RARE 911 WTC VIDEO - Multiple Explosions Heard Before and During Collapse.

originally posted by: stormcell
There were people who were in the neighboring office blocks when the towers collapsed. The first collapse is when the top floors start falling downwards ( the building with the TV mast). It does actually attempt to fall to one side, but as soon that starts to happen, the steel framework on the other side also starts to disintegrate. So in the end, the falling floors rebalance and the whole lot falls downwards.

There's hardly anything left because there's a 12-foot of air space per floor to less than 1 foot of concrete. Each floor contained hundreds of tonnes of concrete, office furniture and computer equipment. The force of something moving is known at kinetic energy (force = mass x velocity squared). You need 1 newton to move 1 kilogram 1 meter. Gravity is an acceleration of 10 meters/second per second. So you've got 1000 tonnes (1 million kilograms) of concrete moving in freefall, gaining velocity every second. The vertical supports of each floor in the core and walls are designed to support all the floors above. But once you have 10 floors falling, they just couldn't support that extra force.

With every floor collapsing everything was pummeled into dust (asbestos, cement, computer equipment).
That's why so many people have all sorts of respiratory cancers.

The interesting thing is that the World Trade Center buildings were being scheduled for renovation to get all that asbestos removed. The controlled disassembly would have actually cost more than reconstruction. And they would
never have got permission for demolition. So having an "accident" would quite convenient.

This comment is completely on point.

To those that keep putting this down to other reasons are literally falling the hands of those that wish to over throw the american government.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Please read my recent post on this topic just below (above?). I wouldn't call then idiots or liars but I do believe that sometimes the mind can see or hear something that either isn't there or it is not what they believe it is. Not to mention, imagine one person saying they hear an explosion, they meet up with others outside she shares his observations and now the others who may or may not have heard something similar now has it in their head that what they heard was an explosion. This type of group think can spread quickly. This is just the basic premise but it is real and happens easier than one might think.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
At least we have debunkers acknowledging that they hear timed explosions

More garbage from you, where did they say they heard explosions?

Now don't get too emotional that your attempts to debunk has failed and teaming up on my threads doesn't do anything to the premise of my threads. Go troll another forum topic.

Greetings:

You will find the same team of rascally rascals pouncing on 911, chemtrails, Fukushima…although they have backed off FUK U a bit as the truth continues to poison the Pacific Ocean and their protestations were shown to be completely BUNK.
That's a part of the 'fun about Tango.

With great respect,
tfw
Peace Light Love

originally posted by: Rocker2013
You keep pretending that this is some secret, that you've uncovered something, when all you're doing is hearing a car backfire and calling it a gunshot.

Greetings:

Most Excellent!

Now, we're getting somewhere.

Obviously, the firefighters that were on scene and have the explosions recorded on film while on the telephone are wrong and, you, with this incredible evidence, are calling them liars.

What is your evidence, if you please?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

With great respect,
tfw
Peace Light Love

a reply to: samkent

I teach architecture and Mechanical Design. I have both architects and engineers on my advisory board. None of these people were 100 percent on board with the pancake theory. They started discussing it between themselves. Every time one of them would try to justify the pancake theory another one would find holes in the basic physics. They really had a difficult time explaining the complete collapse of building 7. I remember one of them saying even if some of the debris from the trade towers hit building 7, it wouldn't have caused a total collapse. I wish I could have recorded their conversations at the time because it was quite interesting. Unfortunately this conversation took place the same year the towers went down back in 2001.

For the sake of that argument, let's throw out my advisory committee altogether. I'm sure you're aware of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. There are structural engineers in that organization, so the idea that all architects and engineer subscribe to the "pancake theory" is absolutely false. I just don't understand how people who want to believe in the official story ignore the glaring unrealistic coincidence that 3 buildings can collapse into their own footprint. Not, 1, not 2 but 3 buildings!! The fact of the matter is building 3 collapsed minus the plane, the jet fuel, and the structure wasn't built in the same manner as the trade towers!

Can you list them please?

a reply to: Rocker2013


You've heard of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth haven't you? I guess these professionals are all wacko's too! Their qualifications are clearly listed on their web site. You yourself have said you don't know how building 7 collapsed. Tell me, based upon statistics, what are the chances of a 3rd steel building collapsing into it's own footprint? I mean this is quite coincidental don't you think? The official reason for building 7 to collapse was damage done by the collapse of the nearby trade towers and office fires? Really, and you can honestly say it should of collapsed into it's own footprint just because of this?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So Rodriquez alters his story over a phone conversation? Considering the massive backlash our government would receive "if" they had any hand in this incident, you don't think there would have been pressure on this guy to alter his story?

I'm sorry, but the CIA is known to use strong armed tactics or buyouts to squelch information that could expose clandestine agendas. The U.S. public would want their heads if they took any part in 911. This is also the same media that didn't even question or hold the government's feet to the fire when they declared Iraq was involved in 911 and when they decided to send troops into Iraq.

I'm sorry, our government doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean record and our media no longer does hard nose investigative reporting. The information they release when it pertains to our government policies is closely controlled. Our government has been exposed to have done some pretty underhanded things in the past that have claimed innocent lives. Including a false flag incident that caused us to lose over 50,000 young men's lives in the Vietnam war.

And that is proof there were bombs placed in the building to bring it down?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h


...and I can flip the same argument back to you! The "pancake effect" is just a theory based upon "so called evidence" provided by the same government that is suspect to its complicity. Since when do suspects in a crime gather their own evidence? How many times has the American public been given false information by our government throughout the years? Than finding out years later our government was lying to us? All the Truthers have ever wanted was an outside unbiased investigation into 911. Don't you think after we lost over 3,000 citizens and over 5,000 military personal due to wars related to 911, the U.S. public deserve this? There have been way too many questions concerning the events of 911.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Exactly. I find it appalling the media hasn't pressed for a thorough explanation on the collapse of building 7 and among other questionable events surrounding 911. A lot of people don't even know about building 7, and you have to question why this was never kept in the headlines.

As far as the Pentagon, I've always said, the confiscated videos of the surrounding business were never released and shown to the public. If it was a plane, than show the damn security videos! What do they have to hide? If the government really wants to lay their cards on the table, prove it was plane! This is one of many smoking guns they should have come clean on.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You've heard of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth haven't you? I guess these professionals are all wacko's too! Their qualifications are clearly listed on their web site.

Yes they are wackos too.
Lets start with the letter 'A'.

Dave Abbott

As they say 'A Jack of all Trades, Master of None'.
Retired at this time, did well in physics and such.

Craig Aalders

with a diploma in Sonic Design from Carleton University.

James Aaron

Twelvth grade grad and wherehouse worker. Looking for some answers about the event that took place September 11, 2001.

Ciro Abbate

I'm a writer of the province of Naples, a journalist since 2009.

It goes on page after page.
Yes they are almost all wackos.
Almost none of them have degrees that apply to the subject at hand.

a reply to: WeRpeons

As far as the Pentagon, I've always said, the confiscated videos of the surrounding business were never released and shown to the public.

Yes they were released.
The link has been listed on here many times.
Perhaps you could do a Google search and find them yourself.

You are giving the same old tired story lines all truthers have given before.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds

originally posted by: Rocker2013
You keep pretending that this is some secret, that you've uncovered something, when all you're doing is hearing a car backfire and calling it a gunshot.

Greetings:

Most Excellent!

Now, we're getting somewhere.

Obviously, the firefighters that were on scene and have the explosions recorded on film while on the telephone are wrong and, you, with this incredible evidence, are calling them liars.

What is your evidence, if you please?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

With great respect,
tfw
Peace Light Love

It was trick to get them to admit they hear explosions in the video now they got to look foolish claiming it was a 'car backfire' but 4-5 x before and during collapse?

Same tired old stories coming from debunkers. They are shown how wrong they are and they just change the subject

a reply to: WeRpeons

So Rodriquez alters his story over a phone conversation? Considering the massive backlash our government would receive "if" they had any hand in this incident, you don't think there would have been pressure on this guy to alter his story?

SO before the scene is even fully contained the government was able to point this man out and scare him enough to alter his story...the government is good, but not that good.

I'm sorry, but the CIA is known to use strong armed tactics or buyouts to squelch information that could expose clandestine agendas. The U.S. public would want their heads if they took any part in 911. This is also the same media that didn't even question or hold the government's feet to the fire when they declared Iraq was involved in 911 and when they decided to send troops into Iraq.

But not before the scene is even contained which it wasn't at the time of this interview.

I'm sorry, our government doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean record and our media no longer does hard nose investigative reporting.

Nobody said they did, and that seems to be something you need to take up with the media.

You seem to have this thought that I just listen to whatever the media says...your way off base there.

Our government has been exposed to have done some pretty underhanded things in the past that have claimed innocent lives. Including a false flag incident that caused us to lose over 50,000 young men's lives in the Vietnam war.

So because of that it automatically has to be the reason for 9/11...if you say so.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

While I agree that the distance between the towers and the camera leaves much room for any sounds to be mistaken for explosions, you can't mistake the distinct FLASH on the bottom left of tower 3 AS it collapses.

In the short video, it occurs in between 2 and 3 seconds in.

Dear skeptics, explain that flash to me; other than calling it a fuse box exploding. Because that is the most ridiculous explanation that i've gotten for it so far.

This flash supports the planted explosions theory 10 fold more than any sounds that occurred at the moment.

a reply to: peacenotgreed

Thing is the flash could be glass, the façade blowing in the wind but it is interesting that it is way above the collapse area. I see the flash too, I wont discount it, but chose to not focus on it yet.

Is this the same flash?

a reply to: peacenotgreed

This flash supports the planted explosions theory 10 fold more than any sounds

And yet it didn't blow out the windows.
Maybe the Pentagon should have used WTC glass instead of that expensive blast proof stuff.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

You'll never see someone more surprised
than a person who has just learned WTC7
was not hit by a plane but it came down symmetrically in 7 seconds.
And then show them the 20+ angles of the implosion.
Luckily the military couldn't confiscate everyone's cameras
in lower Manhattan .

And I strongly feel that WTC7 came down and so many videos portraying it's collapse so that people will be more accepting of WTC's 1 & 2, and those being more believable.




ETA; That it didn't work as planned.IMVHO

a reply to: Rocker2013

This is a massive building in an area of dense construction, you cannot seriously claim to be of scientific mind and then claim that because you cannot see the floors collapsing means they're not, or that you can possibly base the reality of what is happening inside that building on the sound echoing from every other building around it.

Well then, this goes both ways.

a reply to: Rocker2013

There are plenty of people on that day who described the loud bangs they heard as explosions, mainly because they had no other word to use to describe what they heard.

It doesn't mean that's exactly what they were.

And it doesn't mean they weren't explosions either. I saw what happened that day, before any videos were tampered with, and before any people changed their stories.

The OS will always be accepted and this doesn't make it the truth.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: WeRpeons

You ignore the basic fact that steel buildings don't completely collapse like this in a fire. Let alone 1 collapsing in under 1 hour

You are basing your beliefs on a hunch.
If you can find another building that was hit with a 757 first and then survived an un-fought fire only to survive please show us.

ALL of your beliefs are based on hunches, that have been fed to you like baby pablum with a little serum for dessert.

It takes more lies and brainwashing to believe in 9/11 officialdom than any standard religion, but then again some people need to believe in lies, they are hardwired that way.