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.

 

"Secondary Explosions" on 9/11: Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
But the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory seismograph clearly shows the spikes, (link on my previous post). Also the first graph posted on your post show them.


Spikes perhaps. They seem a bit small in comparison to other spikes seen on seismographs though. Also without knowing what the background looks like normally, you can't say for certain whether it is unusual or not, unless the data says it is filtered out or suppressed.

They are probably something, just they stay at a constant sort of amplitude for most of their duration. Multiple small explosions perhaps.



As to Steve Davis's credibility, he has a PhD from Stanford in Geology, has several peer reviewed articles, and is a member of the Geological Society of America.


Um yeah, I know that. I looked him up earlier to find out whether it was true or not. What I doubt is rense's ability to post something legitimate.




Your expert see no spike or blip whatsoever, mine claims they are consistent with an detonation. We can see the graph my expert used, if only there was some way of seeing the evidence Blanchard used, oh thats right he won't release it.


I don't care if he's right or not, and he's not my expert. It was just one of the earlier links I found.


The government REFUSES to give their evidence. How can you blindly believe them?


If this is directed at me still, stop it. I don't know what happened and I don't pretend to.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by apex]




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Should the planes not be factored in? Can they not be considered the first explosive device that took out floors, allowing the following "squibs" to finish the job?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by Soloist
 


Should the planes not be factored in? Can they not be considered the first explosive device that took out floors, allowing the following "squibs" to finish the job?


Did the buildings fall seconds after impact?

No.

Was that picture of a real demolition from the top down falling directly after the charges went off?

Yes.

Not the same thing, sorry.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Hearsay is not "proof"... Which is why so much (if not all) of the 911 conspiracy theory is sensational fabrication that wouldn't last 5 seconds as evidence in a court of law.

Oh! Oh! I saw something on YouTube about somebody claiming they heard something, somewhere! It must be true!!

No, it mustn't. No squibs, no planted explosives, no "gubbermint cubberup"... No concrete evidence exists for any of it.





[edit on 6/11/2008 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Hearsay is not "proof"... Which is why so much (if not all) of the 911 conspiracy theory is sensational fabrication that wouldn't last 5 seconds as evidence in a court of law.

Oh! Oh! I saw something on YouTube about somebody claiming they heard something, somewhere! It must be true!!


You certainly are a "disinformation specialist." Which is why you decided to stop by for a petty hit-and-run debunking.

Except it's not somebody claiming they heard something.

It's dozens of police, firefighters, paramedics, TV anchors, reporters, WTC employees and eyewitnesses discussing the numerous "secondary explosions", BOMBS and controlled demolitions they heard on 9/11.

Oh yeah, and reports of "federal agencies" investigating "suspicious devices."

Here Mr. Disinformation Specialist, have a look for yourself:




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Wow, I never knew what a moron was until now. I guess the only way you'll believe that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished with explosives is when you see a picture of a guy in a hard hat with a big explosives plunger standing next to them huh?

Do you understand the element of disguise? They didn't have to take it down right after impact, in fact if they did it would look even more suspicious, 2 towers falling instantly when a jet crashes into them, even though both were designed to take the impact of a jet plane? Wow, I smell a lawsuit right there.

The process however is the same. Middle floors taken out (we have video footage of planes taking out the middle floors in WTC 1 & 2), foundations taken out (witnesses claim explosions taking place in the basement area of the WTC), squibs taking out the remaining floors to help the building collapse in it's own footprint (video evidence shows the possible use of explosives taking place on lower floors as the top of both WTC 1 & 2 begin to collapse). So the process matches, the only reason it happens instantly in a controlled demolition is because they're not trying to cover up the fact they're bringing the buildings down.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


I apologize that my post made assumptions about what you believe. Its just that when I saw you using Blanchard, I assumed you believed the whole government story, like so many people. I applaud you for engaging in this discussion with an open mind, even if it means presenting evidence that doesn't fit my ideas of what might of happened. If more people were like that, we would be able to have a much more educated discussion.

Having said that, I implore you to keep searching. Clearly you can see there is at least enough evidence to have a reasonable doubt. And as long as that doubt exist, and the government refuses to give up evidence, then it is our duty to continue to question their story.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
no "gubbermint cubberup"...


You must have been living in a cave with Osama for the last 6.5 years. No government coverup? Not even for incompetence? Which, btw, is the official story.

Maybe you should ask the 9/11 commission if they feel they were lied to? Oh, that's right, they wanted to get the DOJ involved. No coverup my ass.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia

Wow, I never knew what a moron was until now. I guess the only way you'll believe that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished with explosives is when you see a picture of a guy in a hard hat with a big explosives plunger standing next to them huh?

Do you understand the element of disguise? They didn't have to take it down right after impact, in fact if they did it would look even more suspicious, 2 towers falling instantly when a jet crashes into them, even though both were designed to take the impact of a jet plane? Wow, I smell a lawsuit right there.

The process however is the same. Middle floors taken out (we have video footage of planes taking out the middle floors in WTC 1 & 2), foundations taken out (witnesses claim explosions taking place in the basement area of the WTC), squibs taking out the remaining floors to help the building collapse in it's own footprint (video evidence shows the possible use of explosives taking place on lower floors as the top of both WTC 1 & 2 begin to collapse).



Key word here -- AFTER the collapse starts. We see nothing that precludes an enormous explosion from CD that would start the collapse. The "squibs" (lol) or actually pockets of trapped air escape from lower levels as the building is coming down.

And if there was no need for a large detonation, that kind of blows the CD conspiracy to bits, amirite? Hell if just the plane was all that was needed to take out the middle floors, none of the rest is needed. Nor do we see any evidence of it.

Why blow the basement anyhow? Since the line this was following was about the ability of a building to collapse from the top down, which is exactly what happened.




So the process matches, the only reason it happens instantly in a controlled demolition is because they're not trying to cover up the fact they're bringing the buildings down.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So you don't trust the testimony of the dozens of witnesses who all independently claim there was an explosion in the basement? Or the fact that people were little blown off their feet by explosions? Or the seismographic evidence the we've been discussing? And again to a point everyone refuses to answer, why doesn't the government just release the evidence and clear their names if they've nothing to hide?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by Soloist
 


So you don't trust the testimony of the dozens of witnesses who all independently claim there was an explosion in the basement? Or the fact that people were little blown off their feet by explosions? Or the seismographic evidence the we've been discussing? And again to a point everyone refuses to answer, why doesn't the government just release the evidence and clear their names if they've nothing to hide?


I don't doubt there was some type of explosion or noise that may have traveled down the building during impact. This does not by default mean bombs.

The building fell from the top anyhow, so any explosions in the basement (reported right around impact) had no apparent effect on the collapse. Remember there were also firefighters in the basement areas during the collapse, and they survived, barely, and had been filming while they were down there. No explosions were recorded on film, none at all, just the rumbling of the building as it came crashing down.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I would like to see some of this video they took in the basement, I never heard of it. If you do watch the film that the OP posted, it shows firefighters and others saying they felt and heard explosions, including in the basement. If for a minute you can assume there were explosions in the basement (it shouldn't be to hard sense there we're dozens of witnesses), then what caused them, and what we're they? How could a plane hitting the top of the building cause an explosions in the basement. Witness accounts don't report seeing a raging inferno in the basement, only hearing explosions in the basement, that they were sure were bombs.

Not to beat a dead horse, but again: if the government would release the evidence the debate would end. What possible reason do they have for not releasing it?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler

I would like to see some of this video they took in the basement, I never heard of it.


I may actually have it on VHS somewhere, I can do my best to find it and convert it, it's only about 5 minutes of edited footage total. I'll see what I can do.



How could a plane hitting the top of the building cause an explosions in the basement.


I dunno. But since the 2 seemed to be related, something from the event caused it.


Witness accounts don't report seeing a raging inferno in the basement, only hearing explosions in the basement, that they were sure were bombs.


I'm not sure how one can tell what an explosion was caused by just from the sound.

I witnessed a fire on a small ranch in Texas when I was a kid, when the fire reached the horse barn ( we got the horses out and set them free, noone was home at the time) something inside, a tank of something, blew the damn thing to smithereens. It may have sounded like a bomb, and boy did it ever wreak destruction down , but it simply acetylene tanks, if I remember correctly.

Saying it sounded like a bomb would be correct, assuming it actually was a bomb, well, is just wrong.



Not to beat a dead horse, but again: if the government would release the evidence the debate would end. What possible reason do they have for not releasing it?


The large populace does not believe in a conspiracy. I'm fairly sure the government could care less about putting an internet debate to rest.

One more possible reason since the fact the terrorists were successful , especially in the case of the Pentagon they would want as little information out there as should be, first of all , it's egg on their face, second you don't want to give people anymore ideas than they already have on either the same type or potentially another kind of attack.

Don't show your vulnerabilities.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


If you could get that video up it would be sweet. As far as the fact that it may not have been bombs, your right. I think we both have spoke our peace on the subject and realize neither of us know for sure. Its not our fault we can't figure it out, its the governments. They are the ones that won't release the info.

To answer the point that the government may not be releasing the evidence because it would show vulnerabilities, I think that this is absurd. How would releasing samples from the steel, all of the video and photos they have, etc., lead to anyone learning more about our vulnerabilities? Is there truly terrorists sitting back going "curses. We would hijack planes and fly them into towers, if only we could see the steel samples from 9-11" I see no way that releasing any information on the evidence of the towers could harm anyone. Those specific buildings are already destroyed, so what could people use this info for?

As far as the majority of people not believing it for a reason that they won't release data. Assuming your right theres two problems. First, the main stream media is so biased against truthers that its no wonder that would be true. Secondly, Bush himself has said over and over again that conspiracy theories help our enemies. If this is all that is holding the government back, why not release the evidence to disprove these theories that they themselves admit are helping terrorists.

Also, I don't think you right about how many people believe this.

From Zogby, probably the polling service most used by politicians:

"Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7"
www.911truth.org...

Also from another 2007 Zogby poll:

"Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11
Investigation"
www.vtcommons.org...

From NYT:

"Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying."
www.angus-reid.com...

Heres what New Yorkers think:

"On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"
www.911truth.org...

And how about internationally, where we are trying to win the hearts and minds of people?

"A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 2 out of 5 of those polled in India, and only 1 in 20 in Pakistan, believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks"
en.wikipedia.org...

I could go on. I didn't find one poll that illustrated only a few people believed this. Think of how much credibility would be gained by this administration, especially in the Islamic world, if the US would release this evidence and it proves what they say it does. Surely, this would more than outweigh any potential to "exposing our vulnerability", especially when that doesn't even make sense.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Saying it sounded like a bomb would be correct, assuming it actually was a bomb, well, is just wrong.

Then the "federal agencies" in the video who are investigating "suspicious devices" and who claim that a secondary "truck bomb" exploded in the WTC towers, not to mention the FDNY firefighters who are warning bystanders of a "BOMB" in the building are well, just wrong.

But I'm sure you know more than they do.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Soloist
Saying it sounded like a bomb would be correct, assuming it actually was a bomb, well, is just wrong.

Then the "federal agencies" in the video who are investigating "suspicious devices" and who claim that a secondary "truck bomb" exploded in the WTC towers, not to mention the FDNY firefighters who are warning bystanders of a "BOMB" in the building are well, just wrong.

But I'm sure you know more than they do.



So you're telling me you are taking the word of those you distrust?

Regardless, this is missing the point, the towers fell from the top down. No bomb in the basement brought them down.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
So you're telling me you are taking the word of those you distrust?

On the first day, before everything was covered-up, yes. Just like I believed CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre when he stood in front of the Pentagon and said, "based on my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." Later he "clarified" what he meant.


Originally posted by Soloist
Regardless, this is missing the point, the towers fell from the top down. No bomb in the basement brought them down.

According to you. Not according to the dozens of "federal agency" employees, police, firefighters, paramedics, TV anchors, reporters, WTC employees and eyewitnesses who were actually at the scene.

Instead of allowing debunkers to interpret these explosions with their ridiculous theories (exploding cans of cleaning products
, oxygen tanks, pockets of gas, etc.), people should watch the video and decide for themselves.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

According to you. Not according to the dozens of "federal agency" employees, police, firefighters, paramedics, TV anchors, reporters, WTC employees and eyewitnesses who were actually at the scene.




So you're saying that all these officials claim bombs in the basements brought the towers down? And that they didn't fall from the top down in the video you are claiming is the deciding factor on what one should use to make us his/her mind?

I must have missed that one.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Once again, watch the video. You'll see you've missed a lot of things.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join