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 Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 7
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
JUst make a Note seeing that you would think that the Fire Fighters at the Ending of this Video as that last part is all over on youtube News , Blogs etc

You would think They The Fire Fighters Would be Familiar with Demolition explosions in Manhattan as Contractors are Taking down and rebuilding New Buildings All the Time as they are on call upon (Standby)on those Controlled Demolitions

I Would Trust these Fire Fighters Ideas of Explanations of what they saw and heard

Im not sure if this is the WTC 1,2 or is it 7 ?


FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center


Man at 911 tells how elevator in the basement exploded



Besides the Explosions this is what has interest me about truth searching of (911) is this video this is my Guess Could it be Actually a Rocket pod under the Fuselage this Means Only One thing !! and this Makes Perfect sense Me

Why Would a Rocket Pod be Attached to the Plane that Hit the 2nd WTC Tower for what Purpose Explosion Nope

Is It For Clearing Away the Obstructions (Building Structure) Blasting through beams to make a Path For the Penetrating Airliner Yeah My Guess...

The Next Question is what did those Rockets Contained in them (the Tips) ? Termite or Depleted Uranium ? both as a Former Marine Depleted Uranium Cuts through the The Thickest Steel like Butter

But Could one of those Rockets in that Rocket Pod Be something like Napalm to make the Effect like Fire Show ?

Monsanto/Napalm/9-11: Possibility or dead end?
forum.prisonplanet.com...

Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175? (The plane that struck the south Twin Tower on 9/11)
www.youtube.com...


Radiation & Another One
Of Those Endless
911 'Coincidences'...
By Christopher Bollyn
5-8-7
www.rense.com...

Boot Scrubbing Only >? at the Pentagon and washing Scrubbing Rescue Dogs ?

9/11 Truth: Radiation Hazard @ Pentagon? ( Video)
www.dailymotion.com...

Rocket Pod With Depleted Uranium
Boeing 767? (An Analysis Of The Aircraft Which Hit The WTC Towers)

By Chris Morganti (911Physics.co.nr)

Read more: blogs.myspace.com...

blogs.myspace.com...

Depleted uranium Ammunition
en.wikipedia.org...
Well a Little to much Info ?

NEW YORK POST
'Sick' 9/11 deal snubs cancer

By SUSAN EDELMAN

Last Updated: 2:10 PM, June 13, 2010

Posted: 3:09 AM, June 13, 2010


Read more: www.nypost.com...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Wolfenz]




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




That kind of view is the kind of attitude which does the world a huge disservice.

I am guessing that you have never taken the time to look at the mass of material which is available, nor to think this through for yourself.

In one way that is understandable - we are constantly under pressure to spend our time adoring celebrities and vegging out in front of mind-manipulative trash on TV, and remain in comfortable denail of all that is going on in the world. You may also not believe the workd is on the brink of unimaginably terrible things happening.

The truth is scary, and thinking takes effort, but I would like to take this opportunity to really look into things.

The world needs people to become properly informed - and I don't mean by wathing the propaganda MSM. Everyone counts in this situation, and no actions are 'neutral'.

Continuing to distract oneself, and deliberately not make the effort to be informed is to be complicit in the horrors which are taking place and which will soon get much much worse if people don't wake up.

So, your choice is to inform yourself and think things through for yourself, and add your weight to those who are trying to stop this insanity - or choose to consciously support the dark side by refusing to look at the facts.

There is no longer any middle ground once we have been made aware of the absolute necessity of waking up so we can become part of the solution.

You are no longer ingnorant of that fact. The choice is now yours.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by illumin8ed
I don't need to know what it sounds like in order to know that it doesn't sound like an explosion. Supersonic shock waves create a unique sound that couldn't possible be replicated by falling crashing objects, unless they travel faster than sound.


And tell me, how do you know these sounds are supersonic shock waves? Did you measure them with the correct equipment to analyse such sounds?

As I keep saying 9/11 is the RULE, not the exception to the rule.

No one ever heard those buildings collapse before.

You have nothing to compare the sound of the collapse to at all, therefore your claims are not based on any substance.

Can you not see that? Yes, you may have your opinion, but there is no way you can make your statements as fact.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
As strange as all this sounds, which no one wants to believe.
is it possible, that even worse could have occurred on that day. Even the fireman in the scene, seemed
convinced they had heard the explosions, as described as in an implosion...

Food for Thought, What if all huge tall sky scrapers un-be-knownest to the public at large, have built into them this form of failsafe design, so if one is in danger of collapse due to whatever reason. Instead of the building say collapsing sideways and taking out mass populations
and property, the failsafe system is tripped, bringing down the building in a controlled manner.

Yes, Most would say I am a Conspiracy Nut, for wondering about this, with all the debunkers out there in the media re-enforcing our belief those tall buildings are safe. I agree most of the time they would be, so nothing this drastic would have to be considered.

Yet, I have looked up at the glass and steel behemoths we humans have built, wondering what would happen in Seattle. If say the huge black bank tower, would collapse side ways instead, as with the twin towers, collapsing straight down. The massive amounts of glass and steel would take out three or more city blocks of the Cities Prized DownTown Financial District, not to speak of killing thousands of people in other smaller buildings being damaged as well as those just going about their normal shopping on the streets.

As I said just food for thought, Well you make up your own mind...

RKL



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It wasn't planes. It wasn't controlled demolition. It wasn't some high tech weapon. It was GLOBAL WARMING!!!!. Global warming bought down those towers and if you don't pay al gore a 'stop the buildings from collapsing tax' all buildings will collapse by 2014.

Lol Global warming is my answer to every problem.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
No one ever heard those buildings collapse before.

Steel-structured buildings are steel-structured buildings. I'd be willing to bet money that most of them sound very similar when they collapse. The twin towers were only a somewhat unique design in the 1960's, but most other super-tall skyscrapers since the 1960's have had the tube-structure architecture implemented.

And the twin towers weren't even the first buildings to implement the tube-structured design to begin with.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
As far as I have been able to find, there has never been an explanation of how the BBC reported the collapse of WT7, 23 minutes before it actually collapsed.

www.youtube.com...

Watching this again just now, I notice how here too there is the announcement (inexplicable at this point) that the WTC7 had also collapsed, but immediately an explanation as to how it collapsed, which is exactly the official line given 30 minutes later when it had, in fact, collapsed.

My question about this, therefore, is not only where did the BBC get the information that the tower had collapsed BEFORE it actually happened,
but also how did it also happen to have the EXACT official story line of how it collapsed BEFORE IT COLLAPSED?

In a nutshell - they knew it was going to collapse 23 minutes before it collapsed, and they knew WHAT was allegedly going to cause the collapse. This alone is hard evidence to support pre-knowledge of the events.

Now we know that the BBC is controlled and censored by the Cabal, the most significant question has to be WHO gave the BBC that information?

I am astonished that there hasn't been a full investigation into even this one glaring aspect of the evidence.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You argue that beliefs and statements can't be considered facts without evidence, and I agree with you. I am sure you would also have to agree that the same rule must apply to the Government in respect to its own statements.

So, what evidence do you believe the Government has provided which backs up its statements and proves they are facts?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Alfie1
 




That kind of view is the kind of attitude which does the world a huge disservice.

I am guessing that you have never taken the time to look at the mass of material which is available, nor to think this through for yourself.

In one way that is understandable - we are constantly under pressure to spend our time adoring celebrities and vegging out in front of mind-manipulative trash on TV, and remain in comfortable denail of all that is going on in the world. You may also not believe the workd is on the brink of unimaginably terrible things happening.

The truth is scary, and thinking takes effort, but I would like to take this opportunity to really look into things.

The world needs people to become properly informed - and I don't mean by wathing the propaganda MSM. Everyone counts in this situation, and no actions are 'neutral'.

Continuing to distract oneself, and deliberately not make the effort to be informed is to be complicit in the horrors which are taking place and which will soon get much much worse if people don't wake up.

So, your choice is to inform yourself and think things through for yourself, and add your weight to those who are trying to stop this insanity - or choose to consciously support the dark side by refusing to look at the facts.

There is no longer any middle ground once we have been made aware of the absolute necessity of waking up so we can become part of the solution.

You are no longer ingnorant of that fact. The choice is now yours.







What patronising bilge. You have no idea what I have seen and considered or how I spend my time.

I consider 9/11 trutherism to be a mishmash of multiple delusions based on zero evidence.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 





You would think They The Fire Fighters Would be Familiar with Demolition explosions in Manhattan as Contractors are Taking down and rebuilding New Buildings All the Time as they are on call upon (Standby)on those Controlled Demolitions


Explosive demolition is outlawed in most of NYC (Manhattan) for reason that chance of collateral damage is too great

Several of the buildings damaged on 9/11 (130 Liberty aka Deutsche Bank
and 30 West Broadway aka Fiterman Hall) are being demolished (slowly)
by being dismantled floor by floor

FF have experience recognizing sounds on the fireground from gas explosions, vehicle fire, building collapse from fire or structural issues



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I consider 9/11 trutherism to be a mishmash of multiple delusions based on zero evidence.

Witness testimony is evidence. And yet you're calling the witnesses in my video "delusional", even though they all described the same exact thing? And besides disrespecting the survivors and by-standers, you'd disrespect our hero first responders by calling them delusional for saying the same exact thing?

I don't think the survivors, by-standers, first responders, scientists and engineers are all delusional. I think people that remain in denial and attack the aforementioned because they can't attack the evidence, are the delusional one's.

So, your false claim of "zero evidence" is already debunked by all the witness testimony. By-standers, survivors and first responders heard the booms and saw the flashes, all associated with controlled demolitions, and none associated with fire-induced collapses.

Move along, Alfie.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 





Besides the Explosions this is what has interest me about truth searching of (911) is this video this is my Guess Could it be Actually a Rocket pod under the Fuselage this Means Only One thing !! and this Makes Perfect sense Me

Why Would a Rocket Pod be Attached to the Plane that Hit the 2nd WTC Tower for what Purpose Explosion Nope

Is It For Clearing Away the Obstructions (Building Structure) Blasting through beams to make a Path For the Penetrating Airliner Yeah My Guess...

The Next Question is what did those Rockets Contained in them (the Tips) ? Termite or Depleted Uranium ? both as a Former Marine Depleted Uranium Cuts through the The Thickest Steel like Butter

But Could one of those Rockets in that Rocket Pod Be something like Napalm to make the Effect like Fire Show ?



The so called "pod" has been debunked for years. It is the fairing under the fuselage covering the landing gear bays



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Explosive demolition is outlawed in most of NYC (Manhattan) for reason that chance of collateral damage is too great

You do have a way with words. Firstly, Manhattan is not "most of NYC". Manhattan is one of 5 NYC boroughs. And Manhattan happens to be the smallest NYC borough. Why you would say "most of" and then "Manhattan" in the same sentence is beyond logic.

I'll be checking on your "explosive demolition is outlawed" statement as well.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 





As far as I have been able to find, there has never been an explanation of how the BBC reported the collapse of WT7, 23 minutes before it actually collapsed.

www.youtube.com...

Watching this again just now, I notice how here too there is the announcement (inexplicable at this point) that the WTC7 had also collapsed, but immediately an explanation as to how it collapsed, which is exactly the official line given 30 minutes later when it had, in fact, collapsed.

My question about this, therefore, is not only where did the BBC get the information that the tower had collapsed BEFORE it actually happened,
but also how did it also happen to have the EXACT official story line of how it collapsed BEFORE IT COLLAPSED?

In a nutshell - they knew it was going to collapse 23 minutes before it collapsed, and they knew WHAT was allegedly going to cause the collapse. This alone is hard evidence to support pre-knowledge of the events.

Now we know that the BBC is controlled and censored by the Cabal, the most significant question has to be WHO gave the BBC that information?

I am astonished that there hasn't been a full investigation into even this one glaring aspect of the evidence.

[/quote

The BBC revealed afterwards was quoting from a Reuters news report which in turn had been referencing a local news source.

The collapse zone around WTC 7 had been established at 3 PM when signs of structural instability were becoming evident - building bulging out at SW corner

Far from being a secret was widely disseminated for simple reason was to get everyone to clear area around WTC 7.

I heard the orders being passed by radio from my firehouse in NJ while listening to transmission from the scene

Someone heard that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse and collapse zone
was being set up - it then was garbled into WTC 7 had collpased
in The chaos of that day noboby bothered to confirm story - simply reported it as fact.....



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks for that, I especially like the additional footage of an actual detonation demolition, it helps verify what you "are" hearing. There is no denying that distinctive popping sound. For me it was very clear.

You only need to look at how neatly the footprints are on all (3) buildings to know it was set up. But for some, they just do not want to believe that their own protectors and politicians would destroy and murder to get what they need.

One day these bought and paid for, silver spooned, Harvard grad political placements - who are comfortably surrounded by their "frat" lawyers, will get what is coming to them!

When enough eyes open - it will be the end of the lies and the end of their little World Domination campaign! The ones who designed all of this, most of them have one foot in the grave already.

Great post - keep up the great work and research.

The light of the truth keeps shining through the darkness of their lies - and it will never go away until all of it is known!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Which proves my point.
To disagree with the evidence which is being presented on the basis of serious consideration of its merit is one thing, to say there is zero evidence is quite another, and to dismiss as irrelevant the expert opinion of thousands of respected professionals - and of the FBI iteself which has stated that the 9/11 truthers' case is backed by 'thorough research and analysis'.

Now, you trash this as 'zero-evidence', so what evidence do you believe exists to support the Government's official storyline?

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed, and continue to be killed, as a direct result of the Government's EXPLANATION of what happened. Now, given that the government's explanation is responsible for all those deaths, don't you think the Government should be forced to provide WATERTIGHT EVIDENCE that it's explanation is based on irrefutable fact?

How would you explain the BBC's report that WT7 had also collapsed, 23 minutes before it collapsed, and that it also knew the exact explanation for it's collapse before it ever collapsed?




[edit on 5-9-2010 by wcitizen]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by wcitizen]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





You do have a way with words. Firstly, Manhattan is not "most of NYC". Manhattan is one of 5 NYC boroughs. And Manhattan happens to be the smallest NYC borough. Why you would say "most of" and then "Manhattan" in the same sentence is beyond logic.


Perhaps I was not clear in what I meant

Manhattan is the most densly populated area in the NYC

Also most of high raise buildings are located here




New York's Five Boroughs at a Glance
Jurisdiction Population Land Area miles square km
Manhattan New York 1,629,054 23 59
the Bronx Bronx 1,397,287 42 109
Brooklyn Kings 2,567,098 71 183
Queens Queens 2,306,712 109 283
Staten Island Richmond 491,730 58 151



Because of the high density of population and the height of the buildings explosive demolition is outlawed in Mnahattan

Was a video several years back of 2 old gas storage tanks being explosively demolished in Brooklyn (might still be on YOUTUBE)



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Because of the lack of motive it doesn't really makes sense to me that the building was demolished. Why would conspirators take the risk of being uncovered? I sure would not. So even if the building was demolished, I don't think it was part of the conspiracy behind the 911 attacks.

The science is behind a building collapsing is way beyond my knowledge and expertise. There are some scientist who object the theory that a fire could have caused the collapse, but as far as I know most acknowledge it. Over all, it doesn't seem impossible to me, and I have no real reason to doubt the theory. For me this video doesn't really change that.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The PhD source was posted in the very post you quoted.






No, the source.

Not "somebody else saying it".



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen.

Now we know that the BBC is controlled and censored by the Cabal, the most significant question has to be WHO gave the BBC that information?

I am astonished that there hasn't been a full investigation into even this one glaring aspect of the evidence.






Your cabal would have to be pretty thick to announce their crimes on TV.

What would be the point?



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join