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.

 

Explosions with witnesses, how is this not a smoking gun?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I've been posting here quite a while now and recently (especially) everyone wants to have a smoking gun. There are several things that have been debunked from both the CT's and the official story.

However, one of the biggest issues to me is the denial of explosions. Many people experienced them. I have many small clips on youtube saved, but I have found a Documentary that begins with many witnesses to these explosions...

Google Video Link

please realize this is 30 some minutes long and contains quite a few pieces of loose change. I am not asking you to watch thru that. Please take a look at the interviews detailing the explosions (its the opening of the video). After first few minutes fast forward to 7:08, 11:44, 29:55, and 35:10 for more explosions.

real.ny1.com:8080...
same thing but in flash on youtube...
youtube.com...

I cant figure out why people deny the explosions, I think maybe because it IS one of the true smoking guns. There is so much evidence and so many eyewitness, and bombs on the lower levels elevate the case for either 'MIHOP' or big time coverup.

People on both sides of the fence seem to deny evidence rather than ignorance when cornered IMHO.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by jprophet420]




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I'm not denying the existance of any explosions. It's just that explosions do not always mean bombs.

We can debate back and forth what the sounds were that the witnesses heard. Truth be told, neither side can prove 100% what the explosions sounds were.

A truther will say bombs, where as a skeptic will say transformers, gas, steel collapsing...etc.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Why did officials suspect bombs then? Its in Many reports. The lobby was blown out by something other than jet fuel or a transformer, there is eyewitness, video, and forensic testimony.

Reports of bombs...
www.archive.org...

This is exactly what i mean, falling bodies and transformers, thats a stretch.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well, the official story does includes bombs (kind of). They say a fuel/air explosion happened in the basement and that's how the loby was blown and such. What IS a fuel/air explosive? It's a thermobaric bomb. Conveniently enough, designed to do exactly what happened at the WTC. Go figure.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Elliot Walker says: "a secondary explosion I think."

George Shay says: "an enormous explosion happened." Which was the initial impact.

He then says: "it was very confusing everyone immediately assumed a bomb exploded....that had people thinking that further bombs may explode." People assumed a bomb had exploded before they knew anything about planes. I think we all would have assumed that. It happened there before. It doesn't prove anything. It's not an official statement that a bomb went off, its a guy in a car that thought bombs were going off because he heard explosions. And wouldn't assume that a plane flew into the WTC.

Shay then confirms the secondary explosion Walker spoke of. Which also doesn't mean that it was a bomb.

That's a great video in the sense that it shows just how little anyone knew and how much speculation was occuring.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
If this was perpetrated by our gov. or etc., the planes are a perfect "explaination" for "explosives/explosions". Don'tcha think? It just goes to show how well this was planned.

Everything from the laws of physics being broken to the secondary explosions to pedestrian bridges collapsing before any tower did can be explained away with...."it was an extraordinary event. Everything was extraordinary because planes flew into buildings."

And people wonder why planes were involved.

Rant over. Continue.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
You know what's funny?

The fact that explosions were heard, and documented.

You know what is even more funny?

The "debunker's" look the other way, simply because it could be anything that explodes. Who cares that out of the small list of "things that explode", a demolition charge is one of them? Me. The "debunker's" completely ignore that only because it pretty much will confirm a "CD" theory.

So whats the problem? Why do "CT's" have their proof of "explosions" stepped on and bewildered by the "debunker's"?? Can it be that the "debunkers" can't handle the truth????

Let's see the FACT that BOTH sides of the debate can agree on, and work from there:

Debunker's : Yes, there were documented explosions.

Truther's : Yes, there were documented explosions.

You see, we both agree that explosions were heard, now, lets agree on this next one..

The explosions CAN possibly be demolition charges. Yes they can be a number of other things as well, but one of those things on this list happens to be a "demolition charge". If you can not agree with that, then you have an unusual agenda, and lying is your method.

Since we both HAVE TO agree that "explosions" were heard, then that means we both HAVE TO agree that among all the possibilities of things that explode, a "demolition charge" is one of them.

This means that BOTH the Debunker's, and Truther's, have an EQUAL responsibility to prove using evidence what those explosions were.

So far, the truther's are WAY AHEAD of the debunker's when it comes to proving what those explosions were. The truther's have calculations of 3 buildings collapsing at resistance defying speeds which can only happen one way. Video and image evidence of "squibs" which also has a list of multiple possible explanations. We have video evidence of firefighters saying they herd progressive explosions like a controlled demo. We have videos showing flashes inside of the WTC. We have couple multi-ton pieces of steel that flew AWAY from the WTC, when it should have just fallen next to it. We have actually more EVIDENCE than the debunker's will ever have.

So.. what are you waiting for debunkers?? It is now time for you to prove those explosions were NOT demolition charges, just like how truthers have to prove they WERE demolition charges.

So far the truther's are winning!!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0ne0ne
So far the truther's are winning!!


Although I agree with your post. If we are all really searching for truth, then aren't we all on the same "side"? Some of the "debunkers" on here have earned my respect as much as "truthers". I know you didn't mean it in that extreme, but I'm just saying.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
great thread! I wish I had something more to add...

well, perhaps I do. I am amazed at the lack of coverage this really gets, and all the recanting. Are there any groups of eye-witness truthers? like a group of 9/11 firefighter truthers? or do they not exist...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 



If one was close enought to witness a detonation of a planted "explosive", my guess is a serious injury or death.

The explosions heard directly after the impact were fireballs. This we know is true because of eyewitness testimony and types of injuries to those near the effected areas.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The explosions heard directly after the impact were fireballs. This we know is true because of eyewitness testimony and types of injuries to those near the effected areas.


Not at the lobby level and not underground. That can't be right, and we know this because of eyewitness testimonies to the lower elevator banks (to/from the basement) being blown out, and there are at least 2 firefighters that corroborate this (William Walsh and also the one that recently did the video interview for the LC guys), and from the fact that those kinds of overpressures simply could not make it down ~80-90 floors of drywall shafts without either dissipating to something negligible or else blowing out the shaft walls themselves beforehand, all the way down.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
bsbray has an exellent thread debunking the story of jet fuel causing the explosion, forensic evidence does not support fireballs either. The report that supports the fireball theory is actually what he (I am assuming) uses to prove the story wrong.

I will search the news archives for direct reports of bombs, I have heard them myself. There is a lot of information to review so it may take a while but I will get back to that.

The gentleman I posted the second video link to reports eyewitness testimony that does not directly state a bomb went off, but could not have been anything else. The damage destroyed the garage level, no fireball did this by a long shot.

However this thread is about the explosions themselves and not bombs. it has been brought up that the explosions could have been something else, this is what I want to focus on. The question asked is "Explosion with eyewitnesses, how is this not a smoking gun?".
Here is a perfect example of debunking gone wrong:

Elliot Walker says: "a secondary explosion I think."

George Shay says: "an enormous explosion happened." Which was the initial impact.

He then says: "it was very confusing everyone immediately assumed a bomb exploded....that had people thinking that further bombs may explode." People assumed a bomb had exploded before they knew anything about planes. I think we all would have assumed that. It happened there before. It doesn't prove anything. It's not an official statement that a bomb went off, its a guy in a car that thought bombs were going off because he heard explosions. And wouldn't assume that a plane flew into the WTC.

Shay then confirms the secondary explosion Walker spoke of. Which also doesn't mean that it was a bomb.

That's a great video in the sense that it shows just how little anyone knew and how much speculation was occuring.


Yet I post an audio clip that shows 2 seperate events. Both events had aprox. the same magnitude, so while he speculates that it wasnt necessarily a bomb he does so with no evidence. While I agree that i am also speculating, I am speculating with evidence to back it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join