100% PROOF of Controlled Demolitions @ WTC

Rumour has it that after the 1993 wtc bombing the building was then wired fot demolition incase it happened again the building wouldnt fall over 4 city blocks.

Would be shrewd, no?

Originally posted by SilverSmith
There is nothing to compare it to unless we construct an identical tower, take the same plane, same fuel, same amount of passengers, same type of weather, humidity, etc. and fly the darn thing into the building at the same speed and angle then sit back and watch it burn.

Funny how you use this as a gauge. Yet we saw 2....are you listening....2 different buldings (yes different because of WTC 1's antennae and also the height of both were different) being hit with different planes, different fuel, different passengers, different speed, and different angle but yet falling in practically the same way. No offense, but maybe you should rethink those statements.

Refuting CD?

Google Video Link

By Mark Roberts

This video is about how obviously wrong the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are that WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed ... all » by explosive demolition, about how they resort to lying to try to cling to their fantasies, and about how they posit the use of exotic sci-fi weapons while criticizing others who do the same.



Includes discussion of claims by conspiracists Steven Jones and members of his Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Richard Gage and members of his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Loose Change, Jim Hoffman, "9/11 Mysteries," Jim Fetzer, Kevin Ryan, and others.

Issues discussed include controlled demolition, blast effects, cutter charges, potential energy of towers, audio fakery and deception, severity of fires, the expected collapse of WTC 7, "pyroclastic flows," and the dust clouds produced by the collapses.

Comments are presented by expert structural engineers and WTC investigators Gene Corley, Matthys Levy, Leslie Robertson, Irwin Cantor, and by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro.

Work and calculations by Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, Ryan Mackey and others is cited.

reply to post by QuasiShaman


Beautiful find, Shaman!!

A star from me...someone give this person some applause!!

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SilverSmith
There is nothing to compare it to unless we construct an identical tower, take the same plane, same fuel, same amount of passengers, same type of weather, humidity, etc. and fly the darn thing into the building at the same speed and angle then sit back and watch it burn.

Funny how you use this as a gauge. Yet we saw 2....are you listening....2 different buldings (yes different because of WTC 1's antennae and also the height of both were different) being hit with different planes, different fuel, different passengers, different speed, and different angle but yet falling in practically the same way. No offense, but maybe you should rethink those statements.

No, I'm not "listening" but I am "reading", thank you.

You've also helped my point by pointing out that even when some items vary, which would mainly be where the buildings were hit by the planes, they fall in the same manner. Thus this makes a case for my earlier statements about the enormous efforts that must be put forth for just ONE building being imploded, now add one more building into the mix. How did they know exactly where the planes would hit in each building so as to plant the charges? As I said earlier, even in all that pulverizing there would be some remains of charges that did not get set off because they would be on floors above where ground zero was. Again, Bush is some genius to be able to pull this off, would you not agree? I mean all these years and not one person comes forth or provides some sort of Email, document or recorded conversation that even hints at our government being behind this all??

Think about the extreme difficulty in setting up just one building that large for a demo, the inner structures that would have to be weakened, beams cut with a torch, and at least 5000 pounds of explosives planted in strategic places. Now this would be a task for one building but two? And then possibly a third? Come on.

From the videos I have seen of implosions I see them blast from the bottom and then blasts in the middle sections. What I see in the WTC video is it falling from the point of impact and then crashing down.

There is no physical evidence that charges were placed in the towers and then set off which then brought them down. If there was then it would have been brought forth a long time ago.

reply to post by SilverSmith


Bravo, SilverSmith.

NO detonations seen nor heard...the collapses were due to gravity, plain and simple.

Again, I have seen the videos of buildings being brought down by controlled demolition (CD) and it looks NOTHING like the videos we see of the two Towers.

I have said it before, I will repeat now...people who advocate an 'inside job' "theory" want to sell books. It is despicable, especially as it dishonors the victims, and their families...

Make no mistake here, I am not an apologist, nor will I EVER be, for the current administration in the USA. War criminals they are (IMO) but not to the extent of promulgating such a heinous act...their sin was in USING this horrible event to promote an agenda and wrest power from the People, or at least, try to. Our Constitution is not 'just a piece of paper' as the current President has said -- it is the basis of our Democracy. Never forget that...

That is because the highest probality is the twin towers were brought down by DEW. No wiring. No TNT. No C-4. That does not apply to WTC 7 where TNT was most defintely used.

reply to post by OrionStars


Thank you, Orion

Please now provide conclusive evidence to support your assertion that TNT was 'definately' used in WTC 7. We await with baited breath......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by QuasiShaman

 

Beautiful find, Shaman!!

A star from me...someone give this person some applause!!

Why, exactly, should anyone give him a star--or a pony for that matter--for posting a video that has already been the subject of a nine-page thread?

If you'd take the time to watch the video and read through that thread, you'd find that this video was severely criticized for choosing to present its debunking arguments like 9/11 was a box of chocolates--what didn't fit its contentions was simply ignored.

So no--no stars, no applause, no popping champagne corks.

To Reality Hurts. We need to discuse things on another formate.

reply to post by gottago


Well, gottago, I think it was good to post that video again because many of us had never seen the earlier 'nine-page thread'. BTW, SlightlyAbovePar's last post seemed to sum it up nicely...

Here is more proof.

I ignore most posts because the contribute very little to the thread





Booom!

reply to post by IvanZana


Hello,

Interesting...no time reference provided. Only two 'booms'...they sounded very similar, actually to sonic booms. If you've ever heard one, you would remember that it is a double boom sound...with almost that same timing. I daresay the military was not worried about going supersonic over land on that day...

Hey weedhacker , Nobody here is buying your imaginitave interpretations.

You troll these 911 forums at ATS and target these threads and attempt to obscure them with your fantastic , unbacked, uncorroberated, unrealistic claims in hopes that you can bait people in an argument about off topic nonsense and bury important information.


I'll take eyewitness and victim statements that were in the basement way before ever taking some pseudo-pilot/scientist/army/medic/engineer's fantastic theories like yours Weedhacker.


Watch this video. I guess jet planes were flyin' supersonic through the basement eh weed?

[edit on 20-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, you see the difference? I do not resort to sarcasm...your use, intentionally or not, of misspelling my nickname and calling me a 'pseudo-pilot' points out your great skills at spelling and puns...not to mention, again, a vague reference to 'sonic booms' in the basement...even YT link you provide contradicts itself, when you listen and watch carefully.

But, I think your most egregious insult is to call me a 'troller' on ATS. NO! That is not why I am here...when I see a subject that is of interest to me, and I see 'facts' that defy logic being presented without any basis to back them up...it is only right that I can express MY view, my opinion, using MY life experience as a foundation. IN fact, many others have posted, I think very politely on your thread. It is a discussion, with opposing points of views, that unfortunately gets so wrapped up in the minutiae that the tragedy of that day gets lost. The HUMAN tragedy...

CD...holograms...conflicting, yes conflicting eyewitness reports (always happens)...video evidence that is ignored to support this theory or that theory...books written...sorry. People died. THAT is what gets lost in all this pointless arguing.

Video says everything.

Before you de-bunkers start patting yourselves on the backs you first have to prove how a gravity driven collapse ignored the forces of friction?

Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.

The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.

The study of friction is called tribology.

Source

No matter if you can't see or hear 'explosives', it still doesn't change the fact that buildings don't globally collapse from gravity alone. That's just a rediculase assertion that goes against all know physics. All 3 buildings fell with no sign of slowing down from resistance due to friction. The actual collapse times are irrelevant. Neither of the buildings should have globally collapsed, period. It has NEVER happened before, doesn't that tell you physics challenged folks something?

NIST hasn't explained it. How do you explain it?

reply to post by ANOK


Now theres a man with an open mind Right down to the anti-capitalist signature No bias there...

Seriously though, we need less bias and preconceived notions, and more realistic and critical thinking. Unfortunately, most people wouldn't allow facts to change their opinions, they're angry and they just want to be right *shakes fist*. Truly a shame.

weve all seen this footage but i still believe it was a controlled demolition, some footage is hard to find but at the base after the towers have collapsed the supprt beams were cut at 45 degree angles mean : controlled demolition, if it were only one beam it would pass but ALL OF THEM cmon its pretty obvious, and u can argue whether the widows were squibs or pressure, but in a controlled demo the point isnt to just demolish the building but control where it goes and the 45 degree lacerations in all situations is so the building will just slide off of its support and let the aftermath be where the demolitioner wants it to be

At the end of the day, you have to admit that the collapses look very strange. To me, it looks as if the building is being blown out at the *CORE* all the way through.

The building is exploding outward, and its turning to dust.

In the case of WTC-2 someone has to offer some kind of coherent way of looking at how the Top of the Building just came off and stopped rotating and just proceeded to dust, as well as what might of been happening at the CORE at that time.

I mentioned *COLLAPSE* at the beginning but really, it doesn't even look like a collapse, it looks more like an explosive ejection of the buildings all the way down.