scientifically sound reason why that S-graph does not indicate foul play.

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: wmd_2008

Simple answer to a simple post :
You have a Boom, you get a collapse.
NIST was not interested in the collapse. Only what caused it.
We say a Boom.
They said it was Sagging Trusses.
I proved that's a joke.
Doubters prove there must have been a Boom by measuring the acceleration.
When you measure no deceleration at all, you know there must have been a Boom.
Followed by more Booms.
Thus, you go find those Booms, as _BoneZ_ and myself did, and we found them, see my signature LINKS, EVIDENCE.


Start using punctuation, you come over as an uneducated person.
Or explain why you obviously can't use it.

The only thing you may have proved is your quite a BITTER old person, so lets hear more of your 25 years construction experience.

There is NO proof of explosives, David Chandler does NOT have a clue about construction and neither do you it seems.

YOU and others don't seem to realise how much noise would be generated by large structural components failing, do you honestly think the floor slabs collapsing internally within the building would make no noise

Do YOU not think thousands of tons of concrete & steel falling could be the boom boom YOU keep going on about.

Please tell us all in the first couple of seconds of the North Tower collapse were all the mass goes

Collapse starts around 0:31 secs

"" There is NO proof of explosives, David Chandler does NOT have a clue about construction and neither do you it seems.""

Just gave you a whole list of explosive evidences.
You just conveniently bypass the fact that David Chandler publicizes his articles and videos as a member of an organization of architects, structural engineers and lots of other professionals in the building branch. Thus, he has a huge backup of peers, who will scrutinize his words far before you get a chance to throw any unsubstantiated mud at him. About his experience in buildings, I have no clue. Ask him. He's a physics graduate, so be prepared.

And you keep underestimating your opponents.
Stop throwing ridiculous claims at us. Of course a collapse is accompanied with a huge thundering sound.
But not a cadence of booms, since that would indicate a row of fully intact floors pancaking onto each other. Which NIST ruled out. So I don't have to prove that anymore to you, they did that for me.
You should expect no booms, but _BoneZ_ his video shows you those booms.
So what caused those booms? The logical things to expect, are explosives.

"" Do YOU not think thousands of tons of concrete & steel falling could be the boom boom YOU keep going on about.""

No, it were the explosives. And what YOU should have expected for a real natural collapse would be "crunch, crumble, crunch" instead of those telling booms of explosives.
I repeat, since you're the hardheaded type with a memory block, there was NO PANCAKING.

"" Please tell us all in the first couple of seconds of the North Tower collapse were all the mass goes""

DOWN.

And a bit of it will have been pushed (vectored) sidewards and down. As you can see in the last seconds of that video, which I already posted a few weeks ago, with some remarks.
You see the 6 exterior columns beside that gaping hole, shift sidewards to the left, followed by the rest of that part of the facade. Indicating a whole row of inner core columns getting sliced at that moment, or a few seconds earlier, when you saw that huge billowing black smoke column spitting out of the right top floor. To the right of the radio mast. You also see that mast first sinking into the roof, than the roof rim starts to sink in unison.
That should give you a hard clue.
It means the whole inner core column packet was sliced and sunk first down, before pulling the floors, followed by the exterior columns, with them.

Now, come with substantiated arguments against the scientifically proved first 3 seconds of no deceleration at WTC-1N, which means there were no measurable deceleration forces, for the falling mass of that top part of WTC-1N.

There was resistance, since that mass did not reach gravitational speed acceleration, it was a bit less. See his French building demo-video above. The resistance did not increase however. As in the French demo-video.
Meaning, that that to be expected resistance was taken care of by the use of explosives.

Note that David used the same software to prove that lack of resistance from the still standing mass under it, as he used for his evidence of the same lack of resistance in the first 2.5 seconds of the begin of the global collapse of WTC-7.
But there that mass reached gravitational collapse speed equal to G.
Meaning no resistance at all, over the space of 9 floors.....
And NIST had to admit that his software was accurate, they reached the same conclusion with their software.

Btw, thank you for your vox-populi kind of posting. It gives me a reason to explain these collapses in lay mens terms to the uneducated bulk of the ATS readers.
The educated ones, that's a whole different piece of cake, them I do not need to explain this in so many words, just the facts suffice.
That's why they don't hop in, they know we are right.

This is how the USA repeatedly starts localized false-flag born wars, to keep their endless-wars economy running smoothly.
Declassified Gulf Of Tonkin Documents :
Click to start the video at the right position to hear how they really wanted to start a war with North Vietnam.



We have them allowed to bred a fascist military industrial complex, already running the show from directly after WW II.
And they are backed by a block of fundamental Christians from the religious right and ultra right, and the usual wash-up from people who never learned to think independently from the news sources.
And the rest of them, the right, the left and the ones who profit, in any way imaginable from this kind of behavior.
Yes, you too, if you work in a factory or office, blooming on the backwash of this endless plunder of less mighty states.

Dunkin' Donuts Worker's Death Reveals The True Cost Of Our Low-Wage, Part-Time Economy :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here’s How the Price of Your Favorite Fast Food Would Change With a $15 Minimum Wage :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Right versus Left ideology (The Puppet show) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While you all could have such prosperous, happy life, without the worries how to survive the constant onslaughts on your incomes.
Just take away their toys, cut their budgets and voilá, there's your paradise on earth.

An animated-gif from the video of the North Tower collapse :



An animated-gif from the video of the South Tower collapse :




Click this Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
Observe calmly and concentrated all those 18 frame-photos from the North Tower collapse,



the various animated gifs on that page for the South and the North Towers collapses,





and then read this evidence why a pancake theory is outrageous wrong, since the visual evidence proves it immediately wrong :

The above animated graphic alternates the first and 67th frames. It shows a classic controlled demolition of a 12 story building (the top 12 stories of the North Tower). Strange how the roofline collapses so evenly, I guess, that all the central core columns and all the perimeter wall columns collapsed simultaneously. Some coincidence eh ?

The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor (just above the lower red line) with large flashes of hot gas from the explosions, clearly visible. Initially, the second line's detonation is obscured by the dust cloud of the first. However, being much more powerful detonations, the second line's dust cloud quickly bursts into view.

A close look at the video/photos shows that the collapse begins at the 98th floor, then the 99th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 100th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 101th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 102th floor collapses onto the 98th, etc until the second line of detonations initiates the final collapse. So once again, we have the disintegration of the tower above the impact floors, before the collapse of the tower below the impact floors.

Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor, which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc.

These very strange circumstances, mentioned above, have a very simple explanation: The twin towers were deliberately demolished. Occam's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation, a deliberate demolition, is probably also the correct explanation.

Just in time for 9/11, a massive video-billboard showing building 7 will appear in Times Square

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will be unveiling a 45 foot video-billboard which shows footage of building 7′s free fall collapse on repeat, in one of the most high traffic areas in the world. The billboard will be installed at the corner of 42nd Street and 8th Avenue in Times Square, Manhattan.

For 15 seconds out of every two minutes, people walking by will see WTC 7’s free-fall descent — the vast majority of them for the first time — on two massive 45’ by 45’ screens. Altogether, we’ll reach 100,000 people each day, amounting to 3 million viewings from September 8th to October 5th! The message will be simple and powerful, encouraging viewers to trust their instincts about WTC 7’s smooth, symmetrical downward motion —

www.trueactivist.com...

a reply to: douglas5

I viewed the interview with Richard Gage on C-Span, it's that time of the year again, when the networks know they have to come up with some 9/11 juice.
Good interaction, good caller questions.

I'm curious what a month of WTC 7 collapse video exposure will do to the psyche from the New York commoners.

More on those pesky trusses from NIST.

The WTC-1N tower had a blazing fire in 1975 on the 11th floor.

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire.

Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.
--snip--

(4) Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected. Consider this quote:

After the Broadgate Phase 8 fire and the Cardington frame tests there were benchmarks to test composite frame models. Research intensified because almost all the tests had unprotected steel beams (no fire rated suspended ceiling and no spray-on fire retardant ) but collapse was not seen [3].

Read the full page, a lot of good researched facts and info.

Another nail in the NIST ""sagging of trusses, caused by maximum 59 and 102 minutes fires"" pet theory.
It's this pet-theory from them, that they based the whole collapse initiation event on.
And what happened after that initiation, went down in the to be expected manner, a natural collapse sequence, they then concluded (falsely).

Now they have a damn huge problem, their truss-theory is toast, so how in gods name started those collapses already after 59 (ST) and 102 minutes (NT), after plane impact?

You know my solution, ad explosives to that mix of impacts, fires, and intent to demolish.