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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 26
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Those comments are just peoples opinions, if you want someone to be opened up to the truth, you don't bash them in the head with a shovel and call them stupid, that will just make them mad and/or confused, at least that's not how I would do it.

Nobody here is "programmed" but I do however think that millions of Americans are being deceived, very cunningly, but I don't hold that against anyone, In the first year or so after 9/11 I totally bought the official story, I had no reason not to, but it's amazing what your brain misses when you watch something like that unfold while having NO reason to believe it was an inside job, which I definitely did not at the time.

The big key for me was when we entered into war with Iraq and pushed the Afghanistan deal to the back burner...I thought, um hello! Bin Laden isn't in Iraq!

I could go on for pages and pages, but I'll just stick to answering questions/comments directed at me and chiming in when I feel its really necessary, because I'm really not saying anything that anyone hasn't heard or thought of before.

[edit on 3/1/2006 by JKersteJr]




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
JK, while your signature's words hold wisdom to an extent, it was actually a hoax, just do a Google search, here is the Snopes article to get you started:

www.snopes.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Well, that's good to know, I've been meaning to change it anyway, I never really researched the quote, just saw it posted somewhere and loved it...because it's true IMHO regardless of who said it.

Thanks for having the decency to point it out politely to me though instead of just ripping on me for it.


[edit on 3/1/2006 by JKersteJr]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
No problem
But it's meaning is still sound, it's a good quote to have but could be accredited to it's true author or something, it does make one think. I havn't researched extensively but I think some lady said it during a political speech or something.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
See Worthy


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Well that's fine but i don't see it myself, I really don't and I know some other people don't either, I say some because if you and some others do then it's not all.

I don't see it either.

Frankly, more than four years after it happened, I still don't feel any closer to knowing what really happened on 9-11 than I did the day it happened.

I know some planes crashed into the WTC towers. I know they collapsed. I know Building 7 collapsed – and yeah, I actually remember thinking they deliberately demolished it that day for some reason (some comments people made on CNN or something).

I think a plane crashed into the Pentagon, although that's been famously disputed. I know another plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, although whether it crashed due to passenger intervention or a well-placed missile remains unknown to me.

The truth is that for every explanation for some aspect of 9-11, there are countless other conflicting explanations. This is true of both official and unofficial accounts, and I remain skeptical of them all.

The truth is that I don't know the truth about 9-11.

“You Can't Handle The Truth!”


Originally posted by AgentSmith
The only conclusions are that some of us are either stupid or programmed in some way (delibrately or not) to not see the 'truth' in this case. This isn't meant as sarcasm but it is the truth.

If being willing to admit I don't know the truth when I honestly don't know it makes me “stupid”, then I'll bear that title proudly.

I would rather be right about not knowing the truth than wrong about knowing the truth.

What I Consider “Way Above”

For what it may be worth, AgentSmith has earned one of my WATS votes for the month.

My vote is not based on whether he knows the truth or not, but how he approaches uncertainty. It takes courage to approach the unknown patiently and honestly and to refuse to let emotion subvert reason.

Some will criticize this, as is their right.

I will praise it, as is my right.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I forgot all about the topic! Going back to what I said, stupid was probably the wrong word, mis-informed or not understanding would probably be a better way of saying it.

Oh and thank you Majic!


[edit on 2-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Here is a streaming link to 911Eyewitness if anybody hasn't seen it yet.

video.google.com...

Yo Majic and Smith. If you two can't see the towers were controlled demolitions falling at the speed of gravity then you need to do some serious homework before making any more uninformed comments.

Unless of course you are just run of the mill obfuscation specialists.

Is there anybody else who is still out in left field along with you guys?

Time to go home for dinner boys. You're not fooling anyone.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chris t
Yo Majic and Smith. If you two can't see the towers were controlled demolitions falling at the speed of gravity then you need to do some serious homework before making any more uninformed comments.


How come some of the debris falls faster than the rate of collapse?

Especially if it's fired 'up and out' like everyone keeps saying it is. No wait, don't tell me, it's now being explosively fired downwards



[edit on 2-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chris t
If you two can't see the towers were controlled demolitions falling at the speed of gravity then you need to do some serious homework before making any more uninformed comments.



Both towers fell at free fall?

Uninformed comments?

Allow me to illustrate the difference between something meeting resistance, and something "falling at the speed of gravity".



(sorry Bsbray, I couldn't help myself on this one
)



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Whoa.

I couldn't follow the links from everyone, so I went directly to the site and downloaded the movie. It has it in 3 parts, and I've only watched part 1. Well, I kinda lied, I followed that one poster's link (my bad for slipping on your name
) to the streaming video, but it wasn't coming through proper on my computer. Point is, I saw part of the video.

Shocking. Truly shocking.

If you can watch that and not even at least entertain the idea of bombs, I dunno what to say for you. The explosions before the collapse of the 1st twin are CLEARLY audible. And, what was up with those choppers? There was a buttload of em. That one that flew over and had the flashes on the buildings was especially strange.

You can also see debris rising from the ground as you hear the explosions. I mean, come on. Even if you believe the pancake theory, how do you explain the explosions from at least ground level AND the dust rising from ground level.

GREAT find, wecomeinpeace! I gotta download the other parts of that one.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Allow me to illustrate the difference between something meeting resistance, and something "falling at the speed of gravity".



(sorry Bsbray, I couldn't help myself on this one
)


Hi LB, long time no...errr...'see'...

Confusion often arises here, resulting it seems from different interpretations of terminology and from a shortening of explanations to save long repetition. Allow me to explain. When 9-11 skeptics refer to the “freefall”, or “near freefall” collapse of the structures, they are not referring to the collapse zone at the top where your “not freefall” arrow is, they are referring to the destruction waves which ran down the four sides of the buildings. These waves of destruction did indeed proceed both in confluence, and at a “speed” approaching freefall, implying not that they were accelerating under gravity, but rather that they covered the distance from top to bottom in a time frame not far behind the falling debris. “Freefall” refers to acceleration due to gravity, however the destruction ‘waves’ appear to proceed at a constant speed without acceleration, almost as if they were designed that way, and hence the falling debris eventually overtakes it. After the destruction waves race down the sides, the structures then appear to simply fall apart into their constituent pieces, producing the great mushroom cloud effect illustrated by your “not freefall” arrow.

It is not entirely clear from your picture, but directly above your “freefall” arrow head can be seen the waves running down the West side of WTC1, at a height close to the falling debris further out. However, the waves are patently obvious in actual footage taken from near the towers as they collapsed, and they clearly proceed at a pace not far behind the falling debris. In fact, for a short time they are “ahead”, so to speak.

I encourage you, and anyone else who is still unclear as to what we mean by “near freefall”, to watch the below linked videos, 1) so that we may move forward with the debate assuming a globally consistent interpretation of certain specific references and terminology, and 2) so that we may put the above quaint and oft-surfacing picture to its final rest.

images.indymedia.org...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

[edit on 2006-3-6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
why would america waste people in a buildings for money...their rich anyway.
these videos are lame.
it was terrorists



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsy28
why would america waste people in a buildings for money...their rich anyway.
these videos are lame.
it was terrorists




Honestly, I don't know where to start. There's so much to laugh at in such a small post, it's actually quite riveting.

The videos are lame...riiight. Because you hear explosions that make you question our govt masters?


The US govt doesn't kill its own people. That thing in the NY subway when they gassed people NEVER happened. They NEVER made troops walk into an area where a nuke just went off. They NEVER radiated their own troops. They NEVER put out plans to use terror attacks on the American people.

Get your head out of the sand and wake up.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsy28
why would america waste people in a buildings for money...their rich anyway.
these videos are lame.
it was terrorists



well. there you have it.
we're all wasting our time with science, political research, stone-flipping, digging, analysing and investigating.

pack it up! let's go home. show's over.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Uh, thats great WCIP but as long as we have people who jump in to the debate saying things like . . .


Originally posted by Christ T If you two can't see the towers were controlled demolitions falling at the speed of gravity then you need to do some serious homework before making any more uninformed comments.


Then I'm going to post that picture. "Near-free fall" or close to free fall are one thing. It's quite another to claim that the towers fell at free fall or the speed of gravity when they obviously did not.

There was resistance. And as long as people claim there wasn't I will keep posting it.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Hominem Ad


Originally posted by chris t
Yo Majic and Smith. If you two can't see the towers were controlled demolitions falling at the speed of gravity then you need to do some serious homework before making any more uninformed comments.

Indeed, it seems that many contributors to this thread have gone to great lengths to do some serious homework before making uninformed comments.


General Specialty


Originally posted by chris t
Unless of course you are just run of the mill obfuscation specialists.

Is there anybody else who is still out in left field along with you guys?

Time to go home for dinner boys. You're not fooling anyone.

If you have something intelligent to say that actually relates to the topic and doesn't discredit you utterly, please feel free to start doing so anytime.

Rational analysis supported by reliable evidence is worthwhile.

Childish mockery is worthless.
:shk:

The Speed Of Gravity

In light of all the pseudoscience being flaunted in this thread, the fact that LeftBehind's efforts to clarify a point which is actually germane to the discussion seems to be repeatedly overlooked, and that the term is being used as a foundation for insulting me in a remarkably ignorant fashion; I would like to point out that:

Gravity is a force which can cause a body to accelerate. Objects which fall to earth accelerate (i.e., their velocity increases) until they reach a terminal velocity, which is not the same as the “speed of gravity”. The terminal velocity of different objects in a non-vacuum is different, as in the example of a feather versus a lead weight.

According to Einstein, the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. While I can't say I know exactly how fast the WTC debris was falling, it seems to be falling slower than 186,282.397 miles per second in the video, so I doubt any of it was actually falling at the “speed of gravity”.

If folks want to get technical about it, there it is.

A Fun Experiment For The Practical Home Physicist

As for all this hullabaloo about debris being ejected sideways from the towers, I'm not seeing much attention being paid to the fact that hundreds of floors of buildings collapsing can cause a great deal of compression of the air inside the structure. The expulsion of this air as the building “pancakes” readily explains why debris was ejected laterally during the collapse of the towers.

The home physicist can demonstrate this effect by placing a handful of flour on top of a large, hardcover book, then quickly slamming another book down on top of the first. The results will be similar to what is viewed on these collapse videos.

Frankly, I am amazed that so much of the discussion seems to ignore this rather basic mechanical phenomenon, since it is abundantly evident in everyday life. Breathing, for example, would be impossible without it.

As for the sounds of explosions, I would be more suspicious if something that big came down that hard without making such sounds. Drop anything as dense as the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the WTC from such heights and it's going to make some serious noise.

That doesn't rule out explosives, but under such conditions, explosive sounds also don't prove their use.

The Skeptic's Curse

I do not know if the WTC towers were brought down by demolition charges or not.

I can very much accept the possibility that they were. Before I can actually believe that they were, however, I will need to see more convincing evidence than I have seen so far.

Some people seem to have a problem with skepticism, as well as honest disagreement and dissent.

My advice to those who do is to get used to it, learn to present arguments that can stand up to rational analysis, actually study subjects used to bolster theories, at least try to act like an adult and refrain from resorting to sophomoric taunts which serve only to undermine the credibility of those who indulge in them.

I don't mind if people want to believe the towers were brought down by explosives and wish to persuade others likewise, but I very much mind when people expect me to drink their kool-aid and insult me when I choose not to.

To expect me to agree with you when you call me an idiot means that I would have to be an idiot to agree with you.

That is not the way to gain my agreement.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The home physicist can demonstrate this effect by placing a handful of flour on top of a large, hardcover book, then quickly slamming another book down on top of the first. The results will be similar to what is viewed on these collapse videos.

Frankly, I am amazed that so much of the discussion seems to ignore this rather basic mechanical phenomenon, since it is abundantly evident in everyday life. Breathing, for example, would be impossible without it.


Watch the first video in Wecomeinpeace's last post, pause it at 2 secs through, explain to me how that plume of smoke/debris/gas/air whatever, is being expelled 20-30 stories BELOW where the building is pancaking? The same thing can be seen in the second video at about 3 seconds in.

I also heard that parts of the steel grid "facade" covering the outside of the WTC were thrown into adjacent buildings ending up stuck into them after the collapse, does anyone have any pictures of that. I looked and all I could find was a small section hanging at the bottom of the 26 story gash in the Banker's Trust building, and that most likely fell from above.

[edit on 3/7/2006 by JKersteJr]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This may help you understand, an account from a survivor in the WTC. The various stairwells, ducts, etc acted like channels for the air until it found an exit:


That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.
www.newyorkmetro.com...


Most theorists prefer photos to the video as they are more deceiving, but as you see in the video it is not as an explosive outburst as you would expect with explosives. It is more sustained and consistant with the idea of air being forced out, probably smoke/debris filled air that accumulated in a duct or something.
It's very much like a syringe effect, though a lot of people make the mistake of looking at the whole building as a syringe rather than aspects of it such as individual ducts, shafts, etc.
Testimonies and common sense show that this effect happened and I have even shown in the past the same effect visible from areas damaged in the impact which had traces of smoke coming out which then became 'squib' like in appearence as the building collapsed. The same behaviour is seen in the videos like you are pointing out, though some on a larger scale, yet these cannot be accepted as anything other than squibs for some reason

This is even though their behavioural characteristics are identical to those which are clearly not squibs in anyone's book.
One pro-demo person remarked when I pointed this out that:
'that's the reason we don't mention those'

The fact is a lot of people want them to be squibs and it is a far easier explanation based on the visual evidence, science is hardly ever easy though and if everyone had always had that attitude then progress would never have been made past the stone age. To be honest the true answer isn't exactly complicated either, it just doesn't reinforce any alternative theories.

As for the steel embedded into surrounding buildings, it's hardly incredible when you had large pieces falling from the top.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Most theorists prefer photos to the video as they are more deceiving, but as you see in the video it is not as an explosive outburst as you would expect with explosives. It is more sustained and consistant with the idea of air being forced out, probably smoke/debris filled air that accumulated in a duct or something.


i thought we converted you.
what happened? global runaway collapse?

i personally wouldn't know what to expect from an explosion if i don't know where it was placed, how large it was, and how much open air was around it.

i would expect most of the ductwork to be in the core, though, and i would also expect ductwork to burst under extreme air pressure before i would expect skyscraper window glass to break from same.

in order for that to be a 'syringe', it must be a tube leading directly from the collapse horizon down twenty or forty stories(i don't feel like counting them right now), and then it must make a ninety degree turn and travel sixty feet as a focused 'beam 'of force.

i just don't find that very likely at all. in fact, nearly impossible without a schematic of very hardy ductwork that 'aims' the air of the 'syringe' in such a fashion as described by 'official conspiracy' theorists.

i have been watching the collapses from many angles lately, and i have to say, it's pretty obvious that they are exploding, in both stills and videos. you can see the 'detonation waves' as they are being coined, progressing FASTER than freefall at the BEGINNING of the collapses.

don't forget to go see the billiard ball thread, too. that argument is relevent. we could argue over the EXACT times which should be expected, however, ALL the expected times of floors impacting floors would clearly bring us collapse times at least many times those observed.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Ok, so your saying the smoke/debris filled air, possibly coming down ducts (i've also heard elevator shafts) was traveling fast enough to, upon entry into that particular floor, create enough pressure to blow out the windows?

I guess thats possible but in my mind, highly unlikely, there are too many sightings of this phenomena during the collapse visible in almost every video, some will refute the claim they are demo squibs forever but I personally have seen more proof than I need just by doing a quick media search for controlled demolitions and collapses of buildings.

The same characteristics present in a planned implosion are there in the WTC 1 & 2 and blatantly in WTC 7, the sounds and flashes(eyewitness) the above mentioned "squibs" (clearly visible here in the first animation of a different building being taken down,www.thewebfairy.com...) the uniform freefall which took all of what 9 seconds, the minimal debris field considering 1&2's monster size, and most obvious the fact that nearly all of the building was turned into a fine powder.

Call me ignorant, but using what common sense I have I just cannot fathom both of those giant buildings being brought down, ultimately as a result of a single jumbo jet strike when they were created to withstand just that! Maybe if there wasn't so much video documentation of the collapse then I might fall for that but after seeing and now hearing what appear to be the widely reported "explosions" in the towers... everything inside tells me to dismiss the official story and confirm my worst thoughts.


[edit on 3/7/2006 by JKersteJr]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join