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.

 

WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 10
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
The south tower would have much more damage due to being hit
significantly faster than the first.

More unresearched opinions. The south tower had the least damage to the core as the majority of the second plane missed the core:





Please, for the love of accuracy, do some real research.




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by skeptic_al
The south tower would have much more damage due to being hit
significantly faster than the first.

More unresearched opinions. The south tower had the least damage to the core as the majority of the second plane missed the core:





Please, for the love of accuracy, do some real research.






Looking at your cartoon then, if the Planes wings ere Intact then these
will pass so close the stairs it's just not funny.

My "Research" involved using the Internet like the other 99% of responders.
But I read statements by the few that did get out.
They reported having to move debris out of the way to get down the
stairway. So how does this belittle my argument. In fact, your Cartoon
supports my case. Thankyou.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

This really isn't a difficult concept, What would happen if you banged a
2 Meter hole in a wall in your house. Is the roof going to stay in exactly the
same place.



But this seems to be the concept you aren't getting.

If you banged a 2m hole in a wall in your house NOTHING would happen.

Even if you put the hole in a supporting wall.

Even if you then set fire to your house.

The impact didn't destroy enough of the internal support columns to cause collapse, otherwise it would have occurred at impact.

So what caused the collapse ?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by skeptic_al

This really isn't a difficult concept, What would happen if you banged a
2 Meter hole in a wall in your house. Is the roof going to stay in exactly the
same place.



But this seems to be the concept you aren't getting.

If you banged a 2m hole in a wall in your house NOTHING would happen.

Even if you put the hole in a supporting wall.

Even if you then set fire to your house.

The impact didn't destroy enough of the internal support columns to cause collapse, otherwise it would have occurred at impact.

So what caused the collapse ?


How silly of me not to realise that.

Just because there are dirty great big chunks missing, why should it
collapse.

Your right, It could only of collapsed with the aid of Explosives.
Thankyou for pointing that out.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Still don't see it. I see debris being forced out by the collapse.
There is an enormous amount of power created by the fall.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Still don't see it. I see debris being forced out by the collapse.
There is an enormous amount of power created by the fall.


If you don't see it, its because you don't want to see it.

The big white flashes of explosives are clearly pointed out in OP video.

If that's not enough for you, then nothing will be enough.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Still don't see it. I see debris being forced out by the collapse.
There is an enormous amount of power created by the fall.


If you don't see it, its because you don't want to see it.

The big white flashes of explosives are clearly pointed out in OP video.

If that's not enough for you, then nothing will be enough.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


One can debunk this with your own evidence

If the white flashes are explosives, then why....

at around 3:15, why are there white flashes also occuring right in
front of the other tower several hundred feet away from building.

Are you trying to sell me, those where explosives that were jetisoned
by all the other explosives, and then somehow detonated by themselves in
mid-air after all the others were detonated.

Surely, a more logical, down to earth reason would be the sun reflecting of
broken glass flying through the air. I know it sounds a bit far fetched,
but that's what it looks like to me.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I would suggest that you take a look at some of the videos on here.



I would make two suggestions to you.

1. Do not get yourself involved in a conversation you obviously have no real intention of engaging in. I asked a simple question of the OS supporters that make a specific claim. Either answer it or move along.

2. Until you can answer the question I have asked you many many times, I would not volunteer to share anything with me.

Your entire post is a bunch of nonsense about explosives, wiring, yadda yadda yadda. Not one bit of that applies to the one simple question I asked. Is there a contest to see who can give the most distracting and off topic answer out there today?





[edit on 31-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



First, lets start here.

reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


What question are you talking about? The one asking for videos or this one



What do you mean that the core "Dropped?" Where did it drop? Was it bouncing around inside the building? Did it drop down right down through the Earth below? Where did it drop to, exactly?


Because if it is this one then the link I gave you also applies. If you took the time to watch, read and absorb everything on that site you would see that explosives were not needed to bring down the WTC towers.

No, if I am incorrect, ask the question again because I thought this thread was about visible explosions in the south tower and not 'lets answer all of K J Gunderson's' questions.

As far as my post about wiring and yadda yadda yadda it is very relevant to this thread. If there were explosions then there would be evidence. That is the question that EVERY demo believer here deflects from.

Please repost your question if you would like an answer if I have not already addressed it.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Actually, since I have seen this one asked from him to you about 5 times now, I would assume it had something to do with this.


originally posted by K J GundersonFunny considering that each time I have asked you to explain why you think the audio should have picked up what you expect, no answer. No explaining away of my "bunk." Not even a tiny retort. I would really be interested in knowing just what you know about the audio recording process and equipment that was present that I do not know. I am all ears.


found here



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

One can debunk this with your own evidence

If the white flashes are explosives, then why....

at around 3:15, why are there white flashes also occuring right in
front of the other tower several hundred feet away from building.

Are you trying to sell me, those where explosives that were jetisoned
by all the other explosives, and then somehow detonated by themselves in
mid-air after all the others were detonated.

Surely, a more logical, down to earth reason would be the sun reflecting of
broken glass flying through the air. I know it sounds a bit far fetched,
but that's what it looks like to me.



That's supporting evidence, not debunking evidence, but thanks for pointing it out anyways.

We also see the same "out of building" explosive flashes occurring within WTC 7's collapse.

Those explosive flashes can only originate from explosives.

We see them inside the building prior to collapse and outside in the debris cloud as the building collapse progresses. We see them in WTC 1, 2, and 7. All of the collapses exhibit these explosive flashes in the same manner.

Its blatantly obvious (especially in video of WTC 7) that the flashes are explosive in nature and caused by late charges going off that were ejected from the building.

A gravitational collapse would not eject any explosive material at all. The building would crumble in large sections, with huge portions of the building hitting the ground intact. Very little would be blown out of the building at all.




[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by esdad71
Where are the loud noises which are the explosions in any of the videos that can be posted. I have read people try to explain away audio quality within video and that is complete bunk. This tower was 40% smaller than the WTC.



Funny considering that each time I have asked you to explain why you think the audio should have picked up what you expect, no answer. No explaining away of my "bunk." Not even a tiny retort. I would really be interested in knowing just what you know about the audio recording process and equipment that was present that I do not know. I am all ears.


The audio on the video should have reported explosions and the sound of the rumbling is not an explosion. When using a camera to record you usually have a cheap mic built into the camera or if you are a larger production company you may have a boom. That would mean you are using a condenser type mike that will pick up anything. Anything.

Let me tell you why I can determine a sound in a video. I have recorded music and produced videos for bands for at least 15 years for my own bands and multiple friends/clients. I understand what something should sound like and how to make something sound like something else. This is why when it is a live show you record the video and sync the board edit to the video you shot.

My home studio has a PC set up(wish I had a mac) with 4 GB RAM, a 700GB ext HDD and Vegas for video and Audition 3 for vocal tracks. I have 4 mics, two Alesis boards, Alesis for Compression and a few other BBE rack mounts. a few gibsons and a nice flame Ibanez.

There are NO explosions registered on the video that is posted. I put up a video that shows what it would sound like if conventional explosives were used to show a comparison. If there was an explosion it would have distorted the sound in the video. The sound of an explosion is around 140 to 150 db. An explosion that loud can cause hearing damage and would cause pain to anyone in the vicinity at least. Now, a large rock concert goes at about 110 db if it is cranking. If you have ever seen a video of a band live from a camera without a boom you now it sounds tinny and you can barely discern the different instruments. You rarely hear the low end and it would cause extreme distortion at 110 so what would 140 do? It would be on the video as a distinct sound and not a rumble....

[edit on 1-4-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   




Well squeeze my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska

How does the sun shinning off broken glass support Explosives Exactly.

You havn't explained how an "Explosion" occured a few hundred feet away
in mid-air I might Add, and co-incidentally all appear to be rectanglular in shape.

The real issue is why people are constantly adding Inclusions and Exclusions to their
data in order to support the result.

And why wouldn't WT7 be similar, they contained Glass Windows didn't they.
And who cares if WT7 was helped with Explosives, that is not the
Main Event.

-Snip-, That is to distract
people from the real REASON of the Event
(I said REASON not RESPONSIBLE, huge difference)

Mod Edit - Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com



[edit on Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:45:45 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And who cares if WT7 was helped with Explosives, that is not the
Main Event.

If WTC 7 was brought down with explosives, then it's very damning evidence because the building would have had to have been wired weeks or months in advance. That means foreknowledge of the attacks and complicity.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And who cares if WT7 was helped with Explosives, that is not the
Main Event.

If WTC 7 was brought down with explosives, then it's very damning evidence because the building would have had to have been wired weeks or months in advance. That means foreknowledge of the attacks and complicity.





I still believe explosives were NOT used anywhere at anytime, more like chains and tractors if anything.
And your right back to origianl question, how can you prepare a building for demolition
without it being noticed. All while people are coming and going all the time and people
working there at the same time.

And as all these people were evacuated, nobody has come forward to
say: Wait a minute, you know I did see something unusual last week.
Or were all those people in on the scam as well.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And your right back to origianl question, how can you prepare a building for demolition without it being noticed. All while people are coming and going all the time and people working there at the same time.

There was always construction going on at the WTC, every day at any given time. That means people were used to seeing construction workers there very day. That also means anyone dressed to look like construction workers would have unquestioned access to the buildings.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And your right back to origianl question, how can you prepare a building for demolition without it being noticed. All while people are coming and going all the time and people working there at the same time.

There was always construction going on at the WTC, every day at any given time. That means people were used to seeing construction workers there very day. That also means anyone dressed to look like construction workers would have unquestioned access to the buildings.




47 Stories is a Fair size building
To demolish, would mean taking out load bearing walls
Weakening Pilars
Placing Explosives inside Columns

So either ALL the Construction workers were in on the Scam because
nobody standing nearby noticed someone was drilling a Concrete Pilar for no apparent reason.
And some of the work could involve using smaller explosives to remove
material.

I just can't see this being done quitely and without another Construction
Worker noticing somethings not quite right here. Know what I'm saying.

It will happen in Hollywood, but just can't Imagine it in real life.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





We see them inside the building prior to collapse and outside in the debris cloud as the building collapse progresses. We see them in WTC 1, 2, and 7. All of the collapses exhibit these explosive flashes in the same manner.

Its blatantly obvious (especially in video of WTC 7) that the flashes are explosive in nature and caused by late charges going off that were ejected from the building.



The so called "explosive flashes" are windows being ejected from their
frames and shattering as the building twists

Here is account of building collapse in NYC




"I just came out this door and I seen it crumbling from the top," said Ed Ortiz, who works across the street at MacKenzie Doors. "As the windows shattered it came straight down. It was crazy!"



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
47 Stories is a Fair size building
To demolish, would mean taking out load bearing walls
Weakening Pilars

No you do not have to do that. Just because some demolitions are done like that, doesn't mean all of them are.

You're in the mindset of conventional demolitions where they are trying to save life and property. The WTC demolitions were not conventional in the sense that they did not care about life and property. Big difference there.






[edit on 1-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by skeptic_al

No you do not have to do that. Just because some demolitions are done like that, doesn't mean all of them are.

You're in the mindset of conventional demolitions where they are trying to save life and property. The WTC demolitions were not conventional in the sense that they did not care about life and property. Big difference there.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]


Allllllllll Righty Then

So who would have done this work.
Does the FBI employ their own Demolishion Experts
Is there a sub-branch FBD (Federal Bearue of Demolishions) that goes
around the world doing Under cover Demolishions
Or would the FBI just hire a Demolishion Company to do the top secret
under cover Demolishion

Would they just phone advanced demos and say I need a Building Trashed,
you can only do it on weekends because it's occupied during the week.
What would your reaction Be ?-?
I'll give you 100,000,000 bucks, Oh Ok then, No Proooblem.

Do you see how redicules this is starting to sound.
And all this just to support a End Result.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Funny considering that each time I have asked you to explain why you think the audio should have picked up what you expect, no answer. No explaining away of my "bunk." Not even a tiny retort. I would really be interested in knowing just what you know about the audio recording process and equipment that was present that I do not know. I am all ears.


The audio on the video should have reported explosions and the sound of the rumbling is not an explosion. When using a camera to record you usually have a cheap mic built into the camera or if you are a larger production company you may have a boom. That would mean you are using a condenser type mike that will pick up anything. Anything.

Let me tell you why I can determine a sound in a video. I have recorded music and produced videos for bands for at least 15 years for my own bands and multiple friends/clients. I understand what something should sound like and how to make something sound like something else. This is why when it is a live show you record the video and sync the board edit to the video you shot.

My home studio has a PC set up(wish I had a mac) with 4 GB RAM, a 700GB ext HDD and Vegas for video and Audition 3 for vocal tracks. I have 4 mics, two Alesis boards, Alesis for Compression and a few other BBE rack mounts. a few gibsons and a nice flame Ibanez.

There are NO explosions registered on the video that is posted. I put up a video that shows what it would sound like if conventional explosives were used to show a comparison. If there was an explosion it would have distorted the sound in the video. The sound of an explosion is around 140 to 150 db. An explosion that loud can cause hearing damage and would cause pain to anyone in the vicinity at least. Now, a large rock concert goes at about 110 db if it is cranking. If you have ever seen a video of a band live from a camera without a boom you now it sounds tinny and you can barely discern the different instruments. You rarely hear the low end and it would cause extreme distortion at 110 so what would 140 do? It would be on the video as a distinct sound and not a rumble....

[edit on 1-4-2010 by esdad71]


With all due respect, you no idea what you are talking about. You almost had it at least going in the right direction but...no. Do you have any real knowledge? What camera models were taking the footage you are talking about? Where were the external mics planted? Where was the audio track being recorded and onto what? Do you know any of these things? Your response does not really even makes sense in the real world of film/video production. There are so many factors you obviously do not even know about, that it would take a whole other thread to get into all of that again for you. I know others already have at least tried.

Nothing you said actually applies. If you can give us models numbers of the equipment used and you have some special knowledge about it, please share. You obviously do not know how sound is recorded. You have ignored the obvious statements to you about such things as why news people hold the mic to their mouth, then the interviewee. Tell me which cameras were used on 9/11 that had such high dynamic range. I would be very interested in finally knowing what super secret new technology was in use that day to capture such a vast range of sounds too high, too low, too quite, too loud, and too far away to register on any traditional mic.

Please share.

edit to fix formatting

[edit on 4/2/10 by evil incarnate]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join