Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 2
104
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
When the American Society of Civil Engineers , some 120,000 plus strong, expresses concern about the collapse of the WTC Towers then I will be concerned. But of course they haven't.

So for you, damn all the evidence and witness testimony; you're going to wait for other peoples' opinions from a specific organization before you entertain such "conspiracies"?

That's the type of logic that is not normal.

So if the ASCE started expressing concern, what excuse would you think up next to continue to remain in denial?




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
When the American Society of Civil Engineers , some 120,000 plus strong, expresses concern about the collapse of the WTC Towers then I will be concerned. But of course they haven't.

So for you, damn all the evidence and witness testimony; you're going to wait for other peoples' opinions from a specific organization before you entertain such "conspiracies"?

That's the type of logic that is not normal.

So if the ASCE started expressing concern, what excuse would you think up next to continue to remain in denial?

Please refer to my previous post made on this thread.

I would very much like to hear what you have to say about it.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I agree it is probably a deep rooted psychological fear of their governments and it's subsidiaries, that keeps people in denial for the very reasons that have been given.


OR, it could really be the case that in the conspiracy theorists' blind zeal to "prove" conspiracy that they've put out such monstrous floods of outright lies (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled), arrogant accusations (The Pentagon taxi driver is a secret gov't disinformation agent), and childish innuendo dropping (Bush has links to Hitler) that the rest of us wouldn't believe you conspiracy people even if you said night was dark and water was wet.

Case in point with these "explosions in the WTC" bit. It's been pointed out ad nauseum that noone has EVER denied there were explosions in the towers. The towers were chock full of flammable object that would go BOOM when on fire (electrical transfortmers, pressurized pipes, and the like), and if even ONE of these explosions was from one of these flammable objects then it stands to reason they ALL were explosions from flammable objects. Every time this is mentioned, the conspiracy people always run away the same way drug dealers run away from cops....and when the coast is clear the conspiracy people always come back out and start dealing their "witnesses heard explosions" bit all over again.

...and you claim we don't take you seriously becuase we all have a "psychological fear of the gov't". Pull my other leg, why don't you.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Why is it that the buildings in ALL the examples I've seen, when they are being demolished you hear the explosions BEFORE the collapse

You can hear explosions in both towers BEFORE they collapse in other videos. In about every single South Tower collapse video, you can hear massive explosions that initiate the collapse. In the documentary "9/11 Eyewitness", you can hear about 9 explosions over a several minute period before the collapse of the South Tower. Firefighters in the First Responder Oral Histories have also corroborated this same exact amount of explosions BEFORE the South Tower collapses.

In other videos like "9/11 Eyewitness", you can hear several large explosions before the North Tower collapses as well.

So there were numerous explosions that took place and initiated the collapses of both towers.



Originally posted by Varemia
and then the collapse creates much less sound? In the WTC collapses, the buildings didn't begin to make a ton of sound until AFTER they began to fall.

Not really accurate. Watch the following video and turn your speakers up LOUD (sound is kinda low in the video). You will hear a massive explosion and then the loud roaring, but the building is hardly moving yet!!! The loud roaring is the smaller explosives being detonated, not the building crashing through itself when it's not even hardly moving:





So, what you're seeing/hearing is a massive explosion(s) that initiated collapse, and then the loud roar immediately following which is the smaller explosives being detonated. You can hear that massive initiation explosion in just about every single South Tower video.

Further, I've got several controlled demolition videos using the same type of smaller explosive that causes just the loud roar we hear in all 3 WTC buildings, then when the explosives are done detonating, you hear just the quietness of the rest of the buildings falling.

For reference, Trinity church is almost a mile away from the WTC, so there's about a half-second or so sound difference between the time of the sound reaching the church and seeing the building collapsing. In otherwords, the building would have moved even less if you were next to it and you heard the loud roaring.



Originally posted by Varemia
The towers fell in a very unclean manner

Of course they did. They tried to make it as unnoticeable as possible, however you could never be able to fully obscure a controlled demolition. There's too many witnesses, and audio/visual evidence to prove otherwise. The WTC was not a conventional controlled demolition.



Originally posted by Varemia
This video here explains a number of things about the falling speed and also about how the outside of the first tower collapsed before the rest came with it:

Actually, it doesn't. Firstly, the FEMA Report listed the collapse speeds of the towers at about 10-seconds. That should tell you right there that the investigation into 9/11 by our government agencies wasn't detailed and exact.

Secondly, you won't find any knowledgeable truther that says those towers came down at free-fall. Someone like me, however, will say that they came down at near free-fall because 15-seconds is very close to free-fall for those size of buildings.

And it took alot, but NIST finally admitted that (at least for 2-seconds) WTC 7 free-fell as well.



Originally posted by Varemia
Look closely at this next one. AFTER the tower collapses there are still parts standing that continue to fall slowly after the rest is down.

There are many videos of known controlled demolitions where parts of the buildings are still standing after the main collapse. And?


You've got much research to do, my friend, if you're going to comment on controlled demolitions.






[edit on 4-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So let me get this straight. I supply my reasoning for why I can't see any foul play in the destruction of the towers and your argument ends up being "they faked it to make it look more like a realistic destruction." You are now saying that instead of it being so OBVIOUSLY a controlled demolition, that it looks like a collapse that is a demolition in disguise...

As for the video you showed me. I begin to hear a lot of noise just as the tower begins to fall on itself, which is expected. No out of the ordinary explosion noises.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
and childish innuendo dropping (Bush has links to Hitler)

This statement right here proves you have done zero actual research into anything. It proves you're only here to give your opinions, albeit unreal opinions. The Bush family very much did have ties to Nazi Germany. Go look it up.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The towers were chock full of flammable object that would go BOOM when on fire (electrical transfortmers, pressurized pipes, and the like), and if even ONE of these explosions was from one of these flammable objects then it stands to reason they ALL were explosions from flammable objects.

Except you're forgetting that neither tower was engulfed in flames from top to bottom. So the "boom, boom, boom" that the witnesses were reporting as the towers were collapsing couldn't have all been from "flammable objects" since only a few floors were on fire.

Your statement is so denial-based (or add in other reasons here) it's not even funny. These witnesses heard exactly what you would hear in controlled demolitions and nothing else.

Your days of making up excuses, Dave, have come to an end. Nobody is buying it anymore.


And Dave, your excuses of "flammable objects" don't explain the first responder testimony of "flashes going up, down, and around" both towers in the lower and middle stories of the buildings while making "popping or exploding sounds". You know, yet again like as is only seen/heard in controlled demolitions.

Game over, Dave.







[edit on 4-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
You are now saying that instead of it being so OBVIOUSLY a controlled demolition, that it looks like a collapse that is a demolition in disguise...

Not "now" saying that. Been saying that for years which = you're very unresearched and unknowledgeable about controlled demolitions.



Originally posted by Varemia
As for the video you showed me. I begin to hear a lot of noise just as the tower begins to fall on itself, which is expected. No out of the ordinary explosion noises.

And that's why you're unknowledgeable about controlled demolitions. The roaring you hear (as I've already stated) is from the explosives being detonated. I've got several controlled demolitions where the same exact noise can be heard.

And NO that is not to be expected, as you so think you're sure of. The building isn't even hardly moving yet when the noise starts, so where's all that noise coming from in your world?

And again I'll tell you that the camera is about a mile away from the WTC. Not even in known controlled demolitions with cameras much closer to the buildings are they that loud. The loudness you're hearing is from the explosives being detonated.

And you can hear the same roaring from 2 miles away in "9/11 Eyewitness". You're not going to hear a building that far away collapse that loudly on it's own.

But, it doesn't matter. You're going to remain in denial no matter what's presented to you. You already ignored most of my post to you anyways. Keep believing in the fantasy that you want to live in. You're entitled to that.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This statement right here proves you have done zero actual research into anything. It proves you're only here to give your opinions, albeit unreal opinions. The Bush family very much did have ties to Nazi Germany. Go look it up.


That's the problem you conspiracy people are facing, I DID look it up- Before Bush was born, Bush's Grandfather worked for a bank, that was owned by a Dutch conglomerate, which was owned by a German conglomerate, which was owned by a German businessman who once gave money to the Nazi party before being thrown into a concentration camp himself. That's your entire, "Links to Hitler", right there. This is nothing but the five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game that links everyone to everyone else through the correct five people. It's blatantly obvious you're trying to drop innuendo to imply 9/11 treason by dropping innuendo to imply prior treason, and it's blatantly obvious you''re doing THAT becuase you have no real tangible evidence of any conspiracy otherwise.

I shouldn't have to tell you that it's your credibility that suffers from these disingenuous games, not anyone else's. I didn't like Bush either, but, Jeez Louise, he pulled enough REAL crap without yor needing to invent this "links to Hitler" bullsh*t.


Except you're forgetting that neither tower was engulfed in flames from top to bottom. So the "boom, boom, boom" that the witnesses were reporting as the towers were collapsing couldn't have all been from "flammable objects" since only a few floors were on fire.


...except that YOU'RE forgetting...or more likely, those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all this paranoia from didn't tell you...that directly below where UA175 hit WTC 2 there were mechanical floors dedicated to all the electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, and whatever for that section of the building, and this would have been the very first floor the plane would have dumped burning fuel down into. It didn't need to be "engulfed in flames from top to bottom". It just needed to be engulfed in flames *there*.

List of tenants in WTC 2 by floor

...so here we have blatant innuendo dropping AND withholding of facts that prevent people from making informed decisions. The only thing you've left out is accusing someone of being a secret gov't disinformation agent. What was you opinion of the engineers at NIST, again?

You really have no credibility, Bonez.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You really have no credibility, Bonez.

That's why all my posts have stars and yours, well, don't. Maybe you should make your statements more accurate by saying "You really have no credibility with me, Bonez."



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
You are now saying that instead of it being so OBVIOUSLY a controlled demolition, that it looks like a collapse that is a demolition in disguise...

Not "now" saying that. Been saying that for years which = you're very unresearched and unknowledgeable about controlled demolitions.



Originally posted by Varemia
As for the video you showed me. I begin to hear a lot of noise just as the tower begins to fall on itself, which is expected. No out of the ordinary explosion noises.

And that's why you're unknowledgeable about controlled demolitions. The roaring you hear (as I've already stated) is from the explosives being detonated. I've got several controlled demolitions where the same exact noise can be heard.

And NO that is not to be expected, as you so think you're sure of. The building isn't even hardly moving yet when the noise starts, so where's all that noise coming from in your world?

And again I'll tell you that the camera is about a mile away from the WTC. Not even in known controlled demolitions with cameras much closer to the buildings are they that loud. The loudness you're hearing is from the explosives being detonated.

And you can hear the same roaring from 2 miles away in "9/11 Eyewitness". You're not going to hear a building that far away collapse that loudly on it's own.

But, it doesn't matter. You're going to remain in denial no matter what's presented to you. You already ignored most of my post to you anyways. Keep believing in the fantasy that you want to live in. You're entitled to that.




Show me the proof, period. How is it that tons of steel bending and crushing over itself can make little to no noise? The "rumbling" and "roaring" is exactly what anyone would expect from a structure like that collapsing. The only buildings I can think you must be imagining when considering noise are wooden and brick buildings of much smaller stature, which would make a large amount of noise, but would not be audible at decent distances. The difference between those and the WTC "should" be obvious to even a person such as me who has not done the caliber of "research" you claim to have done. What kind of research is it anyway? Is it a degree in building demolition mechanics versus structural collapse mechanics? And as it is, the evidence I have seen of the WTC shows that it wasn't a complete structural collapse, especially on the second video I initially provided. You can very clearly see the top of the building impacting the lower and getting slowed down slightly before the rest of the building experiences collapse. Also, in your video it showed the top part of the building bending, the steel BENDING down in its collapse, putting the falling weight of the rest of the tower on the structure below.

Please, stop calling me ill-informed and explain why your spouting is any different than a pipe full of hot air.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Here man get your teeth around this,,,
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's why all my posts have stars and yours, well, don't. Maybe you should make your statements more accurate by saying "You really have no credibility with me, Bonez."


No, that's why you have to resort to preaching to your private little 9/11 conspiracy cliques like the one here on ATS to find people that'll swallow your conspiracy baloney. You know more acutely than I do that as soon as you go out to the mainstream public with this "controlled demolitions" bit you're met with disbelief and derision.

I've noticed a pattern with you, Bonez- every time I post information that shatters these conspiracy stories of yours, you always pull a bait and switch and bring up some whole other thing out of nowhere to change the subject. I've shown that the towers had flammable objects that would certainly explain the explosions that were heard, and I've likewise shown that a mechanical floor chock full of these flammable objects was one of first floors that caught the burning fuel. You KNOW that if even one of the explosions people heard was from these flammable objects, then they could all be from these flammable objects, and you KNOW this this blows your whole "controlled demolitions" story out of the water.

Your response to this? "You have more stars from your posts than I do". Good grief, be an adult and just admit you're barking up the wrong tree with this whole "witnesses heard explosions" bit already. Innuendo dropping, manipulating the facts, and now, misdirection, ISN'T the hallmark of someone "geniuinely researchign the truth of 9/11", you know.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The "rumbling" and "roaring" is exactly what anyone would expect from a structure like that collapsing.

Not when the building isn't even hardly moving when the roaring starts. What part of that do you not understand?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
every time I post information that shatters these conspiracy stories of yours

What information have you posted that "shatters" any conspiracy theory? Your words?
You think your words or opinion means jack without some source to back you up?




Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've shown that the towers had flammable objects that would certainly explain the explosions that were heard

You've "shown"? With your words you've typed on the screen, you've shown?


There were very few flammable objects in the towers. They were Class "A" buildings. The carpeting, the curtains, the furniture were all fire-resistant. There was no gas in the buildings either. The kitchens used electricity to cook. This is from the maintenance and construction workers that worked in those buildings.

Your fantasy "flammable objects" argument doesn't work for what the witnesses heard with distinct, timed detonations. And don't forget, the detonations that took both buildings down were identical. You can hear some of the detonations in the video, and you can hear witnesses describing the detonations. When you add the other facts of ejections, flashes, etc., your fantasy gets laid to rest because all of those are signs of controlled demolitions and none are signs of fire-induced collapses. All available evidence proves controlled demolition and not a single one of your words will ever make anyone think otherwise.

Nice of you to turn your post around and focus on me instead of the evidence because you can't defeat the evidence, nor the witnesses. That just makes you look the more foolish, Dave. Very sad.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Here man get your teeth around this,,,
www.abovetopsecret.com...


...and not even a few posts later, one of your fellow conspiracy theorists posted:

Well, by stating his MOS as 97B, he is giving away that he is Army (Enlisted, not Commissioned). As for the rest of it, I don't buy it.

Furthermore, Officer intelligence MOS's are 35 series, with counter intelligence being 35E (O) or 35L (E).

I believe that 97B was an intelligence MOS before getting switched to 35 series around 2004, but it was an enlisted MOS, as opposed to a commissioned (officer) MOS.

--airspoon


..so even a military man like airspoon is saying it's a hoax and you're STILL swallowing it. Aren't we becoming a tad bit blind in our zealotry, here, dude?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
FFWD to 3:00

Here is another witness who heard explosions as well. 'William Rodriguez.'

S&F great video!

*chuckle*

Just a shame William Rodriguez neglected to mention all that, when he was testifying in front of the of 9/11 Commission



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That has got to be the crappiest video you have ever posted . How convenient that the audio starts before the video .

And , once the video starts with the sound of the collapse , I still see , nor hear , anything that proves explosions or controlled demolition .

Furthermore , I never trust videos that don't have the audio in sync with the person who is talking at the moment .

Then there was all the background noise inserted(?) to where the only audible part was where the guy was saying "explosions" , and then nothing else from him . How convenient that you can't hear a damn word he is saying until the word explosion .

I've seen the part where the firefighters are saying it "sounded" like a demolition , before . Just because it sounded like explosions to them , does not mean that it was explosions . Again , what does a tower of that size supposed to sound like while it is collapsing ? Twinkies landing on marshmallows ?

Okay , watched it again , the audio/video was in sync this time . Still not convincing .

Furthermore , it sounded nothing at all like the Wachovia building , which it was compared to . Not at all .

Keep reaching bonez , fierce determination pays off sometimes . Just not in the case of anything you have posted being irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition .

And remember , you clearly said you couldn't wait to hear what we had to say about it so , don't go gettin all bent outta shape when we tell you what we think .






]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
What information have you posted that "shatters" any conspiracy theory? Your words?
You think your words or opinion means jack without some source to back you up?


I posted a floor by floor list of tenents of WTC 2, showing where the mechanical floor was in relation to where UA172 struck the tower. Unless you're attempting to claim the towers DIDN'T have electrical equipment on the mechanical floors they reserved for electrical equipment, or you're attempting to say the mechanical floors were located somewhere other than where every piece of documentation said they were, your protest is disingenuous.

In my last place of employment, the electrical transformer across the street from me overheated and blew up like a bomb and set that building on fire. I've seen this with my own eyes, so if you're claimign that transformers don't blow up like bombs under the right conditions then you're lying through your teeth.


There were very few flammable objects in the towers. They were Class "A" buildings. The carpeting, the curtains, the furniture were all fire-resistant.


DING DING DING STRAWMAN ARGUMENT ALERT. Fire *resistant* is not the same thing as fire *proof*, particularly when aviation fuel is splattered all over them...and noone even claimed it was the carpets or the curtains that exploded anyway.


There was no gas in the buildings either. The kitchens used electricity to cook. This is from the maintenance and construction workers that worked in those buildings.


How were they able to cook with electricity without electrical transformers in the building...? Good GOD you dance more than Michael Flatley.

It's obvious that getting a straight answer out of you is akin to nailing jam to the wall, so let me ask this- do you at least concur that at least ONE explosion that people heard was from one of the flammable objects necessary for the operations of building that went BOOM?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It's best to watch this video on a computer or TV where the volume can be turned up a bit to hear the detonations:



I watched and listened.

Bonez, I find it interesting that I had to turn my volume up all the way just to hear a building collapse. There were not any clear distinguishable charges going off. I watched it several times and couldn't hear a thing.

Watch this video of a controlled demolition and I will ask you to turn your volume down!




Now watch this video of a crane collapsing. Hear the explosions? ME too! No explosives there, however.



[edit on 4-9-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sounds like a building collapsing to me... I can not distinguish any controlled detonations...





new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join