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.

 

Visual evidence for explosives @ WTC1 - De-bunk this !!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Damocles, There is nothing wrong in admitting your wrong (not you personally) we all do foolish things and we all make mistakes its part of being human and a part of learning. To admit one makes mistakes is to put oneself onto the path of enlightenment.




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
of course, but you are not so much insinuating as flat out saying that any of us who still dont believe there were explosives in the WTC are blind ignorant fools.

sorry, but i take offense to that honestly. i spent most of my adult life working with explosives and other WMD things for the govt and i just dont see any real hard evidence that im wrong when i say i dont think the towers were a controlled demo.

i mean cmon, you dont see me calling anyone who does think that the wtc's were demod "a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing whack jobs that have never set off anything bigger than a firecracker and need to get outta moms basement and see the real world" do you?

no, becuase first of all i have ALWAYS admitted i could be wrong about the WTC's and im still looking at the matter with an open mind. im not SO arrogant as to not be able to admit i could be wrong, and im not judgmental enough to call anyone who disagrees with me names. thats childish and isnt good for an intellectual debate.

i AM however very very confident in my training, knowledge, and most of all my real life experience setting off heavy demo shots. based on THAT i dotn see a demo of the WTC towers.

so having said that, when someone with experience in demo can tell me waht im missing, ill listen. (google and wikipedia does NOT count) until then i keep looking at the videos and pictures and still dont see it.


anyway, this has gone off topic...i apologize. ill watch the video later with an open mind and post any thoughts i may have on it then.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Damocles]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
That video also shows that explosives wern't used to the WTC collapse. Half the building clearly fell outward.

A trait not found on domolution detonations.


A trait also not found in pancake collapses. Just MO.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Here is why the WTC could not have collapse without explosives,also explains how they were built to sustain such impacts and heat.

Video

Yes,i know it's 90 minutes long, but well worth it



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth on the WHOLE of the 9/11 incident...the scary part of this whole thing, (not the video) isnt so much that it happened (while its tragic, tragedy happens everyday whether or not we see it) but is the fact that the FACTS themselves need to be shielded from us as though the entire US population shouldnt be considered mature enough to handle what those facts detail.

One might argue, "well for natiional security purposes, which of COURSE is primary, it's essential that those facts, the evidence, and all supporting factions be handled ONLY by the government".

Yet, it seems to me, that the REAL threat to "National Security" is in our inability to truly KNOW these facts. To examine the evidence, to make up our minds. No, it was carted away, and destroyed before anyone (other than Government entities) could thoroughly examine it. THIS should be suspicious to anyone the MOST. It's akin to a parent telling a child, the sky is red and keeping them locked in a house with no windows for the rest of their lives...said parent can say you HAVE to trust me, and what choice does the child truly have?

The REAL threat? The real suspicion that's already abound in so many various communities and organizations, have created the unstable "National Security" that we purport to being so aligned against.

Everyone can speculate to their hearts content...but the harsh and brutal reality is that Big Brother has said "it's for our eyes only, and thus, only we can, will and are able to give you the right answers". Since big brother has said so, you all have no choice but to comply. Whether or not it was controlled demolition or a terror attack with 2 jumbo jets bringing down the WTC's is honestly immaterial at this point. The REAL issue is (or should be) in all of our minds: why CANT we know?

IMHO, you can all speculate with your grainy videos, and theories all you like. What you'll accomplish is another "JFK" where no one REALLY knows, and quite frankly, there is NO way to really find out. Unless....


Maybe you just step outside the house with no windows, and see that the sky is blue instead because NOW you know...


This is just my logic and how I see things.


AB1



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Damocles, The point I am making is that people are seeing what they are told to see, the whole issue of 9/11 is a morass of ideas, thoughts, views, opinions, lies and deciet, most of which has been perpatrated by the media and the goverment. One has to sift through all of that to try and find the truth, while many here on ATS debate the colour of smoke etc. they are missing the real point, were terrorists responsible for these events or was it some goverment backed organisation. Once you establish one or the other then you may get to the truth. This is what the debate should be about. What was going on in or around thes sites, days weeks or even months before, was there any suspicious activity is anybody checking that out.

It is more than likely that the 9/11 attacks were carried out with goverment knowledge. The are too many coincidences on that day for it not to be so. The Oklahoma bombing shows all the hall marks of being a practice run for 9/11, the can we use a bomb in plain site, what will be the public reaction, we will get away with it, and they did didnt they yet again the official story was the lone bomber. It must be something unique to American that you have only one person ever involved in assainations and bombs going off.

The Goverments complete and utter failure to get to find the truth behind 9/11 screams of culpability and collusion. They wanted a war and a reason for it and they gave it to you. Now Bush is lying about Iran where will be the next 9/11, how long are the people of America going to keep believing the lies. This Video was edited why and by whom, who is still suppressing the 9/11 events who has something to hide and loose. If the Goverment are right why dont they show all the recorded footage of that day, all the video tapes that were seized, where is all the evidence, why after 5 years has it not been made public. I'll tell you why because its one big lie, on in which thousands of Americans were killed and thousands more are being killed in Iraq, and when Iran kicks off it will be tens of thousands.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Did anyone notice that around 8:25-8:30 there is what looks like a translucent helicopter turning around? It's just under the lowest damage on the building.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Wow..

This is about the best evidence on explosions before the collapse. flashes and sound @ 7:52
They must have forgotten to cut this out. a negligent mason


Well, to them who still don't see. Hopefully you'll open your eyes before the New World Order has complete control over your freedom (mind).



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
EPHRIN SAID: ive already seen this film - and I dont like it much It has some good infos but its too much on the conspiracy /speculation side...

i think too much speculation is counterproductive and it is not much better than disinformation...

people have to learn that 9/11 was simply not possible

1)
high-rise steel structures can't collapse due to fire damage - it has never happened BEFORE ans AFTER 9/11
(wtc7 even wasn't hit by a air plane and collapsed the same way the twin towers did)

2)
An airplane cannot hit the Pentagon (the best defended building in the world), 30 minutes after everyone watching CNN knew that the uS was under attack. The Pentagon has its own air defense system, it doesn't need fighter jets for protection.

and so on and on... I could tell you hundreds of other points why its not possible...

Ephrin,
Again, I don't want to seem like I am "debunking" you or what you believe.

1) Planes have NEVER been used as missels EVER in the past. I dont know of any study that has been done prior to 911 that would guarantee a building remain standing (or the aftermath) after a commerical airliner intentionally slams into it.

2) An airplane DID hit the pentagon. Ask yourself, why would 3 of the 4 planes that were high-jacked be used as missels, but the 4th one ( the one that hits the pentagon) They decide to hide it, hide all the passengers, (then do WHAT with them) And fire a missle into the pentagon. There were Several cell phone calls from people on that plane to loved ones. I dont buy the idea that someone doctored their voices and made phone calls to loved ones (as theorized by Loose Change)

I'm sorry you didn't like "Who Killed John O'Neil". I did find it rather difficult to follow, thats why i took notes and followed up with my own research. The reason why I liked it ? The questions it raised about our government. The questions I have yet to have been answered ( and I have asked them to CT Debunkers, Republicans and Democrats:

1. WHY Did Bush wait over 400 days to open an investigation into the Murder of 3 thousand Americans? Why did he allow an original budget of only 3 million dollars .....

When after the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on February 1st 2003. March 25th Bush authorized the following: $50M is provided to NASA to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy and additional flexibility is provided to the Administrator to utilize resources where they are most appropriate. www.aas.org...

50 million dollars to investigate the death of 7 people (I am not diminishing what happened) Less than two months after the Columbia disaster.



2. Why did he hire his close friend Henry Kissinger to be the committe chairman(only to see him resign after pressure from the families of the vicitims)

archives.cnn.com...

3. Why did he refuse to offer testimony to the 911 Commision UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him at the time of questioning.

4. www.youtube.com... Bush Was Caught off guard with this one! In reference to what he knew about 911 Prior to.

Anywho....my search goes on and on.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The reason why I liked it ? The questions it raised about our government. The questions I have yet to have been answered ( and I have asked them to CT Debunkers, Republicans and Democrats:

1. WHY Did Bush wait over 400 days to open an investigation into the Murder of 3 thousand Americans? Why did he allow an original budget of only 3 million dollars .....

When after the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on February 1st 2003. March 25th Bush authorized the following: $50M is provided to NASA to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy and additional flexibility is provided to the Administrator to utilize resources where they are most appropriate. www.aas.org...

50 million dollars to investigate the death of 7 people (I am not diminishing what happened) Less than two months after the Columbia disaster.

2. Why did he hire his close friend Henry Kissinger to be the committe chairman(only to see him resign after pressure from the families of the vicitims)

archives.cnn.com...

3. Why did he refuse to offer testimony to the 911 Commision UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him at the time of questioning.

4. www.youtube.com... Bush Was Caught off guard with this one! In reference to what he knew about 911 Prior to.

Anywho....my search goes on and on.


ThroatYogurt,

Exactly! These are the questions I think need to be addressed. People spend too much time trying to figure out whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, whether the towers were controlled demolition, etc. We need to have discussion about these questions you have listed.

Very good point



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions.
-- President Bush on being questioned with Vice President Dick Cheney from the 911 Commission


[edit on 23-10-2006 by ThroatYogurt]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Thanks Jab ~

I just feel it's a good starting point. If you start with FACTS, then people will take you seriously.

This administration should be held accountable for the actions it did and didn't make, post and pre 911. I do believe the 911 Commission should re-open its investigation, but who am I? Maybe there should be a legitimate partition drawn up for more questioning of all government officals.

Bush I believe is hiding somthing, like I said, I like to deal with facts...Lets look at some FACTS about the questioning he received from the 911 Commission:

1-Bush said it was important for him and Cheney to appear together so that commission members could "see our body language... how we work together."

2- "They had a lot of questions and ... I'm glad I did it," Bush said. "I'm glad I took the time.".... YET:the administration initially opposed the creation of the commission. The White House relented amid pressure from some 9/11 family members and it later backed down from its opposition to an extension of time for the commission.

3-Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.

4-Bush brushed off a question from a reporter after the questioning was over on whether 9/11 families were entitled to a transcript of the session.
"You asked me that question yesterday," Bush replied. "I got the same answer."
He did not repeat the answer, but the White House has said there will not be a transcript of the session. Bush said he expects details of his "conversation" with the commission to go into its final report.

5-The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., although two commission members -- Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- left about an hour earlier.
In a written statement, Kerrey said he left early to attend "a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill." ( something more important than talking with the President of the United States???)

6-Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel, and their sessions were recorded.

7- Bush and Cheney had spent several hours over the few days leading up to the questioning preparing, aides said.
Bush, for example, reviewed intelligence briefings from 2001 and spent time talking to Gonzales, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and chief of staff Andrew Card, who was traveling with Bush in Florida on the morning of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
A senior administration official said Bush's preparations also included conversations with Cheney.
Officials said that among the documents prepared for both men to review were intelligence reports from the months and weeks before the attacks and what one senior official called "chronologies and other records of events in that time period."
They also reviewed transcripts and summaries of previous testimony to the commission -- including that of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

Anyway...It smells kinda funny to me

If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions.
-- President Bush on being questioned with Vice President Dick Cheney from the 911 Commission


[edit on 23-10-2006 by ThroatYogurt]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Hi,

THis video brings back painful memories and I am on the fence as to whether it was a controlled demolition or not, however I was I must admit shocked by what I saw on this video as pointed out at roughly 7.52/7.53.
There are two distinct white flashes accompanied by the sounds of explosions, they are hard to hear with the other noise recorded on the tape but it is quite clear.
For those who are having trouble seeing this, when you look at the tower and see the darker grey 'band' of floors roughly 2/3 of the way up the building, the first flash occurs roughly five to six floors above, the next is just below.
These flashes indicate to me internal explosions on those floors.
I am just giving my opinion, I am no expert but to the naked eye it really looks and sounds supicious.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
"1) Planes have NEVER been used as missels EVER in the past." -ThroatYogurt

Not true- Remember Kamakazi?
But that's ok- nearly every member of the present administration used the same quote.
So you're in good company.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Not true- Remember Kamakazi? < Subject X

I dont recall them flying 767's into skyscrapers. That was the point I was making.

Im not sure what you meant as to me being in "good company".

Because I don't favor the controlled demolition theory does not mean I don't support the theory that our government had somthing to do with this.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
About the "explosions" at 7:52...

I think this is really grasping for proof here. There are actually 4 flashes, one that happens in front of the smoke coming out of the impact area at 7:48, the two that have been pointed out, and then lower on the building at about 7:57. However, the sound of the "explosion" only occurs once, why not 4 times?

The flashes also move from the top right of the building down to the bottom left, which, if you look at the smoke, is the direction the wind is blowing.

It's quite obvious (to me, anyway) it's just a piece of debris falling and catching the sunlight.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by odhen]


137

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Oh c'mon the awnser is in plain sight!




pyroclastic flow

stop the ignorance!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The truth!!!!

Yes, it is!

No planes, no nano nano nukes,

just what is on that page.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
"1) Planes have NEVER been used as missels EVER in the past." -ThroatYogurt

Have you ever heard of Project Bojinka in 1995 ?

"...a plan to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia and other buildings. Oplan Bojinka was prevented on January 6 and 7, 1995, but some lessons learned were apparently used by the planners of the September 11 attacks."
en.wikipedia.org...

The CIA prevented the attack in 1995, so they KNEW about these plans!!! Don't you see the connection between Bojinka and 9/11

Also, the Pentagon was prepared for the attack. They did an exercise with a Boeing crashing into it ONE YEAR before 9/11 !!!!

"While nothing could prepare the country for the events of Sept. 11, the Air Force medical staff had practiced for this type of situtation. Dr. Carlton* told U.S. MEDICINE that his team had run an exercise in May with a scenario in which a 757 crashes into the Pentagon. "We had worked out what would happen [and] what was needed," he said. "
www.usmedicine.com...

Who still believes that 9/11 wasn't a government operation????


[edit on 24-10-2006 by ephrin]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Will To Power
Did anyone notice that around 8:25-8:30 there is what looks like a translucent helicopter turning around? It's just under the lowest damage on the building.



I saw what you are talking about... but I can't say it's a helicopter any more than lint on the lens or film or something... Not sure.. I wish some more people would look at it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join