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.

 

Bombs going off while the first plane impacts the WTC Video and picture provided.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
VicRH
you actually posted the video I was looking for thank you...How can people not see that explosives where used its just goes against my mind.
Again maybe I am to obsessed but when I see the DEMOLITION of the WTC I stand in disbeliefe at ppl trying to defend the OCT. I honestly cannot and will never understand how the obvious cannot be understood.
Sometimes the easiest of the explanation is the correct one:
it looks like a controlled demoltion, it looks like explosives were used, the building felt on its own footprint (exept for the material launched with incredible force outwards) so it must have been a controlled demolition.
It feels like people are trying to defend something that its in plain view without any reason.
I am asking myself why do they deny with such force something so obvious. Cant they see it? Am I crazy when I see the building explode?
Its the simpliest of the explanation because everything perfectly makes sense if we talk about controlled demolition:
Melted metal, Squibs, explosions, secondary explosions, bomb in the basement, WTC7, Suilverstein Comments, etc...,etc....
Why is the easiest of all of the solution so ignored? A controlled demolition actually explains perfectly every single oddity of that day so it must have been a controlled demolition because it is the easiest of all of the explanations. The OCT has so many unexplainable factors that their theory is as wild as reptilians attacking the WTC.
I am asking to any debunkers:
Doesn't a controlled demoltion explains every single oddity? Isn't a controlled demolition the easiest of the solution?




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
A point was made, apparently too close to home for your tastes?


Maybe I just don't like bull being slung at me without you being able to back it up, and apparently you aren't even going to bother to try. Do I make things up about you? If I did, do you think you would take offense? And what if I responded by still being an ass to you? Put yourself in that situation so you'll realize how you're coming across to me right now.

So I tell someone they don't know something, you jump the "truthers" case for it, but you weren't talking about me in particular, right? So who are you talking about?




Apparently, "truthers" in general?

You're taking things personally for some reason and I don't know or care why. I don't have anything to prove here buddy, I didn't make any type of claims whatsoever. What's there to prove?



[edit on 7-13-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
Doesn't a controlled demoltion explains every single oddity? Isn't a controlled demolition the easiest of the solution?


Flat out .... NO!

Lets look at it this in simple terms:

Was it a Conventional Demolition: Y or N?

If Yes:
This is improbable if not impossible:
a: the amount of explosives needed and the amount of areas that would need to be accessed.
b: seismic records do not support this.
c: there were witnessed of explosions in the basement. I have argued this before...they were fireballs and even Willi Rodrequiez said this!
d: bomb sniffing dogs full time
e: your so called squibs are not explosive devices.
f: planes flying into a building would have a pretty big effect on the detonation charges that were planted.

Was it an Unconventional Demolition: Y or N

If Yes:
Again This is next to impossible:
a: no one has offered solid proof that there was any thermite there.
b: thermate/mite burns vertically
c: has ANYONE figured out how much thermate it would take to go through even ONE support column?
d: You need about 1 kg thermite to produce 0.5 Kg molten iron.

Just some quick points...



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Who said that plane were actually used?
Thermite was used in limited quantities, the energy created by the event is not explainable by CD even less by natural collapse.
The sismic recording support some weird things going on that day.
I am actually not in the mood to answer many of your questions because I am getting tired of playing the blind game. One of us is blind I don't know if its you or I.
Anyway take a look at this artifact and once you have a good explanation for it let me know till than I am exausted by this little game. We already are behind the controlled demoltion theory. We should really concentrate more on how they made it happen.



The conclusion its really that simple YES 19 arabs alone did not planned 911 point.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
How come everything has to be a bomb? Every explosion, every flash, every noise...

As has been stated previously in the the thread, the flash has been pretty much explained by the "debunker" side as a discharge of static electricity. That seems like the most logical thing that it could have been. Could it have been something else? Of course. But nothing has explained it as well as the static discharge theory.

In the second video, what suggests that it was a bomb going off as opposed to a flare up or something else inside the building blowing up? Maybe it was a bomb, but their are several other explanations. To speak in certain terms, without any solid proof or evidence of the fact, is disingenuous.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza

The conclusion its really that simple YES 19 arabs alone did not planned 911 point.


Maybe the government allowed 19 Arabs to martyr themselves that day. Maybe the US government forced 19 Arabs to kill themselves under threat of murdering their families.

You can implicate the US government without having bombs in the building. No answer in this debate is simple.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza

The conclusion its really that simple YES 19 arabs alone did not planned 911 point.


Arabs that can't attack the WTC back in 1993. Arabs can't attack the Khobar Tower in 1996. Arabs can't alone attack 2 embassies in Africa, Arabs alone cannot attack and make a big hole in a state of the art destroyer, Arabs cannot take on the U.S. military. Arabs cannot hijack planes and crash into buildings. What is this?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So I tell someone they don't know something, you jump the "truthers" case for it, but you weren't talking about me in particular, right? So who are you talking about?


Don't bother arguing. This is why the forums to rationally discuss theories and ideas on this subject are now monitored so closely. Because people who think they have a higher intelligence (or would that be less ignorance?) continually argue and bicker points until most simply move on to another thread. It's like listening to a baby cry on a plane. Eventually you just want to change seats.

Your best bet is to continue discussing these videos with others here who are interested in reasonable conversation and ignore those who come here to argue.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
Who said that plane were actually used?

Um... millions of eye witnesses. Countless numbers of video footage...please piacenza.


Originally posted by piacenzaThermite was used in limited quantities, the energy created by the event is not explainable by CD even less by natural collapse.


Um..WHAT? IT has been explained by NIST and others. What hasn't EVER been explained is how thermite was used and how MUCH was used.


Originally posted by piacenzaThe sismic recording support some weird things going on that day.

Like what? and what source are you using to back this up.


Originally posted by piacenza
I am actually not in the mood to answer many of your questions because I am getting tired of playing the blind game. One of us is blind I don't know if its you or I.


Pretty obvious...this part of your quote..you answered your own question before you even asked it. Your not in the mood because you can't answer the questions.


Originally posted by piacenza
Anyway take a look at this artifact and once you have a good explanation for it let me know till than I am exausted by this little game.


Artifact...well simple..it was examined and found that it was several concrete floor slabs pancaked together with rebar, pipes, etc.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Um... millions of eye witnesses. Countless numbers of video footage...please piacenza.


are you referring to the MILLIONS of people that watched all the videos? If so, you've got just as many that think the opposite.

if you're referring to the people who actually WITNESSED the event, it'd be more like several dozen. I wouldn't even put it at HUNDREDS because when those buildings started to fall, people ran, thus many couldn't see what transpired. but there are still many people to this day that stand by their witness accounts (fireman, policeman, and businessmen alike) of hearing, seeing and feeling explosions.

and I'd take their EYE WITNESS testimony over some NIST fluke who was told what evidence he could and couldn't review by the current administration.

forget this arguing over OPINIONS of what was and wasn't explosions and riddle me this:

Why would the administration limit the evidence that could be reviewed by the NIST and which members of the NIST that could review such evidence? If someone wanted a complete and thorough investigation, why wouldn't ALL evidence be reviewed by EVERY member of the board?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Tyranny,

Please provide me with a link to the source of your information. I wasn't aware Bush and his croonies were involved in telling NIST what they couldn't investigate.

If you do happen to read the NIST report... you will see that they interviewed MANY MANY people and gathered FIRST HAND eyewitness testimony from over 450 other witnesses.

I will not continue the no plane debate in here. Even Dylan Avery has banned the no plane theory from being discussed over there.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I don't think it specifically referred to the administration. That's just an assumption that I'm making because I can't imagine who else would have a say in what could and couldn't be reviewed. Anyhow, I'm currently reviewing the video to give you a time mark when the interview appears. It's a two hour video, so it'll be a bit before I'm able to pinpoint the interview timemark.

I've never understood the no planes theory either. BTW, who's Dylan Avery?

I'll edit this post when I reach the time mark and post the videolink.

EDIT:

My mistake — It wasn't the NIST that was limited - it was the 9/11 Comission, but it was the administration that was limiting the information.

The time mark is 16:23 and the gentleman that is being interviewed is 9/11 Commisioner Sen. Max Cleland.


Google Video Link


Now, if someone could please tell me why the edivence would be limited if a thorough investigation is expected?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I didn't watch the entire video but i did fast forward to the time you stated. Yes..indeed Bush kept meny things secret at the time of the investigation.

But....

Does that mean 911 was an Inside job?

NO

IMO... Bush didn't want anyone to realize how much he dropped the ball in his first 8 months of office., He refused to testify without Cheney present and refused to tell the American public WHY when he was approached by a reporter that asked him.

Again..this at the MOST can lend credance to the LIHOP theory. Although my opinion is that Bush is an idiot and looking DEEPER into him would further prove this point.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I didn't watch the entire video but i did fast forward to the time you stated. Yes..indeed Bush kept meny things secret at the time of the investigation.

But....

Does that mean 911 was an Inside job?


Of course it doesn't. But just because the government and/or a government orchestrated investigation annouces an official explantion for a certain event does that means it's the truth?

No. I can cite dozens from the past 60 years that have been speculated otherwise and later confirmed by declassified documents.

It's not only information about events that led up to 9/11, it's much more information, data, video that, at this point in time, seems like it will never be released. Such as COMPLETE flight data recordings, video of the pentagon crash, that alterations made to the computer models of the WTCs that led to their collapse. Seems suspicious that such information wouldn't be release.

Why won't Bush allow the release of White House information relating to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys? Because it's incriminating and they are exempt by "Executive Privelage".

At least we agree that Bush is an incompetent President. In my opinion, this man is a dis-honor to our country and our system of government and should be discharged as such.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
But really people
Would the plane really make that bright of a flash/explosion the moment
it touches the building?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Renshin
But really people
Would the plane really make that bright of a flash/explosion the moment
it touches the building?


Well, what do we have to compare it to? Have you ever seen a commercial airplane intentionally flown into a skyscraper?




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
Why won't Bush allow the release of White House information relating to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys? Because it's incriminating and they are exempt by "Executive Privelage".

At least we agree that Bush is an incompetent President. In my opinion, this man is a dis-honor to our country and our system of government and should be discharged as such.


I hate the man..... not only as President. I hate him as a human being. Our people are getting slaughtered because of him and him alone. (blame Cheney all you want, if Bush had some ghonads he would call the shots)

When I read about the US Attorney crap...i was FURIOUS! But what can we do? It's part of our laws that he can do that. Look at him Scooter Libby...you KNOW he will be pardoned by the time Bush leaves office.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
one of the videos says that missles were fired off the jet before it crashed...why would they need to fire missles when they're already crashing into the world trade center with a flippin jet??



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Traveler's video catches both tower crashes.

We know now the Zapruder film had frames taken out as the driver
looks back until the shot is done, and thus LBJ becomes president,
and Fetzer tells it like it is with the reconstructed frames.
Dr. Fetzer's Zapruder analysis.

What was more important: JFK to thwart more Nam aggression or
let LBJ and NIXON carry on. The later as JFK Jr would most likely agree.
Where was GW Bush when JFK JR nose dived into the drink?
LBJ had a party before JFK died the next day.

Should make it SAT presentable. No more, we are dumbed down.

So did we have reconstructed or engineered video on TV and video and
film, easy then easy now.

What was more important: Pay hordes of money to piece by piece take
down two out of date dinosaur towers, or get terror insurance by claiming
terror attack instead of explosions. No one would do that as
trauma and common intuition take hold to let the evil maniacs get away with
more underhanded deals.

Is there an equation?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Look at him Scooter Libby...you KNOW he will be pardoned by the time Bush leaves office.


What scares me the most is that he's signed into effect a Presidential Order that would allow him to take total control of the government if an event occurs in which he can delare a national catasrophe.

People have criticized me for calling him a dictator. Who signs a document that allows a person to assume total power? I call them as I see them.

I'm just afraid (given that I do buy into some sort of 9/11 conspiracy - and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing [you should look into that as well]) that there will be another "terrorist attack" before the upcoming Presidential Elections. And with all the talk of terrorist "seeking" nuclear technologies, who will get blamed? My money is on Iran. With the retribution brought on by 9/11 I don't believe any nation, terrorist organization or person in this world would be so stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join