9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

Here watch this video www.metacafe.com...

Those are demolition charges going up and in sequence.

The charges are used to steer the collapse.

Now watch this video. www.metacafe.com...
At 2:00 the demolition explosion is on the corner. No windows there, lots of load bearing steal. BOOM!

[edit on 3-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

Originally posted by Renshin
And before anyone starts about 'air pressure leaving the windows'
theres got to be thousands of windows, and air will find the quickest
way out and go out there. it wouldent just pick four select windows
where the prime explosive points would be.

I could say similar things about the idea of explosives being there. Why does it only go out those windows? Why is it on the outside if it isn't at the core? Why blow a couple of the columns of the facade when the entire top of the building is about to hit it?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I wasn't trying to "debunk" anything Gottago. It was posted that there wasn't anything from the collapse larger than a typrwriter keypad... and I asked for clearification.

Please show me the proof that there was molten "steel" at the WTC.

My pleasure CO.

IIRC, you were in the thick of the "molten steel has got to stop" thread, so I don't understand your amnesia, unless that was something you'd rather forget for some reason...

But heck, it's always good to pull out the incontrovertible evidence from time to time to jog debunkers' memories, which are so short and selective.

NASA/USGS satellite survey of thermal readings on on Sept. 16 2001.
The evidence is so damning that the official website only mentions the surface temps as being "over 800 degrees F" which is only orange, not bright yellow (note how hot it is in the basement of WTC7, too):



I won't bother with the onsite photos everyone already knows; you have Google too.

Here's a link to two FDNY discussing the site, saying: "You get down below, and you'd see molten steel--molten steel--running down the channel ways, like in a foundry. Like lava, from a volcano."

Google Video Link

Not good enough? How about a nice big politician for you though? They always tell the truth. So here's Gov. Pataki of NY, on site, Sept. 21, 2001, talking about the "pulverized" concrete and the deep fires under the rubble piles.


[edit on 3-8-2007 by gottago]

its allways nice to see what a sattelite they show to the public can do
what a clear and zoomed image it can show....imagine the secret satelites^^how much they can zoom and get a much more claer picture^^

Originally posted by gottago
Flagged this for the high quality of the video and the unusual angle showing the massive "squibs" coming from the lower sky lobby while the collapse cascade is over 10 stories above.

The more views you see, the more times you see it, you just can't believe that people can still think that the collapse was anything but a CD.

that lame video showed nothing , and i mean nothing .. but watching it , how can anyone say that it was a cd .

I really liked your reply, that was really good!

one question though, I had heard that the U.N. was investigating the tower crashes as a H-bomb attack, have you heard anything on this?

Originally posted by gen.disaray

Originally posted by gottago
Flagged this for the high quality of the video and the unusual angle showing the massive "squibs" coming from the lower sky lobby while the collapse cascade is over 10 stories above.

The more views you see, the more times you see it, you just can't believe that people can still think that the collapse was anything but a CD.

that lame video showed nothing , and i mean nothing .. but watching it , how can anyone say that it was a cd .

Thanks for your totally unsubstantiated opinion.

It will surely convince one and all that the video is useless and that the towers were destroyed by an as-yet unexplained mechanism that allowed for a gravity-driven collapse at near freefall speed, and as it is so sweeping and authoritatively stated, it will also explain all the anomalies surrounding that collapse--molten steel, pulverized concrete, explosive collapse, explosive disintegration of the tops of the towers, etc.

We can all knock it off now, gen.disaray has spoken.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by MrSparkle
I'm sorry, I just hard to point this out.

Quick math here. Someone keeps saying that the building fell in 10.5 seconds and that is "free fall speed."

Math:
Gravity Acceleration (Recall from high school physics) = 9.8 meters per second squared
Height of WTC = 1362 feet (Tower 2) = 415.1372 meters

How fast would it fall?
square root( 415.1376 meters / 9.8 meters per second^2 ) = 6.5085 seconds.

www.google.com...

If it did fall in 10.5 seconds, that is HARDLY a free fall as some in this thread have claimed.

I won't touch some of the other ridiculous things said in this thread, but I just couldn't pass up the obvious math mistakes here.

Your calculations are out.

I assume you're using simple newtonian mechanics to get a rough figure in which case the relevant relationship would be:

s=ut+(0.5a)t^2

take u = 0 and re-arrange for t to give:

t= sqrt(2s/a)

which (using your figures of 415m and 9.81 ms^-2) gives 9.19 seconds for an object to freefall from the top of the tower to the ground, ignoring air resistance.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The complete image:
www.911truth.dk...

Makes a world of difference. Whoever originally cropped it engaged in intentional disinfo. They were cut by torches. Give it a rest.

And now, back to the topic...

Can you give me a sane reason why they would cut that column about 2 feet above a person's head? When it would have been easier to cut at a comfortable level? Why bring in a ladder or picker to cut that column when you can clearly see that a person can stand right there and cut it? Just doesn't make sense to me and so far no one has given a real answer as to why they did the extra steps in cutting that column.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
Couldn't Terrorist's have planted charges all over the building to guarantee colapse.. i mean a bomb was reported by the firemen on the ground floor.. terroist being ultra sick and making sure people couldn't get out?

Actually, this is what I believe. Only the terrorists who planted the bombs turned out to be Isreali and not Muslim. Who signed Sakher Hammads WTC basement level pass to do work on the sprinklers?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

My theory is that MOSSAD knew what was going to happen and helped it along. Pretty much the same reason as given for the US gov. to do it. Only I don't believe it was actually our gov. that did it. I believe we have been infiltrated by MOSSAD in our own gov. and that is where the "inside" job comes from. Double agents that are actually working against us from the inside.

The government just doesn't want to admit and is covering up that our "friends" also attacked us to further their own agenda.

or is it that because of the nature of the fall the 'bad guys' would have to have specialist demolitions knowledge to achieve this type of fall?.

I doubt it. Anyone knowing just basic knowledge of buildings could tell you that taking out the core structure would collapse the outside.

because if i was a corrupt government planning this type of operation the first thing i'd say is .. hey people are shrewd, there gonna see the explosions , lets make sure we got our, terrorists rigged the charges up a few days before excuse ready?this would deflect all of these theories.

Yes, I agree. Remember in the beginning about hearing the reports of explosions in the basement and the FBI believed there was a truck bomb set off to help collapse? Remember hearing about the 5 dancing Isrealis before we found out they were Israeli and thought they were Pakistani? Funny how that when we found out that they were Isreali, the subject was dropped immediately. So, they did have their terrorist scapegoats, they just turned out to be on the wrong side, so that angle was scrapped.

Always, just my opinion.

Originally posted by Griff
Can you give me a sane reason why they would cut that column about 2 feet above a person's head? When it would have been easier to cut at a comfortable level? Why bring in a ladder or picker to cut that column when you can clearly see that a person can stand right there and cut it? Just doesn't make sense to me and so far no one has given a real answer as to why they did the extra steps in cutting that column.

This is my first foray into a discussion regarding these columns. If I understand correctly, it's being suggested that the diagonal cuts are being interpretted by some as evidence of controlled demolition by some form of thermite or cordite or something like that?

This is my observation. All of the columns in this picture appear to have been cleanly cut. All of cuts occur well above head and shoulder hieght at the time the photo was taken. The obvious solution to me is that the columns were cut previously, before some of the debris was cleared and it (debris) was deeper.

One other observation. I have no idea what a cut resulting from thermite/cordite, or whatever looks like, but I know what a cut made by a conventional oxygen/acetelyne torch looks like. It looks exactly like the marks on the primary diagonal column cut being discussed.



[edit on 8/3/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
This is my observation. All of the columns in this picture appear to have been cleanly cut. All of cuts occur well above head and shoulder hieght at the time the photo was taken. The obvious soultion to me is that the columns were cut previously, before some of the debris was cleared and it (debris) was deeper.

That could be the answer. But, what about the column that's laying down? If they are in the cleanup process, wouldn't they have taken that column first? If not, where's the cut-off piece of column that was cut also?

And seeing as you haven't seen a cut from thermate (neither have I, which is why I tend to not go that route), you cannot say with certainty it is not just because it looks like a torch cut. What if thermate cutting charges cut the exact same way as a torch? Or what if they used an oxy-acetaline cutting charge (not even sure if that exists).

All I'm saying is you can't rule out something just because it may look like something else. Isn't that what you guys keep telling us? Just because it looks like a CD doesn't neccessarily mean it is. So, when it comes to something else, we can look at something and automatically decide what it is because it looks like it? Circular logic is all I'll say. Not you darkbluesky.

1

[edit on 3-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
One other observation. I have no idea what a cut resulting from thermite/cordite, or whatever looks like, but I know what a cut made by a conventional oxygen/acetalyne torch looks like. It looks exactly like the marks on the primary diagonal column cut being discussed.

Not to pick on you DBS, but I can turn this around.

I have no idea (well kinda do) what the result from a jetliner crashing into a building and causing a global gravity driven collapse looks like, but I know what a controlled demolition of a building looks like. It looks exactly like a CD.

See what I mean about not jumping to conclusions just because something looks like something else?

I agree this is the most compelling evidence for controlled demolitions www.metacafe.com...

For those people who want to derail the truth in this thread with Missile pods, lasers, nuclear bombs, orbs, pentagon, squibs, air pressure, pre-cut core columns pictures, and other ridiculous easily debunkable disinformation tactics.... please go to another thread or letsroll or something pathetic like that.

This is the topic www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by ZGhorus
thats crazy...i heard it was superman and he used his laser eye beams to disintergrate the missl...erm...plane before it left too much eviden....damage...yeah...tahts it

Originally posted by ZGhorus
WOOOT *cheer* *applause* a pointless post i know...but, art should be appreciated!

Originally posted by ZGhorus
its times like this my dear old mum would say "if common sense was common, we'd all have some"

Just so we're all on the same page, the above are three examples of what do not constitute acceptable posts in a forum. Especially in ATS's most heavily scrutinized forum. I realize you're new to ATS, ZGhorus, and some of your posts have been decent, but the above 3 posts are not what ATS is about, and have resulted in a "Warn".

Originally posted by GriffAll I'm saying is you can't rule out something just because it may look like something else. Isn't that what you guys keep telling us? Just because it looks like a CD doesn't neccessarily mean it is. So, when it comes to something else, we can look at something and automatically decide what it is because it looks like it? Circular logic is all I'll say. Not you darkbluesky.

Griff, I agree completely. When arguing details and nuances of any of the events of 9/11, both sides resort to phrases that include could have, might have, could be etc. Some folks, usually the ones with no background experience or training whatsoever in the disciplines being debated (aviation technology, engineering, demolition, etc) tend to be completely dismissive of differing points of view. From these posters we get statements that usually begin..."theres no way that...." or "It's so obvious...." or "If you sheeple can't see this..." etc.

I obviously have my opinions about 9/11. Those being that Muslim extremist actually comandered US aircraft and crashed them into high visibility targets. I also think its possible that elements of the US government had prior knowledge and may have allowed it to happen. I do not buy any of the theories that anyone outside the Al Queda sphere of influence had any sustantive active roll in teh events of 9/11.

Because the details can be debated back and forth for ever, I tend to go back to the basic question of "why make it so complicated"?


Not just to Griff but anyone....

If you believe airplanes actually impacted the buildings, why is any of the additional stuff necessary?

If "they" wanted the buildings to completely collapse, why crash airplanes into them? Why not jus blow them up. Especially if "they" is the US govt? Why chance destroying US financial infrastructure, the air travel industry, and tourism all at the same time? I think just blowing up the WTC (and or the Pentagon) and blaming it on Al Queda would have yielded the same popular response as crashing airplanes into it then blowing it up. Don't you? It would have been just as easy to frame Al Queda for the explosions as it was to frame them for taking "some planes".

[edit on 8/3/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
This is the topic www.metacafe.com...

If all you want us to talk about is the video, your thread is going to die very soon.

Plus, squibs, pre-cut columns etc. ARE a part of the CD topic.

What specifically would you like to discuss? Maybe that way we can focus on what you want to talk about. Instead of just posting the link (for the thousanth time) and saying "just talk about this".

Just friendly advise.

Originally posted by MrSparkle
I'm sorry, I just hard to point this out.

Quick math here. Someone keeps saying that the building fell in 10.5 seconds and that is "free fall speed."

Math:
Gravity Acceleration (Recall from high school physics) = 9.8 meters per second squared
Height of WTC = 1362 feet (Tower 2) = 415.1372 meters

How fast would it fall?
square root( 415.1376 meters / 9.8 meters per second^2 ) = 6.5085 seconds.

www.google.com...

If it did fall in 10.5 seconds, that is HARDLY a free fall as some in this thread have claimed.

I won't touch some of the other ridiculous things said in this thread, but I just couldn't pass up the obvious math mistakes here.

kk so not quite freefall speeds i was wrong about that *holds up hands* however i maintain that 10 seconds is a lot faster than it should have taken given the "pancake" the fact that it had to hit every floor on the way down it would have taken much longer, in stead of NEAR free fall speeds.

i will respond with a full comment soon.

also...

"i dont pay taxes to buy lies"

to my knowledge there is no law in america that forces you to pay your taxes, its against your constitutional rights and its why you americans rebelled from our obviously superior brittish rulership(that was a joke) in the first place.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ZGhorus]

We're not so far apart in our beliefs.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I obviously have my opinions about 9/11.

Don't we all.

Those being that Muslim extremist actually comandered US aircraft and crashed them into high visibility targets.

I agree. That's been proven in my mind.

I also think its possible that elements of the US government had prior knowledge and may have allowed it to happen.

I also agree with this.

I do not buy any of the theories that anyone outside the Al Queda sphere of influence had any sustantive active roll in teh events of 9/11.

This is where we disagree. I believe MOSSAD and maybe a few other country's operatives had an active hand in it.

Look into the five dancing Isrealis and Shaker "Rocky" Hammad. Interesting to say the least.

Because the details can be debated back and forth for ever, I tend to go back to the basic question of "why make it so complicated"?

I agree. I believe Al-Queada planned the highjackings and MOSSAD heard about it and decided to help for their own advancements by placing more blame on the Muslims.

If you believe airplanes actually impacted the buildings, why is any of the additional stuff necessary?

Because I believe the core had to be taken out for the towers to collapse. An airplane, IMO, is not enough to do that.

If "they" wanted the buildings to completely collapse, why crash airplanes into them? Why not jus blow them up. Especially if "they" is the US govt? Why chance destroying US financial infrastructure, the air travel industry, and tourism all at the same time? I think just blowing up the WTC (and or the Pentagon) and blaming it on Al Queda would have yielded the same popular response as crashing airplanes into it then blowing it up. Don't you? It would have been just as easy to frame Al Queda for the explosions as it was to frame them for taking "some planes".

I see where you're comming from and see this question alot. My answer is that after the '93 bombing, it would be harder to convince the majority of Americans that they (terrorists) were able to do it again.

Now, with the diversion of the planes, it would be easier to swallow that the terrorists could get in and set off a truck bomb.

I just don't know why they didn't stay with that angle. Was it because the 5 dancing "Palistinians" (Arabs/Muslim) actually turned out to be Israeli (Jewish/our "friends")?