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.

 

Visible explosives 7 wtc

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
I truly do not understand how someone can get in a frenzy call someone a bigot and out of the other side of there mouth label that person like this "you are both #ING IDIOTS!!!!"

Are you a hypocrite? I don't think your comments are warranted.



[edit on 4-3-2007 by Realtruth]


do you believe in the holocaust? Because the Neo-nazis who use the term Zionist don't... Sorry if the death of 6 million people being denied... Yeah I'm a hypocrite, I believe that people who hate others deserve to be hated back... sorry I don't believe in standing by and letting somebody try and take advantage of a bad enough situation to further there cause... And I will Fight people like that...

If your not willing to do the same you really need to step back and check yourself... are you a bigot to???

there is only one acceptable form of bigotry... Bigotry of bigots...

sorry if you can't accept that




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
@CameronFox

You have no clue what you're talking about so quit while you're ahead, OK?

Explain why the building fell straight down, all at once, instead of certain parts of it coming down at a time.

Don't give me the "because there were fires on the inside that damaged the structure" excuse. That's a complete load of crap in all honesty.

Firefighters who were THERE said they heard explosions before each tower fell and before WTC7 fell and described them all and "each floor coming down on each other like stacked pancakes". Only a controlled demolition causes a building to fall perfectly straight down like that.

When the towers fell, the very tops from the wreckage up began to fall TO THE SIDE. Then you see the area beneath the wreckage fall perfectly straight down within seconds. This same exact thing happened with each tower. When the areas above the wreckage first started to come down they should have fell sideways, completely clearing the building as they fell. As seen in the video of them collapsing, right as the areas above the wreckage begin to fall you see small explosives going off about every 5 to 10 floors. It's evident in video you see of windows blowing out and they're obviously timed explosives going off.

When WTC7 fell you see that the middle of the building starts to collapse then it's followed by the rest. It's quick but you can see it. This is done in controlled demolitions so when the building falls, the sides fall afterwards to keep the collapse within itself. When you see the full shot of that building coming down it's pretty obvious it was a controlled blast. Even the guy who owned all these buildings said he told the people to "pull it". That's a demolition term for bringing it down with explosives. Don't even try to say that when he told them to pull it they set the explosives that day and pulled it. It takes weeks and even months in some cases to plan out where to put explosives in a controlled demolition. There's no way they could have done that all on 9-11. It was planned months in advance. People who worked there reported people coming in every once in a while working on things and when they asked what these people were working on they were given different answers, the run-around. they were planting explosives.

Get off your "I'm superior to everyone on ATS" high horse and drop all your pathetic excuses. When it comes to this you have no clue what you're talking about.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by nightmare_david]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef


Is this guy trying to say that explosives can't blow out windows?


well my first instinct would be to ask if you actually read my post with an open mind or if you are one of those that reads something that doesnt agree with your ideas and automatically dismisses it.

taht would be my first instinct but as this thread has already turned into one of those moronic name calling flame fests, ill resist that urge.

so, the short answer is no, im not saying explosives can not blow out windows.

im saying that in my opinion, which comes from years of actually blowing things up with real explosives, that THESE windows were not blown out by explosives.

read teh post again with an open mind. i offered what i felt to be a plausable explaination, though not necessarily the right one to what we are seeing but in my own professional opinion what we are NOT seeing is windows being blown out by explosive charges.

thats it.

but consider this my last opinion or post on this matter. this thread has turned into a load of crap. and personally...i want nothing more to do with it. if anyone wants to discuss IDEAS then feel free to u2u me.


[edit on 4-3-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
my first instinct was to go with the demo charges theory. On further thought I think it may be smoke escaping from the breaking windows.

If indeed the building was raging with fire, and if indeed this building had been retrofitted with new glass as was reported prior. Then it is entirely possible that the entire building was filled with black smoke and apon the building falling, the high strength windows broke, and inside pressure from the fire caused a back draft and escaped through the cracked windows.

I still don't think this building came down from fire alone though. I just think the puffs of smoke are only an artifact of the fire.

As this topic has stated many times, the way in which the building fell was suspect, and so was the fact that it fell at all to begin with.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
"" is this the "smoking gun" for control demolition? ""

NO - this is " the busting glass " gun.

give it up the 911 people , and face the fact 19 guys did it .

i used to think you people were funny , now your just sad and grasping at straws .



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I love to read all of these "IntraWeB Experts" take on the WTC 7 collapse.

Like: "It should fall in chunks" -- "It would fall like a chair without a leg" -- " It fell into its own footprint" -- and the classic "The owner (Silverstein) commanded it be brought down with controlled demolition..then admitted it on national TV!"

It just gets more pathetic each and every day. The Fallacy, the denial, the lack of "truthers" objective scepticism, the freakin anti-semitic roots of this "Truth Scam"

It is "truely" unbelievable

You asked me to do the "research" --I Have. I have watched hours of video, read for days on BOTH sides of the subject...if something I read or watch doesn't jive with my beliefs...I read on..or watch it ALL. I do this not to subject myself to redundant examples of idiocy...but to try and get the "complete picture" -- Hell, I have even been watching some freaky quick doc on the Annaaki from the secret planet of Niubu or some such crap to explain 9/11..WTF?

First, I want to address the anti-semitic propaganda the truth seekers are being exposed to daily. Now, if you are NOT a neo-nazi, jew-hater...fine, I understand that. However if you cannot see that is what's driving the "truth Movement" wagon, you just are not being very observent...

That is exactly what the leaders of this movement are counting on.

Do you not think the Truth leaders don't want you to engage in the very daunting distraction of the fine detail of building design or burn points or any of the other tidbits of information that can be argued ad.infinium?

Sure they do, it keeps you distracted from the real questions.

Too me those discussions have less and less appeal...I want the answers to the big questions.

Who exactly is behind this movement? What are their goals? How would their goals (if they exist) be realized? What would this new regime's direction be if "the alleged evil powers that be" are replaced? Who would be the replacements?

If there are no real answers for all of these questions...this whole ball of popcorn is just a huge waste of time and energy.

My view, through research, is neo-nazi organizations are behind this movement. I am NOT saying all people involved in this movement are neo-nazis. I AM saying nazi organizations are using 9/11 to proliferate anti-semitism..and doing it in a new "hip" way in the form of information-age propaganda on YouTube and Google.

Most of the Shock Doc's on YTube clearly advertise links back to Websites "for more information" .. Once ensnared, the shear number of "Truth Movement information outlets" along with the mandate to "Do more research!" ( biased links provided) is enough to bend a young mind's opinion -- a valiant enough cause to begin with..ya know, truth and all.

However, as the layers of the onion are peeled away.. a far more sinister agenda unfolds. I cover this whole process in my post about Brainwashing techniques : 9/11 TRUTH, IS IT?

Below are a few links to back up my claims.

www.adl.org...

Note the date of this document: 2003, two years BEFORE "Loose Change" was released.

www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...

I would say anyone wanting to be objective about 9/11 should read both pages of this well researched article. It WON'T fit into a pro-conspiracy box...but that is the very nature of searching for the truth. ( like I did with the shape-shifing lizard men of Nibaru ..or some such crap..j/k)

s15.invisionfree.com...

Here is Killtown (cited as a researcher for Loose Change on the credits) professing his anti-semitic views.

The examples of this go on and on..hell, this very thread is one of those examples!

Oh and so it is clear, I am not Jewish.








[edit on 5-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Doesn't look like explosives to me. It just looks like it probably would as the weight of the top of the building started to collapse...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
So I guess a few people missed my comment about SAFETY GLASS not being able to "blow out" like that?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The whole WTC 7 was a controlled Demolition arguement is just goofy...sorry folks.

HERE is what a building of comprable size LOOKS and SOUNDS like when it is being demolished.

www.youtube.com...

Mind you, the Landmark Tower had been gutted and prepped (all the non supporting walls on every floor had been removed)

In the above video the SOUNDS of the explosives are pretty distinctive.. not just a random "boom" every now and then (as when a transformer pops)

WTC 7 didn't fall due to explosives or thermite.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Hi Gwion, thats a good bit of film, if you wanted to provide proof of the WTC buildings being demolished by explosives then you have just done it.

Its all there, the flashes, the squibs, the building falling on its footprint, the huge dust cloud and the pulverised building.

well done



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
...Gwion, thats a good bit of film, if you wanted to provide proof of the WTC buildings being demolished by explosives then you have just done it.

Its all there, the flashes, the squibs, the building falling on its footprint, the huge dust cloud and the pulverised building.


Believe


Everything you need is there.


[edit on 5-3-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Gwion, thats a good bit of film, if you wanted to provide proof of the WTC buildings being demolished by explosives then you have just done it.

Its all there, the flashes, the squibs, the building falling on its footprint, the huge dust cloud and the pulverised building.

well done


Yeah...sure thing Shrooomz. I might prove you are not too keen an investigator. I think you are underestimating peoples general intelligence. If there were these very distinctive symphony of repeated explosions.. WE WOULD KNOW. We would have known for 5 and a half years. The falling of WTC 7 did not come with a flurry of distinctive explosions...Would you like to know why?

Because it collapsed... It wasnt coerced into collapsing through explosives..if it were, we would have heard them.

Where you are bordering on very sketchy status is when you insist that a building that ISN'T a controlled demo.. Never falls in it's own footprint (false) Doesn't have a dust cloud (False) and isn't pulverized (unknown, due to lack of equivalent evidence)

I want to see these "flashes" you so boldly claim exist when WTC 7 collapses.

The 'squibs" you claim in WTC 7 are a flimsy arguement at best, the building was in the process of collapsing when these tufts of debris are seen...not before.

Have you done any research on this? Or are you just lookin at a couple of YouTube vids? Because you sure are patting yerself on the back---at the expense of objectivity.

Good job!



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Hi Gwion, if you search you will find video footage of flashes in the twin towers.

Dont loose sight of the fact that the buildings were to be demolished but those who were invovled could not make it so obvious that they were demolished. As I have said before buildings especially steel framed ones can take massive amounts of damage but they do not collapse.

I'm sure there are plenty of redundant buildings in the US were a simulation of 9/11 can be done,but it wont happen will it. Perhaps I could turn the tables and ask you for evidence of simmilar buildings that have collapsed in such a maner, you can have the whole world to use as an example.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Gwion, if you search you will find video footage of flashes in the twin towers.


Oh..the twin towers..you mean the couple of completely unsynchonized flashes that happen while tons of debris is pounding down on the floors below...yeah..I have seen those.. IT ISN'T WTC 7


Dont loose sight of the fact that the buildings were to be demolished but those who were invovled could not make it so obvious that they were demolished.


Nice one Sherlock!
Heh, don't lose sight that no one wanted WTC 7 demolished.


As I have said before buildings especially steel framed ones can take massive amounts of damage but they do not collapse.


Well then...I suppose this titan-eske superstructure would have needed a whole butt-load of explosives to bring it down then, eh?...being so strong and all. ..More explosives = More sounds and louder sounds a hallmark of controlled demolition.


I'm sure there are plenty of redundant buildings in the US were a simulation of 9/11 can be done,but it wont happen will it. Perhaps I could turn the tables and ask you for evidence of simmilar buildings that have collapsed in such a maner, you can have the whole world to use as an example.


Sorry, you are just gonna have to wait until someone intentionally crashes some fully fueled, fully accelerated Jetliners into a couple more incredibly tall, steel framed buildings, and have them fall exactly as they did on 9/11 in order to make a logical comparison. Either PRO---or CON.

IOW -- You cannot prove it. So you need me to substantiate reality.

In doing so you are "misplacing the burden of proof" --which is a shining example of rhetorical fallacy.

I suggest you learn a bit more in regards to critical thinking, and crystallized thought development. Instead of wasting time on buildings that were destroyed years ago.

The tail chasing begins ad infintum.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Why is it nobody ever conciders the buildings were not empty and the lights power and gas were still on. Answer because it doesn't fit their controled demolition dream. Your SQUIBS could be anything but explosions fron explosives probably not. Most likely human waste from burst pipes under massive pressure.

mikell



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Reasons for WTC 7 I refer my learned colleagues to Silverstein's Insurance claim. When are people going to realise that these things are planned, its a case of practise makes perfect, Waco, Oklahoma, 9/11 and what next, all these events are connected.

Whilst their are some who scream for proof they would not believe it if they were told to their faces, to them only certain people do bad things, like Muslims and such. Their willing to swallow the tripe of their dictatorship of a Goverment, well each to their own.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
GwionX

Why on Earth do you think that if WTC was a controlled demolition, that the "powers that be" would actually do absolutely nothing to hide it?

You really believe they would make it 100% obvious that it was a CD??

You really believe they wouldn't try to hide the explosives??

Get a clue man. What you are doing is trying to compare two magicians together. One of them doesn't care if people see how they do their tricks, but the other is a professional, and can't reveal the way their tricks work or the rest of the worlds magicians will hang them.

Seriously. You turned an argument about hidden and under cover explosives and CD, into an argument that it can't possibly be a CD because it doesn't look like a conventional everyone is watching this building get demolished type of controlled demolition. That's pretty pathetic.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
GwionX

Why on Earth do you think that if WTC was a controlled demolition, that the "powers that be" would actually do absolutely nothing to hide it?



What do you mean they did nothing to hide it??? They flew 2 planes into the buildings first.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
If somebody with vast resources and no morals wanted to destroy a building totally but not have it look like a controlled demolition why would they setup a demolition which "falls in its own footprint"?

If they were determined to cover their tracks would they not deliberately set the demolition to bring the building down asymetrically and have it fall all over the place in an untidy heap?

What kind of logic would encourage them to painstakingly set thousands of charges all timed to operate with split second accuracy so as to bring the building down nice and neatly if that is the one thing which they do not want the episode to look like?


[edit on 5-3-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by Connected
GwionX

Why on Earth do you think that if WTC was a controlled demolition, that the "powers that be" would actually do absolutely nothing to hide it?



What do you mean they did nothing to hide it??? They flew 2 planes into the buildings first.


First off, re-read what I said. Second, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to GwionX.

Some reason GwionX thinks that we should visibly see the explosives in order for it to be a real controlled demolition. Then I simply asked if he really believes the "powers that be" would do nothing to hide the explosives and just have them in plain site for everyone to see.

To refresh your memory, we are talking about WTC 7 and not 1 and 2, so talking about 2 jets crashing into them is irrelivant. Even then, the "powers that be" wanted to hide the EXPLOSIVES not the JETS. They want to hide the EXPLOSIVES because then people will think 911 was an inside job. They used the JETS to make people believe it was an uncontrollable force that caused 911.



new topics




 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join