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.


Explosions - Bottom floor WTC

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind

So they set off a bunch of explosives an hour before the collapse?

What purpose could that possibly serve?

A new 9/11 investigation needs to try and find the answer to this question.

You, however, ask this question and use it as a reason to defend the false position that explosions did not happen in the lower levels of the buildings, WHEN IN FACT THEY DID.

How do we know this for a fact?

Right here below (for the umpteenth time)...I repeat, NO ONE HAS REFUTED THIS INFORMATION YET.


Sorry I have to yell, but I am tired of people not facing up to the facts.

This report has times of plane "impacts" from the 9/11 Commission Final Report and from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). Their times are both different, and yet both times are TRUE. How can this be?

Read the report (if you are brave enough and intellectually honest with yourself and your fellow man). The key is to look exclusively at WTC1 and AA Flt 11, for there is an undeniable causal link.

If you can refute this information, please post it now (you would be the first one to do so).

And please feel free to share this around the internet: explosions in the basements before the impacts denote coverup and complicity.

Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: /

One World Trade, September 11th, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
Both times: real, accurate, precise to the second

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event ~10 seconds before the aircrash?
A- The only possibility: huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses.

Q- Who caused these explosions?

The 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed, and NIST avoided these same eyewitness testimonies as well.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s reported time of the aircrash.
The Ginny Carr audiotape has an ~9.2 second-gap between initial explosion and aircrash.

Now is the time for the new 9/11 investigation, this time a real on with teeth!

Justice waits.

[And there is no Statute of Limitation on murder.]
This data has not been refuted by anyone. It is from the two official government entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both issued reports declaring these precision times to be real and accurate, and the times corroborate William Rodriguez and all the other eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified to explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before AA Flt 11 struck the building.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:26 AM

The Ginny Carr audiotape has an ~9.2 second-gap between initial explosion and aircrash.

What is the "Ginny Carr audiotape"?

[edit on 11-11-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Valhall

The Ginny Carr audiotape has an ~9.2 second-gap between initial explosion and aircrash.

What is the "Ginny Carr audiotape"?

[edit on 11-11-2006 by Valhall]

Hi, Valhall,

In the report it was originally worded in error as the "Jenny Carr" audiotape.

Ginny Carr, along with her business associates, attended a business meeting at 1 Liberty Plaza the morning of 9/11. They were tape recording their meeting, and this is the audiotape referred to:

Listen to the first audio. The first explosion occurs ~35 seconds in, the second ~9 seconds later.

To be honest with you, right now when I got this link for you in order to determine just how many seconds in the first explosion was, after listening to it (again), I'm not so sure this tape is corroboration of what is stated in the paper.

It sounded to me just now, upon an even closer audio inspection, that the first explosion just might be the aircraft hitting (can you hear the "swhoosh" of the aircraft coming in just before the crash?), and the next "explosion" about a little over 9 seconds later might be just some extraneous noise in the room where the recording was being made. I don't know.

But either way it doesn't matter. This audiotape is only secondary evidence. The paper still stands on the "official times", just as it always has.

"Official times"--what a laugh. In the final analysis, the government is implicated by its own ironic, and yet so fitting.


posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 02:51 PM
Wow - I'm listening now. What a piece of history. And I had never heard about this. Thank you very much for pointing me to the site, and for bringing this up.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:38 AM
I think I may have found the conduit for damage at the Lobby level.

"It was quite hectic, and we did what we could to stay in contact with the elevator passengers while helping to direct other people out of the building and direct firemen to the stairs and the elevators," Bobbitt remarked. "When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."

Now, we know Car #6 ran from B1 to 107, so it could have allowed an FAE to communicate to the Lobby and B1 level. Now, I can't find anything on Car #7, but there were two express elevators that ran from the Lobby to 106 and 107 (Windows on the World), so Car #7 could have been one of these.

Sorry, forgot link,

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:33 PM
Today is a breakthrough day…please look at this…and when you’re done, you may want to pass this on to others ASAP.

Steel being pulverized into dust via new weaponry (energy-directed).
Here you can watch the video:

Here is Dr. Judy Wood's and Morgan Reynold's new website:
And Dr. Wood's paper:
especially this page, about a quarter of the way down (steel to dust)

This can be better understood by:
Listening to the two hours of Professor James Fetzer’s Non-Random Thought Show for yesterday, 11/11/06; his guest is Dr. Wood:

(Arabs with box cutters don’t have this technology just yet!)

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:35 PM
I would take anything Woods and Reynolds are saying with a grain of salt at this point. Or two or three grains.

I'll still consider whatever they have to offer, but their exchanges with Steven Jones showed how fast and loose they were with information (comparing aluminum in low light and tungsten with the molten material seen in daylight on 9/11), and how unreliable they are and willing to cling tight to unsupported theories (the no-plane stuff). I wouldn't be surprised if their whole purpose was to poison the wells.

Reynolds comes from the same university (Texas A&M) as Bush's new Secretary of Defense, and former CIA operative of many years, back from the days of MK-ULTRA and through Iran Contra, Robert Gates. Gates was the president of Texas A&M. Reynolds himself was ALSO formerly on Bush's cabinet.

I think all of that is reason enough to be wary of that guy, regardless of the sloppiness of their work thus far.

Edit: Just read over those pages.

I can't believe what I'm hearing, of Fetzer and etc. going nutty over this stuff.

Guess I'm going to be posting with the likes of HowardRoark and etc. for a bit if this stuff sticks around like Scholars is pushing it.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by quicknthedead
Steel being pulverized into dust via new weaponry (energy-directed).
Here you can watch the video:

There's more on the site that I'm still looking over, but there is already a problem here.

The part of the spire you're watching there drops straight down, leaving fine dust behind it, but it does not disintegrate or pulverize mid-air. It falls, while appearing to sublimate, but is still largely solid and intact as it drops straight down.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:56 AM
Go again to this link:

and go about a quarter of the way down. Look closely at Figure 37, and then look at the videos in Figure 38a & 38b.

I know this sounds far-fetched, and I know all about the Wood-Reynolds fracas (and I am definitely on Steven Jones' side), this video doesn't look like smoke to me. As crazy as it sounds, what if technology has been invented that, by affecting a certain ocillating frequency for a certain material, you could affect it in a destructive manner. The steel sure looks like it's disintegrating to me, especially in #38b.

Sounds like science fiction, and yes, I know Dr. Judy Wood is a little kooky, and I also know she's not dead-on in places (even in this new information) but look at the entire info. Is this new technology (that has probably been around for many years), delivered from space (Wood's estimate, and she maybe right).

We know the towers were basically pulverised to dust, unlike a conventional controlled demolition, definitely not like a normal building collapse; and this is far from screwball stuff like hologram planes.

Read her report about the absence of all the steel in the debris. It just wasn't there.

And we need to be careful we don't act like the OCT'rs; they don't even look anymore.

I appreciate your taking it with many grains of salt.

Is this just my 57 year-old eyes crapping out on that video?
But what happened to all the mass of those buildings? Where did it all go?

Did the buildings go up in smoke, or did they go up in dust?

I know Dr. Fetzer quite well and I know he is not off his rocker. We can all make mistakes, and I do value your opinion, Brian. Why even today I was reading your Faulty Assumptions paper (good stuff).

I just looked at the video again. It looks like the steel disintegrated.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:00 AM

If they were talking about putting this kind of weaponry in the hands of the everyday soldier, this means the technology has been around for quite awhile.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:52 AM

Originally posted by quicknthedead

Steel being pulverized into dust via new weaponry (energy-directed).
Here you can watch the video:

I hate to say this but this is what gives the CT people a bad name.

I dont think that gets turned to dust, it goes straight down as Bray states.

I want to see REAL PROOF, VISUAL PROOF of this stuff happening. Untill then its no better than the no plane theory at WTC 1 and 2..

I cant believe you people, what is wrong wit you guys.. You are suppost to be 9/11 truth, I think this is more along the lines of 9/11 disinfo.

Get more proof and lets talk, till then.. its all bunk.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:28 AM
Although I'm not a fan of either, ThichHeaded is right in saying that the "Hologram", "Star Wars" and the "Super Ray Gun" kind of theories are much less credible than the other theories.

Mind you - Fetzer himself seems to support the beam theory.

Judy Wood expounds on her "Star Wars weapons destroyed the World Trade Center" theory, while Fetzer repeatedly screams excitedly, "Wow!". At one point early on, after claiming that the elections would have gone even more for the Democrats had the Diebold voting machines not been rigged, he proclaims that Wood is, "The single most

I hope for the sake of both sides of this debate that ST911 doesn't begin officially supporting hologram or beam theories.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:55 AM
Its not only that, these wackjobs are putting the whole 9/11 truth in jeopardy man..
(not that I really care about the 9/11 truth group, but as a whole its bad.)

I can see perhaps or what not, but these guys are coming at it as straight fact. Which it is not, I have seen no proof to support this. Nothing...

If you guys want to get this up give us real straight in your face proof, until then It is just more garbage on the Internet as far as I am concerned.

And believe me, this is the 1st time doctorfungi and I have agreed. Facts or shut up, cause you are making real CT people look insane..

[edit on 11/13/2006 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:02 AM
Not to mention it wasn't on topic for this thread and now we have a big multi-post pile-up littering the roadway. quick if you want to discuss those

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:02 AM
Not to mention it wasn't on topic for this thread and now we have a big multi-post pile-up littering the roadway. quick if you want to discuss those theories -

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:07 AM
Hey Valhal,

Since when isn't someones theory not fitting in with one beliefs???

This is about explosions of the bottom floor of WTC. So we talking B5 or just lobby level, cause those crack pots can post that crap in here also...

If that's what happened their theory fits in with our CD theory just as much. I don't see how it went off topic if you ask me.

Back on topic maybe it did happen naturally, maybe it was CD, or maybe super lazers took out the towers. or possibly aliens.. Or maybe a missile at Woolworth.. Its all there..

Back to topic.

oh BTW nice rack up on posts, wanna talk about goin off topic there........

[edit on 11/13/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 11/13/2006 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:11 AM
Okay, I can't find anything in the laser stuff that connects with the discussion of possible explosions in the bottom of the tower.

Maybe I missed it.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:17 AM
I am just defending thier stand, ask them when they get here..

I am sure something odd will come up.. perhaps it was the sound of all the lights blowing up as the lazer went thru the building before it fell.. I dont know..

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:21 AM
You're defending their position for what? To be called a whack-job by you? You're the one treating quick in a disrespectful manner. I pointed out that the theory he brought up might be better served (and also serve this thread better) in it's own dedicated thread.

This thread is about explosions in the basement - not about how the concrete disintegrated, or lasers dissolving the towers.

It is always best to delineate the discussions, else they get all divergent and unfocused. That was my point.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:02 PM
from all the videos available, and I finally found one that changed my mind and disproved this "steel to dust" theory to my satisfaction.

Using a LaBTop trick, I got it to the right spot on this video and then worked the slider on windows media player back and forth until I saw the momentum forces turning the spire while at the same time it gave way completely.

Here's the video I'm referring to:

The "steel to dust image" is simply an optical illusion when viewed a certain way.
No magic here. Dr. Judy Wood should study it closer too.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in