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.


WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

There is no need to explosions 'after' a collapse is initiated. At least that is what any CD expert will tell you. I also appreciate the military explanation from the other poster which helps some to understand what a charge would do but we are not talking about breaching a door or blowing a hole in the side of a bunker.

You are seeing reflective surfaces as well as the 'puffs of smoke on the one level' is where the collapse occurred. That is the point of the initiation of the collapse. You can also see that as the top of the tower is tilted close to 30 degrees as it is falling.

If this was a demolition, you would have seen flashes moving up the tower 'before' the collapse.

Watch this video....

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.

Sorry, but if you watch the video instead of listening to the poster who is using great technique to convince you of the truth of his video just as a timeshare salesman would do.

Also, as far as nano thermite, is not one of the by products severe UV light ? Would this not have been seen anywhere during the cutting of the columns by ANY of the survivors that were escaping. I am pretty sure it is stronger than a tig weld reaction
so would not some of the people have said they were blinded? Just a question...

[edit on 28-3-2010 by esdad71]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:04 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

May I ask what I was censored for?

[edit on 28-3-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by airspoon

Thermite and Nano-thermite have far different reactive properties. For instance, thermite releases it's smaller amount of energy slowly while the nano-thermite can be applied to release greater amounts of energy, much quicker.

IIRC, this is incorrect.

Nano and regular thermite have the same theoretical energy.

In prectice nano actually has LESS energy per gram due to oxidation. Many small particles will have a greater surface area/weight ratio, etc.

But it's true that it would burn quicker, and more explosively.

SO you'd get less total energy, but what's there would react more quickly.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by Stickerr
Theres no way they were bombs, if you wat at 3:40 second mark and on you'll see the those white flashes in the sky and in front of the 2nd building. Its just video glitches, or poor video editing to make it look like something else.

lol...yup...that's it..and everyone is entitled to an opinion

and it is ...'opinion' that is the base for NO EVIDENCE of explosives or accelerants...NO actual testing was involved...if YOU disagree...just post the testing results that were performed opened a brand new account just to you part of the 'obamma' crew that is going to these sites to LIE?

here is a little hint...any flashes you see are just a bonus on the hypothesis that this is a CD...for...all anyone has to do is to look, to see this is not a natural GRAVITATIONAL event

so...either your 14 and are just displaying ignorance from not knowing about life...or this is your job

Or maybe I just opened an account, because I am new to the site? God forbid you have new people who join ATS. You obviously didn't really read my post. I never said that there was or wasn't explosives or the gov't is or isnt covering something up. I'm simply showing my view of what I saw on the video posted. and if you watch at the 3:40 mark. On either side of the building, in the sky, or even on the second building. you see the same flashes as the ones on the building it self.

I do believe there was some kind of explosion within the WTC, but I don't think this video proves that.

I love when people come up with random numbers and insults and try to piece them together to bring someone down.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Stickerr]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:14 AM
after reading most of the posts here I wanted to add a few things:

1. as someone else mentioned, I don't think "explosives" in the traditional sense could have been used to bring down the towers. Why? Simple, because usually when explosives are used to bring down your normal several story building, etc, it's not a lot because the building isn't built on gigantic steel columns and so forth. So basically the explosive charges just need to be powerful enough to bring down whatever relatively weaker structure such a small building would have.
On the Trade Center however, they are major skyscrapers and have numerous layers of inner structures as you all know, that keep them standing. These structures are incredibly strong and thick, steel columns and beams, etc. In order for a traditional explosive charge to even put a dent in them, I would think that the explosives to be used would have to be immense. As such, IF such immense explosives were used, you wouldn't be seeing just tiny questionable microscopic puffs of debris shoot out the windows as you see in those videos, you would see big ripping explosions tearing the whole support structure asunder at the corners, etc. No where is there evidence of that.
2. So now that I've concluded that explosives could not have been used to bring down the towers, we turn to thermite. Some people here seem to have a misunderstanding of it and you keep talking about seeing flashes, or people asking about the exploding noises that must have been heard. But in reality, if you watch videos of thermite on youtube for example, you'll see that it doesn't EXPLODE at all, it just instantly burns up violently to super high temperatures and cuts through any steel, etc. So why would you be seeing explosive flashes of something that doesn't even explode, and the same goes for a noise. You wouldn't hear a 'boom' of an explosion. More like maybe a hissing noise of the thermite violently flaring up like gunpowder.

Keep in mind I'm 100% convinced that 911 was an inside job, whether by Israeli's or U.S. or both, or whomever. But I'm just trying to debunk some of the more illogical notions.

The only thing is that, supposedly thermite can require a charge to set it off, i.e. perhaps a small explosive charge, so THAT could explain some flashes. Not the actual 'bombs' themselves but perhaps the small charges that are setting off the thermite.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:20 AM
I still don't see how this is evidence of explosive detonation.... I just see an explosive decompression caused by the fire inside the tower exploding out the windows releasing a a white plume of smoke that this clown paused and put some arrows pointing at it....

Just because the inferno in the towers didn't reach high enough to MELT steel doesn't mean it had no effect the structural integrity of the the twin towers.. as for WTC 7 your guess is as good as mine I don't have a clue why that # collapsed...

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Stickerr

Welcome to ATS!

And your opinion or theory's are always welcomed.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I like how you use certain terms to gain the idea you have some kind of expertise re video please tell me how many frames per second the video you are using was filmed at let me and others on here know.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:30 AM
There are a lot of people here that are confusing thermite with nano-thermite. Thermite and nano-thermite have very different explosive properties and so are used in very different applications. Nano-thermite is a relatively "newer" material and is being used in the military for high-explosives and propellants, while thermite is generally used for welding, shaped charge or armor breaches.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by spy66

In the Army, you most likely used thermite and not nano-thermite. Nano-thermite is explosive as nanoenergetic materials can store larger amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to apply the release of this energy.

I too used thermite in the army, usually to breach armor pieces and tanks for intel among other things. This thermite is very different from nano-thermite. Thermite and Nano-thermite have far different reactive properties. For instance, thermite releases it's smaller amount of energy slowly while the nano-thermite can be applied to release greater amounts of energy, much quicker.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by airspoon]

When we used termite on steal hatches. It cut it instantaneously. We never had to wait for it to burn through the steal.

I can say that we didn't use Nano termite. You dont need to use nano termite to burn through large steal columns that are hallo on the inside.

The shaped charge delivers enough force to push the termite through the steal. You should know that if you have used termite? You have to calculate the charge so that the termite will do so.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials.

How are you measuring?

By volume, or weight?

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by airspoon

You left out thermobaric applications. It is not old tech it is just something that was not talked about outside of the military or industrial applications. Thermitic reactions are 100's of years old.

This thread is about explosions and there are none. The same 'glitter' effect can be seen in lots of the 9/11 videos and some of them outside the buildings in the air...they were paper. Also, just because something is in the shade it does not mean there is no reflective property and in fact you would see it better in that situation. If direct light is hitting a mirror you may not notice the glare but you would if it was not centered as the windows in your video show.

My question is are the 'explosions' we are seeing nano-thermitic reactions or a by product of said reaction?

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

If you are possitive of the use of nano thermite charges.
1.- How many would be needed to produce what we see??
no idea, i would guess in the hundreds

'Then that would negate it being Nano right? What would be the point? Do you know what Thermite is? Its not C4.'

2.- How would they be placed and where in the building??
most likely by "maintenance" workers, on the supporting columns

'Sure, could be, sounds right. However, if memory serves, the building was supported mostly by its outside framework, not internal columns. So they would have to place the charges on those, that would be intensely more difficult.'

3.- Why don´t we hear any explosions during the collapse??
when explosives are detonated in very close sequence they produce a "roar" - just listen to the CIWS or A10 shoot once.

'Thats great, if you are claiming an CIWS or A10 brought the building down.'

4.- How could these devices be installed throughout the whole building without being noticed??
maintenance workers

'How many? 1, 10, 20? This may sound likely, but it is not. If the workers were not normally from the standard crew, do you not think someone would have brought it up to security?'
5.- What time do you estimate it would have taken to rig the building with these devices??
long time, several weeks

'Perhaps longer then you think, if it was actually done in secret. It would have to have taken years.'

6.- What kind of technology was used to start them off in secuence??
most likely remote radio detonators

'Not likely. The chances of getting a clear signal during all the Emergency Service Chatter, jammed Cells, HAMS, would literally and did literally Jam the spectrum. Which brings up another problem, accidental discharge. Even if it was encrypted and coded, you still will have immense difficulty using radio in that situation. Not at all impossible, but not reliable'

7.- Why didn´t the airplane crash start a chain reaction of all these devices?? (Specialy in the 2nd tower that was hit lower.)
It takes a detonator to set off solid explosives

'Not True! It takes Heat and Pressure to set off solid explosives, all of which were present. Now I know, It depends on the explosive and velocity of the pressure, however, you cannot make a broad statement like that. You said Thermite. What is the detonating velocity of Thermite? Keep in mind, Thermite is burning, not exploding.

The whole premise of the OP Video is that because a pixel or two lights up in a shadow, that explosives must have been used. I could also say that those flecks of light were Alien Space Crafts coming in and out of Hyperspace to bring down the towers. Prove it wrong. This video depends on you being distracted by the guys commentary. He plants ideas in your head as you are watching and instead of thinking it through, you take what he says almost immediately because it sounds plausible if your not really paying attention to the details. Now this video also claims to be High Resolution. Now, how high? Hi def 1080p? What is the definition of High Resolution in this claim? Was it widely available and in use in 2001?

Dont take videos and commentaries on face value. It only took a few minutes to actually process what the guy was saying as balderdash. You had interesting points, but if you really think the government brought down the towers, why arent you marching on Washington? Why are you paying taxes to a murderous government? Don't you think this would be TOP priority if you truly believe the government is murdering its own citizens in this fashion?'

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by mikelee

There is no way possible, scientific or otherwise that it could be "collasping ahead of the main debris" because in the floors below there was no fire to weaken the metal. So how can the lower building floors collaspe ahead of the main above it? The floors below were for all intents & purposes, were in good condition up to the moment the top portion of the towers crashed down on them.

What your are seeing is a "progressive collapse" - as the top section of building failed it became a giant hammer pounding the lower section

As the top section slammed into floor below it overloaded the supports
causing it to fall in turn to floor below

The shock of the plunging floors caused windows below to be either dislodged from frames or shatter - result was the "flashes" of light from the windows and refelective alumium cladding around windows as windows
failed from the force

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by arcnaver

I think i can answer some of you questions.

A hundred shaped charges with termite is no big deal. A aluminium tube 1,2m long and 0.12cm high with a shaped charge and a termite chamber weigh maybe close to 10 kg. So a hundred shaped charges would weigh about 1000 kg. That is very easy to transport in different ways over a very short period of time.

2. You are right termite is not a explosive like C4. But a charge is used to to put pressure on the termite in the direction you want to concentrate its use. The pressure caused by the shaped charge is also used to activate the solution that becomes termite.

3. The charges would be mounted around the steal column with a frame.

4. Set of in sequence you would not hear a big Bang. But a sharp crack sound.
You will only hear a bang if a single charge is set of at a time.

5. Since they would be shaped charges most of the debris would have a specific line of trajectory. It would be a 180 degrees of the direction the shaped charge is aimed.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by thedman

An am I incorrect in my assumption that the top was not pulverized completely and had enough energy built up or, was just too heavy and that is what caused the lower floors to collapse?

My opinion is that somewhere around the top few floors after the top portion begin to fall, is that the inner core along with and in combination with the rest of the support system should have been sufficient enough to either do one of the following:

* Prevent lower floors from collapse. Although causing massive damage but not causing collaspe.

* The top section should have toppled off the top and fell separate from the lower section.

My opinion here only now mind you, it should have been the case that the entire tower(s) fell as a result of what amounts to isolated injury to the towers. The section above both impact points I can see falling. But the entire towers? I just can't get my mind around that. Take Care..Mike

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:32 PM

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.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:36 PM
I think those flashes could be anything. I was kind of on the fence on the collapse of the buildings being by explosives until recently when I saw photos of some of the beams sticking up in the air at ground zero and they had the signature 45 degree angle cut that would be used.

Those buildings were destroyed from inside, not by those planes. Anyway the cover up was just too obvious. Only question in my mind now is will the slime that did it ever be brought to justice? I doubt it.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:51 PM

Yes. They kinda speak for themselves.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in