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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

page: 17
27
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I will take that as your admission that you are unable to provide the time lines of demo explosions in the videos which depict the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.




posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   


I will take that as your admission that you are unable to provide the time lines of demo explosions in the videos which depict the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.


I will admit I have done all the above, the fact you failed to see it is not my problem...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



I will admit I have done all the above...


Please post the time lines where demo explosions are heard from all three WTC videos in your next post for all to see.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: roncoallstar
a reply to: skyeagle409

I am not sure who you think you are fooling, but it isn't people with intelligence that have done the research.

I can tell you that I have seen quite a few interviews of citizens and firemen on that day, who claim they heard, saw or felt demolitions throughout the buildings and the area. Not to mention firemen and demolitions themselves claim it was controlled demolitions that brought the buildings down.

Be honest, did you do any research at all you on your own, or do you just repeat what you hear? Whether or not you believe them is your own view, but you can't just outright lie like that when clearly you are mistaken.

Also, does it mean nothing when a lot of firemen and demolitions experts agree that this was a controlled demolition?

You can't break the laws of physics, period. 1400 degrees is not hot enough to melt steel, not in this universe anyway. I am not sure what people can't understand about this. You need almost double that amount of heat to melt it. DOUBLE, meaning you're not even remotely in the ball park at that temperature.



He is fooling himself, nothing more. Like all the rest of us, he was deceived 14 years ago. Unlike many of us now, he still does not realize he's been fooled.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



He is fooling himself, nothing more. Like all the rest of us, he was deceived 14 years ago. Unlike many of us now, he still does not realize he's been fooled.


Prove me wrong in front of everyone here by posting the time lines in the following video where demo explosions are heard and do so for all to see, or should I say, hear, and if you are unable to post those time lines, then it will be evident that I am correct. In other words, it is just a simple request for you to prove me wrong with evidence of demo explosions in the videos as the WTC Tower collapses.




edit on 21-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   


Prove me wrong in front of everyone here by posting the time lines in the following video where demo explosions are heard and do so for all to see, or should I say, hear, and if you are unable to post those time lines, then it will be evident that I am correct. In other words, it is just a simple request for you to prove me wrong with evidence of demo explosions in the videos as the WTC Tower collapses.


Your posting video shot by news crews using microphones designed to drown out background noise and want to use it as evidence? Brilliant !!



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Your posting video shot by news crews using microphones designed to drown out background noise and want to use it as evidence? Brilliant !!


You cannot drown out demo explosions that can be heard miles away. In the following video, you will notice that demo explosions drown out ALL background noise.




edit on 21-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Pretty conclusive I'd say
No flashes
No booms
No shockwaves
Just large structures breaking up and collapsing and arguably the most recorded such events that have ever occurred.

I noted your earlier statements about real explosives like military munitions and I've experienced those myself - nothing even remotely like that happened at the WTC. Such explosions would be undeniable.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum



Pretty conclusive I'd say
No flashes
No booms
No shockwaves
Just large structures breaking up and collapsing and arguably the most recorded such events that have ever occurred.

I noted your earlier statements about real explosives like military munitions and I've experienced those myself - nothing even remotely like that happened at the WTC. Such explosions would be undeniable.


You've got that right. I can still remember the night when my living quarters in Vietnam was violently shaken by a B-52 strike many miles away.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




I can still remember the night when my living quarters in Vietnam was violently shaken by a B-52 strike many miles away.

But that was before they invented 'hush a boom' explosives in the DARPA labs.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

You're correct! I didn't think about that.

It seems that I also overlooked the fact that demolition companies have been wanting to use mufflers on their demo explosives so they won't disturb the local community. One truther even suggested that demolition crews leave the windows attached to the buildings, which are marked for demolition, because windows would help dampen the noise generated by the demolition explosions.

I think that is a good thing because it could also protect demolition companies from future lawsuits by demolition crews who would otherwise be in danger of losing their hearing due to demolition explosions if the windows were removed.


edit on 22-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

David Chandler has been debunked time after time, which is why he is not a credible reference source any more than Richard Gage and Steven Jones.
edit on 22-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
So sad people actually stared this post thinking they can make a microphone that can remove explosions. They would hear it for miles these aren't fireworks people are used to. And even some of those are extremely loud. The explosives they use for demolition will rattle windows even a mile from the blast. And they need several no doubt people would have known not to mention seen the blast show up on every siesmic detector for hundreds of miles. There is no way to quiet a blast and still bring down the building. Because to quiet it you have to bury it.

And whoever said leave the windows in my God you would have people dead a mile away as glass went through them. And it would also make it even louder. If we had people a mile away dropping dead id say yeah it was an explosion.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Real explosions can be heard for miles and it is amazing that there are people in the truth movement who continue to claim that explosions can be heard as the WTC buildings collapse. So, I challenged them to point out the times lines in videos as the WTC buildings are collapsing and they can't do it because there were no demo explosion heard as those buildings collapsed, which helps explain why seismic monitors failed to detect demo explosions. I was actually amazed that anyone would even think that windows and background noise would mask the sound of demo explosions.

Here are videos of real explosions involving explosives.






edit on 23-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
So sad people actually stared this post thinking they can make a microphone that can remove explosions.


Could also have been recognition of the obvious sarcasm in the post. just sayin'

There's a bit of misunderstanding when it comes to the AGC (automatic gain control) in high end audio recording equipment which gives the mic a lot of 'reach' for low amplitude signals plus the ability to suppress overly loud signals, effectively 'flattening' the dynamic range of audio being recorded by lifting quiet audio and suppressing loud audio. The end result is not making explosions inaudible but making them the only sound audible in the recording at the instants the explosions take place (background noise severely attenuated).

There are no high explosive events in any of the WTC recordings that I've heard.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

But the pictures taken after the event, during the event, show the results of high explosive events, for sure.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



The pictures depicted no such thing.


Let's ask one of the world's top demolition expert what he thinks.



Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert


Undicisettembre: How long and how many people would be necessary to prepare the Twin Towers for a controlled demolition?

Brent Blanchard: There are different ways you can approach it. You could have a small crew working in different areas for a very long period of time, or if you have many people obviously they would need less time. But again anyone who works in the building, even maintenance people, could see areas where walls were broken away to access the beams. You have to access the beams, you cannot just put explosives in a room and set them off and expect anything to happen to the beams. The explosives would follow the path of least resistance, they would blow up a bunch of windows and nothing would happen to the beams.


Undicisettembre: In case you actually wanted to demolish the Twin Towers with a controlled demolition, would you have used a wire to start the explosions or a radio signal?

Brent Blanchard: If I wanted to have the least amount of detection and of physical evidence I would have used a radio wireless frequency detonator, but there's still no way to wire all those columns together without using any wire. Even with a wireless detonator you would still have to tie these columns together. And the biggest point is still that you need access to those columns. There are only two ways you can blast such a thick steel H-beam. One is to bulk load it, which means you take a big load of explosives and you just duct tape it or attach it to the beams and you just let it rip and obliterate the beam. The second way, which is what happens with true controlled demolitions, is that you cut through the flanges and you attached the charges to a point where the flanges are pre-cut and then you finish the job with the explosives.

Those are really the only two ways to cause a beam of that size to fail. Now you have to magnify that times dozens, if not hundreds, of beams. Because if you shoot ten of those nothing is going to happen, the building won't fail. You have to shoot many more than that, because the weight is distributed around that structure at the core and around the perimeter. Both methods would be extremely noticeable to the naked eye.

Furthermore, if you were going to bulk load the columns, you would have not only seen the fireball where the plane hit but also huge fireballs everywhere these explosives detonate, and nothing of the sort was seen.


Undicisettembre: So in case of bulk loading there would have been fireballs also at lower floors. Everywhere in the building.

Brent Blanchard: Absolutely. Wherever you set those explosives you have to have a sharp release of energy and a release of gasses. There would be a combustible event, you can't help but notice it. It displaces air, it displaces material, it would be extremely noticeable.


Undicisettembre: What do you think about World Trade Center 7? Was its collapse a controlled demolition, in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: No. Absolutely not. I know people who were on the site and they told me first hand they knew the building was about to collapse. And even if I didn't know those people you can look at the way the North Tower collapsed and how all the debris that fell to the north directly into WTC7 shearing huge chunks of building 7 on the South side, which is not the side that everyone watches on the YouTube videos. On the south side there was extensive damage all the way down. The entire load bearing mechanism is weakened when a towering structure more than twice the size of the subject structure literally falls on top of it.

It's not surprising to me that that building collapsed. I wasn't aware at that time of the gasoline storage or the damage to the south side of the building, but even without that knowledge you could see fires burning freely for hours. And if you let a fire burn freely in any structure, sooner or later that structure is going to collapse.

To me, the fact that it collapsed so many hours after the other towers tends to support evidence of the natural progression of the collapse rather than some sinister plot.


Undicisettembre: So do you think the time it took the Towers to collapse on 9/11 indicates anything mysterious?

Brent Blanchard: No, I see nothing mysterious about it. I see them collapsing exactly at the rate they would if they were to fail at the points that they did where the plane struck. They met a certain amount of resistance while coming down, and some other areas that did not resist peeled outward, and those elements legged into other buildings. That is a very important distinction when you try to explain why this didn't look like a building implosion.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


We can also ask another demolition expert.



Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


There has never been evidence that explosives brought down WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 nor responsible for the internal collapse of WTC5.

edit on 23-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Pilgrum

But the pictures taken after the event, during the event, show the results of high explosive events, for sure.



That should be no surprise if you consider the amount of potential energy in the structures (m.g.h) that was released in a matter of seconds as they collapsed to ground level. It was never going to be neat and tidy.
edit on 23/9/2015 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Pilgrum

But the pictures taken after the event, during the event, show the results of high explosive events, for sure.



Do you think 970000 lb plane hitting a building isn't going to have a similar effect to an eplosion. Explosions use pressure and we can measure that in pounds of force. Throw in fuel and a fire and of course gravity. With all these forces acting on the building the results are the same destruction of the building and twisted metal and lots of ruble. Explosive don't take down a building gravity does. The explosives allows gravity to overcome the resistance. A plane hitting it allows gravity to overcome the resistance why would you expect it to look diffrent?



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Booms Flashes and Squibs
would be much easier to see
and HEAR if it weren't for that
darn 1/4 mile high 3 mile wide
pyroclastic cloud .
Instantly turning 500,000 tons of building
to powder makes for incredible sound insulation.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join