It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb




FEMA was not aloud to look at evidence, they were not aloud to interview people or look at any photos or video the public took. ect.

It is not FEMA's job to investigate building collapses.
Where did you get that idea anyway?




posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

They were tasked to do it before NIST took over..



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



All I'm gonna say at this point is someone may need a nap!


Considering that explosions can be heard from many miles away, what more is there to say?



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb




No evidence of demolition explosives was found because it was not looked for,

When a car runs into a building then catches the house on fire you don't look for explosives either.

You had two big planes fly into two big buildings.
Did you expect would happen?
Why look for things that are not there?
Should they have looked for nerve gas?
You have to go with common sense.
They saw two planes hit.
Why they sent fire fighters up with hoses is beyond me.
They should have known the building was toast from the get go.
Just try to get the people out.

If you were there that day you would not be entertaining these silly conspiracies.

Do you think the Willis Tower would an identical hit?

Maybe you should do a thought experiment.
You've seen photos where cars ran into buildings because the driver hit the gas instead of the break.
Would you say 15mph? It goes half way through the exterior.
3000lbs@15mph=22565 foot lbs of energy
What if the car was going 60 mph?
3000lbs@60mph=361,000 foot lbs of energy
That's 16 times the amount of energy for only 4 times the speed.
It's safe to say the car is going completely through the building.

Boeing 707 with little fuel.
300000lbs@200mph=401 million foot pounds
767 fully loaded
395000lbs@500mph=3.3 billion foot pounds
How anyone can figure a standard building would survive that is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Videos are not an investigation,...


Of course the videos are very important to an investigation, and those videos prove that demolition explosives were not heard as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is underlined by the fact that no demolition explosions were detected by seismic monitors. To sum it up once again, there is no case for demolition explosives at ground zero.



three building fell out of the sky at ALMOST free fall speed except for #7 which did for the first 100 feet.


None of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed. Case in point is in the videos.




The most logical explanation would be the use of explosives,...


False! There was no sound of explosives as WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 collapsed and there is no seismic evidence for demolition explosions.


No evidence of demolition explosives was found because it was not looked for,...


Why look for explosive evidence when there was no sound of demolition explosions in the first place?



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



When a car runs into a building then catches the house on fire you don't look for explosives either.


That's right!



You had two big planes fly into two big buildings.


Let's not forget the third building, which is the Pentagon.


If you were there that day you would not be entertaining these silly conspiracies.


Among the silly conspiracy theories are nuclear weapons and space beams as responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Disinformation has now thrown the Truth Movement into a state of confusion and now, 9/11 conspiracy theorist are fighting among themselves regarding nuclear weapons vs. space beams vs. airplanes vs. no airplanes vs. missiles vs. thermite vs. explosives. In other words, they haven't figured out that there are those who have been planting disinformation in order to discredit the Truth Movement and judging by the infighting among 9/11 conspiracy theorist, the campaign to discredit them has been working.


Do you think the Willis Tower would an identical hit?


I wonder what If United 93 had made it to Washington D.C. and crashed into the Capitol building, causing it to collapse, how many 9/11 conspiracy theorist would claim today that demolition explosives were responsible for its collapse?

edit on 23-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   


None of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed. Case in point is in the videos.
a reply to: skyeagle409

What part of Almost don't you understand, as for wtc 7 it DID fall at free fall as admitted by Nist for the first 100 feet..got that? FACT you cannot ignore ..





False! There was no sound of explosives as WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 collapsed and there is no seismic evidence for demolition explosions.


Absent sound does not mean they were not demolished, plenty of people saw flashes and explosives , thats fact you don't like.





Why look for explosive evidence when there was no sound of demolition explosions in the first place?


I have explained this to you already, go back and read it if you don't understand.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




The question should be, if United 93 had made it to Washington D.C. and crashed into the Capitol building, causing it to collapse, how many 9/11 conspiracy theorist would claim today that demolition explosives were responsible for its collapse?

The explosives were planted there by the Confederates during the civil war.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



What part of Almost don't you understand, as for wtc 7 it DID fall at free fall as admitted by Nist for the first 100 feet..got that? FACT you cannot ignore ..


That is not evidence of demolition explosives because the total time for the collapse of WTC 7 was 17 seconds and structural failure can cause the same effect.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




How anyone can figure a standard building would survive that is beyond me.


Because they were designed too. And yes they looked for gas and radiation among other things, why by your logic?



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




That is not evidence of demolition explosives because the total time for the collapse of WTC 7 was 17 seconds and structural failure can cause the same effect.


I don't care if it took 30 seconds, free fall for the first 100 feet is what counts, only explosives can make that happen the way it did. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you..



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



The explosives were planted there by the Confederates during the civil war.


Speaking of the Confederates, look how easy it was for fire to weaken railroad tracks.

Railroad Tracks Bent by Hand, Heated by Fire

Sherman's Bow Tie Railroad Track

Forming Fire-Weakened Railroad Tracks into Sherman's Bow Ties by Hand

Fire-Weakened Steel Beams

Heat-Buckled Railroad Tracks
edit on 23-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   


Speaking of the Confederates, look how easy it was for fire to weaken railroad tracks.



This post is off topic..



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Just to give you some insight how easy fire can weaken structural steel. Remember, you brought up the Confederates in the first place, not I.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Just to give you some insight how easy fire can weaken structural steel. Remember, you brought up the Confederates in the first place, not I.


No Sky, it was not me, it was Samkent. You seem to have trouble knowing who you reply to and what your saying, you have done this many times now. You should just stop, you bring the thread down and detract from the discussion and what little creditable you have left.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Anyway, it proves that fire can easily weaken structural steel as was the case regarding the structures of WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7, and WTC 5.
edit on 23-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yeah whatever you say......



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

It's a fact and no secret either.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It's a fact and no secret either.


thats right it sure is..



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I truthfully cannot see the collapse of WTC7 as anything but a controlled demolition. The way it falls just looks far too unnatural for a building like that.

I'm not sure "explosions" is the answer, but how does fire gradually weakening steel beams lead to free fall?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join