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.


Wow, cant believe what in hearing

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Thing is though, in a normal CD, the point is to bring the building down as safely as possible. When that rule goes out the window, what possibilities does that open up? You don't need to be as tidy about it.


Now here is someone who understands what is going on.

This short paragraph says a ton. I wish i knew how to write like this. See my post, It takes me 1000 words to try and say this.

Excellent stuff.

Now to add to the though real quick....

What i'm trying to say is 7 is not you ordinary CD. Think of what your everday joe has in terms of technology, right? and they say what the government holds tech 20-30 years ahead of the public, right?

Well does that not include specialized explosives, and bombs, that just might be used to take down a 47 foot steelframe, (stop with you chimney fire guy, were talking modern buildings) building down, better, quicker, more discretely than your everyday joe...i.e you local city Demo company.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Nola213]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Boniouk06
hmm i dunno, i think the BBC did what they always do, start out agreeing with the conspiracy, going along with it, then in the last half hour, interview people who say its nonsense and make out like its funny that some people believe in it.
They did it last wednedsay too with the Welsh UFO thing.

i totally agree, the BBC have a clever way of doing this. they'll act like they're showing both sides of the story on any given issue, but they'll eventually sway the viewer into thinking that the conspiracy is ridiculous.

anyway people only watch this sort of evening TV as entertainment. even if it did open people's eyes to what could have happened on 9/11, the majority of viewers will have forgotten about it by the next day and gone off to get on with their lives.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

first: in the first video you can't even hear the nearby people probably. That's do to the microphone itself. In interviews they use such microphones that try to eliminate all sound other then the interviewers and interviewed voice.
Think a bit. Why you can hear reporters standing in crowed masses? They can't even talk probably because they can't understand their own words. Still you hear them without problem on tv.

second: in the second video they use a different microphone especially for sounds in the ling distance (probably a bidirectional microphone). Those you can here the sound of the explosion very loud..

However, if you turn up the volume in the first movie you can still here an "explosion". Or whatever this is.

So, you comment isn't valid at all!


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by RE2505
1. The building was not only fire damaged. From what I saw in the docu, one side of the building was torn to shreds from the falling debris of the WTC tower. So when conspiracy theorists keep pulling "No steel framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire alone" out of their backsides, it's obvious that this does not apply to building 7 because it had sustained major structural damage before the fires started!

Torn to shreds? Care to show any evidence that it was "torn to shreds"? What do you consider "major structural damage" also? If the building's facade being damaged is "major structural damage" to a building, God help us all. We all work in death traps.

2. Did nobody else see what it takes to carry out a controlled demolition? For a building that size not only would there be OBVIOUS foreign objects (explosives of some sort) attached to most load bearing columns but also hundreds of meters of detonation cord connecting them all so they could fire in sequence (controlled demolition). I am trained in demolitions and explosives to a degree and this amount of preparation would have taken months I imagine. How could all this have gone unnoticed?

Have you ever worked in a high rise building? Do you stop every maintenance worker and follow them to their pre-determined site and watch their every move all day long? Or do you say to yourself, "oh, there's some more maintenance people, they must be doing more maintenance". Seriously.

I admit the way the building comes down is strange and almost unnatural but then again I haven't seen a whole lot of other buildings that have been smashed apart from other falling buildings, then ravaged by fire to compare to.

I have yet to see a building "smashed" apart from the falling of another building also. Including WTC 7.

If anything, WTC 3 was "smashed apart" far more than 7, had larger and longer fires yet didn't collapse fully. BTW, WTC 3 had debris from the towers rain on it from 1,000 + feet but yet was still able to arrest a global collapse. But, WTC 1 and 2 couldn't arrest a falling body from 12.5 feet?

I don't buy it.

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Griff]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Call me "desperate" if you like, but the *way* the building was demolished is one of the points being looked at. 9/11 was no ordinary day, and the methods were world firsts (let's not lose sight of that).

No less then 5 world firsts occurred that day:

* Terrorists use aircraft as weapons against building
* Passengers attempt to take back an aircraft
* 50% of the aircraft involved never had their "black boxes" recovered despite the crash locations being known
* not 1, not 2, but 3 buildings collapsed, allegedly due to "fire"
* WTC 1 and 2 collapse in extremely similar ways (T) but with a catch

T = The second building to be hit, collapsed first (after just FIFTY SEVEN MINUTES).

If the WTC was NOT demolished, and the official story is correct, don't you feel just a little bit unnerved about all these high-rise buildings?

As the architect in the film highlighted - our building codes are so wrong, it's scary (if it's true), yet given this earth-shattering news, what exactly has been done to seriously investigate what is probably the greatest single flaw of the design of thousands of buildings world-wide in history? NOTHING.

Either they don't want to know, or things aren't as they're telling us they are (hence why no action is being taken, because there isn't a problem).

[edit on 6-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Yeah, well I think you've got it backwards. I would have to agree that our building codes most likely ARE wrong. Is that so hard to believe? Dude, look at the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota last year. Look at the pieces of the tunnel that were falling on cars in Boston a couple of years ago. Do you really think that in all cases these architects and building inspectors never cut corners and costs and were on the up and up? And is it so hard to believe that a city-run government puts building inspections and codes at the back of the to-do list when the budget always falls short?

Think about the two - which is a more likely scenario?

1. A complex and extremely hard to pull-off conspiracy to detonate three buildings for some unknown reason using previously untested methods - where the building codes were spot on perfect and properly maintained?

2. Structural collapse of three buildings due to extremely unusual circumstances combined with questionable building codes and improperly maintained structures?

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Google Video Link

play this video at exactly 47 mins and 50 secs.. Just want to shut that idiot up, fast fingers funk.. what a brain washed simpleton..

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by 1234567

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

WHOA... like the architect in "Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" - if this is true, then uilding codes around the world are inadequate, and potentially thousands of buildings are prone to collapse due to fire.

Either WTC7 was a CD and building codes are fine, or we have a very serious safety issue with tall buildings. Either is extremely serious.

Let's force their hand - if they say normal fires were the cause - let's push for changes to the building codes for fire on a global scale. Let's have investigations into the safety of every high-rise in existence.

Would they bring in lots of expensive legislation to do this, to make buildings safer, if this really was the cause?

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:11 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Thing is though, in a normal CD, the point is to bring the building down as safely as possible. When that rule goes out the window, what possibilities does that open up? You don't need to be as tidy about it.

If they blew the building to bits it would've been a bigger area to clear up, and it would've looked a lot more suspicious.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by b6x87]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by b6x87]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Truther

play this video at exactly 47 mins and 50 secs.. Just want to shut that idiot up, fast fingers funk.. what a brain washed simpleton..

acting like a child does not prove a point. neither does posting an alex jones video. i posted a video of WTC7 collapsing and there are no explosions heard. the only thing you can debate that with is a video of WTC7 WITH explosions. one person, who we don't even know if he was actually there or not, does not make the fact that there were no explosions recorded when WTC7 collapsed go away.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Either WTC7 was a CD and building codes are fine, or we have a very serious safety issue with tall buildings. Either is extremely serious.

Let's force their hand - if they say normal fires were the cause - let's push for changes to the building codes for fire on a global scale. Let's have investigations into the safety of every high-rise in existence.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit

WTC1&2 plans were drawn up in the early 60's. the boeing 767s maiden flight was not until 1981. so it keep in mind an event of this magnitude was not even a consideration when they were built. you can bet that whatever goes up next will feature extensive upgrades.

with WTC7, an interesting fact is that the the substation was finished before the rest of the building went up and was only designed to carry the weight of 25 stories. when the design was finished it was much larger than the intended 25 stories, which led to the design of gravity transfer trusses, which was a new and untested design.

also with WTC7, the fireproofing design was such that each floor was cut off from the next as far as air, which was supposed to keep smoke levels down since there was no oxygen from surrounding floors (which in turn slows the fire). the problem with 9/11 is that WTC1 debris breached the side of many floors which made this system completely fail, now smoke and fire could easily spread from one floor to the next. also, the steel was only coated with fireproofing that had a 2 & 3 hour rating.

the new WTC7 was completed in 2006 and again, this building is built more with the events of a 9/11 in mind.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

No, you posted a video with not only no sound of explosions, but also without the sound of the whole building collapsing, so it proves nothing.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

No, you posted a video with not only no sound of explosions, but also without the sound of the whole building collapsing, so it proves nothing.

i can hear it falling, the people there can hear it falling. are you stating that you would not hear a controlled demoltion from a few blocks away? i can spot two traffic lights from there to the smoke (as they zoom in), this is no more than three blocks away. CD's can be heard from well over a mile away. this one below, the explosions are MUCH louder than the building falling. there is no comparison in sound. you would absolutely hear explosions from this distance.

and the original aired footage, not doctored in any way.
"what we have been fearing all day has apparently happened".

[edit on 7-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Nola213
How do you explain the countdown heard on police CB's?

one person heard this correct? an alex jones propagandist that has changed his story multiple times. you need more evidence of a countdown than that.

Originally posted by Nola213
How do you explain the BBC reporting 7's collapse more than 20 min. prior?

i don't have to explain it, BBC already did. and are you really suggesting that a reporter in england couldn't have gotten the relay message mixed up and instead somehow he was fed knowledge by a source that already knew it was coming down with explosives?

Originally posted by Nola213
How do you explain the molten metal foundary under 7, , which was explained away under 1 and 2 as the jet fuel burning so intensly, but oops, no jet fuel in 7, and the one medium sides diesel tank is not gonna produce those heat signatures.

not true. no molten metal was found under WTC7.

Originally posted by Nola213
How do you explain the 5-7 huge booms (caught on video, and audio, remember the video of the 3 fireman useing the payphone, then BOOM...that came from 7)and dozens of witnesses report hearing?

that's only evidence of one explosion and it was way before the collapse. also, it was not WTC7 that produced the explosion in the fireman video, that misinformation. and it would have been louder than that if they were as "LARGE" as your "5-7 LARGE devices is all it would take" theory.

Originally posted by Nola213
I don't understand you Official story guys, you believe every witness at the pentagon, but discount all the building 7 witnesses, who report hearing explosions in 7 before either of the two twin towers were even hit by a plane.

i could say the same about you truther story guys. you discount the numerous accounts of fireman and reporters that were there, live on video standing right in front of it (proof i can show you, not just a guy telling a story afterwards), and had been predicting it's collapse all afternoon. just like the video i put up, "it looks like what we have been predicting all afternoon has apparently happened". a person live on the news that 9/11 in front of it saying it's going to collapse is far better evidence than an alex jones fan who has no proof that he was even there.

Originally posted by Nola213
All of your footage showing 7's collapse is taken from over 5 blocks away, it's my understanding they moved everyone back 6 blocks and more, not to mention the videos only show the collapse of 7, not the unconventional way it was brought down.

your undertanding was wrong, there is plenty of video from less than 3 city blocks. even at 6 blocks you would hear that of a controlled demolition, easily. the video i posted is less than three blocks away (you can count the street lights when he zooms in) and there is no demolition sound. and again, the guy mentions that it finally collapses as they thought it would all afternoon.

Originally posted by Nola213
There's more than one way to bring down a building. I'm sure if you cant gut it and rip it or fly planes into it. So stop with the "I don't SEE any explosions, while the building is falling". You don't see explosions inside a building that hasn't been gutted and prepped for demo , you hear them. Also the way they did 7, you wouldn't hear them as the building fell, you'd hear them before that, because after all these explosions are what caused the building to fall. Yes there is seismyc data, and sound data of more xplosions and earthquake like tremors, than the 2 crashes, and the falling towers call account for.

i never said anything about seeing any explosions while the building is falling. you certainly don't hear them when it falls though. and look at any CD, the explosions are going off as it falls still. you would not "hear them before that" as you are explaining. when the explosives go off the building falls, it doesn't stand there for a minute.

Originally posted by Nola213
5-7 well places, LARGE explosive devices can and will do the same job. But it happened minutes before collapse, which your not gonna hear when watching the building collapse.

then why don't all CD's use 5-7 devices? and do you have evidence 5-7 explosions happened a minutes before the collapse? ive never heard that once. im assuming this is a myth since it was "5 to 7". was it five, was it six, or was it seven?

Originally posted by Nola213
It confuses me that people thing there is only ONE single way to bring down a high rise in a controlled fashion. You HAVE to remember that 7 was not the office buildings the towers was, it was mainly government ONLY. So it was alot easier for them to place these charges, and bring down this building in a way most Demo companies wouldn't.

was it mainly gov't or was if gov't ONLY? anyway, this is all true but it's merely speculation that any of this occured. numerous things could have caused explosions all day, and we hear them, but it seems to me that in many scenarios you are using the "i heard explosives" to come to a conclusion. no explosions were heard before WTC7 collapsed.

Originally posted by Nola213
Remember you are not supposed to know how these building came down, it's why it's called a cover up. It's not gonna be done like, or look like every CD you've seen before in your life.

ok, i'll remember. and remember, every CD of skyscrapers uses explosives and none happened as WTC7 fell or within minutes of it falling. those are facts, not something "you are not supposed to know".

[edit on 7-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Nola213
Don't you find it odd that 7 is the only modern day steel framed high rise that collapsed solely due to fire, on 9/11 no less? Coincidence....I think not. Alot of money to be made, and a pre text for war is what was the plan.

never has the same building with the same structural design and materials had the same structural and fire damage, so there is nothing to compare it to. different designs with different damage and different materials are not comparisons. and just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't or will never happen. did the first person who ever demo'd a building have enough logic to know it could be done even though it had never been done before? yes

Originally posted by Nola213
You need to do more reading, and research into this, cause one video from 6-8 blocks away only showing the building collapsing again is not gonna pick up the big explosions used many minutes before hand, that led to 7's collapse.

5-7 explosions used many minutes before hand? again, how does a building explode and stay up for a few minutes? never happened. and was it 5, 6 or 7? i like how you say "remember we are not supposed to know how they did it" but then you proclaim to know how they did it. and that video was less than three block away. count the stoplights to the smoke coming out of the building. only two. these are NYC blocks, i know, i grew up there.

Originally posted by Nola213

Since all cameras were looking at the two largest buildings in the US being hit by passenger jets, no cameras were pointed at a building MANY people never knew existed. But audio analysis clearly shows numerous explosions before and after jet impacts, and 1 and 2 collapsing, some on the scale of small earthquakes.

WHAT? there is tons of video of WTC7 falling. are you serious? and there is no audio analysis that shows explosions before the first jet hits. not true whatsoever.

Originally posted by Nola213

and no I'm not gonna dig up files that you as an american should have already studied in the past 7 years since this has happened.

translation = "i made a lot of stuff up just now and might get called on it"

[edit on 7-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:10 PM
Have you seen the latest from Kevin Ryan at the Journal of 911 Studies??

These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).
This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests
that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of
the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have
been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port
Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such
alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent
paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that
this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.
Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST
has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the
WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were
not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Truther
Just watching the builing 7 documentary on bbc 2, there actually agreeing that the building could not have folded like that without demolition, this is the bbc now, a mainstream tv channel, unbelievable!

Contrary to popular belief.. there are some sane people left in the media that challenge the views of their higher ups.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:20 PM
If our Government, want to bring a building down, and make it "look" like it just fell, I bet they can.

If our Government is going to (stage a false flag operation) to bring all these buildings down they have to come up with away to make it "NOT"to look like they exploded.

Our Government can do anything and make us all believe anything they are very good at it.

Just because you dont hear explosives, when WTC7 came down dosent mean some typ of explosive were used.

The thing here, is to find out what they used.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by cashlink

I think it is very possible that some sort of ray or beam weapon was used to melt the supporting beams in all the buildings. Could be there was no exposions.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by prometheus1111
It seems the controlled demolition issue is the #1 issue within 911.

Had our leaders said the following they wouldnt have had all these questions and conspiracies floating around.

"We had to collapse the buildings to prevent them from toppling over a wide area thus destroying more property and possibly killing more people. All skyscrapers were retrofitted with controlled demolition charges incase of natural or unatural disasters in the 1980s."

Yep, just like they won't admit to shooting down Flight 93 over Shanksville, PA. In fact, they've lied about just about every aspect of 9/11, which convinces me of their guilt.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:24 AM
Are these explosions?

I can't tell.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in