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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Thread closed for review




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

ATTENTION!



Please listen up and pay attention.

The 9/11 forums are NOT the Mud Pit.

This is not Chit Chat.

This is not the Jokes forum.

This was a forum that was shut down by the owners for a long time due to the fact people could not follow rules or behave themselves.

We do not want to have that happen again.

Please READ the following link, as the 9/11 forum has special rules that need to be followed:

All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Keep in mind ATS Staff monitors this forum closely.

Attacks on each other will not be tolerated. Off Topic posting will not be tolerated.

Discuss the topic and not each other. Discussing each other is considered Off Topic.

Make your posts count. Add constructive things to the discussion. If you have nothing constructive to add, please consider visiting any of the other forums and thousands of threads that are out there.

Please follow these announcements we make. Ignoring them could land you on the fast tract of being Post Banned.

We've already had to close 2 threads in this forum over the last 2 days.

Don't make this the 3rd one.

Do not reply to this post.

Thread reopened.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DoUrResearch

Haha! Never once did I say thermite or thermate was an explosive, I said It could have been the CAUSE of explosive like damage and sound.


Let's do a review



a reply to: DoUrResearch

Double false! Thermate is an explosive




Touché.

My original post states that it can produce explosive like qualities. I guess my message got watered down over time. But I hope you get my point and where I'm coming from, excuse me from saying that it is an actual explosive, i understand that i was wrong about that. But let's just both agree that it sure can cause an explosion!

I guess we'll never know...

-DuR

PS: did you watch the video?
edit on 1-1-2016 by DoUrResearch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Watch the video that I posted to more understand how it could have been used somewhere during the collapsing of the towers. If you don't agree, its still a kick ass video involving explosions using thermate in high detail, you can't beat it


-DuR



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DoUrResearch



My original post states that it can produce explosive like qualities. I guess my message got watered down over time. But I hope you get my point and where I'm coming from, excuse me from saying that it is an actual explosive, i understand that i was wrong about that. But let's just both agree that it sure can cause an explosion!


A simple spark can cause an explosion, but a spark is not considered an explosive.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoUrResearch
to more understand how it could have been used somewhere during the collapsing of the towers.


So when and how did they get access to the columns with no one noticing?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Watch the video I had posted and explain how a spark can blow and melt threw steel? It blew a piece of steel 30 feet in the air for crying out loud. That to me is considered an explosion. Literally laughing at the spark comparison, a spark ignites my lighter to get me higher, not blow a room up filled with stoners haha!

-DuR
edit on 1-1-2016 by DoUrResearch because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2016 by DoUrResearch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

They didn't need access to the columns.

A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.

But were they really batteries or were they Thermate?

"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

Food for thought? Found that in an article.

-DuR



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoUrResearch
a reply to: hellobruce

They didn't need access to the columns.

A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:


No it was not - it was not the whole floor, the floor was mostly offices. Also if there was thermite in them, all it would do is burn a hole in the concrete floor.


Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor,


Only part of the floor... NE and SW


The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.


No it was not.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Ace elevator. They took over the contract from the longest running elevator companies in history. Ottis elevator, the originator of the emergency stop which revolutionized the high rise construction industry. Ottis was thee only elevator company for the WTC until they "miraculously" lost it to some obscure company with a tiny office compared to the massive complex Ottis was. They modernized all the elevators in one of the biggest contracts ever awarded just 7 months leading up to 911, then went bankrupt. Along with ACE doing their reno, a Mossad red herring group of artists commandeered the 92nd floor of WTC 1 for four years without the port authority's knowledge using it has a storage facility to smuggle in the bb18 detonators and sacks of nanothermite disguised as a "counter weight" to support a make shift balcony.

That's how they did it.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Useless and irrelevant.


It is clearly evident in the WTC 7 video that no demolition explosions are heard.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: randyvs



Useless and irrelevant.


It is clearly evident in the WTC 7 video that no demolition explosions are heard.


Your evidence for no explosions heard is comparing apples to oranges and not taking into account the following big differences and variables in the situations you use as evidence:

In your video of conventional demolition they are set up to record a demolition. Meaning they had the right microphones, settings and position to register all the sounds and visuals and they had a clear view of the building, so the sounds were traveling directly at them without obstruction. On the other hand in the WTC video they didnt expect explosions or having to register them with their microphones because they were doing interviews. Most microphones were that day, and microphones or equipment for interviews are set to cancel out background noise or low/high tones that can easily effect the quality of an interview. For example In this video they seem to hear something and react to it but it isnt picked up by the microphone.

(And Im not showing these to prove explosions are heard but as an example for the above:)



But the microphone in the next video did pick up a deep sound right before the collapse, most likely the same sound (which doesnt mean the microphone registered everything clearly):



And then theres another video where it shows the reporter and interviewee heard/felt something, where the mic only faintly registered it but only if you have a subwoover and put it all the way up.



So there are different microphones/settings to record sound, depending on what you want to record and anticipate.

Also there are different ways of reproducing sounds. Your video of conventional demolition was made to show the demolition and there was no reason to manipulate any sounds. But if youre considering 911 as a conspiracy you have to take into account that sounds could have been filtered or manipulated. And thus basically hard to trust as evidence on itself for no explosions. And since there are 100s of testimonies that describe explosions when the building came down and especially the one in the next video that describe actual manipulation of sound compared to what he heard, manipulation isnt a far-out possibility. But you didnt take it into account, when comparing:



Another variable you dont take into account is that there are different ways of bringing a building down and not all will have the same sound. For example there are different kinds of explosives that are able to bring buildings down, and in case of conspiracy you have to consider ones we dont know of or are unusual. These might have a lower sound-footprint for lack of a better word and thus sound different than conventional explosives as used in your evidence as how demolition must sound.

Then there are the buildings themselves: The ones for the conventional demolition are stripped and cleared of all windows, furniture and basically turned into a shell. This way explosions might actually sound louder. And in case of the WTCs it was the exact opposite, and glass in highrises isnt normally thin so could have played a big roll in muffling sounds.

So I think you are comparing apples with oranges because your videos show 2 totally different situations: Closer distance of microphone maybe, clear sight with no buildings in between, and the right equipment/settings to record explosions) and a building that is rigged for conventional demolition (stripped from windows and furniture and other stuff that will muffle sound if it doesnt get removed).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also as heard in my second video in this post, you left out 8 seconds where a big blast can be heard. It might not be a demolition explosion but why is it left out of yours and NIST's video, if it certainly looks like it has to do with the building coming down? That seems like something they/you didnt want to explain and deliberately left out, doesnt it? Why is it left out by you and NIST?

And to conclude; in the video you post you might not be able to hear explosions in the way you want to hear them (explosions of conventional demolition), but you can certainly hear a faint rhythm of booming sounds. And if you keep all the different variables I mentioned above in mind, is it then so farfetched to think that faint rhythm could account for some form of explosives or unconventional means that are bringing the building down?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

You say it is clearly evident, but considering all of these variables, it isnt clear at all. Its clear that those videos are apples and oranges though. And an explosion of demolition doesnt necessarily mean that it sounds like that of conventional demolition, it means it was the sound created to demololish a building, not the other way around. And since you cant prove that first blast wasnt part of a demolition, you could tone it down a bit with your statement of no demo-explosions were heard. Since that is nothing more than your opinion and not a fact.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86



Your evidence for no explosions heard is comparing apples to oranges and not taking into account the following big differences and variables in the situations you use as evidence:


The WTC videos and the fact that seismographs did not detect demolition explosions. Let's take a look at another example and plase point out the time lines where you think demolition explosions are heard.



Hearsay without physical evidence is not evidence of explosives. Case in point:



The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.


Now, for the rest of the story.



The Elevator Man's Tale

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level.And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

www.thrnewmedia.com...


Let's take another example.



Craig Carlsen: Firefighter

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower


Now, for the rest of that story.



Craig Carlsen: Firefighter

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

www.911myths.com...


During a recent playback on TV, an NBC News reporter was told by FDNY firefighters that the explosions they heard were later attributed to exploding gas lines.

Add to the fact that seismograph operators have confirmed that their machines did not detect demolition explosions and to further add, no demolition hardware was ever found within the WTC rubble.

I might add that your WTC 7 video does not depict the sound of demolition explosions, which explains why seismographs in the area did not detect such explosions.



On the other hand in the WTC video they didnt expect explosions or having to register them with their microphones because they were doing interviews. Most microphones were that day, and microphones or equipment for interviews are set to cancel out background noise or low/high tones that can easily effect the quality of an interview. For example In this video they seem to hear something and react to it but it isnt picked up by the microphone.


Apparently, someone fabricated that tale. Case in point can be found in the following video.


edit on 3-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
That isnt an other example. Its the example I ment you keep mentioning, which was obvious.

I guess my post was on deaf ears.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86

Please point out for us in the following video, the time lines where demolition explosions are heard and keeping in mind that demolition explosions can be heard miles away.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86

Please point out for us in the following video, the time lines where demolition explosions are heard and keeping in mind that demolition explosions can be heard miles away.





You didnt even read my entire post did you? You avoid my question completely and you dont show anything of an understanding of my post... On top of that you call 2 videos that prove microphones dont always pick up sounds fabrications or tales.
edit on 003pm3124000000p86 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86

Yes I did. I have heard many, many explosions that were attributed to explosives, but I did not hear a single sound of a demolition explosion in any of WTC videos.

The sound of explosions as buildings in Iraq were struck multiple times by cruise missiles and JDAM bombs were heard many miles away and I might add that explosives had failed to drop those building on many occasions.

If demolition explosives were firmly placed on structural steel and used during 9/11, shock signals would have been transmitted down through structural steel and into the ground where seismographs would have detected the explosions and yet, not one single seismograph detected demolition explosions. You can try to muffle such explosions, but if properly placed, the shock signals will be detected, but that was not the case in regard to 9/11.

I might add that New York City experiences over 2000 explosions each year that have nothing to do with explosives.

.
edit on 3-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   


I guess my post was on deaf ears.


This is toeing a line you don't want to cross if you value your account.

Understand?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
If demolition explosives were firmly placed on structural steel and used during 9/11, shock signals would have been transmitted down through structural steel and into the ground where seismographs would have detected the explosions


If the "explosives" were not firmly placed on structural steel then they would not do anything useful.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

If explosives are not firmly placed on the steel structure, you will get these results.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

And, if explosives are not firmly attached to the steel columns, the shockwaves will simply flow around steel columns like wind flowing around a flag pole and the result will be what you saw in the 1993 WTC 1 photo where the steel columns are seen sitting within a huge bomb crater.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join