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.

 

LIVE loud explosion heard by firefighters at WTC site - AMAZING!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I know we have heard the witness statements, police and firefighter statements and the first responders statements in relation to loud explosions being heard within the buildings.

This is absolutely an amazing video of police and fire fighters hearing a loud explosion on 9/11 while making a phone call.



Here is a direct link to it if the above does not work: A MUST SEE!

BeZerK




posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
How would you know that is an explosion? I would be more likely to believe that the sound is one of the upper floors pancaking onto the lower floor. To me that sounded like an impact, not an explosion.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStarMan
How would you know that is an explosion? I would be more likely to believe that the sound is one of the upper floors pancaking onto the lower floor. To me that sounded like an impact, not an explosion.


If you read my thread on the the first responders about the witness's hearing explosions you will see that there were indeed explosions in the buildings. In case your wondering that footage is from WTC7 not the Twin Towers


Floors pancaking onto each other? I really don't think so, as you can see from the footage the WTC7 has not collapsed yet, instead you hear a loud explosion.

Here is another video of WTC7:



"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..."

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Seen this video many times. Its been in a few recent 911 "documentarys". Obviously something strange happened that day. And that noise, if real, was certainly no pancaking floor or building impact. It was a loud explosive.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azriphale
Seen this video many times. Its been in a few recent 911 "documentarys". Obviously something strange happened that day. And that noise, if real, was certainly no pancaking floor or building impact. It was a loud explosive.


Absolutely not from floors pancaking. You only need to take a look at the Twin Towers collapse. The official explanation maintains that collapse initiation was a pancake collapse, that noise does not sound like the noise in the video.

This was definitely an explosion, the second video i posted, you can hear what the firefighters are saying:

"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..."

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
So...this video that has been posted on here for the past year on several occasions proves there were explosions. Not sure how many times we have to say that explosions do dont always mean BOMBS!

It was reported from firefighters that they witnessed tires exploding on cars that were near WTC7



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I have seen these two clips countless times, however I came across a video on youtube a month or two ago which was a news report (i think it was the day after 9/11) which documented the explosions and there were several different clips that I havent seen anywhere else since that contained explosions. I am desperately trying to refind that clip it was awesome. Multiple explosions for many different news feed cameras, its like they have been buried. If i find them I will post them for you.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Anyone who doubt's that's an explosion is living in a fantasy world.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I don't think anyone denies the existance of explosions. There were many that day. Just no proof that they were bombs.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
Anyone who doubt's that's an explosion is living in a fantasy world.


I totally agree. Yet you have the skeptics who think everyone who claims of had heard an explosion somewhat meant to say "loud noise" or got it wrong. There are dozens and dozens of people who claim to have heard loud explosions on that day.

In the video i posted, there was a documentary which showed the firefighters on the phone but dramtically cut out the bit with the loud explosion, i will try and find this video for you and you can have a look. If it was not an explosion why did they cut it out?

I will try and find this documentary that was aired on PBS i believe.

BeZerK



BeZerK



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

In the video i posted, there was a documentary which showed the firefighters on the phone but dramtically cut out the bit with the loud explosion, i will try and find this video for you and you can have a look. If it was not an explosion why did they cut it out?

I will try and find this documentary that was aired on PBS i believe.

BeZerK


While you're searching for that ...make sure you find the countless "truther" videos that ADD explosions, screams, and also ones that loop video clips.....

It would be naive to think that there wasnt any explosions....just once again... i have yet to see any proof that the explosions were bombs.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
While you're searching for that ...make sure you find the countless "truther" videos that ADD explosions, screams, and also ones that loop video clips.....

It would be naive to think that there wasnt any explosions....just once again... i have yet to see any proof that the explosions were bombs.


If your looking for proof that explosives were used there are plenty of characteristics of a controlled demolition. Squibs, loud explosions, basement explosions etc.

Now lets examine what NIST said:

"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."

Why did they not test for the residue for explosive compounds? Were they afraid they were going to find some residue that could link it up to explosive material?

Maybe it has something to do with the $3 Million of funding the investigation only recieved? Yep thats it.... spot on....

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
If your looking for proof that explosives were used there are plenty of characteristics of a controlled demolition. Squibs, loud explosions, basement explosions etc.

Your so called squibs are up for serious debate. We can start an additional thread for that. My opinion..compressed air.
Loud explosions: Transformers, Fireballs, Steel Falling...etc...This has all been documented by NYPD, FDNY, NYPA.
Basement Explosions were in fact fireballs.



Originally posted by BeZerk
Now lets examine what NIST said:

"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."

Why did they not test for the residue for explosive compounds? Were they afraid they were going to find some residue that could link it up to explosive material?

Maybe it has something to do with the $3 Million of funding the investigation only recieved? Yep thats it.... spot on....

BeZerK


First of all 3 million dollars? I thought it was A LOT more than that!?

They didn't test for thermite because they felt they had no reason to. Also..there is not one piece of evidence from the steel that showed a thermite cut beam or column.

All these explosive and cutting charges...no one has yet told me how all of this was planted.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
God not the compressed air crap again. There is no way that was compressed air, if you think it was you need to go back to school and take some physics lessons. We have proved over and over again that they could not be compressed air, and that other controlled demos show the same characteristics when explosives detonate out of sequence.

That's as bad as saying jet fuel weakened the steel. Utterly ridiculous and I will eat this thread if you can prove me wrong. And yes that is a challenge!
I'm sick of these wild claims you can't even begin to prove, and just defy all known logic and physics. Hollywood physics...



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Your so called squibs are up for serious debate. We can start an additional thread for that. My opinion..compressed air.
Loud explosions: Transformers, Fireballs, Steel Falling...etc...This has all been documented by NYPD, FDNY, NYPA.
Basement Explosions were in fact fireballs.


Oh thats right the compressed air theory is like the theory of the tooth fairy giving you a shiney gold coin when in the process of taking your tooth from under your pillow


Good one... How does compressed air travel through the elevator smashing out windows 70+ floors below the collapse. If that is what your saying then your level of intellect really does not surprise me.

Basement explosions were fireballs


Ok so the fireball managed to go down the elevator shafts retaining its energy to blow out the basement someone 100+ floors below the impact area.... well why did we not see squibs when this process was in its full effect? Since you claim that the squibs were compressed air that might have travelled through the elevator to blow out windows.



First of all 3 million dollars? I thought it was A LOT more than that!?


Want to prove me wrong?


They didn't test for thermite because they felt they had no reason to. Also..there is not one piece of evidence from the steel that showed a thermite cut beam or column.


"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"

Explosives OR thermite. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that explosives were present in the building. What type of explosives i would not know thus a thorough testing for these compounds would have distinguished what type of explosives was used.

Lets examine the following pictures:



Now here are some guys placing demolition style charges on the beam, note the angle it is placed. The angle it is placed is some what essential for the collapse as the demolition has been activated the building will slide into its own footprint.



Lets focus on the issue at hand we are talking about rather than asking how the explosives were placed. No doubt our views are some what different. So lets take it a step at a time shall we....

BeZerK

[edit on 6-7-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk


Oh thats right the compressed air theory is like the theory of the tooth fairy giving you a shiney gold coin when in the process of taking your tooth from under your pillow


Good one... How does compressed air travel through the elevator smashing out windows 70+ floors below the collapse. If that is what your saying then your level of intellect really does not surprise me.



Bezerk...if you would like to debate issues here, i suggest you refrain from your playground antics. I will be more than happy to answer your questions in a mature manner. I give your posts the due respect. I suggest you do the same.

If you would like to continue with your 3rd grade posts aimed at insulting me, you wont get much in response.

That being said i will respond to your post. ... i just need to grab another beer



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Bezerk...if you would like to debate issues here, i suggest you refrain from your playground antics. I will be more than happy to answer your questions in a mature manner. I give your posts the due respect. I suggest you do the same.

If you would like to continue with your 3rd grade posts aimed at insulting me, you wont get much in response.

That being said i will respond to your post. ... i just need to grab another beer


The comment was not an insult to you rather an insult directed at the compressed air theory when referring to squibs.

I look forward to your response.

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

First of all 3 million dollars? I thought it was A LOT more than that!?




Originally posted by BeZerk
Want to prove me wrong?


No problem:

The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September 2002 from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The FY 2003 appropriation included an increase of $3 million for related research and development.

The President's FY 2005 budget request of $9 million (including a $4 million increase) focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to provide the technical basis for improving standards, technology, and practices for building construction and for the safety of emergency first responders.

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

Explosives OR thermite. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that explosives were present in the building. What type of explosives i would not know thus a thorough testing for these compounds would have distinguished what type of explosives was used.

Lets examine the following pictures:







Ok, lets look at these photos taken from Ground Zero:



Close up:



the beams were cut to assist in the clean up.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

No problem:

The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September 2002 from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The FY 2003 appropriation included an increase of $3 million for related research and development.

The President's FY 2005 budget request of $9 million (including a $4 million increase) focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to provide the technical basis for improving standards, technology, and practices for building construction and for the safety of emergency first responders.

wtc.nist.gov...


Do you think the above noted figures are sufficient to for investigating, researching, paying scientists for there time and effort and all the investigative needs?

In my opinion i don't think so, especially when the investigation for the Clinton Sex Scandal received some what $40 Million + for its efforts.

In contrast, the figures you posted would warrant a further investigation.

I guess for that price you get the following answer:

"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  4 >>

log in

join