It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Extremely powerful new clip by 911eyewitness

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:40 PM
This video annoyed me at the start so I just closed it. The pictures of the planes entry hole with stupid comments like "This woman is waving to helicopters to let them know all the fires have gone out" really get on my tits. How do they know what this woman is thinking? Maybe if they got the tower froma different angle they could see the immense fires raging on the other side of the building. It dosen't cross their mind that maybe the big gash isn't burning because all the jet fuel fires are on the other side of the building. What with Kinetic Energy and all.

Maybe they want to tell Melissa Doi that she's just imagining things?

[edit on 23-5-2006 by CaptainLazy]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:55 PM
Right at the beginning of the video when they show that woman standing in the gash made by the plane, do you see the reddish orange glow in the upper right side of the gash? Looks like the fire is still going strong to me. Nice call captain.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 06:10 PM
Hey look!

Seems like another person coming forward to let the authorities know the fires are going out.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:53 PM
What's your point?

All I can see is smoke, smoke kills ppl before fire does. Very rarely someone isn't overcome by smoke before the fire gets them.
Of course there's going to be smoke on the higher floors, doesn't mean the fire were very big.

The man isn't hanging out the window because of fire, it's because of the smoke.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:56 AM
I know it's an old saying, but err, 'there's no smoke without fire'.
Let's face it, the new DVD makes little more than an overpriced coaster for a nice morning coffee, as usual.
I'm really surprised that some people swallow it so easily when they claim to be not easily influenced..
When you look at how long the Windsor tower was burning for, from either an electrical fault or arson, it seems a little stupid to say that the fires in the WTC were nearly out, and the argument that because the smoke was dark means they were not getting enough air, well...

Was this fire oxygen starved and on it's way out too?

For those that don't know, it took a couple of days to put out..

I guess this satellite image of the thick black smoke was a sign it was going out too?

It's a shame the firemen didn't know, they wasted all that effort in putting it out but if 911Eyewitness had been there he could have set them straight with his 'cool scientific analysis', right?

[edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:59 AM
Also. I don't really want to mention this but, people don't jump out of buildings if they're not burning.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:09 AM
Yes they do if they can't breath because of the smoke. But anyway that happened in the first 15 minutes of the attack, when the fires were burning big. But an hour later when the buildings fell the fires were almost out, as proved by the fire crew saying they could knock it down with two hoses.

I know you've heard this before?

"We should be able to knock it down with two lines." ( The Memory Hole - Excerpts From Firefighters' WTC Tape on 9/11)

That fire in your pic Smith is probably a chemical or fuel fire, not an office fire.
Edit: Yeah looking at it again it was a fire at an oil refinery doh! What colour are oil fires? Yeah usualy black becasue of the all the carbon.
We've done this before I believe, or it was Zaphod I forget

[edit on 24/5/2006 by ANOK]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:22 AM
Collapse footage time

In this video you can see a large fireball as the collapse begins, most likely caused by fires inside the tower being pushed out.

In this video you can see a few instense fires. (WTC1 btw).

The assertion that the fires were all but gone is a long shot. You don't see raging fires shooting out windows because, guess what, the fires are inside.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:32 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
I know you've heard this before?

"We should be able to knock it down with two lines." ( The Memory Hole - Excerpts From Firefighters' WTC Tape on 9/11)

Another gross truth seeker inaccuracy..

Actually the whole paragraph reads:

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."

Floor 78 was the first of 7 impacted floors, it is not representative of the whole of the damaged area at all. I doubt they could even see the entire 78th floor even.
Going by that rather strange logic one could say there was no fire on the 54th floor say, so there was no fire at all.
Hell, you may as well go the whole hog and say that at that time there was no fire in your living room, so there was no fire in the WTC.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:23 AM
WAs the pwoer cut when the planes hit the buildings?

Could'nt those flashes be caused by power short outs or electrical items eploding?

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Another gross truth seeker inaccuracy..

You say that as if it is a bad thing. We're all here to seek truth, right?

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:33 AM
A ThermoNuclear device WOULD leave a decent amount of radioactivity.
A Thermonuclear Bomb is a Hydrogen Bomb, which uses the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms to release energy.
Hydrogen Bombs use an Atom Bomb (Fission) to create the temperature and preasure needed to initiate a fusion reaction.
That Fission reaction would most certantly have left large amounts Fission byproducts.
Do some basic reserch on the destructive power of Thermalnuclear bombs.
If one would have been detonated in the basement of the World Trade center the level of destrution would have been several orders of magnatude greater than what happend.
Seeing the level of destrution at ground zero, it IS NOT even REMOTLY conceivable that a Thermalnuclear Device was detonated in the basement of the World Trade Center.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 24-5-2006 by hlesterjerome]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:43 AM
good find Jack.

LOL the non believer makes me laugh, you guys try to convince yourself the video is wrong, you are funny. You actualy want to believe the girl we see on impact point from the plane was surrounded by fire. You guys are probly firefighter rite!? cause ive asked one to come look at the severity of the fire and he said the same thing as alot of ppl said a black smoke on side of the wall is a clear indicative of the fire beeing weak. When i saw the women the 1st time i was like whoa this girl can deal up to 1500 F of heat its wonderwomen. Sure you can loose your time on the paper theory or mini nuke wich i find wrong or hard to believe myself but we see the woman in what the gov. called it a blazing inferno that melt steel.

I understand american ppl beeing shocked and dont want to admit somthing strange happen on 9/11 by all those image is a normal thing but its not normal when you try to lie to yourself and try to refutes everything that is beyond you comprehension.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by eagle eye]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:38 AM
Quick, get 911 Eyewitness to ring up the guys over at Istanbul airport, they're panicking at the moment because of this raging inferno in the cargo storage area, but it's obviously on it's way out!

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

It's all presented here in this new 4 minute clip...

Nice link, Jack! I personally don't buy into the thermonuclear device theory because even the "very little" residual radioactivity would be enough to make those at ground zero feel like crap.

Then again there is reports about a fire truck recovered after being "sucked" down 40 below street level. Couldn't a blast below the truck account for it falling to such great depths? (Whew! I know I'm gonna get reemed for suggesting that one...

But, all nuclear devices aside, the remnants of the two towers is reminescent of a controlled explosion. When the King Dome went down over here in Seattle, the same dust cloud was apparent (in fact, they had to evacuate a 1,000 foot safety perimeter, and even then, those people were completely overcome by the dust from the dome).

This photo is before the city has been blanketed in dust from the demolition (notice the people at the lower left-hand side:

Now, an 'after photo' with the city (and the people) covered in this fine dust:

Now a photo of a "natural" building collapse in India caused by an earthquake(notice the greenery in the back- and fore-ground-- no dust.):

Not very similar to the dust found at the WTC tower-collapse, is it?:

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Actually, the south tower collapsed from the middle down:

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:13 PM
Smith you are completely missing the point with all these pics of dark smoke you keep showing us...

The WTC smoke started out a grey colour then slowly turned black...That is an indication of a cooling fire due to lack of oxygen....

How do we know what is burning in these pics you keep showing?
How do we know what colour the smoke started out as?
How do we know those fire are not oxygen starved?

You are proving nothing with this....

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
Why are some people so keen to show the towers were demolished by explosions or even a nuke?

If 9/11 was an inside job or if either an element of the CIA or the Bush administration let it happen, isn't this all an extremely improbable red-herring?

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Was this fire oxygen starved and on it's way out too?

AgentSmith, understand that black smoke means fuel-rich smoke. It means smoke with a lot of uncombusted hydrocarbons, ie soot.

The difference between the fire you show there, and the WTC fire, is that the WTC fires started off light gray and went dark. Either much more fuel showed up to make the fires and smoke fuel-rich, or the fires started dying.

Which one makes more sense to you? I'll give a hint: all the things that were combustible in the buildings, were there and had been there since the jet impacts.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:52 PM
Couple things.

1. There is such a thing called a Construction Nuke

2. The counterweights on a 757, 767 are Tungsten not Uranium

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM
What about smoke detectors? Don't they emit low level radioactivity?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in