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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to GwionX.

sounds like your going to cry.
the number 7 wasn't in the post I replied to. Are you good mates with GwionX, must be great pals if he is the only guy you trust enough to converse with.




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I've seen some controlled demolition (not in person of course) and the windows don't necessarily come flying out. INfact, with many charges that bring a building down, they make the explosion be an 'implosion', and only sever structural supports, not have a gigantic massive explosion that sends glass everywhere. The glass usually seems to fall apart with the rest of the building.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Nygdan]


A normal CD doesn't have glass flying out because the windows are taken out before the demolition. Also, up to 90% of the structural members are severed. But, pockets of fire can do the exact same thing right?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
its likely that as the building started to fall that corder got torqued and shattered them outwards like that. glass will flex to a point then shatter pretty violently. i think thats what we are seeing here.


I agree with this. I don't think it is air overpressure from explosives but just the facade and windows comming apart while the demolition occurs. I say demolition because no matter what a person believes, WTC 7 was demolished that day.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
"its likely that as the building started to fall that corder got torqued and shattered them outwards like that. glass will flex to a point then shatter pretty violently. i think thats what we are seeing here."

That's what I thought at first, but for each of these window to release approximately the same amount of smoke, or in your theory dust from collapsing concrete, is somewhat hard to beleive. Also the time that elapses between each window shatter is quite a coincidence. There isn't enough of a difference in each floor collapse for me to beleive this was a "fall". [e.i.: floor #24 collapses > .05 seconds later floor #25 collapses > .08 seconds later floor #26 collapses > 0.25 floor #27 collpases] RATHER [it would seem that each was about the same:floor #24 collapse > .10 seconds later floor #25 collapses > .11 seconds later floor #26 collapses > 0.10 floor #27 collpases]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I don't think you can really analyze WTC7 in the floor-by-floor way that you can the Towers, even though the way you put that, from an "OCT" point of view, should sound pretty messed up. It did fall way too fast. Even if fire can fail steel like that, it doesn't fall that fast on its own anyway! At least not straight down every bit of the way like WTC7 did. Closest thing I can think of is creep, but I almost laughed when it came to mind.

There was something going on on the inside of that building that no one could see from the outside, because we have seismic records showing us this. Then the building came down all at once -- all floors starting to fall simultaneously (above some initial floor we can't see, but a witness described as the very bottom floor), and only reaching the ground in the intervals you describe, Tyranny. At that point there may well have been the finishing charges that broke up the outer walls.

As far as we know every floor could be completely gutted well before it hits the ground, and as far as we know they could have been gutted in no particular order. But the outer walls must have been broken up too far down for distant cameras, bottom-up floor by floor or so.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by Connected
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to GwionX.

sounds like your going to cry.
the number 7 wasn't in the post I replied to. Are you good mates with GwionX, must be great pals if he is the only guy you trust enough to converse with.


Actually I don't cry, I was just absolutly pissed at you, because you asked a really terrible question that had nothing to do with my origonal message, nor was it directed at you.

You asked "What do you mean they did nothing to hide it???", when I never said once in any post that they did nothing to hide it.

To clearify, GwionX showed a video of a confirmed controlled demolition of a building, and compared it to WTC7, and said WTC 7 couldn't be a CD because it didn't look the same as the confirmed CD. Thats when I asked "HIM" if he truely believes they wouldn't hide the explosives in WTC7.


Now I am even more mad that I have to waste my time on people that can't read, and ask terrible questions.

That being said, I am friends with nobody on ATS. It will stay that way.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Once again, the windows on modern skyscrapper buildings MUST be safety glass. The safety glass has a protective film layered in it so that it does not shatter like it supposidly does in the video. The video is NOT GLASS, it is SMOKE or SQUIBS.

Am I on ignore or are people affraid to achknowledge that fact above?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected

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.


What? The video I posted was only so people can hear the AUDIO of a controlled demo.

If any of you take the time to LISTEN to the WTC 7 collapse.. you won't hear the hallmark sounds of massive amounts of sychronized explosives ringing out through Manhatten on 9/11.

There is a reason why all of the propaganda films do not have Audio as WTC 7 collapses. There are no sychronized explosions!

I don't care how well the (proposterous claim of) charges were hidden...the sound could not be masked.


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.


So the government did this for you to have a hobby? WOW that's beyond words.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I don't care how well the (proposterous claim of) charges were hidden...the sound could not be masked.


You are 100% right. Just one of the explosives needed to blow through a steel beam would be so ridiculously loud that there's no way someone wouldn't have noticed. All the ones necessary to bring the building down? Impossible to hide it. EVERYONE in that area would've heard it.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I guess you guys missed the fact that explosions were reported from WTC7 during the whole time after WTC1's collapse to WTC7's collapse.

Here are video clips:

MSM reporter reports explosions every 15 to 20 minutes

Rescuer 1: "It's blowin' boy. Did you hear that?"
Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon."
Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"


You can hear the blasts in the above video, too.


Another video featuring explosions near WTC7 and FDNY guys reacting to it.


"Speaking Out -- An Interview with Craig Bartmer. Craig Bartmer was a NYPD officer on 9/11. This interview is online in 3 parts. He testifies to explosions from WTC7 during its collapse.


There were explosions. They were spaced out over lengths of time. And when the whole building came down, an explosion accompanied that too, according to at least two witnesses that I'm aware of (one is above, one is text only: search Google for WTC7 and "thunder" and you'll probably find it). I don't even know of any good audio files of WTC7's collapse except from maybe 9/11 Eyewitness or some source like that. Everything else is either MSM reporting or has bad audio for some other reason.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There were explosions.


Yeah, there were. That's typical of that type of situation. But none of the explosions were of the intensity of an explosive that would be necessary to bring down a building. There's a big, audible difference between the two.

And to muffle an explosive of that size to that level would require someone doing something insane, like backing a concrete truck up to each explosive and pouring a ton of concrete over them. Something like that is the only way you'd be able to muffle an explosive like that down to that level. And that is something someone would've noticed.

It just wasn't explosives.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Oh, ok! First it was no explosions, so no explosives, but now of course there were explosions, but of course they weren't from explosives! Gee whiz!


You don't know how far those guys are from Building 7, you don't know what caused those overpressures to get those audio spikes, you don't know from where in the building in would have came or the accoustics both inside and outside of the building, etc.

Put short, you're talking out of your ass when you say you can tell those aren't high explosives.

If you want audio explosions, I just gave them to you. But you're going to have to prove to me that they can't possibly be high explosives; I don't believe you.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, ok! First it was no explosions, so no explosives, but now of course there were explosions, but of course they weren't from explosives! Gee whiz!


Did I say once there were no explosions? Nope. I didn't.

I said if there were an explosive of the size required to go through the steel beams, that it would be ridiculously loud. Much, much, much louder than the explosions that were heard.

Basically, it would've been so loud that everyone standing nearby would've gone, "That was a bomb!" Everyone.


Put short, you're talking out of your ass when you say you can tell those aren't high explosives.


You know what? I disagree with your opinion, but I wasn't disrespectful to you. If you can't do the same for me, then this will be my last reply to you.

Those explosions, to me, are not nearly intense enough to be from an explosive necessary to blow through a massive steel beam and bring down a building.

But you know what? Internet audio is deceptive. It could've been a lot louder. I won't deny that.

But if it had been an explosive to bring down the building, there wouldn't be any doubt. Everyone, all the people on the scene, all the people in the surrounding area--they would've known.

The difference in real life between, say, a propane tank exploding in a fire, and a commercial grade explosive for bringing a building down is night and day. There wouldn't be any "muffling" inside the building. It would be loud. Like, insanely, ridiculously loud. Everyone, I promise you from the bottom of my heart, would've been screaming, "THAT WAS A BOMB!"



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Prove that they can't be high explosives. That's all I'm asking.

I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for proof, because I don't think you can tell the difference.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove that they can't be high explosives. That's all I'm asking.


The fact that people, en masse, weren't screaming, "There was a bomb!" or "Someone blew up the building!" is proof. If there had been explosives, the sound would've so much louder that there would've been no doubt.

You don't have to believe it, but that's the truth.


I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for proof, because I don't think you can tell the difference.


Are you unable to debate without resorting to personal attacks? I asked you nicely once.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
The fact that people, en masse, weren't screaming, "There was a bomb!" or "Someone blew up the building!" is proof. If there had been explosives, the sound would've so much louder that there would've been no doubt.


In one of the above videos, someone literally says, "It's blowin' boy. Did you hear that?", followed by someone saying the building is about to "blow up". This is as they are retreating away from the building, whereas the explosion is coming from somewhere inside, which could put it a great distance from the camera man (again -- you can't tell!). Ok?



Are you unable to debate without resorting to personal attacks? I asked you nicely once.


It's not a personal attack, get over yourself. I'm asking you to prove that those explosions cannot be explosive devices. Without anything to support yourself other than your opinion, which I'm sure isn't professional, then I don't know how you can be so sure of yourself. This must be the 3rd or 4th time I've asked; I'm beginning to think you can't support yourself. You may think something, but I don't trust your judgment.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In one of the above videos, someone literally says, "It's blowin' boy. Did you hear that?", followed by someone saying the building is about to "blow up". This is as they are retreating away from the building, whereas the explosion is coming from somewhere inside, which could put it a great distance from the camera man (again -- you can't tell!). Ok?


And what does that prove? That's all stuff you'd expect to hear from someone watching a building collapse.

What you did't hear people saying, during or after, was that a bomb went off.

If an explosive capable of bringing down the building had gone off, they would have known it was a bomb. They could've been ten blocks away and they would've known it was a bomb.


It's not a personal attack, get over yourself.


Yeah, actually, it was. If you're not mature enough to argue your points respectfully and without personal attacks, then you shouldn't be posting. I've argued with you without doing that. You should have enough courtesy to do the same.


I'm asking you to prove that those explosions cannot be explosive devices.


And how on earth could I conclusively prove that? You know as well as I do that there's no way to do that. Just like there's no way you can prove that they were explosive devices.

What I can tell you is that demolition explosives are exponentially louder than things blowing up in a fire. That's not opinion. That's a fact. A propane tank (again for example) doesn't have nearly the concussive force of demolition explosive (which is why they do demolition with explosives instead of propane tanks). As a result, it's not nearly as loud.

There were no masses of people screaming that a bomb went off. So, if you think it was an explosive, then you have to think that all those people in the area confused a MUCH louder explosive device for something blowing up in the fire.

And I say that's illogical. There is such a night and day difference between the two types of explosions, that I say it's illogical to say that that many people, especially firefighters who observe fires ALL the time, would honestly confuse it for normal things blowing up in a fire. The firefighters would've known immediately that that was more than some office object exploding.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

[edit on 5-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Don't know if this helps but here is a video with a huge explosion heard.And also a fireman stating theres a bomb in the building
hope this helps edit:The video seems to be after 1 or both wtcs north and south already collapsed due to the dust everywhere.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by crowpruitt]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX



There is a reason why all of the propaganda films do not have Audio as WTC 7 collapses. There are no sychronized explosions!


Hi Gwion.... do you have any links to videos of WTC7 with audio?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
So the government did this for you to have a hobby? WOW that's beyond words.


You think this is my hobby???? This is my life. I as well as many others wanted more answers to 911 after that day. When I went looking for them, I found conflict after conflict, it was only natural that I started to form a conspiracy BY MY SELF. I didn't need any help from anybody to figure out this was an inside job. The lies from the white house were enough.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join