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.

 

How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
What everyone else seems to forget is the explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower. This is what caused the massive damage downstairs, not the fireball.



There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that there was an explosion before the plane hit.




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well first of all there's proof of an explosion, and there's an eyewitness account of the explosion happening before the impact.

That's more then your fireball theory wich solely relies on guessing and eye-witness acounts, none of wich actually saw the fireball, just the effects of it.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Well first of all there's proof of an explosion, and there's an eyewitness account of the explosion happening before the impact.


So....you can count your eyewitness accounts, but discount the others which would attest to something different?

Why? What makes one set more believable?

As WCIP has asked (and again, I'm sure I'm guilty of this too), is this simply another indicator of our ability to pick and choose?

If anything, this is just further suggesting that we perhaps forget the eyewitness accounts, and put more onus on the actual physics.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
More fireman quotes
Firefighter Steve Modica
Special Operations Command - 20 years


Then we heard this sound, this boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I’m like what the hell is that? It was four ESU cops coming down the stairs and they weren’t even touching the tread. They were going from landing to landing. We had to put our backs up against the wall to get out of the way.


I guess a lot of things sounded like explosions.

and this little gem:


Boom, boom, boom, boom. You’re on the first floor. It goes by and lands. And so I just assumed it was debris. So when I first got there, I had that urgency to get in the building. Now I had this complete urgency to get the hell out of the building, but we were just afraid to make the move.
We saw an engine man, and he was under the north bridge. He was looking up at the building. We yelled at him to let us know when it would be OK to run, so he kept looking and a few seconds later, he started to yell all right, run, run, run. So we all took off and got underneath that northern walkway bridge. At that point I turned around to look up at the building and that’s when I realized that all that stuff coming down, that was people. It wasn’t debris. It was people. I turned away, put my back to the building.
Then you couldn’t see the top of the building anymore, it looked like it was as if each floor was exploding. As each floor came down, you could actually see the windows and everything blow out. Things were blowing out the sides. Everybody asked me later on how come people couldn’t get out of the way? I really believe that if you weren’t watching the building, when you heard it, it was too late, too late to move. We looked up and we saw it and you didn’t hear a sound.


What? He didn’t hear the explosions? Was he deaf?


I couldn’t get myself to move right away and I was just stuck. And then I turned back facing north and I almost dove under 20 Truck, which was parked under the north bridge. I started to dive and then at the last minute, I decided not to and decided to just run. You could see guys just running. I was looking down and I could remember looking at their feet because I wasn’t looking up. I threw my tools and I started running and I ran. I think the building was down in about 10 seconds and you started to hear it at this point.
Now I’m running and you could hear this thing. It sounded like about four or five 747s taking off at full throttle. It just got unbelievably loud.


Well, no, I guess he wasn’t deaf.



That eyewitness account seems to invalidate the explosives caused the building to fall theory.

Why didn’t he hear the explosives?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that there was an explosion before the plane hit.



I agree. And remember, I am ALL for disproving the wacky out there tinfoil claims. Like the crap about missles striking the pentagon, millitarized cargo windowless planes and missles, all that crap. It is disinformation made to discredit the whole 9/11 truth movement.

Here is an alternate explanation of WTC 7: It was prewired to blow as are some buildings through the world due to the sensitive nature of whats in it.
To the people who think fire brought it down, do ya realize what agencies were in there? Also, do you know that people were told on the radio and on the street that they were going to demolish it?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
8bitagent, how do the first hand accounts from these firemen fit into your WTC 7 “smoking gun?”


Why is it that no mention opf WTC7 exists in the 9/11 commission report? Why cant FEMA give an explanation? Where is the video or pictures of this massive destruction to WTC7? Where was the structural damage to the adjacent WTC7 buildings? Why did Silverstein say pull it, which was described to mean bring down by demolition in the same PBS documentary?


Originally posted by Odds022



Where are the audio files of the "explosions?"


Simply put, watch "loose change".


Just saw that, focuses WAY too much on disinformation and red herrings.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Shroomery
Well first of all there's proof of an explosion, and there's an eyewitness account of the explosion happening before the impact.


So....you can count your eyewitness accounts, but discount the others which would attest to something different?

Why? What makes one set more believable?


Like I said, there is proof of the explosion to go along with the eye-witness account. Something you can't say about the no-explosion theory or the fireball story.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Like I said, there is proof of the explosion to go along with the eye-witness account. Something you can't say about the no-explosion theory or the fireball story.


There is perhaps proof of an explosion; and if there is, it remains true that explosions can be caused by many, many things.

How does this become "proof of a bomb/controlled demolition"?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Here is an alternate explanation of WTC 7: It was prewired to blow as are some buildings through the world due to the sensitive nature of whats in it.


This was a privately owned commercial building. Do you honestly think that office buildings are “prewired with explosives?” How do you think that this was done without someone noticing? Furthermore, what safeguards would have been in place to prevent accidental detonations? What would have happened if there was an ordinary office fire?

Furthermore, all explosives tend to become unstable over time. That is the nature of the chemical compounds that commonly make up explosives. (if they weren't inherantly unstable, they wouldn't explode) Even the most stable of explosives has a definite shelf life. How long were these explosives supposed to sit in the structure?

No, I just can’t buy that explanation.


Originally posted by 8bitagent
To the people who think fire brought it down, do ya realize what agencies were in there?


What does that have to do with anything?


Originally posted by 8bitagent
Also, do you know that people were told on the radio and on the street that they were going to demolish it?


Where do you get that information from?

If you read the first hand accounts from the firemen on the scene, you will know that they suspected that the building was going to collapse from the extent of the exterior damage to the south face.


Originally posted by 8bitagent

Originally posted by HowardRoark
8bitagent, how do the first hand accounts from these firemen fit into your WTC 7 “smoking gun?”


Why is it that no mention opf WTC7 exists in the 9/11 commission report? Why cant FEMA give an explanation? Where is the video or pictures of this massive destruction to WTC7? Where was the structural damage to the adjacent WTC7 buildings? Why did Silverstein say pull it, which was described to mean bring down by demolition in the same PBS documentary?


Nice sidestep of the question.

Please explain how the accounts from the firefighters describing the damage and the firefighting efforts and the reason why they pulled back from WTC 7, fits in with the “smoking gun.” Based on these accounts, it was clear to the men on the ground that the building was damaged to the point of being unstable.

(Did you know that, in this context, the term “pull” has a totally different meaning to a firefighter. It means to pull back and abandon the firefighting activities, not to deliberately demolish a building.)

Also, did you know that NIST is investigating the WTC collapses. The full draft report is due out in October or Novemeber of this year. However you can see a presentation on the preliminary findings and working hypothosis if you want.

Hope that helps.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Like I said, there is proof of the explosion to go along with the eye-witness account. Something you can't say about the no-explosion theory or the fireball story.


So the people in the lobbies that were burned by the fireballs just imagined it, huh?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well, I'll tell you what, a couple weeks ago I was watching a documentary on 9/11. They showed the towers collapsing.

I noticed, that on one of the towers as it was crumbling down, there was a part of the tower that had not yet crumbled, and you can CLEARLY see what looks like something exploding out of that building!

Now how did WTC 7 come down? No plane hit it, it was across the street from the towers--and it came down the same way!

And look at Madrid--those buildings held up TWO DAYS!



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Shroomery
Like I said, there is proof of the explosion to go along with the eye-witness account. Something you can't say about the no-explosion theory or the fireball story.


So the people in the lobbies that were burned by the fireballs just imagined it, huh?


So how can you tell they were burned by a fireball? They were burned people PERIOD. Something that can be caused by an explosion just as well.

And don't get me wrong, there might have been a fireball. But it does NOT explain explosions in the basement or the explosions that followed after the impacts up until the collapse. Nor does it explain the marble coming from the walls, doors getting mangled, presses dissapearing.

So to sum up again, proof for a fireball, zilch.


And btw, here's the guy talking about the explosion BEFORE the impact.
I don't know about you, but I don't think this guy is pulling it out of his *ss.
www.prisonplanet.tv... (skip to about 30mins in the show)



[edit on 12-9-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
What happens when you have a mist of jet fuel falling down an enclosed elevator shaft that ignites? you get a fuel air explosion

Ever make a spud cannon?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Here is an alternate explanation of WTC 7: It was prewired to blow as are some buildings through the world due to the sensitive nature of whats in it.


This was a privately owned commercial building. Do you honestly think that office buildings are “prewired with explosives?” How do you think that this was done without someone noticing? Furthermore, what safeguards would have been in place to prevent accidental detonations? What would have happened if there was an ordinary office fire?

Furthermore, all explosives tend to become unstable over time. That is the nature of the chemical compounds that commonly make up explosives. (if they weren't inherantly unstable, they wouldn't explode) Even the most stable of explosives has a definite shelf life. How long were these explosives supposed to sit in the structure?


Well besides the fact that so many engineers said how i tlooked like th emost perfect implosion; how seizmagraphs registered 2.3 earthquakes from all 3 buildings before they fell, and from the fact there really is not much proof to back up the claim of intense structual damage...I will admit that yes, the idea of pre rigged explosives does seem a bit outlandish.

However, do you find it just the slightest bit odd that only the buildings Silverstein owned came down one way or another? Or that you can clearly see classical examples of blast points in the WTC1&2 explosions(remember that plane 2 hit near the side with most the fuel exploding outside, yet it was the first to fall) And the claims of firefighters hearing explosives is debatable, yes.

Two jumbo jets filled with fuel slamming into 30 old structures has a likelier explanation of falling, even tho no modern structure had ever falled due to fire...the fact people were standing in the holes and that a lot of the fires were contained, etc. Ok.

But is it plausible, even in a non shadow government conspiracy, given there is no real proof of intense structural damage, Silverstein committed fraud by imploding these buildings?

Hey look, I WANT there to be proof there was no funny stuff going on.
I dont want to believe something sinister with the US government, elements of it or other people were doing something wrong. But if youve seen and processed just a 20th of all the widely available mainstream info out there, its hard to draw other conclusions.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
How can seemingly intelligent people think that the United States government would plan and carry out 9/11??




[edit on 12-9-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Now how did WTC 7 come down? No plane hit it, it was across the street from the towers--and it came down the same way!


It was hit by debris from WTC 1 when that building collapsed.



And look at Madrid--those buildings held up TWO DAYS!

"those" buildings?

The Windsor Tower in Madrid was not an all steel building. the core was constructed with reinforced concrete columns and beams, not steel. Portions of the upper floors that were built with steel however, did suffer a partial collapse. The reinforced concrete columns of the core did not fail and kept the entire buildlng from collapsing.

THe WTC buildings were not built with reinforced concrete core columns like the Windsor Tower, so it is not possible to compare the performance of the two buildings.




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
How can seemingly intelligent people think that the United States government would plan and carry out 9/11??


Something to think about, eh, sleepy eyes?





posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Amethyst

Now how did WTC 7 come down? No plane hit it, it was across the street from the towers--and it came down the same way!


It was hit by debris from WTC 1 when that building collapsed.


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and this is why Building 7 came down perfectly symmetrically, right onto its footprint, streamers and all, just as a controlled demolition would.



Because it was hit by debris.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and this is why Building 7 came down perfectly symmetrically, right onto its footprint, streamers and all, just as a controlled demolition would.




Well then, by that logic can we conclude that WTC 1 and 2 were not a controlled demolition because 80% of those buildings landed outside the footprint?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The idea of the jet fuel leaking down the elevator shafts is a new one, and sort of reminds me of a Bruce Willis movie, but, it's a pretty tall building. If there really were such an explosion I really don't think it would be concentrated in one area, but would flame out up and down the entire shaft.

There are lots of things that sound "like" explosives.

If you take a very very very heavy building, and tweak the top (strong winds for example), you will definately hear some groaning and vibrating. If the building is tweaked alot (such as in a 747 flying into it full speed), I think you would hear alot more, than just groaning ... the entire weight-bearing structure would be shaking and vibrating, groaning, and popping steel bolts and welds as it vibrates with the dissipating stress energy from perturbations of the top of the structure.

To anyone not educated in mechanical engineering, this would very likely sound just like their idea of what a bomb would sound like close up.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Well besides the fact that so many engineers said how i tlooked like th emost perfect implosion;


No they didn't. I have never seen a claim by any strucutral engineer that the buildings collapsed for any reason other than the impact and the subsequent fires.


Originally posted by 8bitagent
how seizmagraphs registered 2.3 earthquakes from all 3 buildings before they fell,


Can you read the original report by the seismologists and point out specifically where it is stated that the 2.3 lm seismic motion occurred before the buildings collapsed? It looks to me like those large spikes are from the building collapses, not before.

Here is a nice site with the basic data., or you can read the the actual report itself.





Originally posted by 8bitagent
and from the fact there really is not much proof to back up the claim of intense structual damage...I will admit that yes, the idea of pre rigged explosives does seem a bit outlandish.


So the inward bowing of the south wall of WTC 1 shortly before the building collapsed is not enough evidence of intense structual damage for you?


(note the lines and numbers indicating the displacement of the exterior columns)

How about the bowing of the east face of WTC 2?


(again note the black verical and horizontal lines that have been superimposed on the image to illustrate the degree of inward displacement.)


Originally posted by 8bitagent
the fact people were standing in the holes and that a lot of the fires were contained, etc. Ok.


Does this look contained to you?




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join