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.


North Tower Exploding - What do you see?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:39 PM
There is something else which may warrant consideration, if the Engineer from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is correct in his assessment, and what I say is plainly obvious, in terms of how some people could see the same thing and still maintain that they are not witnessing explosions, and that is the nature of the magnitude of the atrocity, and the accompanying explanation (lie) as to cause being solely as a result of the plane strikes and fires.

The Big Lie

In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
~ Adolf Hitler, on, ironically, "The Big Lie"

So what I am suggesting is that we must operate objectively based upon what is observed, and not on the basis of what we firmly believe and assume, a priori, MUST be true, simply because we cannot bring ourselves to accept any other explanation, due to the magnitude of the evil, and the big lie ie: that factions of the US government could possibly have been involved in something so heinous, as a pretext to justify war for geopolitical and financial gain, along with a wholesale transformatin in military and security affairs of the state, and perhaps many other reasons, including cheap and plentiful energy supplies - such that they would resort to authorizing and covering up such an atrocity, the mass murder of one's own people who the government is charged with the responsibility of serving and protecting.

In other words the argument of "it can't be true, you must be crazy" is no argument at all.

But to consider the alternative is just too much for some and that's understandable, and it means that they are decent people really for thinking and believing in this way, but it may be naive, and even deadly, for some future generation. And sometimes growth and progreess comes throug the learning of a painful realization.. more often than not, that's how things change for the better, and I think there's much to be learned from 9/11, yes from the alternative viewpoint of the evidence presented by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement.

So in terms of the actual phenomenon itself, of which there are many, including evidence of temperatures so extreme that large amounts of steel was atomized into a spray which mixed with the dust to form tiny micro-spheres, when it is evaluated objectively and without prejudice or bias, it would seem that one and only one possibility remains, which excludes the other.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:24 PM
It was only air presure.

It was also only air presure that blew up the reception area before the first plane hit!

I mean seriously! Are we all still at this stage?

[edit on 9/23/2009 by corvin77]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by corvin77

But wasn't that a jetfuel fireball which went down the elevator shaft for 94 floors and blew out the lobby area of the North Tower?

And mustn't Willy Rodrigues, the Janitor and hero who saved 100's of lives that day, be either mistaken, or insane, to say that there was a subbasement explosion prior to the impact up above?

There must be a perfectly rational explanation for all these things, because nothing but the OS can be accepted as a rational explanation for what happened - and hey "we all saw those planes hit the buildings" right?

I know what you mean, but there's a difference I think, between physical evidence, as it was recorded in real time, that you can actually SEE with your own eyes, and a record of events merely reported from that day.

But it all stacks up in favour of only one explanation in the final analysis.

Some defenders of the OS, they are good people, decent people, who just can't accept it because the alternative is unthinkable, but, there are also a few others I'm pretty sure who know damn well, having done enough research to know, who are not in denial, and can't be, but who purposely set out to defend the OS in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

No I'm not saying that all OS supporters and defenders are "cointelpro", but we have to assume that some are. What kind of job THAT would be eh? Makes me shudder to think of it.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:57 PM

So what I am suggesting is that we must operate objectively based upon what is observed, and not on the basis of what we firmly believe and assume

I'm sorry but that is complete bunk, the laws of physics do not change based on what "you think" you have observed.

If the video shows progressive explosions, where are the sounds those explosives are making?

Here is a video of a controlled demolition, you'll be able to hear the very loud sounds the explosives are making:

I hope you will also notice that the explosions happen in 2 waves, one a few seconds before the building comes down and another that finishes the job.

There are no videos of the WTC collapse that have the sounds of explosives going off.

How would you explain that?
Isn't this a very clear indication that there were no explosives?

If the building was laced with explosives, why were no signs of this found in the rubble of any of the towers?
Do you think someone doing the clean up work would have noticed the absolutely huge amounts of detonation cords need to bring down a building that huge?

Where is that evidence?
Isn't this also a very clear indication that there were no explosives?

You can try and brush me off as someone who couldn't imagine how bad the world can be, that I can't handle it, but the simple truth is that your theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

And any sane person would label you as crazy for believing something like this with no evidence to back it up .

All you have are videos cleverly edited by charlatans who are trying to make a quick buck, none of these people are interested in finding the "truth", they are only interested in making money by making a crappy movie or by jumping on the conspiracy tours.

Hopefully one day you will realize how stupid you have been for believing these people.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by johnmhinds


Please take a long and close look at this

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

9/11 Revisted, were explosives used?

Google Video Link

Videos of Destruction

The other thing I would say is that there are different types of explosives, but there are plently of reports of people reporting them, and yes, there are some videos with the sounds of explosions in them.

Also, the south tower, just before it went down - there was a large white cloud of smoke which emerged around it's base.

There are many many reports of explosions, not only sights and sounds, but blast waves experienced by some of the firefighters and people in the buildings, between the time of the plane impact and final collapse and in various areas of the building.

I think there were many different types used, some in preparation, some at the onset of destruction and some even during destruction, but you are right that during the destruction there were not distinct BOOM BOOM BOOMs like you get in a tradtional CD.

But please just step back and try to look at it from the other perspective, and look through all the evidence, and then at yourself and ask yourself if you are not grasping a bit, due to the very psychological reasoning I outlined.

And I do believe you fall into the first catagory of OS supporter, which really means that you are a good guy and a decent person, so no hard feelings I hope. I'm a good guy too, a loving and sensitive person, and it really pains me to no end, and it hasn't been easy to have been involved in this "9/11 Truth Movement" all these years, but some of us felt that we just couldn't sit back and remain silent or wait for others to say or try to do something.

So please forgive me if I get a little carried away or come across sometimes as insulting. It's a very contentious issue, and it's hard for me, in light of all the evidence and the research I've done, to see people working really hard to support the OS and rail against what we "truthers" are trying to do.

Best Regards,


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by johnmhinds
Do you really think the entire facade of two 110 floor skyscrapers could have been laced with explosives without anyone in the building noticing?

Yep! Do you know who was going in and out of the building every day before 9/11? Do you know what everyone was doing? Did they not have major construction going on on certain floors? This is not a house, this is a huge building with thousands of people inside. Why do you feel that you have a record of who was and who was not in there and what they were doing?

Do you really think you could then fly 2 jet planes into these explosive laced buildings without the explosives going off?

Do you really truly believe this?

Yep! Not all explosive materials are triggered by heat, fire, or whatever else you are alluding to being the cause. You are thinking of TV bombs that are designed to go off if anything happens besides cutting the one perfect wire.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:31 PM
It's been 8 years and your going to give the same tired old line?

Yes people said heard explosions that day, but they are being misquoted.

They were either describing the plane impacts, or the compressed air from the planes blowing out elevator doors as it went down the shafts, or things exploding in the fires.

There are no reports of people hearing the levels of explosions you would hear during a controlled demolition of a 110 floor building.
There are no videos of these explosions.
There was no evidence found in the rubble.

There are no magic sticks of dynamite that make no sounds and leave no trace.

Case closed, this theory is dead and has been for years.

The evidence you are giving us is all based on lies and deceit, why you continue to perpetuate them 8 years on, I really don't know.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by johnmhinds

Please just look at the north tower video again, the oral history (and there are many more of those than Griffin quoted in that article), and watch the film I posted containing the MSM record from that day, never played again thereafter, and yes, SOME of those are misquoted and may be referring to other things, but by no means all. And there were sub-basement explosions, one of which occured just before the north tower was hit, corroborated by a number of people.

And I don' think we're talking here about sticks of dynamite set off with those chords.

Also, in the rubble pile, which was sealed off, the evidence carted away, there WAS molten metal, and in the dust, micro-spheres of iron. The HEAT was tremendous, of a level which could only have been present if steel was being rapidly melted, even to the point of turning it into an atomized spray and evaporating it - that's very hot, hotter than a kerosine and office fire that's for sure.

Unfortunately ALL the evidence points, not to a natural "collapse" but to an intentional, high precision, explosive demolition, and even the actual occurance of destruction, it's explosive nature and speed, also suggests in no uncertain terms that these buildings did not just "collapse". They were blown up.

It's very bad news, and it needs to be recognized, understood, recorded and remembered for what it was.

And how much time has elapsed is irrelevant.

Thankfully in this case, because of modern media and recording devices, it's been preserved, so that, looking back a generation from now, grade 10 physics students will be able to recognize it for what it was, armed with nothing but a few basic equations and a stop watch, heck by just OBSERVING the videos of the destruction.

History will get it right, or close to right. Can't not in the final analysis. And by God that's very important, so that we can learn from it, something of value, which CAN actually serve a "just cause" and therefore serve the appropriate remembrance of the many victims, both on 9/11 and in it's wake.

We need to muster, at some point, the courage to face it, to face the truth. It's not "indeterminate" either, as some would like to assume or lead others to believe.

It's even possible, that later on this century, future historians looking back will come to recognize the 9/11 Truth Movement and what are now considered the "crazy conspiracy theorists" as the first true patriots of the 21st century, and some of us have taken a lot of heat to do what we firmly believe is the right thing to do, so please don't tell me to just forget it and move on. Again, what's needed is courage, not cowardice in the face of such an evil in our midst. And it is surely still there, that shadow government which remains as Presidents are replaced like a worn out pair of shoes.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by OmegaPointAnd I don' think we're talking here about sticks of dynamite set off with those chords.

What kind of explosives are you talking about then.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Unfortunately ALL the evidence points, not to a natural "collapse" but to an intentional, high precision, explosive demolition

If you completely ignore the lack of sound from the "explosions".....

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by johnmhinds
If you completely ignore the lack of sound from the "explosions".....

I've read this a few times tonight. Do you think the collapse was silent? Do you think that explosion sounds would be picked up from the distance all the videos were filmed from, above the roar of falling concrete, rending steel etc.?

There are plenty of vids of explosive sounds from the bottom of the buildings before the collapses even started.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by Karilla

It's true - even from across the river in Hoboken, in that 9/11 Eyewitness video, can be heard the rumblings, both well before and during the destruction.

And some of those firemen sent in to save lives were blown off their feet by blast waves, and this was between the plane impacts and the final destruction of the buildings, and when they were debriefed and interviewed afterwards, they spoke of explosions and bombs in the buildings. I think there are about 500 such people reporting this in all.

John, you appear not to have done a sufficient amount of research, at least I certainly hope that's the case, and that you are a good guy as I suspect you are.

There is another type of "debunker" however, who lurk around these forums, and they are usually pretty easy to spot, and whenever they chime in, I am sure to raise way MORE evidence for the readers, than would have existed otherwise, had they not stepped in with their subterfuge - but I don't think you are one of those.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Karilla
Do you think that explosion sounds would be picked up from the distance all the videos were filmed from, above the roar of falling concrete, rending steel etc.?

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition live? You can hear the explosions from miles away.

The sound of the collapse can't cover them because if you're saying the explosives started the collapse you should hear them going off before the collapse even starts.

There are videos from all sorts of angles, and there are no sounds of explosions during the collapse at all.

There is no such thing as magic silent explosives.

It's a massive blindingly obvious hole in the whole theory.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by johnmhinds

Had a quick look, and this is one of the closest views I think. It's hard to discern over the screaming that dominates all the vids, but you can hear the rumble. The distance from the demolition wave, even right at the base of the buildings, would be considerable. Also you have to bear in mind that very loud explosions can be heard close to the feet of the towers prior to collapse, that do not get picked up by the same cameras that recorded the collapses.

Accounts of explosions before the collapse:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:42 PM

posted by TheAmazingK

Rather, it is the very controlled jets multiple floors below the dust cloud of falling debris. Keep in mind, the WTC was over 100 stories tall. How many floors below the collapse does it look like those explosions occur? I'm not sure. Maybe someone else has atleast a rough estimate?

Here on the South Tower looking at the corner near the top, the explosions seem to be about 7 or more floors ahead of the collapse wave. But in the video, the explosions are even further ahead of the collapse wave nearer the middle and bottom of the tower.

I do not understand why the GLs and duhbunkers and shills cannot hear these explosions from miles away across the river in Hoboken New Jersey.

A cloud of smoke over by WTC6 long before the South Tower is destroyed.

[edit on 9/23/09 by SPreston]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
There are a few in this video

But I trust the firemen's testimonies, and what they described wasn't compressed air or the plane impacts or things going bang in the impact area.

They reported MASSIVE explosions, all over the place and at different times.

And the type of explosives used during the destruction need not have been the TNT used for a traditional CD either.

And we're not hanging out hat on one thing either, but the entire cumulative weight of all the evidence.

We're not just making this # up for fun.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by SPreston

Oh there are better ones than that, which show them up to 30 or more stories BELOW the threshold of destruction. Keep looking, and there are videos also.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by SPreston

Thanks! That's some great info.

I've been discussing explosives with my brother, and while my previous mention of thermite may be wrong, what about C4? High explosives that dentonate themselves into potentially unrecognizable rubble. Can C4 also have the power to atomise steel, under the right circumstances? I know that claymore mines created deadly steel shrapnel when they went off, and in comparison, claymore's are little. Some info:

Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly

The website actually has some really interesting info on C4.

I'm not saying that as a positive C4 was used. It is just one of many types of explosives, but an exceptionally powerful an stable one, a deadly combination. As for pressure, it would be blown out mostly to the sides, which is noticeable in the videos. How could it get so many floors down, and still be so stong?

Also, OP, got to say your defend your position in the most euloquent and intelligent way. An enlightening pleasure to read!

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:57 PM
What I do not understand , is the section of the building that was above where the point of impact was . If all those floors below were pulverized like that because of the weight of the floors above them crashing down and/ or the air compression causing the concrete and steel to fly out in some upside down banana skin trajectory , then what caused that upper section to do the same . It did not have any kind of 'piledriver' type force above it to achieve this. As soon as it was about to topple over thou , it just blew up into dust. Like the rest of the building.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:15 AM
OK pretty convincing, but I still don't understand how people say a plane never hit the towers.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:25 AM
I don't know. Maybe they are there to put out wacko theories so that valid questions are grouped along with 'no planes, holograms, and aliens'.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in