WTC1 Impact, weird stuff going on.

Originally posted by ROBO6
reply to post by thedman

 

Ok so. Explain how:

1) trade center building 7 fell. No impact, and fire on a few floors brought down a 47 stories glass, steel reinforced structure.

2) Then explain why all the windows in the lobby of the Trade Center were all blown out according to the firefighters. 2" glass at the bottom floor that was blown out, literally blown out from an impact 500+ feet in the air.

3) Explain how all over the world steel buildings have burned for hours on end, yet never collapsed.

4) And explain how a group of cavemen that couldn't even fly a Cessna, a simple aircraft, reported by the instructors, and then hijack a jet liner with box cutters, fly it at over 460 nots, at 500 or so feet into a skyscraper.

Hmmm maybe I missed something

There are relatively simple explanations for the some of the points you've brought up.

1) WTC7 was struck by falling debris from the other towers. But not enough, in my opinion, to make it collapse into itself. This needs further investigation and the fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored an explanation of this is proof that it was nothing but a dog & pony show for those calling for an explanation of the 9/11 attacks.

2) This is easily explained. A 110-story steel beam structure is designed to sway with the winds encountered at high altitude. The kinetic force was enough travel the length of the buildings and blow out the windows even at the bottom level. You can test this at home with a steel rod, a hammer and a pane of glass. But, on my honeymoon, while staying at a bed & breakfast in Maine (on the five year anniversary of the attack), I met a man who was on the street when the first plane hit. He worked in the tower and was about to walk in. He was staring at his reflection in the ground floor windows when the plane struck. He didn't mention that the windows blew out. That doesn't mean that they didn't though. He told us his whole story (I don't think he'd ever told the story to anyone from the way he talked about it in such depth - as though he were reliving it) about how debris was falling all around and he took shelter in an archway and about when he realized that the flaming "things" falling from the sky were actually people. It was a horrific account. However, there are numerous accounts by eye witnesses of secondary explosions at lower levels of the building that warrant further investigation.

3) I have no explanation for this. Warrants further investigation.

4) First off, these were not "cavemen". As improbable as some of the flight instructors stories of these "students" were - it's not impossible that they were able to accomplish their goal.

Though I'm a skeptic of the official story and think there is a deep conspiracy regarding the 9/11 attacks - you can't believe everything people present as proof.

You have to remember: Objectivity makes reason possible.

Which is the main reason I don't buy the official report. The commission had one objective: explain how the terrorist carried out the attacks with the evidence presented to the commission. They didn't look at the other side of the story. They didn't have an objective view ... or weren't allowed to because of lack of evidence.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by tyranny22]

I have been around all these different thread topics but for some reason this is the first 911 thread I have posted on. I have a hard time believing our government could actually bomb the trade towers.

All I know is that the plane was missing in the pentagon pictures. I know it’s a lot to ask but what other solid or fairly solid proof do you guys have?

Was the motive to start a war with Iraq? I admit this image is interesting and suspect. These threads have been going on heavy, yet I have no clue as to what questions to ask.

Why would they bomb New York’s, financial district? If it is true I would suspect they also want a global currency.

Do you believe they knew in advance, that both would crumble to the ground? It’s hard to imagine but with all other odd government issues it may have had a purpose.

Does anyone have the time to briefly fill me in on the details?? It would save me lots of thread reading. There must be speculation on images or data reports, etc. Maybe something big I havenet heard about.

Thank you,

The explosion at the top floors looks to be a direct result of the fireball and explosion from the impact.

[edit on 8/29/2009 by GenRadek]

I have a compelling question here:

What if one from NIST, who obviously is sitting on a lot of evidence they cant release because of the NDA, leaked with some compelling evidence, and it came all over the main stream media...

Would there be civil uprising?

If you were from NIST, would you risk it?

[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

reply to post by fleabit


I had trouble with this post. Is it meant to be an exercise in sarcasm? If so, please dismiss what follows.

First, you're talking about the mainstream media. Giving credence to the possibility that their coverage was engineered doesn't require much compromise.

Second, how do you prematurely "misreport" the collapse of a building that at the time was for all intents and purposes not the focus of reporting? That does not sound plausible to me in the least.

Yes, this dead horse has already been beaten, but it bears repeating:

"I was sitting outside of the classroom waiting to go in and I saw an airplane hit the tower. You know, the TV was obviously on."

--George W. Bush

CCTV?

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon..."

--Donald Rumsfeld

Honest lapses in the correct recollection of, admittedly, very complex and "confusing" events? Possible. But so is the alternative. I would advise against putting too much stock in the "logic" advanced by those who support the "official" account when they clearly cannot accurately convey said account--indeed, some of its most basic components--themselves. I'm being general about this: I'm not admonishing you specifically. I don't know whose logic you invest in. If it's mostly yours, cheers! I cannot argue with that.

--Drew

P.S. - I am an edit master!

[edit on 29-8-2009 by BattleSchoolCapt]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by BattleSchoolCapt]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by BattleSchoolCapt]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by BattleSchoolCapt]

reply to post by rainfall


It might take me years to understand this may be true. What convinced you. I havent seen the data.

Are other officials questioning how this happened? I'm sure it would be a huge cover-up.

reply to post by wonderworld

All I know is that the plane was missing in the pentagon pictures.

As it applies to ALL the 9/11 misconceptions, it bears a mention that the statement above is false.

There are NUMEROUS photos of the remains of the American Airlines B757 at the Pentagon.

Airplanes that hit buildings at over 450 knots do not survive in large pieces!!!

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by rainfall

 

It might take me years to understand this may be true. What convinced you.

1975 there was a huge fire on several floors for several hours in World trade center. The building said "bah, that all you got? you dont know how strong my 47 collumn fire proofed and concrete covered core is?"

1993 World Trade bombing, which blew a gigantic hole in the basement floors, over several floors. The building said : "bah, is that all you got?"

2001, a plane hits the building, the jet fuel explodes in a huge fireball, so there is very little left. A woman later waves from the open hole. Official story: fire caused the collapse, and the very very strong core steel structure "gave up" so the collapse happened at free fall.

The core could sustain the weight of the whole building alone, the outer "shell" was just to sustain the wind speeds. The core was at least partially intact, because people could use the stairs from the upper floors and pass the floors that got hit. etc etc

In the simulations that proves the official story all the fire proofing and concrete on the steel collumns magically vanished, so all the steel is exposed. FEMA who made the first report just ignored the core altogether.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

Originally posted by conar

1975 the was a huge fire on several floors for several hours in World trade center. The building said "bah, that all you got? you dont know how strong my 47 collumn fire proofed and concrete covered core is?"

I saw the 1993 World Trade bombings on TV, which blew a gigantic hole in the basement floors, over several floors. The building said : "bah, is that all you got?"

2001, a plane hits the building, the jet fuel explodes in a huge fireball, so there is very little left. A woman later waves from the open hole. Official story: fire caused the collapse, and the very very strong core steel structure "gave up" so the collapse happened at free fall. The core could sustain the weight of the whole building alone, the outer "shell" was just to sustain the wind speeds. The core was at least partially intact, because people could use the stairs from the upper floors and pass the floors that got hit. etc etc

[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

The fires in '75 were at the lower levels, which also had the thicker beams, plus this was not too long after completion of the WTC, so the fire-proofing was still "fresh". Also, no planes impacted it knocking off any fireproofing. And there was considerable firefighting going on. Not applicable to 9/11.

1993 WTC bombing. Large truck bomb detonated in basement. NO vertical core columns were severed, foundation survived. Not applicable to 9/11.

9-11-2001: 767 fueled, traveling over 400+ mph impacts at the 93rd floor for the North Tower and 75th floor for the South Tower. Here the core columns are much much thinner than at the base. Also the impact knocked off fire proofing off trusses. Trusses are very susceptible to high temps.
The core needed the exterior columns as much as the exterior columns needed the core. And in between the floor trusses held the whole tower together. The exterior helped transfer the loads so th whole building can stand up. The core also held the building up. The trusses as well as they help transfer the loads. Destruction of exterior, core, and floor trusses caused the structural integrity to go bad. Fires made it worse. And no actual firefighting took place in the region of most intense fire.

reply to post by wonderworld


wonderworld, I think the first 'OMG' moment for me was when I saw WTC7 fall....you can actually see the 'squibs' going off at the right top side of the building...and also the penthouse on the very top starts to fall seconds before the main building.

Remember, WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane, had very little damage, and only a few small offices fires and around 5:20 that afternoon the building fell at freefall speed......IDENTICAL to how buildings that are brought down by implosion.

Also when I researched the Shanksville 'crash', nothing made sense.
I will try to paste something here, (not to good at this)

www.youtube.com...

If you watch this clip you will see how 'they' made it look like a plane crash site. But this didn't quite work out for them because the 'plane debris' was found up to 7 miles away...I think that the cargo plane that was pupose to 'drop the fake debris', didn't hit it's target..

O' and by the way, if the 2 twin towers were really collapsing due to column failure, they wouldn't 'blow' up and out like a mushroom....

PEACE and LOVE...

Originally posted by GenRadek1993 WTC bombing. Large truck bomb detonated in basement. NO vertical core columns were severed, foundation survived. Not applicable to 9/11.

How do you know the foundation in 911 was severed? Do you have pictures from inside the building?

All we know is the stairs was intact. The stairs was inside the core. The core kept the building up.

No proof of severed core has been given. (before collapse)

And why do you ignore the waving woman from the impact hole? Do you ignore the fact that there wasnt 1000 degrees there as NIST says?


[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

what we saw on TV was only representation of the new york skyline made up from layers, there is good evidence for this theory.

look at the gif made up at this link to show how there is movement between the layers and how they are affected independently.

forum.911movement.org...








[edit on 29-8-2009 by The X]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by The X]

www.archive.org...

Ok go and watch this from the internet archive, lots of you wont have seen this footage since the day it happened, now removed from the emotion and shock of the day look with a fresh perspective at the event.

Take note of the eyewitnesses accounts also look at the quality of the pictures bearing in mind this is supposed to be high quality tv camera pictures, what happened to the quality of a lot of the shots.

The antennae on top of the tower provided local news networks with their live broadcast ability with that gone they have to rely on other networks to carry their live pictures.

Also the shot from the helicopter where the skid is in shot and shaking looks so fake, looks like a blue screen background with a heli skid on a soundstage being shaken by someone.

NIST says there is no reason to take up the explosions theory, so they ignore all the official main stream media coverage with witnesses who heard numerous explosion.

There was even a witness on 8th floor in Building 7 who heard explosions below him before collapse.

Originally posted by king9072
Whether you like it or not, there's a portion of september clues that proves 100% without a shadow of a doubt that live video footage was being manipulated.

It's the famous "perfect zoom" shot. The chopped has a wide shot of the skyline, it suddenly zooms it, then a couple seconds later it does a final zoom. Within a second, the plane enters the screen and smashes into the building.

So whats the problem?

Well the problem is, only a few seconds exist between when the camera is completely zoomed out, to when the camera is completely zoomed in.

While the camera is zoomed out there is NO PLANE IN THE SKY! Thus, in the few seconds it takes to make a couple well timed 'zooms', there is no way a plane could have "snuck up" on the shot. To anyone who sees the video has no choice but to realize that it's fraudulent.

I'll embed the clip later when I find it.

I too have seen this video, and it screams out for attention. You put it exactly right: There is NO WAY that the ' plane' could travel from the far right of the screen to the Tower in the time it took to do the zoom in's that the cameraman performed.

There is NO plane at all on the horizon, and all of a sudden there it is!! One more thing that debunkers cannot refute. Anyone who still believes the NIST reports is lost and silly as far as reason goes. The NIST portions quoted in places above attempts to explain how the Tower blew to bits, but does so with no evidence and no scientific proof.

The NIST was given a job; Explain as best you can how the Towers could have fallen( exploded) from plane impacts. NOT find out what happened...not use the facts...just find a way to cover up what is obvious: The towers were blown to kingdom come by explosives of various types on purpose by elements of the government and intelligence agencies as well as the cabals that control America.

It is too obvious for those who use reasoned and rational means of investigation; all the official story drones have to rely on is allegations unproven.Thats a sad state of affairs.

Only question is, will there be civil uprising when the truth comes out?

If I were from NIST, sitting on the evidence, I wouldnt risk a single lost life.

But then again, the shadow government or whoever had the power to plant explosives in the building has to be stopped.

They killed 3000 in a single day, what if they will repeat it in the future?

There are still people dying because of the collapses on 911...
www.911blogger.com...

NIST, are you reading this?

[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

This will never end because some people have to have a fantasy "bad guy" in thier lives to blame for everything.

I went to an "engineers for truth" meeting a few months ago, one that had a thread written about it here, and was very un-impressed.

I found too many flaws in thier argument to list here and some of it was just ludicrous, with a clear disregard for science and engineering.
First the guy kept on about how the collapse proceeded faster than gravity.
thats an easy one shockwaves travel through most materials at speed greater than what gravity can provide.
They ignored the fact that once the first floor dropped, the shockwave through columns propogated at supersonic speeds, not the 32ft/sec of gravity.
Then the guy ignored basic statics vs dynamics enginering principals and was trying to apply a statics solution to a dynamics proplem. Both myself and another engineer in the audience questioned him on that and he just changed the subject.
When that first floor pancaked the amount of energy transfered to the floor below it far exceeded the holding capacity of the floor and it collapsed, each floor adding to the energy of the collapse.
And since the shockwave propgated through the columns and core faster than the acceleration of gravity the supporting columns were compramised before each floor made contact with the one below.
AGAIN these basic engineering pricipals were ignored by the speaker, who was an architect and NOT an engineer.
Then he went on and on about how 25 tons of explosives were somehow magicaly applied to the columns, core and skin, with out removing any walls or stripping away any interior finishes.
They also neglected the fact that these explosive would have to have had miles of wiring installed to correctly time said explosives.
They also ignored the fact that wtc 7 had 50,000 gal of dielsel fuel burning in its basement for several hrs by the time it collapsed.

And they kept on and on again about how the collapse of wtc #7 proceeded at a rate faster than gravity.
And when questioned about how they came about this conclusion, they stated that they used BBC video footage to calculate the rate of collapse based on the frame rate of the camera.
At that point an engineer who designs video cameras for a living, asked how did they know what the frame rate was with out actually examining the camera itself.
you see it seems that in modern video cameras the frame rate is actaully an average and it can very from camera to camera by a sizable percentage , and without examing the camera that actually took the footage there is no way to tell what the frame rate was.

Its pretty simple we got caught with our pants down, and the new admins smug attitude ensured that sizable number of clues to forwarn of such an event were ignored.
Our government was complicit only in its arrogance and imcompetance.









[edit on 29-8-2009 by punkinworks]

Originally posted by punkinworksWhen that first floor pancaked the amount of energy transfered to the floor below it far exceeded the holding capacity of the floor and it collapsed, each floor adding to the energy of the collapse.

The pancake theory made by FEMA didnt hold water, replaced by new one by NIST (which cant be tested because its under Non Disclosure Agreement) basically NIST says all the fire proofing got ripped away, and all the floors heated up to 1000 degrees making the steel soft. All the people still alive in that heat must have been ghosts?

They also ignored the fact that wtc 7 had 50,000 gal of dielsel fuel burning in its basement for several hrs by the time it collapsed.

This has never been mentioned in any official report. It was stated by an anchorman on TV though. (maybe I can find link) Dont spread this false info pls.

Here is the anchorman spreading this disinformation
www.youtube.com...

Found it in this thread with more main stream media spreading false info
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 29-8-2009 by conar]

Here is an HD version of first hit:



If you go full screen on that, there is absolutely no question that those are boxes of some kind installed on the buildings.

As to the explosion above the impact point, the plane is already well into the building when that explosion occurs. If you watch the top left of the building, you can see smoke come out from there too. And that's the part that is weird to me.

I don't have too much of a problem understanding that at that short distance, a fireball could have traveled up an elevator shaft, blown out the elevator doors, and then blown out the windows, producing that very explosion we see and that you are talking about. But that smoke on the top left of the building must have come from more blown out windows as well, because it clearly exits the building. So either it must have blown out several elevator doors on that floor, and then blown out the facing windows, or yeah, there is something very strange going on- like additional explosives.

reply to post by The X


The X, great clip!!

People who are still on the fence about 9-11 should go back and watch the original clips from that day...
If you notice, all the eyewitnesses say there was an explosion, they heard an explosion with NO mention of a 'plane.' I even saw a channel 4 newscaster say 'explosion' with no mention of a plane.

It wasn't 'til the 'experts' got on the phone with CNN (criminal news network) and laid out the 'official story of planes' hitting the buildings.

And you must remember, what you thought was 'live' TV was NOT, there was a 17 second delay in the broadcast. Enough time to 'add' the 'plane' to the shot.

Think about it, we know the buildings were rigged with expolsives, if you were to fly a plane into it, it might screw up alot of the timed explosives..

This was a very elaborately planned and timed military operation, the risk of flying planes into buildings that are pre-wired for implosion would be foolish.

Do your research people before the government takes all the clips off the web. I have noticed that some of the clips I used to watch a year ago are not there now. All the answers to your questions are there if you take the time to look!

PEACE and LOVE...