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 Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by letscit

" ... why didnt the firefighters get this info? it wasnt across any of their chatter that day. and they where still climbing stairs. "

Ummm , there were no firefighters who were still climbing stairs when building 7 collapsed . Towers 1 and 2 collapsed hours earlier .

And the firefighters were PULLED before the collapse of WTC 7 so , no firefighters were climbing stairs there either .

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:26 PM
Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Hindsight can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse regarding the purchase of a new car. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[2] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. Despite contrary evidence, people are biased to think of their choices as correct. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation."[1]

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of dis confirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

thruthers, for the most part you are butting heads with OS proponents, who are suffering from a bad entrenched case of cognitive dissonance.

It is not about you providing relevant valid information anymore, you aill need a degree in psychiatry to penetrate the defense mechanisms integral to cognitive dissonance.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

If you want a really good illustration of cognitive dissonance you might like to look at that video of Richard Gage where he simultaneously tells us that the towers CD'd neatly into their own footprint and that they were subject to massive ejections caused by huge explosive blasts.

Literally a perfect example. And one found in most Truthers.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:09 PM
Hey all, I just read thru this entire thread and I'd like to bring up a few things... if I may.

First, where is the "Hairball of Trusses"?

Second, where is all the steel from the center of the buildings?

Third, does the rubble pile contain the contents of the towers completely only just in pile form?

It seems to me that whether the twin towers were exploded demolition style or fell down there would still be a lot of steel trusses and steel girders/columns present. Either laid on top of each other or torn to various bits or twisted like steel wool, like a "hairball" etc. With/by 'gravity' OR 'explosions'.

But there wasn't really. IN EITHER TOWER.

Where's the hairball?! 100+ floors of trusses and rebar (X2) and no hairball(s)? No big jagged pile of steel? Just a not very high flat piles of stuff with a couple corners of intact wall and cladding there.


Looks to me like towers 1 and 2 were exploded out in a CE "Controlled Explosion" and that building 7 was more of a conventional CD or "Controlled Demolition" like we all have seen on tv.

So the ejecting outward of tons of steel like popsicle sticks from around the leading destructive top and edges of towers 1 and 2 upon descent really says EXPLOSION to me. (That is if the videos can be believed and were not altered either visually or soundwise to cover any/many loud bangs).

But what kind of 'explosions'? Did those two towers even fall down by gravity after what was done to them was done with them? Right?

Wouldn't there be more steel rubble, more steel in the rubble AND some kind of dangerous hard to manage hairball of trusses and rebar to navigate through?

But there wasn't. WHY NOT?

We can debate all day long about bangs and no bangs but even if there were bangs or no bangs where did all the stuff in the piles that should be there go?

I can envision a gravity collapse and I can envision a Controlled Explosion... so far so good... but now, to me, either scenario would involve just both those tall buildings simply falling into a pile of the same amount of material as they consisted of, well, maybe less due to dust blow off but even so, if ALL the concrete turned to dust on the way down floor by floor and blew to Jersey STILL there would be a lot of freaking steel left staring at you in a giant pile. And it wouldn't be pretty it would be "hairy".

So where's the big hairy pile of steel?!!

I can even go for melting of steel where the planes hit but NOT 40 or 50 floors below that.

One fireman in some video, you all seen it, he goes like: "Two office buildings 110 stories each and you don't find a desk, a computer, a body etc. like the biggest chunk I found was this big ->0

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

I had to listen several times and had difficulty distinguishing the sounds of explosions. The only way to be absolutely sure about the explosives would be to be closer to the site. From that distance, the speed of sound factor as well as all the other background noise, it was hard to pinpoint. Had it not been for the witnesses, I would have a bit harder time believing it.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Look at this video it shows pics and video before it collapsed. There were only a few small fires that's it no outside damage at all.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by _BoneZ_


That building fell as if it was randomly struck then set ablaze by a fuel laden jet.. any one who thinks explosives were used needs to check with the government.. lol

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by Son of Will

You raise a very valid point regarding camera distance, and the sounds recorded.
Being an audiophile, I listened to it... many times on every monitor output in my home studio. I definitely heard something that could be called "explosions" or varied repetitious lower frequency "booms", and wonder where they fit in to the film. So what you say is not a sidenote at all, but something that should be more thoroughly investigated IMHO.


With a little work, I do believe that I have found the approximate camera location...
Here are a few frames from the OP's video that I used:

Now if you look closely at those buildings closest in frame, you will notice that both of them have very obvious and specific shaped "domes" on the top of them. As the footage pans down during the collapse, the building on the right has a very definitive non-symmetrical "stepped" sort of architecture making it easy to identify as the World Financial Center. In the center below, there is a sort of "arch" thing...

Here is a picture that shows a very similar set of characteristics from a further viewpoint in the same direction:

Based on that, I'd guess that the video was shot from somewhere around the docks behind the WFC. Perspective and zoom used may play a little bit into the actual location, but I do believe it is somewhere in this vicinity:

The lower most point is the camera, yellow line signifying FOV to the North Tower.

Approximate ground level distance using Google Earth measurement. 350 meters.
Not factoring in the height of the tower, and solid known camera position.. I'd say 400 meters (plus or minus 50 meters)

Maybe someone else can triangulate it a little better, as mine is a pretty rough draft.

Hope this helps figuring out a little more,

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:46 PM
It's funny iv'e noticed that all or most of the skeptics have joined ats in the last year or so.I know who the dis-info agents probably are they are pretty easy to spot.Either they are dis-info or they are 15 or they are mentally ill other explanation can explain why anybody would #1.come here to argue the o.s when a retarded monkey can see that it just don't add up logicaly.#2 spend precious amounts of time standing up for the gov. when so many false flag attacks have already been perpetrated against our country in the last 50 years as too give us the reason to not believe anything the govt. says..Think gulf of tonkkin..I feel really,really sorry for you guys'..I really wish i had that feeling back of having blind trust for our leaders..but seriousely..come on..really???

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

I have found some interesting information that pertains to this. France demolishes many taller buildings using a method of taking out a high floor from the building (naturally removing windows and other possibly explosive material). The removal of the floor's support allows the top of the building to collapse straight down on the rest, resulting in a complete demolition with no explosives required. They profess it to be the safest method of demolition because it does not require the weakening of the building prior to demolition.


Maybe you'll notice that when they collapse (EVEN WITHOUT WINDOWS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL), a lot of sound happens as well as almost explosive noises. NO EXPLOSIVES.

Explain this away, you so-called truther.

I would really like a reply to this.

It's as if my discovery has gone completely ignored by everyone.

Also, do check out this link included in the notes on the first video

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Varemia]

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by ugie1028

That was fantastic! Thanks for the 3:00 warning.

ATS needs more of this!

Star for you.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by Varemia

You , my friend , deserve an award for posting those vids . I love it !

This is exactly what happened with the Twin Towers but , it will take someone who is not in denial to see this .

The truthers will be in here shortly to debunk it . Wait , did I just say that ?

Can't wait to read the responses for this one !

You should create your own thread on this , just so I can flag it !

You could call it WTC Detonations Finally Debunked (Video) ...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by okbmd

I made one. It does seem that it is needed since after 10 pages, many people have become dis-interested in this thread, and thus my information will go mostly unnoticed.

Here it is. Enjoy posting in it.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:43 PM
Hearing explosions is no proof at all. If you have ever had the misfortune of being near a fire, you know that explosions almost always take place. In the WTC, can you imagine how many water heaters, cans of flamable materials, gas lines, jeez so many articles in that building would explode when exposed to flame, heat, or pressure.

A house fire recently across from my home, the fire was located on the second story. The flames weren't even licking up good yet and a massive explosion went off. It was a storeroom full of can paint. Now if I were suspicious of that fire, I would jump to conclusions and say somebody blew it up because I heard an explosion, but the reality is there are almost always explosions during a fire or impact.

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:56 PM

Originally posted by earthship35
It's funny iv'e noticed that all or most of the skeptics have joined ats in the last year or so.

Seems you have joined in the last year too... hehe

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:21 AM
Being skeptic is a good thing on ATS, otherwise you are just accepting evidence as proof positive.

I am open to the theory that something other than what we saw and what was reported being the cause of and means to the events of 9/11, however to date I have not seen one piece of evidence that can not be refuted as such. Again the sound of exposions WOULD BE HEARD during a normal fire situation, they almost always are, even in a minor fire.

Proof positive of explosions at the WTC would be material used for setting the explosive devices, video of those involved taking those materials into the building, something of that scale would sure have been noticed by employees who were not in the WTC on 911, as an example.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:40 AM
As regards explosions taking place before the collapse was intitiated we have the testimony of one janitor also who was in the sub basement when the a massive explosion went off....
seeking escape he opened the door to a machine shop in the basement and the whole thing was gone, huge machines everything was GONE!
It is peobably very nessessary to take out bottom central supports down in the basement levels to allow the bulding to collapse into itself....allowing the material a place to go....
Several others have witnessed to explosions in the lower parts of the WTC buildings prior collapse.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
they were subject to massive ejections caused by huge explosive blasts.

Yep, sure were right here:

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
they were subject to massive ejections caused by huge explosive blasts.

Yep, sure were right here:

The problem I find with those ejections is that in all the photos you have repeatedly posted, the ejections are occurring "after" the building have been to collapse. They could just as easily be ejections of debris caused by the falling and otherwise compressing building.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by _BoneZ_

BoneZ, when you say " The implosion of the WTC's were not neat or professional by any means and weren't meant to be " do you mean that charges were detonated irregularly to cloak a cd ?

No, I'm saying they were detonated in a way to be as less noticeable as possible. Further, they were unprofessional in the fact that they had little regard for life and property.

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in