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.

 

NatGeo video: WTC2 explosive flash(Close up)

page: 3
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It's an electrical flash. The WTC had nearly 30 electrical substations. Most, but not all, were in the basement.


edit on 13-9-2010 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
An explosive charge...definately!!

And definately NOT "shattered glass" reflecting light...



edit on 14-9-2010 by benoni because: missed out a letter....



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by toxic32
 





Most buildings have areas for storing flammable cleaning material and other types of chemicals in and maybe these exploded under the compression of the collapse?


Yeah, or it was that office chair that exploded under the intense heat ... or maybe even someone's exploding lunch pail....or maybe it was another one of those terrorists with exploding underwear...or maybe an employee from Cantor Fiztgerald brought a hand grenade to work that day for show and tell and things got crazy....

How about it was an explosive device put in place for demolition purposes, along with several others?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Very interesting. The first time that I actually felt somewhat convinced. However the only thing that bothers be is how the subsequent "detonations" below don't seem to be lined up with the building. Why is that? (Probably because it's not a detonation after all)

Look carefully, you see more twinkling of the same flash. Anybody notice that?

Around... 0:24 - 0:25


edit on 14-9-2010 by mishmallow8 because: (no reason given)




edit on 14-9-2010 by mishmallow8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aristophrenia

As much as I feel there was dodgey dealings surrounding 911 - I am significantly more terrified of what would happen if the truth ever came out - America would tear itself apart - it would be devastating.



It would only be devastating to the cancer in control of our country. It would be a relief to the common man.

Think about it - U.S. criminals did 9/11. And U.S. criminals are still covering it up. This same power structure is currently terrorizing and sacking the United States and the middle east. The number of victims increases every day.

It's time to exercise this cancer. And that process has to start by a clean sweep of the political mafia running this country. Followed by a dissolution of the Federal Reserve, CIA and a total repeal of the National Security Act of 1947.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
What do you see?


It's not what I see, but what I don't see, namely, the 10,000 OTHER explosive flashes that'd need to be there for this to be a controlled demolitons job, but aren't. The building was built out of steel, not cardboard tubes and duct tape, so it'd need a lot more than that one flash to bring it down.

What it was is an interesting question, but it wasn't a controlled demolitions charge.


Exactly, the building was buildt of steel and not cardboard tubes and duct tape, so it would need alot more than one airplane crashing into the top of it.

Interesting take on it, but it wasn't just a plane that brought it down.

VVV



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
What do you see?


It's not what I see, but what I don't see, namely, the 10,000 OTHER explosive flashes that'd need to be there for this to be a controlled demolitons job, but aren't. The building was built out of steel, not cardboard tubes and duct tape, so it'd need a lot more than that one flash to bring it down.

What it was is an interesting question, but it wasn't a controlled demolitions charge.


Exactly, the building was buildt of steel and not cardboard tubes and duct tape, so it would need alot more than one airplane crashing into the top of it.

Interesting take on it, but it wasn't just a plane that brought it down.

VVV



The building was brought down by the fire which weakened the structure.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW
The building was brought down by the fire which weakened the structure.


Ohhh!


Thanks man.



Seriously, you think that's all you have to say?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Truthers are really stretching a point when they start to equate any random flash seen around two of the tallest buildings, both covered with glass, which was coated to prevent glare and UV, both with large fires, on a sunny day with anything like a "controlled demolition".
To NOT see flashes around the building, inside and out would be the exception. Just another attempt to fan the flames of a fire that shouldn't have been lit.
And before you start, no one knows what a building that size, using that engineered type of construction (you all know it wasn't a traditional build, right? It was framed on the center and the skin, with floors basically hanging to preserve open space ) would do if hit by a jumbo jet full of fuel. We do now. We'll know should it happen again. There was no way to know or guess that such a building would do given the stresses put on it. To keep asking "how many other building have fallen like that?" just shows you cannot possibly be thinking clearly. How do you propose we test it? Fly another plane into another tall building? God forbid.


edit on 17-9-2010 by stars15k because: clarity and typo



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join