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.


WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:39 PM
Then there is this eye wittness who says it was a bomb.

I love the way the Fox news reporter said it was a plane, so who do You believe?

I believe the wittness because he is not part of the cover up that was already taken place that morning with the media.

Noties the Wittness saw and heard the bomb exploseing he know what he is talking about.

Noties the reporters said We "heard" it was an Airplane BECAUSE THAT WHAT THEY WERE TOLD by some one else!

Remember he said I saw everything!

[edit on 8/4/2008 by cashlink]

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 12:02 AM
Then you have this video wich I think is very inportant.

Once you can prove thier was no airplanes, that hit WTC then all you have left is the truth, wich leaves explosions and bombs.

That what needs to be proven first, If we can find real evidents that these planes were not real then You will have your proof the explsion brought those building down. then You will know that our Government WAS behind 911.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 12:21 AM
Then when you hear this news release on 911 about the WTC ,we get this!

Why was this not follow up a white van with explosives in the van?
Heck, this is what the police told the reporters.

I guess the debunker want to tell us the police are liers as well!

More proof that Bombs were going off through the building at the WTC!

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60
This is a link to the video I just put up this morning.
This video taken by Fairbanks of the second tower hit is where I saw these sequential flashes I was talking about in my previous post.
The Fairbanks video is fast and the camera moves around a lot.
I got a good quality version of it and picked out the individual frames to put them back together in a slowed down video.
Once I had it all broken down into individual frames I could see how explosions were going off inside, from higher to lower but covered by the big fire going on outside.
This is not clear from the youtube video because it compresses it.
I am working on another video with it cropped down to the area affected.
I can blow it up and it will end up the normal size on youtube and you will be able to see what I am talking about.

"9/11 ... and Father Abraham cried"

[edit on 5-8-2008 by jmdewey60]

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 10:57 PM
OK, here is my video I was working on that is a cropped down and slowed version of the Fairbanks video.
This should show you something about multiple explosions going off in the building, right after the plane crash.

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 04:38 PM
WTC7 was felled via controlled demolition.
lets use the if...then... proposition here.
If WTC7 was a CD, then WTC1 and WTC2 also.
this external link describes the damage so well:
If after reading all of the articles and information
in this web site, and you still do not understand
that WTC1/2/7 were CD implosions...
The energy required to turn that amount of concrete into micron size dust is beyond that available from a gravity induced demise.
Contact demolitions could not throw hundred of tons steel girders away from the trunk of the building, only a thermonuclear hydrogen device could do that.
And where was the 200,000 gallons of water on the roof tanks? Where did it disappear to?
The thermonuclear device answers many puzzling questions of WTC1/2/7.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by Vushta

Well stated. I'm getting really tired of the CD theorists. By the way, in the explosives world, a "squib" is a small detonator or an electric match for the civilians out there. The CT always point out the air pressure escaping as an explosion. As you put it, where are the explosions for the other sides of the building. A miss fired explosive should have caused the building to teter/collapse to the explosion side.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:56 PM

Then he asserted that WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7 were in fact brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11! He seemed to think that the terrorists could have done this because the Bin Laden Construction Company would have known the location of the special places designed for explosives to be placed.

We may excuse Laffoley's naivety for thinking - contrary to the official story - that al Qaeda terrorists blew up the towers. The crucial point is that he said categorically that the towers at WTC had been designed to be brought down by controlled demolition with the provision of strategic points built into the towers, where demolition charges would be placed once the decision was taken to blow them up

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:39 AM

Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.

top topics

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in