WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

I've always referenced this when citing explosive related matters on the towers.

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no need to explosions 'after' a collapse is initiated. At least that is what any CD expert will tell you.

Would they now? Tell us, how many CD experts have you contacted or interviewed? Since I'm working on a documentary, I've been contacting CD experts, AND, there are videos on the internet of CD's with explosives being detonated after collapse.

Why you would say something so blatantly false without doing the simple research is beyond me.

Originally posted by esdad71
If this was a demolition, you would have seen flashes moving up the tower 'before' the collapse.

Since there are videos that prove that they do detonate explosives after collapse initiation, I'll ignore your "before" and just add that numerous firefighters did see low-level, red flashes "going up, down and around" both towers in the lower and middle floors with "popping or exploding sounds".

Just because we can't see them in video doesn't mean all the firefighters that saw them are lying.

Originally posted by esdad71
Where are the loud noises which are the explosions in any of the videos that can be posted.

In that video you posted of the Landmark Tower implosion, you hear a first series of detonations to weaken the structure. Then you hear a second series of detonations that brought the tower down.

That's the exact same thing that happened at the WTC. There was a first series of detonations that happened during and after the plane impacts and continued at a slowed pace until the second detonation sequence that brought the towers down.

Again, unless you want to call all the first responders, by-standers, survivors, and news reporters all liars. Some first responders even went further to say that they thought there were devices being detonated in the buildings.

And not to mention, there are numerous documented witnesses that have testified to the "boom, boom, boom" detonation sequence in both towers as they were brought down. I guess they are all liars as well.

Again, just because you can't hear the booms in most videos or see the flashes, doesn't mean everybody is lying and that it didn't happen.

Originally posted by mikelee
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

Remember the top section would weigh 40,000t+ each floor alone was 1500t without any of the office items, look at the videos of both towers you see the collapse start as the area above the impact point drops as one mass.
What the OP does not seem to realise his super slow mo is BS unless he can prove the videos were filmed at least few hundred+ frames per second then played at normal speeds because if it was not filmed at high speed it shows NOTHING he claims!

Here is the way to film it you can even see the shockwake!!!!

www.youtube.com...

All th OP is doing is slowing down standard speed film that shows nothing!

btw...,talkin' 'bout explosions, look at this clip,
it says all!!!
The audio at the end is hard to listen to. (people who see the towers
collaps freakin' out)
These where 200% planted-explosions (no need for further discussion, in my view !!!)

Video-Link

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by mikelee
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

Remember the top section would weigh 40,000t+ each floor alone was 1500t without any of the office items, look at the videos of both towers you see the collapse start as the area above the impact point drops as one mass.
What the OP does not seem to realise his super slow mo is BS unless he can prove the videos were filmed at least few hundred+ frames per second then played at normal speeds because if it was not filmed at high speed it shows NOTHING he claims!

Here is the way to film it you can even see the shockwake!!!!

www.youtube.com...

All th OP is doing is slowing down standard speed film that shows nothing!

You wouldn't see a shock wave that occurs from a shaped charge inside a building, in the same manner your video shows. A shaped charge does not create a shock wave in the same manner as your video show either.

Originally posted by thedman
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

This is why you will never, ever have any credibility with me. The very definition of "progressive" means "in steps or stages". A progressive collapse will never pound or slam anything below it. And neither did we see any pounding or slamming going on at the WTC.

You're way over-exaggerating the circumstances to fit your denial.

Originally posted by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO
btw...,talkin' 'bout explosions, look at this clip,
it says all!!!

The audio in the beginning of that clip was added by the Discovery channel or some other station for dramatization purposes. Ever wonder why you don't hear any of those people screaming until the end of the detonation track? You can clearly hear when the real audio track comes in with all the people screaming because it's so abrupt.

In other words, the detonation audio is false. Not to mention, we would hear that same detonation audio in every other video of the south tower collapse and we do not.

I simply do not see any so called evidence of explosives of any kind. Not in any of the videos posted here which claim how obvious it is. If you think you see it it's because that's what you WANT to believe. To the objective observer there still is no convincing argument of controlled demolition in any of these video analyses. Improper identification of the enemy can be a fatal flaw. I hope you folks don't get burned by it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Since there are videos that prove that they do detonate explosives after collapse initiation, I'll ignore your "before" and just add that numerous firefighters did see low-level, red flashes "going up, down and around" both towers in the lower and middle floors with "popping or exploding sounds".

Just because we can't see them in video doesn't mean all the firefighters that saw them are lying.

Like I have said before various items in the building could have been making the poping and exploding sounds due to the heat / structural failure of the building components so using the tactics you guys use do you think they would be competant to identify these sounds.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I look forward to documentary. I am simply stating that in this thread there is no evidence in the OP's video that there are explosives.

Also, is no one going to address the issue of UV light emission with NO eyewitness reports. I work in fabrication and with welding you need to wear special gear or you will see spots. I remember tack welding and seeing spots for days. Now, if there was a nano-thermite reaction of the size to bring down the WTC I would think anyone who was in close contact would have noticed this.

Also, that posted picture is was not done with thermite. It was done days after.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Like I have said before various items in the building could have been making the poping and exploding sounds due to the heat / structural failure of the building components

You obviously didn't read my post, nor have you read the first responder Oral Histories. So, I'll try to explain it a little better so that you might catch on this time.

The first responders reported red, low-level flashes with "popping or exploding sounds" "going up, down and around" both towers at the lower and middle floors while the building was collapsing up above.

Do you understand so far that the flashes were in the lower and middle floors and nowhere near the impact zones, which would negate your "heat" or structural failure claims?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
so using the tactics you guys use

Don't you mean the tactics of the first responders? All I'm doing is quoting first responders, so you're, in essence, complaining about their tactics.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

now you mention it, i can't rule it out!.
I didn't notice that before..., yeah it is possible what you say!

Originally posted by esdad71
I am simply stating that in this thread there is no evidence in the OP's video that there are explosives.

That's not what you were "simply stating". You made the claim that they wouldn't detonate explosives after collapse initiation and that is blatantly false with a little real research.

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, is no one going to address the issue of UV light emission with NO eyewitness reports.

Since nano-thermite is only used by the military, you must first source your claim of UV light emission.

I subscribe that mostly conventional explosives were used in bringing all 3 towers down. Suffice it to say, if they were only nano-thermite charges (which I highly doubt), then they would have been in the mechanical floors and the cores only. And guess what? The cores are surrounded by.........

......walls. And therefore negating any bright UV flashes.





[edit on 28-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO


We discussed it many years ago on the original Loose Change forums and had quite a few people looking into the soundtrack. Ultimately, it turned out to be false. If I have time, I'll try to find that thread on the original LC forums.

reply to post by mikelee


Why is this iron worker shown cutting the columns with a thermal lance ?

Originally posted by boredsilly
reply to post by smurfy

 

How after watching that video can you argue against what any sane individual can see is multiple explosions. This is 100% proof of explosions to anyone with an open mind and no agenda. The sun doesnt penetrate dust clouds and what is clearly visible is hundreds of white flashes protruding from the building. Its over the proof is there for all to see, you only have to open your eyes and mind to see it.

I am in agreement with what Airspoon has said. Neither of us argued against explosions. Read the posts again, then go to my profile and read my 9/11 posts...you're barking up the wrong tree.

reply to post by spy66


I didn't say you would see a shockwave what i was pointing out is that unless the OP videos were filmed at a good few hundred frames per second they cannot show anything re what he claims.

You can deny there were explosives planted all day.... watch tons of witnesses that heard them when you werent even there.. and watch videos of detonation smoke plumes and call the "collapses".. but how do you explain the perfect 90 degree angle cut in a 15 inch steel beam? what cuts steel? not collapses









edit* spelling

[edit on 28-3-2010 by cobra cmo]

Originally posted by thedman
Why is this iron worker shown cutting the columns with a thermal lance ?

Guess what every one of those columns is missing? The heavy slag that is shown earlier from being detonated by high-temp explosives.

Iron workers of 20-30 years at my job said that all the slag would be blown to the inside of a column. Not melted all over the outside. There are iron workers on this very forum that have also said as much.

Just because iron workers are seen cutting columns at the WTC doesn't automatically rule out that other columns weren't cut with explosive charges.

Especially when you have steel columns with white smoke coming from the ends. Even the ends of the columns are white:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/813a9e14d6ee.jpg[/atsimg]

demolition all day... half of you dont want to see that ...thats why you deny it