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.

 

Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The guy's "cousin" isn't on here trying to bring first-hand arguments to his case. It automatically loses signifigance when you recount someone else's experience, regardless of how closely you were related. But to claim YOU were actually there is a big hurdle to a discussion because anything you say is automatically weighed heavier than someone who was NOT there.

If that poster was actually in the Pentagon on that day, there are about a million things he can add to the discussion in terms of the experience. But if he's just lying in order to redirect some force to his theoretical arguments, then that's not cool. I think he should answer to the challenge.

Otherwise, I guess we can all just claim to have been standing on a surrounding building in NYC with high-speed video tape showing the planes hit in remarkable detail. We could even claim we were on the C130 that supposedly launched the cruise missile that hit the pentagon. While we're at it, maybe we were even in the meeting where Cheney and Bush made the deal with Bin Laden to pull the job so we could invade Iraq.

If you make a specific claim as to your whereabouts on that day and how you have first-hand information, you have to be able to back that up or your arguments will hold no weight.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
If that poster was actually in the Pentagon on that day, there are about a million things he can add to the discussion in terms of the experience. But if he's just lying in order to redirect some force to his theoretical arguments, then that's not cool. I think he should answer to the challenge.


Fair enough, I see your point.


Otherwise, I guess we can all just claim to have been standing on a surrounding building in NYC


Well, we do have a few "debunkers" here that pretty much DO claim this.


Originally posted by ferretman2
I was 600 feet away when the first tower collapsed. There was no explosion, just a very load and long rumbling. And yes, I did watch the the top collapse before turning away and running.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will you be asking for his credentials also? I hope so.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
From what I see in the video it looks like electrical arcs from wire melting and shorting together.


Funny thing is. I actually agree with you. Electrical arcs would produce smoke also, no?


Then I asked questions which you did not answer and now you are trying to dodge the questions, by asking more questions.


Fair enough, I'll answer your questions. But, I can garantee that you will not be satisfied with my answers and therefore will be a waste of my time. But, here goes.

To be continued:



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ebe51
From what I see in the video it looks like electrical arcs from wire melting and shorting together.


Funny thing is. I actually agree with you. Electrical arcs would produce smoke also, no?


Then I asked questions which you did not answer and now you are trying to dodge the questions, by asking more questions.


Fair enough, I'll answer your questions. But, I can garantee that you will not be satisfied with my answers and therefore will be a waste of my time. But, here goes.

To be continued:


If they are good answers I will consider them, yet so far I have not seen any really good..."proofs" yet. Anyway I'll look at your answers later I have to get back to work now.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
Fact
Popular mechanics did research on the structural collapse of the towers and concluded that the building could have fell just as they did without controlled demolition.


This is indeed not fact. PM did no such research. Maybe you are mistaking NIST & FEMA et al. with Popular Mechanics?


-----------------------
Speculation
Controlled demolition....Questions if true....

How did the explosion get there?


Probably by hand. I'm not aware of any robots that could have done it.


You couldn't do it before because wiring and charges would have be damaged during the crash.
You couldn't do after because a person would die from fire before getting to where charges would need to placed, or likely path to location would no longer exist.


If the explosives where placed below the top mechanical floor (or at that floor), then your questions are irrelevant other than the assumption that some of these flashes are explosives from bombs (which I think they are electrical in nature myself also).


Who would do it?


Anyone who had access to the building.

That would put the suspects at what......millions of people.


How would you cover it up,


If you mean the noise......wait till the building begins it's failure.

If you mean the people.......why did it take Deep Throat 30 years after he uncovered Nixon and on his deathbed to finally confess who he was? What was HE afraid of?


many people would need to be involved,


You say potaeto...I say potato. I don't believe much would be involved.


would everybody involved be tight lipped?


You betcha. Or they wouldn't be involved in the first place.


How you would drill out beams and the other prep work needed without letting the tenets know, was major construction going on?


You don't need to "drill out beams" to place explosives on them. At least not what are called I-beams.


You can not place charges on the surface, you have to place them inside the beams.


Wrong assumption.


To knock out a beam with a surface charge you would have to have a very big explosion. Small charges like some people think they see would not work on the surface of a beam. Case in point an airplane exploded on the beams and they did stood, for a long while. So, someone has to drill holes.


Look into "linear shaped charges" and come back with those statements.


Did anybody see people drilling holes into the beams.


There are reports. Whether true or not, we may never know.


Think people, think!


I do. Thanks for the advice.


It's impossible to do this much work and cover-up with out people knowing about it.


Again. I say not.


Yet, airplane crashing into a building will do everything you see these videos.


I beg to differ.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



I don't have the time right now give feedback on the points, but a here a quick answer to PM story....

www.popularmechanics.com...

And here the page talking about Puffs of smoke...
www.popularmechanics.com...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
hi can i just point out that if the building was collapsing in a pancake fashion then how come when ten floors have blown out yeah BLOWN! out sideway, then

WHY ARE THE CORNERS ALL STILL PERFECTLY IN TACT? if ten floors of the building had collapsed then the corners cant all stay in there original positions, if this is the case then the core had to be cut from below in the center and if you want to argue that they can then your talking about a collapse that would move sideways not straight down, so please be careful what you riddle next.

anyway call me old fashioned but when all the news crews and all the firemen and all the witnesses said that bombs were going off everywhere then i have a hard time not believeig them they dont get rich off the ewars and they dont get new powers to control the cattle, i mean citizens of there country.
but larry silverstein didnt get rich... he and his family were all running late too... what are the odds, he even PULLED the building number 7. he never got rich from it!
bush didnt get new powers!
you didnt get less right!
halliburton didnt make trillions!
the u.s didnt star any wars after it.
osma is still wanted by the FBI for it
jeb bush wasnt in charge of security of the complex till the day before and had the sniffer dogs took out.


anyone who still thinks that this wasn't an inside job please go google video the Oklahoma city bombing original footage of the FBlie and the district attorney confirming the 2nd bomb and then the 3rd and FEMA turning up and taking them out in trucks!!!!!!!! how did they get in the building if it was a truck bomb? also they say "the 2nd bomb is bigger than the first bomb!!!!" how did they know how big the first bomb was unless they put it there its only just gone off for someone sake! later news GET YOU AIRBRUSH out for the new history truck bombs kills everyone, 1 lone nut,

let us protect you give me your right.
"if you can protect me you can have them kind sir please protect us from the evil dooers"
im surprised that they havnt found new evidence to say it was IRAN, then as ADOLF said "were going in!" didnt he invade loads of country on false flag ops he set up himself? Reichstag's fire anyone?

what that old saying people who dont know there history are doomed to believe politicians. left right paradigm baby, they own you, me , us. ( they think they do, sadly they still control a lot of what people think, they think)

you all have a good one and remember the enemy of all of us is WAR apart from politicians.......... to them its BIG MONEY BABY!



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
reply to post by Griff
 



I don't have the time right now give feedback on the points, but a here a quick answer to PM story....

www.popularmechanics.com...

And here the page talking about Puffs of smoke...
www.popularmechanics.com...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ebe51]


the guy at popular mechanics even stated on air that they had identified the hijackers from DNA this was the pentagon plane but all event are connected no? then suddenly he realized what he had said and stated going somewhere else and the guy on the radio said wait! "you id the hijackers using DNA and he said yes, he then said you saw the evidence that none of us are allowed to see and he said yes, then he asked where did you get your original sample of DNA to match these wanted terrorist from?.......................................................................... he couldn't answer and still to this day hasn't even though he said he would get back to him with that evidence, you think something this important he might have bothered. no because he couldn't back up his Bull. the radio even called him and he just ignored them. oh yeah stand up guy! but its not a major point of contention only had 2 wars so far and more to come, remember that guys name. HAGO



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
(sigh) well at least if i have to agree with anyone that thinks it was a CD its griff im agreeing with...

reply to post by Griff
 



yeah, everything griff said about the plausibility of a CD in this thread is accurate, i just still disagree on the conclusions.

NO you dont have to drill to cut columns
NO it doesnt necessarily take HUGE explosives to do it from the outside
YES LSC's will do it with much less ordinance

however, all those smaller bombs still add up and i STILL have a hard time thinking that even the sound of the fall covered the sound of 172lbs of HE going off. you can watch any number of other cd's and STILL hear the demo charges going off once the building starts to fall. no, they werent exactly like the wtc's but then, what were?

so i fully support all of griffs statements re: explosives, i just disagree on the end result and to me, it still wasnt a cd.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so i fully support all of griffs statements re: explosives, i just disagree on the end result and to me, it still wasnt a cd.


This is why I think you're a standup guy Damocles.


We can agree to disagree but still come to the middle to discuss. Wish more debates were like that. Cheers.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by StudioGuy
If that poster was actually in the Pentagon on that day, there are about a million things he can add to the discussion in terms of the experience. But if he's just lying in order to redirect some force to his theoretical arguments, then that's not cool. I think he should answer to the challenge.


Fair enough, I see your point.


Otherwise, I guess we can all just claim to have been standing on a surrounding building in NYC


Well, we do have a few "debunkers" here that pretty much DO claim this.


Originally posted by ferretman2
I was 600 feet away when the first tower collapsed. There was no explosion, just a very load and long rumbling. And yes, I did watch the the top collapse before turning away and running.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will you be asking for his credentials also? I hope so.


Yes, I think it's only fair that anybody who claims to have first hand information be expected to prove it. Whether the mods will actually follow thru on it or not is another story. I certainly wouldn't ask the person to provide personal information to a faceless member of some bulletin board (like me or you), but I think it's reasonable to ask that they provide it to the mods.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ebe51

If you mean the people.......why did it take Deep Throat 30 years after he uncovered Nixon and on his deathbed to finally confess who he was? What was HE afraid of?



And yet, he DID come forward to blow the whistle on the whole affair.

This fact escapes Griff and blows his/her line of reasoming outta the water.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Nicely done, I admire your patience. Your work should be appreciated more, for opening eyes is an invaluable effort.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anubis Kanubis
 


Thanks. I wish I had more to work with. Does anyone have an FOIA out for the structural documents yet? If not, I guess I'll look into it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
A point I'd like to bring up about people being "tight lipped":

Assuming the government played a part, one thing our government is known for is it's ability to keep everything compartmentalized. Everyone works on one little detail while having no idea what the big picture is.

So say you wired the building or played a part in getting the terrorists on the plane... would you say anything? Two things could come out of disclosing your part in the plan:

1) You tell the small part you played and everyone calls you a nut
2) You tell the small part you played, everyone believes you, and then you are known as the guy who helped kill 2000 American civilians (and possibly put on trial)

I think I'd keep my mouth shut.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no one has ever found evidence of explosives, much less how they could have been planted, why would you jump to the conclusion that you are seeing "explosives"?

That's hardly the scientific way of doing things.


First I can direct you to any video of WTC7 where NOT just myself but experts in Controlled demolitions have stated quite clearly that it was a CD. It tells me that you can look at that video and believe another plausible reason for that?

No evidence?? Just out of curiosity,, do you think a professional hitman leaves evidence? When you KNOW that all the forensic evidence being carted off across the ocean as well guarded as gold bullion from FT Knox would under any other circumstances been examined, you don't see that as evidence tampering?

You know what I see when I watch WTC7 coming down?

I see all the evidence I need.

You on the other hand need

a candle to see the sun



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
First I can direct you to any video of WTC7 where NOT just myself but experts in Controlled demolitions have stated quite clearly that it was a CD. It tells me that you can look at that video and believe another plausible reason for that?

experts? plural? ive seen one guy go on video saying he thought it was a cd, but he made that observation without knowing what building it was, how much damage had been done to it, and watching the clip without audio. sounds like a setup to me, and he's the ONLY demo guy ive seen claim it was a CD. if you can direct me to more experts in the demo field who think that id love to read their stuff as im more than willing to admit i could be wrong, id love to compare notes with some of these guys.


No evidence?? Just out of curiosity,, do you think a professional hitman leaves evidence?

well, theres no such thing as the perfect hit. and contrary to anything youve seen in a hollywood movie you cant blow up a building covertly. you cant put a silencer on a shape charge. (i wont be so condecending as to use the hushaboom analogy but you should get my drift)



When you KNOW that all the forensic evidence being carted off across the ocean as well guarded as gold bullion from FT Knox would under any other circumstances been examined, you don't see that as evidence tampering?

so, none, not one of the FDNY or NYPD guys that was there noticed anything during the firefighting/rescue/cleanup operations? or were they all in on it? explosives leave forensic evidence. part of a package, the casing for detcord, the wires that go to blasting caps, blasting caps leave little bits of aluminum that are pretty distinct, all of this escaped notice?

no one noticed the beams had been cut? (there should have been several)

youre honestly willing to sit and tell us that ALL of this went unnoticed or that anyone noticing it was either threatened/bribed/suicided/or paid off?

possible i suppose but unlikely in my opinion.



You know what I see when I watch WTC7 coming down?

validation of your preconceived opinions about the evile empire? proof of your faith?

personally i see a building falling down after having sustained undertermined damage from causal effects yet to be specified. in other words we dont know what we dont know and the rest is speculation. what i dont see is proof that there was any explosives used at all.

of course i could be wrong. can you admit that?



I see all the evidence I need.

i really hope youre never on a jury in a trial for me or anyone i know and like.


You on the other hand need

a candle to see the sun

and maybe people tend to find monsters where they seek them...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You know what I see when I watch WTC7 coming down?

I see all the evidence I need.


Sure, it looks strange and unexplained, but does that mean it's definitely a CD? if there were explosives, people would have heard them. Also, if there were explosives in WTC1, surely those firefighters who survived the collapse in the stairwell should have heard them? And normally, don't buildings get pulled inwardly more than WTC7 was? It looks more vertical than being pulled inwards to me.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Could be anything. If those were big explosions then why are they only seen in one window? Surely to take the main core out it would require some force. Why aren't the windows blowing out also?

I suggest they are electrical. Possible bulbs blowing from heat, from internal damage.

Hardly evidence at all.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Surely to take the main core out it would require some force.


Bingo! And according to the official story gravity was that force, pulling the top of the building through thousands of tons of undamaged construction steel as if it wasn't even there. Yes gravity was some force that day...


So really does it matter whether we see explosive flashes in video's? Does it matter if there is no physical proof of 'explosives'? When the physical reality is that the towers could not have collapsed the way they did without them?

Forget explosive flashes, the government first has to explain how the impossible happened and the effects of resistance were overcome. They haven't done that, so why are you worrying about explosive flashes? You should be asking your government to fill in the HUGE blanks and assumptions in their 'official' story first, and why the investigations into the collapses only covers what they could spin to fit the 'official' story and ignores the rest.




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join