Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Here's a very interesting short video showing lot's of sparks coming out of a window, what's causing them?
I would doubt that it's electrical since the breakers most likely tripped the power
So is it possible that this could be thermite in action?

video.google.com.../11

This link has a picture (about 1/2 way down the page) of thermite burning and they say "the color of the thermite is very yellowish at the center, with orange sparks around the perimeter"
Remember all the molten metal in the WTC for weeks after the collapse


www.myspace.com...




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
If thats not enough proof below, then i dont know what is

[edit on 5/31/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

wow, after all we just threw down...i think me, diggs, ANOK, and bsbray11 are just burning people at the stake

[edit on 5/31/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
FACT: BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE TWIN TOWERS YET IT WASN'T HIT BY A PLANE AND HAD MINIMAL FIRE DAMAGE

FACT: THE OWNER OF THE WTC COMPLEX, LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED THAT BUILDING 7 WAS PULLED (THE INDUSTRY TERM FOR DEMOLISHING BY MEANS OF EXPLOSIVES)

FACT: FDNY Chief of Safety Reported Bombs Both Within the Towers and on the Planes on 9/11

FACT: CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in WTC

FACT: Rescue Fireman Louie Cacchioli - "We think there was bombs set in the building"

FACT: New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Tower

prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.tv...

[edit on 5/31/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Wargames held on 9/11..Coincdence?
911review.com...
Norad Standing Down
www.prisonplanet.com...
Nice time frame, but no cigar
911review.com...
Belive the goverment would do this
911review.com...
911review.com...
Oh wait..the hijacker still alive
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.com...
NO WAIT SEVEN OF THEM ARE ALIVE!
prisonplanet.com...
Look what they tried to do...before 9/11
www.prisonplanet.com...
Secretary Rumsfeild and cheny
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.propagandamatrix.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.dtic.mil...
EXACTLY, a Incident Commander sends men in if ITS safe and is sure its not gonna collapse..
U dont send men in a burning building thats gonna collapse.
First we were told jet fuel was hot enough to melt steel for the first time in history.

That was disproven.

Then we were told that a 'pancake effect' that crushed one floor after another brought down the buildings.

That was disproven.

Now the latest lie is to claim inadequate fireproofing. The firefighter tapes released to the New York Times clearly indicate that right before the towers collapsed the fires were minimal and under control.

"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
Oh wait..the hijacker still alive
yeah that's a reputable link



Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
EXACTLY, a Incident Commander sends men in if ITS safe and is sure its not gonna collapse..
U dont send men in a burning building thats gonna collapse.
So all you're saying is that the FDNY didn't realize that the building wasn't going to collapse... hey guess they can join the rest of us.


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
First we were told jet fuel was hot enough to melt steel for the first time in history.

That was disproven.
Strawman... never been claimed. It weakened the steel supports structure of the floor...it didn't melt it.


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
Then we were told that a 'pancake effect' that crushed one floor after another brought down the buildings.

That was disproven.
Only if you don't understand that mass times velocity = energy.


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityThe Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse.

And it's core was concrete...which didn't collapse...the steel supported sections collapsed totally. Bad argument.


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time.
at what speed...with how much fuel?

And let's face it...it did survive a direct hit from a 767....it just didn't survive the ensuing fire.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Explain this to me Spartacus:





I wasn't aware that building came crashing down just for the hell of it.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by BannedintheUSA]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Aside from the fact that you haven't addressed my lost post to you,


Originally posted by spartacus_wi
Only if you don't understand that mass times velocity = energy.


That's hardly an explanation as to how 13 floors can crush 97 heavier floors without slowing down the whole while. Just like you threw out the word "gravity" in the last post of yours I responded to, as if it's a magical qualifier that makes any further analysis unnecessary, ignoring angular momentum and thermodynamic laws of going the path of least resistance to gravity.


And it's core was concrete...which didn't collapse...the steel supported sections collapsed totally. Bad argument.


The steel sections didn't totally collapse, and they were also much smaller than the WTC columns and not designed to carry the gravity loads of the building like the core was.

The core was reinforced concrete, and the cores of the WTC Towers may have also been reinforced concrete. Neither NIST or FEMA or anyone else from the government has shown us any of the finished cores, and yet assert they were all steel. So why should we believe them, especially when presented with images like this?:



Is that all steel? That big gray block sticking straight up in the air?

What about that gray stuff on WTC1's spire?



Maybe it's the fireproofing, eh? Just like Howard likes to suggest? So much that you can't even see between the columns anymore, eh? But wait... wasn't it knocked off by the impacts?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
In your latest image... the squibs have all fired....yet the building is only just starting to collapse. In the WTC pics, the building is collapsing, and then the "squibs" are firing... what's that bad timing?


No, it's called perfect time. It would be a dead giveaway if the squibs showed up before the WTC began to fall now wouldn't it?



And how many squibs are in use on this building in you image? Compare that the the WTC...lot bigger building...would have required a lot more explosives in a lot more places. You are completely understimating how much explosive is required and in how many places to drop a building the size of the WTC.


I disagree, the WTC's main support was internal, so why would we see a bunch of squibs on the outside? Also, heavier buildings would require LESS explosives since you would be using the building to help demo itself:



The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.




You DON'T have evidence of explosives being used...you have faith that they were.


I used the word "if", because I know you won't acknowledge our evidence.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
apprarently diggs you should go back to that university you got your engineering degree from because you just failed miserably.

Oh wait, you dont have one.

the "squibbs" which have been refuted happened AFTER the buildings started their collapse. And even the most EXPERIENCED demolitionits in the WORLD have stated that the fall/collapse wasn't due to and controlled explosion or any bomb



"It's perfectly clear that the material in the "squib" isn't being blasted out of the building, it's FLOWING, at exactly the speed that the top is falling. No explosion could cause that slow-motion effect. It's simply the "plunger" effect of air being compressed."


The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

spartacus_wi
Only if you don't understand that mass times velocity = energy.


mass times velocity is MOMENTUM, Einstein. Just drop the pretense and admit you have no f***ing clue.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
apprarently diggs you should go back to that university you got your engineering degree from because you just failed miserably.
Oh wait, you dont have one.


Love your immature posts Wizy.


the "squibbs" which have been refuted happened AFTER the buildings started their collapse.


So? You'd expect them to blow the charges to cause the squibs to be seen BEFORE it started to collapse? That would be a dead giveaway.



And even the most EXPERIENCED demolitionits in the WORLD have stated that the fall/collapse wasn't due to and controlled explosion or any bomb

The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."


CDI??? They are prime suspect in this conspiracy! What do you think they're gonna say, "Yep, you caught us!"?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
This thread is for discussion about the topic at hand, specifically about the WTC, not about members, their education or lack thereof, or whether they have a clue.

A well reasoned post will demonstrate that and more.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
CDI??? They are prime suspect in this conspiracy! What do you think they're gonna say, "Yep, you caught us!"?


Yeah, they were contracted for the clean-up, which began immediately. FEMA was even there on the evening of 9/10. CDI had a hand in the removal of evidence from the crime scene. They were also involved in the OC bombing if I'm not mistaken. Got a big chunk of change from both events.


Wizy,



Here you're looking at squibs as much as about 50 floors below the collapse wave.

Please explain to us how the collapse of



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yeah, they were contracted for the clean-up, which began immediately. FEMA was even there on the evening of 9/10. CDI had a hand in the removal of evidence from the crime scene. They were also involved in the OC bombing if I'm not mistaken. Got a big chunk of change from both events.


Yes, they did OKC too. They also demo'd two twin water tanks near NYC months before the attacks for no apparent reason. Saw that on Team 8.




Oh snap son! This was one of the pic I was looking for. Can't wait to hear their explanation of the bottom squib that's waaaaaay below the demo wave.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs


Love your immature posts Wizy.

PKB.



So? You'd expect them to blow the charges to cause the squibs to be seen BEFORE it started to collapse? That would be a dead giveaway.


And what would be the point to have them blow after?
And why do you excuse the quote for a NOTABLE demolition company, who's done hundreds of demolitions, more than you , who have stated that there is no way in hell that a type of demolition brought down the building.
I go with experts opinions and statements, not rehtoric, speculation and hearsay from those who dont know wht they are talking about.




The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."


CDI??? They are prime suspect in this conspiracy! What do you think they're gonna say, "Yep, you caught us!"?

Okay, this is where you've lost any type of credibility.

And your subsequent posts shows NOTHING that can be explained, through physics. The compression of AIR as mass pushes down on the succeeding floors, unable to sustain the massive weight as the top floors started collapsign on each other.


There was no bombs (otherwise they would have found evidence of such)
and the AMOUHNT of explosives needed would have been NOTICED by the many people who work in the TOWERS. considering that 80% of the struture is steel beams, where the HELL are they going to anchor explosives to the budilign's strucutres

YOU CT's are all alike. Rhetoric, conjecture, but no evidence.
Its simple to make conclusions when you are basing your "facts" on opiions made by other CT's, but when it comse to verfiable facts, you simply ignore them.




[edit on 1-6-2006 by Wizy]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
wizy and sparticus...wheres ur proof to disprove us...links plz or just dont bother to say anything at all



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WizyPKB.

what does PKB mean?


And what would be the point to have them blow after?

easier to conceal.


I go with experts opinions and statements, not rehtoric, speculation and hearsay from those who dont know wht they are talking about.

I think you go with who fits your agenda.


Okay, this is where you've lost any type of credibility.

Why? would you trust someone you thought was a prime suspect? Osama claimed he was innocent right after the attacks, do you believe him?


And your subsequent posts shows NOTHING that can be explained, through physics. The compression of AIR as mass pushes down on the succeeding floors, unable to sustain the massive weight as the top floors started collapsign on each other.

and somehow this "compressed air" suddenly does a 90 deg turn and shoots out a _ Not buying it. can you demonstrate your compressed air theory with another collapse?


There was no bombs (otherwise they would have found evidence of such)

how would they and who is "they"?


and the AMOUHNT of explosives needed would have been NOTICED by the many people who work in the TOWERS.

how do you know?


YOU CT's are all alike. Rhetoric, conjecture, but no evidence.
Its simple to make conclusions when you are basing your "facts" on opiions made by other CT's, but when it comse to verfiable facts, you simply ignore them.

Funny, I think the same way about you ACT's!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tayzer
If your saying that it was a bomb, then what was the use for the plane. The goverment could just bomb the damn building and blame it on terrorist. Save the hassle.


If they just blew it up, the world would not have had time to tune in on CNN. there had to be, in their own words, SHOCK AND AWE.

1. The SHOCK - Plane crashes attract attention. They know it will not bring down the towers before the world tunes in because it was designed to be hit by heavier planes (707. REMEMBER MASS (not size) x ACCELERATION = FORCE).

2. More SHOCK - Second plane crashes, now EVERYONE is watching.

3. AWE - Down come the buildings establishing the fear required for "THE WAR ON TERROR".

A New Pearl Harbor does not work if no one sees it so the planes were necessary attention grabbers.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   



The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."



Maybe because they had a HUGE government granted cleanup contract to cleanup ground zero and destroy the evidence?


Couldn't be.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
As those of us who look at the 9/11 Conspiracy as a whole..keep saying is that the events surrounding 9/11 (That is... before, at the time, and after) all give way to suspicious activities, that and the reports provided by the NIST and other organizations weren't WHOLEY investigated thoroughly as they got rid of the evidence before it could even be put together, looked and and studied PIECE BY PIECE to FIND THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF WHY IT FELL.


Sorry, had to get that out.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join