9/11: The WTC Elevator Key

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by 4hero

 

In that last video posted, the guy in it talk about the elevator. Around 1:12 of the last video

I was in the revolving doors when the plane hit the building.... One of the elevators I think came crashing down to the lobby level and all this debris came flying out of it and a fireball emerged from the elevator lobby and was coming toward me..."

then at 2:00 another guy talks about a guy that went back in to the lobby after the plane hit to avoid the falling debris, and when he did a there was an explosion from the elevators and a fireball came out from the elevators.

And lets take this eye witness accounts with a grain of salt. Take that second video, the guy specifically says I THINK a bomb went off in the lobby, then a plane hit, then another plane hit. It is possible that he has the sequence of events mixed up, especially since the interview was right after the planes hit and I am sure he was a bit in shock.

And that first video, come on. They were being evacuated and they even say so in the video. If they are being evacuated the plane has obviously already hit the building. Non of those videos show any proof of bombs going off in the building. As for any secondary explosions heard, they can be attributed to electronic equipment, transformers. Have you ever heard a transformer explode? I have and it sounds like a bomb.

There actually have been instances of transformers exploding in the WTC in the 1990's. Anyway, here is a little link that explains away those supposed bombs..

Bombs debunked

I think if you watch the firemen video I mentioned, kindly posted by maxella, you'll notice that the firemen themselves witnessed MULTIPLE different explosions, so yes, not only was there a bomb/explosion in the basement prior to the plane hitting but there were further bombs going off at different places in the building.

We know the lift shafts do not go from top to bottom in one go, they are split up into sections, so bombs were obviously being triggered in different places for it to affect varying parts of the building at different times.
The collapse occured due to the explosions that were spread out over time, this would rouse less suspicion.

Why would you take eye witness accounts with a grain of salt? These are the people that were there, they know better than anyone. You can only speculate about transformers, it's a possible theory, but what floor were they on, how could they affect the basement and other floors that the 'plane' did not hit?! I think it's a bit far fetched to assume transformers were to blame for the NUMEROUS explosions!!

Unfortunately I don't think bombs can be debunked, far too many people claiming there were bombs, and all the damage is consistent with bombs. Good luck trying to debunk bombs, that can and will never happen!

You are trying to use sounds of explosions heard after the plane strike in support of your allegation that there was an explosion before the strike. The firefighters are a case in point because they obviously weren't there prior to the first strike .

All I can see in the videos you posted, apart from William Rodriguez who you say isn't credible, is an anonymous shocked young man who "thinks" a bomb went off before the plane hit . The poor man is shaking and asking for water and he seems to be your prime witness.

On the other hand, more than one witness in your own videos talks of the fireballs from elevator shafts.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sometimes people will cite the reports of the buildings "leaning" prior to collapse as a support for the "collapse" theory and for the inevitability of collapse, but the buildings couldn't lean if there had not been damage to the structures at a much lower level than the plane impacts. You can't have it both ways.

Why ? You can see clearly here the dramatic leaning of the top section of the South Tower just prior to collapse but that below is still standing straight at this point :

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Actually no and if you would take time to research and try to debunk these theories yourself instead of blindly believing what is posted on ATS, you would learn a lot. Here is a link that explains everything, although I doubt you will believe it. Where is the alleged Molton Steel?? LOL

BTW, god only know what the debris consisted of after those towers fell. There is a reason the fire burned so long after. Hell, for all we know there could have been a natural thermite reaction that caused those alleged pools of Molton Steel. Obviously everything that would be needed for a natural reaction would be present in the debris from the WTC.

edit on 15-5-2012 by tide88 because: added to post

I'm not impressed with your link, and I'm not impressed with your obfuscations. It could have been this and it could have been that.... anything except that these buildings had a little help in coming down. Your link is saying that its all hearsay and even says the pictures are doctored. Since no one in the mainstream will ever verify these things you are asking us to not believe what we see and to believe the OS because there can simply be no conspiracy.

I mean, that might work if there were one or two or a few things being presented that contradict the OS, but with all these threads and with all these questions about 911 there must be literally thousands of red flares and smoking guns. I really don't think any sane and rational critically thinking person would ever be swayed by the crap you guys put out there, fully believing in your brainwashed and cognitively dissonant minds that you're actually "refuting" and "debunking" everything.

But hey, keep on keepin' on, since you probably have no other alternative. When the truth comes out, and it most certainly will this time, I'm sure you shills will be nowhere to be found.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sometimes people will cite the reports of the buildings "leaning" prior to collapse as a support for the "collapse" theory and for the inevitability of collapse, but the buildings couldn't lean if there had not been damage to the structures at a much lower level than the plane impacts. You can't have it both ways.

Why ? You can see clearly here the dramatic leaning of the top section of the South Tower just prior to collapse but that below is still standing straight at this point :

911research.wtc7.net...

Yep, you're picture is worth a thousand words. The building is exploding as it starts to come down. If anything, your top sections should have taken the path of least resistance and veered off to the side, but according to your astral plane delusions, it went straight down and pulverized everything below it. Good God if your idea is correct its a freaking miracle those buildings didn't collapse from a flock of seagulls flying by......

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sometimes people will cite the reports of the buildings "leaning" prior to collapse as a support for the "collapse" theory and for the inevitability of collapse, but the buildings couldn't lean if there had not been damage to the structures at a much lower level than the plane impacts. You can't have it both ways.

Why ? You can see clearly here the dramatic leaning of the top section of the South Tower just prior to collapse but that below is still standing straight at this point :

911research.wtc7.net...

Yep, you're picture is worth a thousand words. The building is exploding as it starts to come down. If anything, your top sections should have taken the path of least resistance and veered off to the side, but according to your astral plane delusions, it went straight down and pulverized everything below it. Good God if your idea is correct its a freaking miracle those buildings didn't collapse from a flock of seagulls flying by......

a) What idea was I putting forward ?

b) Why would I equate a Boeing 767 with 30 tons of fuel on board impacting at 500 mph with a "flock of seagulls flying by" ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why would I equate a Boeing 767 with 30 tons of fuel on board impacting at 500 mph with a "flock of seagulls flying by" ?

You're defending the OS, and the OS says that the top section utterly pulverized and destroyed everything below it, which was already seriously weakened by all that jet fuel So according to you, the building was made out of peanut brittle.

These were 110-story buildings. They were built to stand for a very, very long time.... through hurricanes and 707's hitting them. If you think they were that brittle, your head is definitely not residing within this universe and the laws of physics that govern it.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why would I equate a Boeing 767 with 30 tons of fuel on board impacting at 500 mph with a "flock of seagulls flying by" ?

You're defending the OS, and the OS says that the top section utterly pulverized and destroyed everything below it, which was already seriously weakened by all that jet fuel

So according to you, the building was made out of peanut brittle.

These were 110-story buildings. They were built to stand for a very, very long time.... through hurricanes and 707's hitting them. If you think they were that brittle, your head is definitely not residing within this universe and the laws of physics that govern it.

edit on 15-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You're right. I have just seen Richard Gage and he has convinced me. How could I have been so blind ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why would I equate a Boeing 767 with 30 tons of fuel on board impacting at 500 mph with a "flock of seagulls flying by" ?

You're defending the OS, and the OS says that the top section utterly pulverized and destroyed everything below it, which was already seriously weakened by all that jet fuel

So according to you, the building was made out of peanut brittle.

These were 110-story buildings. They were built to stand for a very, very long time.... through hurricanes and 707's hitting them. If you think they were that brittle, your head is definitely not residing within this universe and the laws of physics that govern it.

edit on 15-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You're right. I have just seen Richard Gage and he has convinced me. How could I have been so blind ?

www.youtube.com...

Would firefighters really take the elevator in a burning building? Did the elevators not work all day or only after the attack? I can see how the top secion taking damage might affect the elevators that reach up that far.

reply to post by maxella1


I remember that picture! Let us watch a video of it too, and a GIF:

"Squib debunked"

That has to be the strangest explosive I've ever seen. Since when does an explosive explode, and then have the blast speed up and throw stuff out more? I thought it was a fast initial blast and an immediate slowdown. Explosives have a quick initial velocity on detonation but then the velocity immediately is dropping. It does not explode and then speed up. Explosives do not act like jet engines.

You can see that same jet of compressed air here, at the very base of the video:


You know its too bad they dont ever show the whole video of that, where you see the debris actually speeding up and out. That is not an explosive. That is pressurized air from the collapse.

reply to post by GenRadek

"Squib debunked"

You mean this nonsense debunked the squibs? floors pancaked theory?

So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse? It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse. During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...

OK, but why did the “air” bypassed all those floors in between the squibs and where the building was collapsing?
and
While you are here, explain what caused the damage on the 22nd floor. You do know what was on that floor right?

Originally posted by Cassius666
Would firefighters really take the elevator in a burning building? Did the elevators not work all day or only after the attack? I can see how the top secion taking damage might affect the elevators that reach up that far.

WTC had a lot of elevators, many of them did not go all the way up to the impact zone. Most of the buildings was NOT on fire. Firefighters used elevators in WTC, and they use elevators in other structure fires as well. They have a special key they use to bypass floors without stopping on the way to where they are going.

reply to post by GenRadek

That has to be the strangest explosive I've ever seen.

Not that I’m disagreeing with you that it was strange. I also think that what happened to the towers was very strange.

But are you saying that you have seen every possible type of explosives actually exploding?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me proof as one of the other posters put that Andrew Card whispered in the president's ear on the day of the attack

The second building failed to detonate

noone? anyone?

reply to post by 4hero


I have 30 years in construction and work on the technical side with construction fixings how about YOU!

Now since the most technical question lots of truthers on the web get to ask is, do you want fries with that, I will disagree

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by 4hero

 

do you want fries with that, I will disagree

Yes super size please.

I have 30 years in construction and work on the technical side with construction fixings

Oh good maybe you can help me. I'm in the process of building a deck in back yard, what type of wood would you recommend?

Side issue; What are you disagreeing with exactly ?

reply to post by maxella1


With 4hero and his take on what happened!!!

Originally posted by vkey08
I'm still waiting for someone to show me proof as one of the other posters put that Andrew Card whispered in the president's ear on the day of the attack

The second building failed to detonate

noone? anyone?

If I’m not mistaking he said “Mr. President America is under attack”

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by maxella1

 

With 4hero and his take on what happened!!!

what do you think is his take, and what do you think happened?

reply to post by maxella1


2 planes hit the towers

Structural damage done
Fuel explodes more damage and fire protection damaged.
Fires start and cause more problems with the HUGE dead load above impacts.
Eventual structural failure as the floors above impact point drop!