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.

 

Internal bombs brought down WTC. Video Tape testimony

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
The explosions did happen. You know what caused them? How about GINORMOUS planes hitting them with an arse load of fuel? There are clips SHOWING explosions that the impact made. The pic you provided shows smoke much lower than where the planes hit, which kind of goes against your theory.

there were explosions heard way after the planes it and ONE BEFORE!


Planes brought down the WTC buildings. Get over it....

You need to get with it.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I made a mistake. Post Removed

[edit on 1/6/06 by Mouth]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

there were explosions heard way after the planes it and ONE BEFORE!


Oh yes, the xplosions could only happen from bombs right,.

Let's just ignore that there were electical conduits and wiring, transformers, and huge amounts of material, and chemicals within the building itself as well as the office equpiment, paper and also the compression of air/mass of millions of tons of concrete and steel.

Lets ignore that even the most ignornat of fools can't tell the difference between a "bomb" explosiion to that of a car backfiring.

Yes, it "must" be a bomb or some type of explosives.



You need to get with it.


You need to start living in reality.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Wizy, keep those personal attacks to PMs, and I know you should receive the same treatment.

Keep to posting facts and conclusions based off research.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy


Lets ignore that even the most ignornat of fools can't tell the difference between a "bomb" explosiion to that of a car backfiring.


I'm willing to bet that if you said that in the presense of any one of those firefighters and policemen, you'd be punched in the face. So, these ignorant fools, who study fire and explosions, can't tell the difference between a bomb and a car backfiring?

We have a firefighter on this site but I forget his name. Maybe you should ask him about what firefighters and ploicemen know instead of speculating that they are ignorant fools.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
We have a firefighter on this site but I forget his name. Maybe you should ask him about what firefighters and ploicemen know instead of speculating that they are ignorant fools.


You mean LoneGunMan.

I would love to see him respond to Wizy's suggestion that he's too ignorant to tell the difference between a bomb and a car backfire.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WizyOh yes, the xplosions could only happen from bombs right,.

Where did I say that? I notice you like to put a lot of words in other people's mouths.


Let's just ignore that there were electical conduits and wiring, transformers, and huge amounts of material, and chemicals within the building itself as well as the office equpiment, paper and also the compression of air/mass of millions of tons of concrete and steel.

I know, paper is know for it's exploding properties.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'm willing to bet that if you said that in the presense of any one of those firefighters and policemen, you'd be punched in the face. So, these ignorant fools, who study fire and explosions, can't tell the difference between a bomb and a car backfiring?


Sorry, I have a friend who is a firefighter and an uncle who is one. Even they after 20+ years of service, can state that in certain situations, some things can sound like other things. Like the sound of a transformer exploding due to a fire could sound like a bomb, if they were in a building with their masks, air breathers, and fire roaring around them. Not including, people yelling at them while they try to evacuate burning buildings.

In one situation, my uncle had to help out without putting out a fire at an eletrical station. Ten transformers exploded on the scene. People living near there thought they heard everything from gun fire to a bomb exploding. Some of the firefighters thought they heard explosions, but it was simply transformers.

I had a transfromer on one of the light/electrical poles explode near my house when lightning hit it. Surely, it sounded like a 'bomb' but it was again, only something electrical.




We have a firefighter on this site but I forget his name. Maybe you should ask him about what firefighters and ploicemen know instead of speculating that they are ignorant fools.


Why must I ask them? I know several personally.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Where did I say that? I notice you like to put a lot of words in other people's mouths.


Im taking the culmination of your theories and summing it up. You pretty are sayng that the only way the collapse happened was because of "well placed" explosive devices.



Let's just ignore that there were electical conduits and wiring, transformers, and huge amounts of material, and chemicals within the building itself as well as the office equpiment, paper and also the compression of air/mass of millions of tons of concrete and steel.

I know, paper is know for it's exploding properties.


there you go again, ignoring the rest of what could be contained within a 133 story office buidling that when fuel, oxygen and heat, can get togehter, could cause what sounded to be "explosions" or create that effect.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
there you go again, ignoring the rest of what could be contained within a 133 story office buidling that when fuel, oxygen and heat, can get togehter, could cause what sounded to be "explosions" or create that effect.


Here, I just proved that there were bombs in the basement:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
I know, paper is know for it's exploding properties.


Oh, and so are electrical systems! Someone should invent something to open circuits at certain voltages/amperages. Sounds like it'd be pretty dangerous otherwise!

Oh, wait -- can you say, fuses?


You're not possibly going to get any large explosions, that sound like explosives, from electrical circuits, either, Wizy. Chemicals is really reaching, too, unless you think they were storing some pretty explosive cleaning solutions in the janitors' closets to just blow all the hell up from stuff falling on it. And compressed air didn't exist like you'd like it to have. I've addressed this in other threads, and you ignore me and refuse to respond.


there you go again, ignoring the rest of what could be contained within a 133 story office buidling that when fuel, oxygen and heat, can get togehter, could cause what sounded to be "explosions" or create that effect.


The buildings were 110 stories.

And "fuel, oxygen and heat" getting together is usually called fire.


Good catch on that, that there were fires in the buildings, but I don't think fire alone normally causes huge explosions that make people think bombs are going off.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Once that started, the towers started their descent and nothing was going to stop it.


Not at that speed and not without drifting off to any side without explosives underneath.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Not at that speed and not without drifting off to any side without explosives underneath.

Oh please, how would you know?

I'm still waiting for an answer. If there were so many explosives, how come not one single person saw the bombs or the explosions and only "heard" them? Also, do you realize how much work goes into wiring a place for explosives? It is IMPOSSIBLE to do something like that without it being noticed. You can have these wet dreams about them secretly placing them and not having them noticed all you want but reality is, it's simply not possible.


What is the unofficial story btw?
First it was missile pods on passenger planes, then it was magical thermite, now it's invisible explosives. So WHICH IS IT!?!?


Also, looking back a page. It's absolutely hillarious. Your implosion link is saying exactly what people like BS are saying is impossible.

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.

What happened?
1. Planes crashed into the buildings causing a huge explosion - there we have the explosive
2. If you watch any of the collapse videos from either building you would see that the upper section like in your pic here:


Almost completely fell onto the lower section before the lower section began to fall. Now if demolition experts say this is possible, give me one good reason why you all are disputing that?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The fact that the entire caps fell strongly indicates demolition. The core, whether it was steel or reinforced concrete, was certainly not the weakest link, yet it seemed to fail first. And even if it had failed from fire, an assertion not backed by available evidence, the uniformity can hardly be attributed to chance.

Do you seriously expect people who visually witnessed the detonations, implying they were basically standing right next to them, to live to tell the tale? Puh-leaze.

Let me just boldly state that anyone defending the OT after sifting through the monstrous pile of evidence is either incapable of independent thought, or, much more likely, indulging in blissful denial. Dearest Chairborne Ostrich Division, I can understand not wanting to know who's screwing you silly from behind, but sticking your head in the sand won't make them stop.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Over the last few weeks a demolition company has been trying to take down an old steel mill building. They have exploded this building three times and it is still standing. Finally they figured out that they are going to have to tear it down the old fashoned way.

I've never worked on a building demolition. I have used explosives in other ways though. I spent last weekend dynamiting stumps at my uncle's farm. In the 42 charges I set off I had 3 misfires. This was with electric blasting caps using an exciter box. That was 3 bad caps from a box of 48.

The bit that Hollywood shows with someone running through a building sticking explosive charges on to the I-beams of a building or bridge and then pulling a radio transmitter out of their pocket and detonating the charges by pressing a button is a load of cow dung.

Has anyone watched the shows on TLC and The Discovery Channel about how buildings are imploded? The explosives are specially designed "shaped charges", designed to cut through the beam to which they are attached. The type and size of these charges are determined by a series of test detonations done on beams in the building being imploded. When the charges are placed their detonators are connected to the firing circuit by lengths of plastic tubing filled with an explosive powder, usually PETN. Miles of this tubing are used to connect all of the charges and delays are added at key points to ensure the correct detonation sequence.

Anybody know why radio controlled detonators are not used? How about the chance of a stray signal setting everything off early. How idea many thing are there are in an office building that send radio signals? Dozens. Everything from cell phones to lighting ballasts. This doesn't include the places in the building that can't recieve a radio signal.

So, in order to implode one tower of the WTC someone or some group would have to figure out what explosive charges are needed, place hundreds of the correct charges in the correct places, connect them together using miles of det cord and all of this has to be done in complete secrecy, hidden from the thousands of people who were in the building every day. This would have to be done for both buildings

Say for argument's sake that the WTC buildings were imploded. Who did it? I don't mean Silverstein or the government. I mean who figured out the engineering? Who placed the charges? Who ran the det cord? Who stayed within sight of the buildings and pushed the detonator button? People with these skills don't grow on trees. All of this was done in complete secrecy, with no one coming forward or leaking this to the press. I wish the US had the covert capability to do this, but they don't. The reason that no one is coming forward is because it didn't happen.

There is a conspiracy here, a big one, but it has nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. The conspiracy is who is keeping alive the idea that there was a WTC conspiracy?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Good post Jim.


Unfortunately, to many people who believe the demo theory the how is not important. I'm sure the next few posts will include something about the government able to use magic detonators and five people with brainwashing guns to accomplish the demo job. Failing that, we will hear how all they need to do is prove that it looked like a demolition.

Good post either way Jim



After all how can you debate with stuff like this

Originally posted by Lumos Let me just boldly state that anyone defending the OT after sifting through the monstrous pile of evidence is either incapable of independent thought, or, much more likely, indulging in blissful denial. Dearest Chairborne Ostrich Division, I can understand not wanting to know who's screwing you silly from behind, but sticking your head in the sand won't make them stop.


Thats a pretty bold statement about opinions and speculation.

Especially when you consider the broad spectrum of possible conspiracies that day. I'd agree that it certainly looks like they LIHOP. However I don't have enough proof to try and shove my opinions down others throats, or call people idiots for not believing the same as me.

I don't believe in demolition. Does that make me a an "OT" supporter?

How about someone who believes a plane hit the pentagon but also believes in demolition? Are they "OT" supporters?

[edit on 2-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by diggs
Not at that speed and not without drifting off to any side without explosives underneath.

Oh please, how would you know?

The fell at near free-fall speeds and path of least resistence is a proven scientific fact.


If there were so many explosives, how come not one single person saw the bombs or the explosions and only "heard" them?

If they were close enough to see them explode, would they be exploded too? And there was an EMT who saw explosions go off in the 6.


Also, do you realize how much work goes into wiring a place for explosives? It is IMPOSSIBLE to do something like that without it being noticed. You can have these wet dreams about them secretly placing them and not having them noticed all you want but reality is, it's simply not possible.

Go read the Scott Forbes interviews.


What is the unofficial story btw?
First it was missile pods on passenger planes, then it was magical thermite, now it's invisible explosives. So WHICH IS IT!?!?

So regular thermite couldn't take down a building, it would have to be "magical"?


Also, looking back a page. It's absolutely hillarious. Your implosion link is saying exactly what people like BS are saying is impossible.

Almost completely fell onto the lower section before the lower section began to fall. Now if demolition experts say this is possible, give me one good reason why you all are disputing that?

Well I bet the building that was imploded had explosives placed evenly throughout it's floor and not placed randomly on one side of the building, wouldn't you agree? And I really doubt if they were going to do a top down explosion that they wouldn't place explosives down the rest of the building to weaken it while the top part does the smashing.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
The fell at near free-fall speeds and path of least resistence is a proven scientific fact.

lol
You have no idea the speed of which a 110 story building will fall so what are you talking about?


If they were close enough to see them explode, would they be exploded too?

What are you talking about? I thought you said at first that these were weak explosions only to weaken the structure. Also didn't you say they happened when the plane hit. There were people all around there after the plane hit, so how come they didn't notice it?


And there was an EMT who saw explosions go off in the 6.




Go read the Scott Forbes interviews.

lol, why?



What is the unofficial story btw?
First it was missile pods on passenger planes, then it was magical thermite, now it's invisible explosives. So WHICH IS IT!?!?

So regular thermite couldn't take down a building, it would have to be "magical"?

Why didn't you answer my question?
And yes. That thermite magically placed itself in the building by itself unoticed right where the planes went in and magically remained stable for God knows how long.


And I really doubt if they were going to do a top down explosion that they wouldn't place explosives down the rest of the building to weaken it while the top part does the smashing.

You're right they wouldn't. And they didn't



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

And I really doubt if they were going to do a top down explosion that they wouldn't place explosives down the rest of the building to weaken it while the top part does the smashing.

You're right they wouldn't. And they didn't


And you know this as fact? Did you come up with this on your own or are you regurgitating NIST again? I'd like someone to please show conclusive evidence that the steel in those structures had reached critical temperatures for collapse initiation. Because NIST had failed in doing so and has actually found evidence of the contrary. Then we can start talking about bombs in basements and thermite and all that fun stuff.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
And you know this as fact?

Sure.

And since not one single person has shown otherwise, why would I doubt that fact?


Did you come up with this on your own or are you regurgitating NIST again?

To be honest....

I haven't even read the NIST report yet....


I'd like someone to please show conclusive evidence that the steel in those structures had reached critical temperatures for collapse initiation.

I'd like someone to please show conclusive evidence that the steel hadn't reached a temperature that would allow it's integrity to start to fail.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join