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.

 

911 New Footage - Pops and Flashes

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
If the WTC's were demo's you'd be seeing a LOT more flashes than what this showed. There were propane/gas lines in the towers and that coulda been what that was. One thing is for sure, it is NOT evidence of explosives and they were not demo's. False information being projected as "fact" when it is not.


edit on 11/30/2010 by mikelee because: spelling


There would be a lot more explosions to bring down a building indeed, if it was a demolition on a building that was fully in tact.

In the meantime you mention that it is not evidence of explosives, but it is 100% evidence of explosions. The "debunker camp" still has many people claiming there were no explosions, so this is completely relative to the debate.

Secondly, the OP states it is their opinion that this is evidence of CD, and asks the reader if they think so. Then you call it "false information" and being projected "as fact".

I know "lol" is discouraged here, but seriously, "LOL".




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


So, "they" ran into the WTC's or had pre-positioned demoltions in place and after the airliners hit the towers "they" detonated them.....Thats what your saying? That don't make sense for many reasons but here is a few:

* Pre positioning & wiring of a major structure would draw attention in an occupied skyscraper. It might happen in the movies but it didn't happen in NYC. No one in their right mind would leave det cord exposed (as they would have to do) as that would be a telltale sign of "something strange" at the very least.

* How would they know exactly where to place the explosives along with where the airiners would be required to hit to encompass the collapse?

* Thermite some say was found. In microscopic amounts. That in itself debunks the theory of it's use. Nevermind the fact that it would require a very large amount of the stuff to do what many suggest. Not to mention that using it to accomplish what happened to the Twin Towers is equal to loading a bomber with shot gun shells then trying to shot them in order to explode on taget. It just ain't a very intelligent manner to bring a building down. Its used for cutting NOT blowing up things.

* The kinetic energy released when the airliners struck each tower was out of the building permeters of what each tower could withstand. Sure the builders said they designed them with that in mind, however to actually have it happen is another story altogether. Any building cited or posted on ATS that claims not to have collasped when it was simply on fire did not have the flame retardant covering blown away either.

* Photos of "melting metal" falsely said to be Thermite, is more than likely the steel clad aluminum used on each tower as described within the original tower's design. One hting is was not, was Thermite as some prone to promoting unproven theorys claim.

Now, I'm not one of those who believes the OS in it's entirety for a minute but there must be a more common sense approach to getting at the heart of what happened on 911. I do not believe some of the more outlandish theorys like no planes, holograms etc. But I do believe that the Bush's, Saudi's and elements of the military both domestic & foreign knew in advance about this particular event and for whatever reason yet to be forthcoming or discovered allowed it to take place. I do not believe that those mentioned above understand the scope of the 911 events.
edit on 12/2/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So when did they start placing demolition charges on the windows?
Because it isn't a squib nor proof of an explosion at all. More shannigans from the conspiracy circus.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jprophet420
 


So, "they" ran into the WTC's or had pre-positioned demoltions in place and after the airliners hit the towers "they" detonated them.....Thats what your saying? That don't make sense for many reasons but here is a few:

* Pre positioning & wiring of a major structure would draw attention in an occupied skyscraper. It might happen in the movies but it didn't happen in NYC. No one in their right mind would leave det cord exposed (as they would have to do) as that would be a telltale sign of "something strange" at the very least.

* How would they know exactly where to place the explosives along with where the airiners would be required to hit to encompass the collapse?

* Thermite some say was found. In microscopic amounts. That in itself debunks the theory of it's use. Nevermind the fact that it would require a very large amount of the stuff to do what many suggest. Not to mention that using it to accomplish what happened to the Twin Towers is equal to loading a bomber with shot gun shells then trying to shot them in order to explode on taget. It just ain't a very intelligent manner to bring a building down. Its used for cutting NOT blowing up things.

* The kinetic energy released when the airliners struck each tower was out of the building permeters of what each tower could withstand. Sure the builders said they designed them with that in mind, however to actually have it happen is another story altogether. Any building cited or posted on ATS that claims not to have collasped when it was simply on fire did not have the flame retardant covering blown away either.

* Photos of "melting metal" falsely said to be Thermite, is more than likely the steel clad aluminum used on each tower as described within the original tower's design. One hting is was not, was Thermite as some prone to promoting unproven theorys claim.

Now, I'm not one of those who believes the OS in it's entirety for a minute but there must be a more common sense approach to getting at the heart of what happened on 911. I do not believe some of the more outlandish theorys like no planes, holograms etc. But I do believe that the Bush's, Saudi's and elements of the military both domestic & foreign knew in advance about this particular event and for whatever reason yet to be forthcoming or discovered allowed it to take place. I do not believe that those mentioned above understand the scope of the 911 events.
edit on 12/2/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling


Every one of your bullets is an assumption or contains an assumption.

I said what I said, meant it, and was correct. You are entitled to draw any conclusion you wish.
edit on 2-12-2010 by jprophet420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


They are based in common sense as well realistic probabilitys. Something in which many of the theorys surrounding 911 within a conspiracy context, are neither.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I don't care about "many" theories, I care about getting a new investigation. Why?


Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jprophet420
 


They are based in common sense as well realistic probabilitys. Something in which many of the theorys surrounding 911 within a conspiracy context, are neither.


Something based on common sense as well as realistic probability is a great start for a theory. It falls short of being proof by a longshot.




top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join