It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:13 PM
You also failed to mention that NIST or FEMA tried to do the same thing in a controlled setting.. As in getting the towers to fall.

They only way they were able to do it was on a computer model at exaggerated rates of things.

There is another thing there not to trust the NIST or FEMA, they cant even get their facts right after thier own computer tells them they are FoS.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:15 PM

[edit] i hate hind sight...what i mean to say is, if just tell you the facts you will doubt them...if you look at it, i mean REALLY look at it and whats more THINK for one small second you will realise that you have been lied to. did the plane that hit the pentagon really vaporise? but leave enough of the bodies for them to identify people using DNA? what time of fire can disintergrate a plane and leave people well enough alone? [/edit]

The Official story people will chalk this up as god was watching over them or something.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:19 PM
thats crazy...i heard it was superman and he used his laser eye beams to disintergrate the missl...erm...plane before it left too much eviden....damage...yeah...tahts it

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Really? You have eyewitnesses that were there on 911 AT ground zero that claim to have witnessed the "demo charges?" I would LOVE to see them! Please provide a source.

There were a number of fire fighters who heard a sequence of explosions similar to that of a Demo. I need not provide a source as it's all over the internet and from multiple sources. Do the research yourself, I'm not going to waste my time providing evidence and sources for you to just brush off any way.

Can you prove that there was no Demo charges going off? Were you at ground Zero? How can you deny the obvious squibs? How can you deny the Fire Fighters descriptions of explosions blowing up in sequence? Most of all, how can you sit there and say a fire will collapse WTC 7 when it wasn't hit, and a fire is not going to bring a building down like a controlled demo. You fail to realize that what happened on 911 was the first in history.

WTC towers were the First Buildings in the entire world to ever collapse from a plane hit

WTC 7 was the first building to Collapse in on itself from a supposed fire.

These are the reasons people question it so much and these are the reasons we look further into it and find the facts that we do.

I know I won't convince you, but it doesn't hurt to try. Either you take the blind fold off or you leave it on, the choice is yours.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:48 PM
There is also the NY Times that acquired like 15,000 interviews(might be less) or something from people on that day via The Information act, and according to some of them, people say they saw flashes and heard bombs going off...

If I feel like it later I will look up some of it but for now you have to take my word for it.


Gregory Stephen, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) p 14

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy...

[edit on 8/2/2007 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:49 PM
WOOOT *cheer* *applause* a pointless post i know...but, art should be appreciated!

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

So, there was nothing left? "dustified" as Mrs. Woods said .... are you claiming there wasn't any steel? It was all dust too? I will answer your qestions as soon as you clearify it. Please think before you respond

Oh, there was steel, yes. But not much concrete. That was wafting all over lower Manhattan and out to the Statue of Liberty. Not many floor pans either. Hardly any building contents to boot.

Drag in Looney Tunes Woods if you want, as if using her as a debunker's human shield is going to get you anywhere, but actually a better word is "micronized."

Go read some reports on that dustified dust. It was really, really, really fine. And it was chock full of stuff like metals that were officially traced to computers other building contents.

All that from a gravity-driven collapse (though highly explosive and very very fast)?

And let's not forget the molten steel. Never forget the molten steel.

Not really the best angle to try and debunk, now, is it?

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:59 PM
its times like this my dear old mum would say "if common sense was common, we'd all have some"

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:02 PM
Interesting angle. I've had the wrong idea of this collapse the entire time.

When they always spoke of "pancake collapse" I was assuming that it was speaking of a lower level of the tower that collapsed and each level above that floor in-turn collapsed from the weight of the structure above.

I've never bought the "pancake" theory, but with this video, it's apparent this couldn't have happened. The service floors remain in place until the destruction reaches that lower level.

A jpg can be seen here
to better illustrate what I mean.

So, it supposedly collapsed from the top down? It doesn't make sense that the weight above could have contributed to the pancake theory because the top practically disintegrated. Am I wrong to think this?

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:09 PM
spot on mate...give that man an eyebrow...ah heck i'm feelin generous...give him 2!!! honestly mate, i didnt realise until i stopped to think either. you hit the nail on the head that we have established that it was a controlled demo....ask yourself...why

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:09 PM
According to Experts, not me... It should have taken at least a minute or over for it to fall if that were the case.....

It took less than 10 seconds or something for both towers to fall and 6 or something seconds for WTC 7 to fall...

So no the term Pancake Collapse was born on 9/11/01.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by piacenza

Yeah you should refrain from the squib talk and much more.
You lost credibility right there and let me tell you something MAN, you come in these and other posts throwing around all the S..t you want saying how disrespectful is this and how disrespectful is that etc...

You are one of the greatest disgrace to the families of 911, shame on you.

Please point out a post I made that may have digraced anyone. Please point out a post that I have lied. Have I been wrong on some numbers? yes... have I admitted it.. yes.

You will be unable to point out anything. If indeed you are searching for the truth, you would not be upseet about my postings as thats what they are... TRUTH.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:18 PM
FEMA and NIST isnt considered proof, they are consider works of fiction.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:22 PM
actually your posts are refering to the 9/11 myth...a myth is something that, althought widely believed, is in fact false. its a truth you believe that just isnt right...i'm sorry...i'm not trying to be elitist, i'm not better than you, its just what you are claiming as truth, blatently is not, ALL the evidence backs this up and if it turns out that i am wrong, that the us government did not kill 3000 of its own citizens and jet plane fuel can infact melt steel and a pancaking building can fall at freefall speeds then i will go out, buy a hat and eat it!...i'l even post the video on youtube for you all to watch...amused!

secondly you insult the memories of the dead people by denying the truth...those people died so that rich men can get richer...and thats not right, by any standards, they deserve for the entire world to know the real reason they died. the families deserve the truth and at the very least an apology, they deserve more than the wretches could ever give. that comment struck a nerve...i'm sorry

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:22 PM
Per whom? You? What are your credentials that allows you to come to that conclusion? Can you provide me with a scientific reviewed paper that shows NIST and FEMA is works of fiction?

Or, are your just stating your opinion?

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:24 PM
one thing i always wondered about the jet fuel temperatures. could it have been something along the lines of how magnesium burns? it takes 850 degress to ignite it but it burns at 5000+. could there be something in the building or the plane that could have been ignited by the burning jet fuel?

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:26 PM

ther mite is a substance made from aluminium dust and iron oxide, it ignites gernally using a magnesium fuse and its hot enough to melt steel like is used in demonlitions of buildings that have steel support structures in the middle...can anyone think of a building that had these?

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:28 PM
I wasn't trying to "debunk" anything Gottago. It was posted that there wasn't anything from the collapse larger than a typrwriter keypad... and I asked for clearification.

Please show me the proof that there was molten "steel" at the WTC.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:44 PM
Seen the vid before, very good, but 9/11 was smoke sceens within smoke screens to muddy the waters for years to come.

ZGhorus the point you made of the first TT's bomb attack was not a failure as such, firstly it was either a dummy run (inside job) or secondly the terrorist got it wrong which I dont believe.

Terrorists are not stupid they are usually well trained and highly motivated, also they would have known that their small bomb would have not brought the building down.

And why detonate a bomb in an uderground car park where there would be limited casulties and where the effects of the blast would be controlled within the structure of the building.

Any terrorists with his salt would of put that bomb outside the building, can you imagine the carnage on the streets, it would have been hundreds dead and thousands injured. No this first event was a dry run for the big event, a live experiment such as this would provide massive amount of info on how the building reacted to the explosion.

For me Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma, WTC events1/2 are all connected.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by merryxmas
Wouldn't a building need even displacement of support columns to keep itself erect? If blowing out one column on one side of the building wouldn't you get a topple effect and not a inward collapse?

Yes, and by your own arguement, assymetrical fire and damage wouldn't do it either. Just something else to think about.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in