Ground Zero Footage

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification;

Why do you keep reposting fairy tales about 9/11? There is zero evidence for mini nukes, even most truthers consider the theories silly!

Good to see new footage in 2014 all that asbestos. How many are ill because of this? I'm sure they lods that in the WTC too?

a reply to: thabusiness00

You're welcome for the link and welcome to ATS!

It's probably safe to say the "clean" people are clean cause they were indoors or in cover while the debris was raining down and nothing more. They do look very out of place though.

As for the people coming in and out of building 7 I really can't say. I would guess they are looking for other people or perhaps a break from the falling dust, I don't know.
You can see some that appear to be walking around in a shock induced daze.

Another thing you mentioned is one of the things that really struck me about the video. The sheer amount of dust.
Over the years I've heard countless comments about the "dust", "pulverized concrete", etc..
This video really shows just how bad the dust really was.

originally posted by: thabusiness00
to the truthers... what about the no planes theories. when i saw the second plane hit the tower on tv and it faded to black...

The "no planes at the WTC" theories were created by hoaxers to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. There was no "fade to black". They were switching between cameras.

Some simple searching and research will reveal the real truths.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification;

Why do you keep reposting fairy tales about 9/11? There is zero evidence for mini nukes, even most truthers consider the theories silly!

Why do you persist in posting the fairy tales about 9/11 courtesy of the MSM, without being bothered to read anything to the contrary? The evidence for nukes is in the material I posted, which you can't be bothered to read.

I WELCOME your rebuttal, if and when you can actually point to the possibility that you've considered the information therein. The person who wrote that material also welcomes debates from any comers. I can get you in touch with him, and we can make a radio show out of it on 'Out of the Box'... I'm sure you're up for that right? You know what you're talking about, right? You can back up your endless assertions that it all happened the way the US Government said it did, right?

Clue: The US and other governments have had small tactical nukes in their arsenals FOR DECADES NOW. How is their use during 9-11 'silly' when evidence of fission is in the dust?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

That's the only link I have and with my limited computer skills (I'm no techie) that's all I've got. I've downloaded those files myself dozens of times without a problem.

If you want a different form of access, go to the Jeff Prager Facebook page, select 'notes' and scan down through his voluminous postings; most of his DUST evidence is there in other forms.

originally posted by: Mikeultra
a reply to: scottyirnbru
You're right, that was a crazy thought! Have a dose of reality concerning Agent Bennette.

A Secret Service agent was arraigned Tuesday on charges he stole five of the agency's cars recovered from the World Trade Center site. According to a complaint unsealed in Brooklyn Federal Court, William Bennette, 52, has admitted to the theft. He surrendered to federal authorities Tuesday morning and was later released on $$75,000 bond. Bennette, a retired police officer who has worked for the Secret Service since 1999, was ordered to make an inventory of what was left of the agency's fleet of 179 vehicles assigned to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Instead, according to investigators, he combed an auto graveyard in Brooklyn for unscathed cars. Bennette allegedly used forged government documents and receipts to make it look like the cars were sold to an auto repair shop in Brooklyn. He kept one for himself and gave cars to his mother and sister, and an employee of the auto shop got the last two, authorities say. His lawyer said trauma from the World Trade Center attack may have played a factor in Bennette’s actions.

www.ny1.com...

When called in to the Brooklyn field office for questioning on April 2, Mr. Bennette, who joined the Secret Service in 1999 after retiring from the New York Police Department, said he had forged signatures of agency managers to transfer the titles of the cars, the complaint says. At his arraignment yesterday in front of federal Magistrate Steven M. Gold, Mr. Bennette, wearing a black raincoat and a glum expression, said little other than ''Yes, sir'' and ''That is correct, sir.'' He was released after his wife signed a $75,000 bond. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. Outside the courthouse, Mr. Lieberman said that while his client was not trying to minimize the charges, ''There is a personal side to this story that will come out as the case proceeds.'' He did not go into detail but said that Mr. Bennette had spent much of Sept. 11 helping rescue people at 7 World Trade Center before it collapsed at 5:30 p.m. He said that it would be up to mental health professionals to determine what effect the experience had had on Mr. Bennette.

www.nytimes.com...

That's an irrelevance. You've drawn a link between a guy stealing cars and then him being involved in the murder of 3000 people. It's irrelevant.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Dude

Are you suggesting that the molten iron for 3 months is the result of burning office furnishings? Are you saying that the damage observed was the result of office fires and a natural gravitational collapse?

You're asking two questions, and I dont understand the second one fully.
This first, for steel to be molten it needs to be above 2500c.
www.debunking911.com...
Here, that'll help. That's an explanation. Maybe you can tell me how you think molten steel appears.

You're second question, do you mean the collapse or something else? The collapse, planes, fires, steel gets warm (loses 50% of strength at 400c, 90% at 800c), steel fails, progressive collapse initiated.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

You clearly haven't watched much footage.

Watch a video of any controlled demolition and then watch the close-up videos of the towers collapsing.

In a controlled demolition, the building seems to consume itself from the bottom up. This is done on purpose so the top floors stay intact as they come down, creating a smaller footprint.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, starting with the upper most sections above the damaged area coming down onto the floors beneath.

I am not falling for that one. I never stated "controlled demolition" I said explosives. Just because explosives were used does not automatically mean CD. It just means the building was blown up in away we may not have seen before. Stop trying to fit it in a CD models. In fact stop with your models all together. This is real life son.

So your evidence that explosives were used is the fireball being pushed out of the building by the rushing air of the collapse? You're gonna have to come up with something better than that... son (I really wish there was an eye roll smiley for idiotic remarks like yours). In the closeups of the damaged portion, you can see the structure give way just before the fireball is expelled from the building.

This is real life, boy. The theory that explosives were used to collapse the buildings is fantasy and there isn't a single shred of evidence that suggests otherwise. All the truthers have is opinion, speculation, and photos that are easily debunked. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

I will just go with eye-ball witnesses and leave the rest out. Firefighters, police EMT's news anchors... everyone on the morning of 9/11 reported hearing explosions. How does progressive collapse answer to that inconvenient truth.

Hmmm. There were two towers collapsing. They have mass. The movement of said mass may have caused materials to destruct. Have you ever crushed a concrete cube in a lab? Sometimes quiet, usually very noise. Ever tested the tensile strength or compressive strength of steel? Usually noisy. To say everyone heard explosions is wrong. You have hundreds of people experiencing an unprecedented event and you expect them to understand fully what happens. Unlikely.

Then you go tell all the first responders and everyone that survived that what they heard was wrong. They are not going off memory since the testimony I am referring is from the footage on the ground on 9/11.

One quote I can remember from a senior fire fighter "It's like they planned to bring down the building, boom, boom, boom" I'm busy right now but the footage is easy to find if you care.

www.debunking911.com...

It's all about context.

This is just some BS blog. What evidence did it put forth? Observations and opinions. No different than anyone else. That blog wouldn't last a minute of scrutiny on this site. Nice try.

Dude. It's laden with evidence and scientific citations. Th fact that you say it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny on this site is hilarious. I've never read such pseudoscience guff in all my days.

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification; maybe the OS supporters will actually read it this time, I remain ever hopeful...

Prager NUKED pt 1

Prager NUKED pt 2

You'll see photos you've never seen before, many of them uber-zoomable. You'll have to learn a bit about nuclear physics but he walks you through it. You'll actually know what you're talking about regarding what we saw that day, what the aftermath was like, what the evidence unequivocally showed, and a whole lot more!

Cheerio!

What the evidence unequivocally showed. I don't think you understand the word evidence or unequivocally. If it's unequivocal evidence it would be the story. But it's not. So it isn't.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

Many engineers, it took about 10+ years for AE911 truth to get to 1500 members NOT all of them are structural engineers, architects are the BEST customers of structural engineers !!!

MILLIONS of engineers around the world DON'T back it, even from nations that DON'T like the USA, I speak to structural engineers on a REGULAR basis and have yet to meet one that would agree with YOUR view.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA



I am not arguing if what you say is possible but what you say didn't really happen as far as I can tell. For one those towers were blowing black smoke, and people were seen standing near the impacted sections trying to get air. Unless the heat your are talking about was somehow localized to the perimeter angle iron and core columns, the fires did not seem to be burning hot at all. But maybe it was somehow hot enough up there since there was molten metal found deep in the debris surviving with very little oxygen. That's weird unless it was a chemical reaction or something.

That picture you have of the building that pancaked... is there a video of that we can all see? I would love pull out my stop-watch on that golden egg.

Just because the smoke was at the opening were people were trying to get air doesn't mean they were near the flames or direct heat.

I am sure the workers from this event below thought the same about having a video camera.

Progreesive Collapse

When 14 of them were killed & 34 injured.

They very fact YOU think the timing would prove anything shows YOU don't understand structures or loading speaking as a person who has had to test structural components to destruction.

a reply to: signalfire

Let's go with micro nukes then. Let's assume that's correct. As prager says, every ten floors. Does that not seem like perhaps overkill? In my, admittedly non existent, terrorists thinking would it not have been easier to drive 3 massive truck bombs and.park them near the base? Have your micro nukes at ground level, and detonate at the same time as the truck bombs? It seems awfully convoluted to hijack planes and use these as sneaky little distractions from the real deal. Also sneakily crashing one into the pentagon then one in the middle of nowhere.

I flipped through the ebook link you posted. Here's where it goes wonky. If prager speaks the truth, why is it just an ebook and not on the cover of every newspaper around the world? Why aren't the Russians and Chinese printing it, shouting how the Americans killed Americans so they could make money? I'm Scottish, in the past 5 years I've seen newspapers in this country slaughter politicians for expenses, for careless use of language. They've published the wikileaks documents. They published most of snowdens revelations. They've attacked the establishment for crimes that occurred 30 years ago. However, here we have a smoking gun. The single most incredible, incendiary paper ever. It lays out in clear hard fact how the American govt secretly planted micro nukes to bring down two towers after the crashes. The guy has gone to all the trouble of writing it up. Yet they don't touch it. No paper in the UK. Not the guardian, the times, the telegraph, the sun, the independent, the mail. No paper in America. No.paper in Germany or France or Italy or Canada or Australia or Japan or Korea or any county you wish to choose. No paper anywhere. Ah you say, the msm. In every county all over the world, even the countries which hate the west. No single paper editor anywhere has the balls to mark themselves out as the greatest hero of the 21st century.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
If prager speaks the truth, why is it just an ebook and not on the cover of every newspaper around the world? Why aren't the Russians and Chinese printing it, shouting how the Americans killed Americans so they could make money?

The answer is very simple - not even those countries would embarrass themselves by posting such nonsense as fact - if they did, internationally they would be the laughing stock of the world.

Also note how Prager is unable to get any atomic physist to agree with him.... and exactly what are his qualifications in the field of nuclear weapons?

Interesting footage,OP! S&F for you. Great footage of the WTC complex.#7 didn't look like it was gonna come down,did it? The fires were minor from what we could see.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

True once the plane hit the side there wouldn't be a pressure build up in lower floors. If any place pressure would build in the upper floors not the lower, and one of the "jets" is way too far down to be from heat. While 1800F is hot the floor below wouldn't be as hot due to how buildings are made. That sound insulation between floors would block a lot of it. One floor below would be really hot, two floors would be bad as well, three you'd feel it enough to think something was wrong, four and five you wouldn't know till you walked near a stairwell.

a reply to: signalfire

Clue: The US and other governments have had small tactical nukes in their arsenals FOR DECADES NOW. How is their use during 9-11 'silly' when evidence of fission is in the dust?

There would be large quantities of fused steel and other materials in the debris.
You could not hide this.
Show us proof of this material.

a reply to: samkent
That evidence was hastily buried in Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island along with the remains of the many missing persons. It was taken directly there in barges. There was no thorough examination of the wreckage. It was buried (covered up) real fast. I find it very hard to believe that every bit of concrete from a combined 220 floors was reduced to talcum powder-like dust!

a reply to: scottyirnbru
It might be irrelevant to you if you believe the official story, but I think it shows government criminality. Wasn't there reports of gold stolen from building seven? Watch that LiveLeak video again and listen to Bennette say with a smirk and a laugh that he's with the OST in the Secret Service. He knows what blew up the World Trade Center! Also you have to understand this was a demolition project that had a triple purpose. Silverstein got the insurance company to pay for the (1) demolition and (2) redevelopment of the site, and the government got their (3) war on terror, the NDAA, and all that came after that. It was like killing 3 birds with one stone.