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.

 

"We just heard another explosion" Amateur Video

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I don't know if the youtube BBcode works, but:



YouTube Link

I found it really interesting that at 4:31 he says "We just heard another explosion" as it was after the first collapse, before the second collapse.

Thoughts?

(I think he's just a civilian which happens to be a doctor and volunteered, my hat is off to him, extremely brave.)

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Vinci]




posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
What are all those whistle type noises they don't sound like car alarms?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
My thoughts are that there were explosives present in the building. That is undeniable fact.

Numerous people heard explosions. You only need to read through the threads i have posted in regards to that.

Also please take a look at the below video:



"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

This is in relation to WTC7 its amazing to see that on all 3 buildings that collapsed there were explosions being witnessed. That is FACT.

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
What are all those whistle type noises they don't sound like car alarms?


"The eerie electronic wails heard are the locator beacons of firefighters who have stopped moving after the collapse. The beacons are worn to help the other firemen locate the incapacitated firefighter in the event of an emergency."

Yes, there were definitely explosives in that building.

However I don't think the video I posted was in regards to the explosives in WTC7, but in the other Twin Tower's lobby or basement.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Vinci,

Your right, I was just trying to make a point that on all 3 Buildings that collapsed: South Tower, North Tower and WTC7, there are accounts of witnesses hearing explosions on all 3 buildings thus i posted the video.

Indeed there were explosions in the Twin Towers, theres no doubt about it.

The lobby of the Towers looked like a bomb had hit it. What force is needed to rip out marble panels from the walls and smash windows in the lobby, also rip flesh off people's faces in the basement


Theres only one answer: Some type of explosive material.

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts and ignited - the jet fuel was in an
aeresol and formed a fuel-air explosion. There were numerous people
seriously burned in the lobby and on the street outside the building.
One of the Naudet brothers arriving with the first due units reported
seeing several people on fire in the lobby. As for the windows/marble
wall panels they was dislodged as the building twisted from the impact.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Maybe something like that could explain the cars on FDR? Do you have any ideas?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Did jet fuel cause this?
these were a half a city block away.
edit:notice the melted taillights,what kind of heat would travel that far and do that?hmmmm.....

[edit on 3-7-2007 by crowpruitt]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Haha, space weapons seem more and more likely by the picture
. (I've seen the majourity of them). I would be willing to atleast think "okay, so the fuel came down and melted cars near the WTC base". And who knows? Maybe it was a freak accident and something combined with something else and burned off the tail lights or whatever you please...

But not as far as half a mile away, also there are some photo sequences that don't make much sense. I'd have to crop and resize them for the forum, so I'll post them soon. (Regarding cars catching on fire).



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
This was post collapse - burning debris rained down for blocks around
the towers . The cars were struck and set on fire by burning debris.
Vehicles in close proximity were ignited by adjacent burning vehicles -
seen it happen often in shopping center parking lots (I'm a Fireman)
One burning car often ignites adjacent vehicles - often 2-3. Most modern
vehicles are built with lot of plastics - bumper covers are often plastic
with styrofoam crush blocks. Burning debris landing on them can ignite
the bumpers, grill is plastic as much in engine compartment. If window
is open debris can enter vehicle and ignite carpets (plastic), uphosteltry
(often plastics).



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts and ignited - the jet fuel was in an
aeresol and formed a fuel-air explosion. There were numerous people
seriously burned in the lobby and on the street outside the building.
One of the Naudet brothers arriving with the first due units reported
seeing several people on fire in the lobby. As for the windows/marble
wall panels they was dislodged as the building twisted from the impact.


So your claiming that fire traveled through the elevator shafts, retaining its vicious energy, down 90+ floors blowing out marble panels and windows in the lobby ON THE GROUND FLOOR and also ripping of flesh from a person in the basement?

There are numerous people who heard explosions in the basement, before the plane had impacted with the building.

Your claim in regards to the marble panels and windows was that it twisted from the impact is false.

Do you have scientific proof that this is indeed what happened?

Why didn't the floors above the lobby twist and break windows, surely more closer the impact area there were indeed windows still intact and as a matter of fact people trapped on the 104th floor threw computer models into windows to get oxygen. So your theory is incorrect.

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
This was post collapse - burning debris rained down for blocks around
the towers . The cars were struck and set on fire by burning debris.
Vehicles in close proximity were ignited by adjacent burning vehicles -
seen it happen often in shopping center parking lots (I'm a Fireman)


Oh, thats what I was thinking but wouldn't then there be a lot of reports of people who's flesh just burned off while walking? There were a lot of people around, and if it was hot enough to burn cars 1/2 a mile away, what about people?

Also, would it look anything like this:




If so, why wouldn't the plastic tire rims melt?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Vinci,

I agree, if burning debri traveled 1/2 mile away, so hot that it burned cars, then why did it not burn people on the streets?


BeZerK



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Battalion Chief Thomas Vallebunoa - quoted in FIREHOUSE magazine



can?t remember if I saw fires the first time. The second time, I saw fires. The rigs were starting to burn. Cars were starting to burn. I?m surprised, I saw a few pictures, I can?t remember. The smoke was starting to bank down pretty good in certain streets around there, even on West Street. It was like really turning into a pretty good fire condition all around us. 90 West St. had at least three floors burning. We had a cellar job there. The roof was starting to burn.


Later in same interview



I forget what truck was burning and a squad was burning. There were a couple of rigs burning. There were a lot of cars burning. It was really banking down the street pretty good.


www.firehouse.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
thedman,

What does this prove?

Reading your own source, the second tower collapsed. Of course there were burning cars within the perimeter of the Towers collapse, i can understand that falling debri and so on will ignite cars below etc.

It surely doesn't prove how cars can be ignited 1/2 mile away?

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Also, I would expect people's flesh to burn. As well as, I don't know if you noticed, but there uh, y'know, was...Paper everywhere...In the air, all over the floor (you can see in the video).

How come the paper/trees/people/cloth weren't affected, but the cars were? As well as, why would the glass of been broken in such ways all around? Why would fires turn cars into unrecognisable chunks of metal?

(Sorry if I sound condescending, I'm not, I have total respect, It's just these questions really do bother me
)



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
i applaud that doc for his skill's but he needs to learn the difference between an explosion and a loud thud .



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The Doc said they were hearing MORE explosions not A. This lines up with all film , audio, and reports of that day. Everyone heard explosions several times besides the firemen in one of the towers in the released tapes said "Evacuate, we have bombs in the building" and the Chief of safety said there were "Secondary Devices" in the buildings. One more thing most of the fuel in those planes, well particularly the second plane, burnt up outside the building.You all might recall the HUGE fireball outside the building.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Whether you lean toward the 'official story', or toward the 'controlled demolition' theory, you should be *very* skeptical regarding ear-witness testimony concerning 'explosions' in the collapsing WTC buildings.

I remember the crash of a C-130 'water bomber' a few years ago that was *widely* reported as an 'explosion', because people at the scene heard a sharp booming sound just before the wings came off the aircraft. The sound was remarkably similar to an explosion, but it wasn't. It was the sound of the main wing spar snapping under an overload when the aircraft pulled out of a shallow dive.

Why bring that up? Because regardless of what *started* the collapse, while the collapse was ongoing, beams would be subjected to stresses far beyond design tolerance. Some of them would bend...others could easily respond the same way that wing spar did...with a sudden, violent snap that might easily be taken for an explosion.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Why bring that up? Because regardless of what *started* the collapse, while the collapse was ongoing, beams would be subjected to stresses far beyond design tolerance. Some of them would bend...others could easily respond the same way that wing spar did...with a sudden, violent snap that might easily be taken for an explosion.


Actually, your wrong here, the towers were built for that reason that even if a plane hit the towers and the fires were present, the building would still stand.

Lets examine further:

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the WTC. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a plane such as Boeing 707 or DC-8.


Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. - Source


A white paper released on 2/3/1964 clearly states that the Twin Towers could have withstood impacts of planes traveling 600mph, a speed which was greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


Frank A. Demartini an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center who also died on the day of 9/11.


The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.


The more important question is why wasn't the steel recovered from the aftermath be examined for explosive residue?

Theres a simple answer to that. The funding for the investigation only recieved $3 Million. ONLY $3 Million. So from the beginning it was set to fail.

This is what you get for $3 Million:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


BeZerK



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join