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.

 

The phone call that disproves controlled demo theory?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
didn't he say tower#2, meaning south tower?

if so, the video shcows the north tower collapsing, which means that it's cut to convey a false situational awareness.


Plus you wouldn't hear nanoenergetics going off as explosions anyway, which is your nano-thermites and other nano-tech applications of incendiaries or whatever may be used. Not only is it quiet but it's also subtle visually, until the actual floor-by-floor sequence begins a couple seconds later (WTC2).

Hard to prove a negative in general, let alone by assuming the hardest to place, most obvious kinds of explosives were used for the whole thing.

Less risky to prove a negative when the positive requires laws of physics to not apply, though.



on top of that,


On top of that is all the same bad physics that no one even tries to address, and just ignores or, I guess, assumes there's some other explanation but that no one can figure it out. And this is the lack of (negative) acceleration, the loss of the angular momentum in WTC2, the expulsions Long Lance points out, huge sections of steel traveling great distances laterally from the buildings, almost all of their masses "falling" OUTSIDE of themselves, what appears to be sublimating steel, and all number of other anomalies that come out when you think in a little more detail beyond "they caught on fire and just fell down".




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Possibly because you can hear explosions? I call dis-info here...sorry.


but the squibs (or so called explosions) are starting as the building collapse and not 5 minutes before...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Someone obviously just put the sound over the video, that doesn't mean the recording is false though.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeMitsuko
now explain how can the eyewitnesses have eyewitnessed an none visible explosion, or is the exploisions was visible? in that case bring pictures of explosions. and no, the squibs were not explosions but debris that was air pressured out by the collapse.

and see the video i brought from above to see how real controlled demo is like...


Obviously you missed the part where I said that it doesn't mean bombs. There WERE explosions. Even reported by eyewitness news crews on scene. But I guess eyewitnesses can't see explosions obviously. So, I guess I need to say earwitnesses? Come on...quit pulling for straws.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeMitsuko

Originally posted by Griff
Possibly because you can hear explosions? I call dis-info here...sorry.


but the squibs (or so called explosions) are starting as the building collapse and not 5 minutes before...


Why are you trying to argue things that I'm not even getting at? Squibs? Where in hell have I stated ANYTHING about squibs? I'm talking of the explosions that were heard by EVERYONE in the area during the fires and before the collapse. Look it up, there WERE explosions going off. Doesn't mean bombs though.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by DeMitsuko

Originally posted by Griff
Possibly because you can hear explosions? I call dis-info here...sorry.


but the squibs (or so called explosions) are starting as the building collapse and not 5 minutes before...


Why are you trying to argue things that I'm not even getting at? Squibs? Where in hell have I stated ANYTHING about squibs? I'm talking of the explosions that were heard by EVERYONE in the area during the fires and before the collapse. Look it up, there WERE explosions going off. Doesn't mean bombs though.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]


Griff, no offense, but you're confusing the original intent of this post. The only part of the phone call that matters to the discussion is the last 3-5 seconds, when the building collapses.

Squibs would make a bang. I couldn't hear any on the call, even though it cut off within a second or two after the rumbling starts.

And to your point of explosions -- people reported "hearing" explosions as the building collapsed. Wouldn't the world's tallest skyscrapers make a lot of noise coming down just because of cacophony of material? Isn't it reasonable that people confused explosions with just the bangs of the towers collapsing?

Still, the original intent remains: I hear no explosions on this call at the time of the collapse. That -- to me -- means no squibs and no CD!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeMitsuko
but the squibs (or so called explosions) are starting as the building collapse and not 5 minutes before...


Several people reported deep basement explosions that created thick white smoke, and you can see this rising from the basements of the towers '93-bombing-style in a good number of photos.





You can't see the blasts themselves from the exterior, until the collapses actually started, because they were contained WITHIN the building.

The real question is, why would they detonate obvious bombs from within the buildings before they collapsed, if they didn't want people to know that someone had gained access and planted bombs in the building?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Still, the original intent remains: I hear no explosions on this call at the time of the collapse. That -- to me -- means no squibs and no CD!


What kind of sound do you think thermite makes?


This is how a demolition would have been initiated, to avoid the obvious first "bangs" and visual explosions, until the building had already began to tilt on its own.

Superthermite developed at Los Alamos from an article from the Chief Technology Officers Network:


Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are exploring the potential to release
energy from nanoparticles – nano explosives. Nanoenergetics is a new field in which
nanoaluminum particles are used as more effective explosives. Just as with the suntan
products, the nanoaluminum presents a higher surface area to volume of the material.
This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminum achieves chemical
reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material.
Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest
atomic level. This means that nanoaluminum and the “superthermite” that is made from it
are presenting significantly more powerful weapons than those in use today. Details on
this power and ongoing projects are not publicly available. But, it is instructive that the
experiments are being carried out at the same laboratory that created the designs for most
of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal (Gartner, 2005).



COMBUSTION OF CONSOLIDATED AND CONFINED METASTABLE INTERMOLECULAR COMPOSITES:


The term, Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MIC) refers to an important subset of nanoenergetics. It is also known as a superthermite, or simply nanothermite, which are more descriptive terms. Typical compositions use a nanoscale metal fuel plus a nanoscale metal oxidizer. The reactions produce a large
amount of energy liberated primarily as heat. The high surface to volume ratio and the increased surface
contact between the reactants leads to a very rapid oxidation when compared to conventional (micronscale) thermites. This paper presents a mathematical model for the combustion wave propagation of consolidated and confined MIC pellets. In addition, a review of the current understanding of MIC as related to ignition and combustion mechanisms is presented and organized into four basic categories. Results of published and unpublished investigations on combustion mechanisms, such as ignition and burn rates are compiled and discussed so as to provide a single source of information for the technical community.


AMPTIAC Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1: DOD Researchers Provide A Look Inside Nanotechnology:


In recent years researchers have found that energetic materials/ingredients that are produced on the nanoscale have the promise of increased performance in a variety of ways including sensitivity, stability, energy release, and mechanical pro p e rties. As such, they represent a completely new frontier for energetic material research and development with the potential for major payoffs in weapons systems. Very simply, nanoenergetics can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and one can use them in unprecedented ways to tailor the release of this energy so as to maximize the lethality of the weapons. The field of nanoenergetics R&D is quite young, but is already undergoing rapid growth. The goal of this article is to give the reader a sense for the physical and chemical characteristics and properties that make these materials so promising.





THEN the puffs start coming out in rows:








And even then, depending on the type of explosive(s) and where they were placed (unknowns), you still might not even hear sharp spikes.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I mean we know that they were beyond negligent to not intercept some of those planes which were in the air over an hour - it's ludicrous.


Get real. Intercept with what? Contrary to what some people think there were not armed fighter aircraft patrolling the skies on 9-11. It would take at a minimum 90 minutes to arm fighters and brief their crews for an intercept. Then what if they had shot down one or both of these aircraft? Look at all of the pepole who think that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was shot down, listen to their whining.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Other unexplained phenomenna - such as the fact that more energy was put into the collapsing system then could have been created by the plane collision - has yet to be adequately explained by any official agency.


There was more energy added to the collapse. It was added by a phenomena called GRAVITY.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But even without controlled demolition - the US Govt. has much to answer for regarding 9/11


Such as?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Anyone have access to the unedited version of this conversation? If not, then I'd say this phone call proves nothing and is probably dis-info.


Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.'' [NY Times]
Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]


Source: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Here's a video of people saying they heard "explosions" in the towers.

www.youtube.com...



"I got off [the elevator], turned the corner and opened the door to the ladies' room. I said good morning to a lady sitting at a mirror when the whole building shook. I thought it was an earthquake. Then I heard those banging noises on the other side of the wall. It sounded like someone had cut the elevator cables. It just fell and fell and fell.

I began to cry. "Oh, my God, I just got off that elevator!" I said. "That could have been me." I prayed those other people had gotten off on the 48th floor before the elevator dropped. But I didn't have much time to be upset because the building shook again, this time even more violently. The lady at the mirror grabbed onto me and held on for dear life."



Veliz went down a staircase with a coworker to the concourse level. In the mall, they got onto an up-escalator as the South Tower collapsed, causing a rush of wind which knocked them down. In the pitch black, Veliz and her coworker followed someone carrying a flashlight:


"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."



Source: www.thememoryhole.org...

Hmm...why would the building shake a second time? Even more violently than the first time? Explosions maybe?

Do I need to continue? It is FACT that there were secondary explosions going on. This is irrefutable. Unless you'd like to call these people liars? Again, explosions do not equal bombs. But if people on the ground and elswhere could hear explosions going off, why can't we hear them on the conversation? Edited out from the begining of the phone call?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Plus you wouldn't hear nanoenergetics going off as explosions anyway, which is your nano-thermites and other nano-tech applications of incendiaries or whatever may be used. Not only is it quiet but it's also subtle visually, until the actual floor-by-floor sequence begins a couple seconds later (WTC2).


Nano WHAT? Any proof that this nano-whatsit exists? There was a thread on ATS about the composition of dust samples taken from the WTC after the collapse. The listed components of this dust had no Nitrates mentioned. Since the majority of explosives are Nitrate based, I think this kind of puts a dent in the explosives theories.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The energy that helped bring down the buildings is not only Gravity. I have to believe that there was more energy than that. If it was "Gravity alone" Than there is something called the theory of reistance, which would make the collapse happen at a much slower pace!!! The squibs are very troubling indeed, as they are very obvious, and I just don't belive the idea that it is just air being pushed out of the buildings!!! Anytime I watch the video, it is something to see giant steel being thrusted away from the buildings. What energy was present beside jet fuel to make that happen? The other thing, is how come there is no core left from just a "Pancake Collapse"?? The core in each of these buildings were massive, to have a floor pancake collapse would have taken a long time due to the theory of resistance. Sorry but Gravity and fire is was not the energy we saw that day bringing down the towers!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Griff, no offense, but you're confusing the original intent of this post. The only part of the phone call that matters to the discussion is the last 3-5 seconds, when the building collapses.


No, you are confused. I agree that the last part is important, but I also think the beginning of the conversation is also important. If we could hear explosions at the beggining of the conversation and then not at the end, I would say you have a point. But, for some reason, the beginning of the conversation is edited out.


Squibs would make a bang. I couldn't hear any on the call, even though it cut off within a second or two after the rumbling starts.


Floors falling in on themselves would also cause a bang. Do you hear any bangs from floors collapsing?


And to your point of explosions -- people reported "hearing" explosions as the building collapsed.


No, people reported explosions before, during and after the building collapsed.


Wouldn't the world's tallest skyscrapers make a lot of noise coming down just because of cacophony of material? Isn't it reasonable that people confused explosions with just the bangs of the towers collapsing?


Yes, it's possible except that reports of secondary explosions were reported before ANY tower had started to collapse.


Still, the original intent remains: I hear no explosions on this call at the time of the collapse. That -- to me -- means no squibs and no CD!


It also tells me that the explosions that were reported during the fires could also have not been picked up by the reciever and therefore, the possible explosions at the collapse could not be heard by the reciever also.

And I'm not even convinced of the bomb theory.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There was more energy added to the collapse. It was added by a phenomena called GRAVITY.


Actually gravity is a force. The energy would have been the potential energy converting to kinetic energy. Being a mechanical engineer, I would assume you knew this. Unless you mean that the force of gravity grew as the building came down? Please explain more. Thanks.

And as the potential energy is being converted to kinetic, it is also being converted to energy to overcome friction, resistance of the lower building, sound energy, energy to pulverise concrete, heat energy etc.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Get real. Intercept with what? Contrary to what some people think there were not armed fighter aircraft patrolling the skies on 9-11. It would take at a minimum 90 minutes to arm fighters and brief their crews for an intercept. Then what if they had shot down one or both of these aircraft? Look at all of the pepole who think that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was shot down, listen to their whining.




Oh man that sounded like Arie Fliescher or something. You ALWAYS get a visual on an airliner that is not communicating anymore, that is what has always been done. IT doesnt mean you shoot it down, it means you find out what the hell is going on with that aircraft. Give me a break! You dont have high jacked aircraft flying around the eastern seaboard smashing into buildings for nearly two hours without an escort!!!

No armed fighters on the eatern seaboard of the United States? You really believe that? I am positive we had planes with "hot guns" maybe not missles but we had armed aircraft. Been that way since the cold war started and has never ended. You think we leave D.C. open for attack without aircraft ready?



Firefighters do not get confused between and explosion and a building in its collapse phase. We know what a damn explosion sounds like, its our job man.

NYFD:" boom boom boom it starts popping out, like a controled demolition"

That is from the most profesional competant fire department mankind has ever seen.

The fire service doesnt talk crap, when we make a mistake people die.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nano WHAT? Any proof that this nano-whatsit exists? There was a thread on ATS about the composition of dust samples taken from the WTC after the collapse. The listed components of this dust had no Nitrates mentioned. Since the majority of explosives are Nitrate based, I think this kind of puts a dent in the explosives theories.


Nanothermate has no nitrates. Look into the dust samples. I'm trying to search for the chemical found in the EPA samples that were thousands of times more than should have been as presented by Slap Nuts, but can't find it at the moment. And according to Slap Nuts, this chemical is a by-product of nanothermates encased in sure-gel or aero-gel. I haven't verified this personally.


kix

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Make this test:

take out the video and put it on a digital waveform analisis program.
Youll notice some things:

1) the background noise is random it doesnt go up or down consistenly just randomly.
2) He shouts Oh god and that to me is proof of a demolition because:

a) If the building gave away as we see on the video ON TOP OF HIM he would not have the awareness of falling , just a slit second before the top floor pancaked him.
b) He was not on the broken part of the building since ther was "suposedly" fires of high temps there.
c) If the Building gave away (So he was ON top of the collapse part) the falling is almost at gravity speed so the shouts that are close to 1/2 second equal at least 4 meters of falling... so...it means the Whole structure gave away not gradually...he just experienced freefall...

Now on the program check if you can hear noises of 100 hz or lower...I dont think so, in fact most Phones have limited bandwith so a phone call is a really bad way to look for low frequency noises and or high decibel noises, since they overload easily since the bandwith and dynamic range is quite limited...

Anyways nice try....



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nano WHAT? Any proof that this nano-whatsit exists?


That's why I included those links and excerpts from articles from three different (credible) sources. Actually read this post and you'll see them.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
a) If the building gave away as we see on the video ON TOP OF HIM he would not have the awareness of falling , just a slit second before the top floor pancaked him.


he heard and saw the building starting to collapse and indeed had the time to say god oh god...


Originally posted by kix
b) He was not on the broken part of the building since ther was "suposedly" fires of high temps there.


and?


Originally posted by kix
c) If the Building gave away (So he was ON top of the collapse part) the falling is almost at gravity speed so the shouts that are close to 1/2 second equal at least 4 meters of falling... so...it means the Whole structure gave away not gradually...he just experienced freefall...


it was not at freefall speed. and he could see that the building is about to come down and he had just about enough clues to figure it out to have that 1 second to say god oh god.


Originally posted by kix
Now on the program check if you can hear noises of 100 hz or lower...I dont think so, in fact most Phones have limited bandwith so a phone call is a really bad way to look for low frequency noises and or high decibel noises, since they overload easily since the bandwith and dynamic range is quite limited...


BS. if there were explosions we should have hear them. take a look here and tell me if i put my phone could you not hear that explosions?!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


Originally posted by kix
Anyways nice try....


how lovely.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Make this test:

take out the video and put it on a digital waveform analisis program.
Youll notice some things:

1) the background noise is random it doesnt go up or down consistenly just randomly.


What does that have to do with anything? You need to put that in perspective. Randomality, at a time of panic and chaos, makes sense to me. But, please be more specific. You seem to allude that because it's random, the phone call is, what? A disinfo product? Made up?



2) He shouts Oh god and that to me is proof of a demolition because:

a) If the building gave away as we see on the video ON TOP OF HIM he would not have the awareness of falling , just a slit second before the top floor pancaked him.

He was on the 105th floor....I believe the top floor stayed largely intact for a second or two during freefall before it was pulverized with the rest of the structure.


b) He was not on the broken part of the building since ther was "suposedly" fires of high temps there.

I'm not sure what you mean by that....



c) If the Building gave away (So he was ON top of the collapse part) the falling is almost at gravity speed so the shouts that are close to 1/2 second equal at least 4 meters of falling... so...it means the Whole structure gave away not gradually...he just experienced freefall...

You seem to agree with what I said earlier in this statement. He started shouting "oh god..." when he felt the vibrations in the building and heard the rumble just before kinetic went active.


Now on the program check if you can hear noises of 100 hz or lower...I dont think so, in fact most Phones have limited bandwith so a phone call is a really bad way to look for low frequency noises and or high decibel noises, since they overload easily since the bandwith and dynamic range is quite limited...


Seriously....are you saying that a typical phone would not register a bomb explosion because the decible would be too high? And besides, an explosion is a noise that travels a range of decibles, so the phone will pick up the lower hz parts of an explosion even if it can't register the top ranges. Your argument here makes no sense.



Anyways nice try....


Right back at ya....

[edit on 30-1-2007 by behindthescenes]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join