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.

 

Jones Talks About His "Debunkers" and other Interesting Facts: Possible Use of Thermitic Material

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That scenario wouldnt cause pressurewaves though. Also the snapping of metal sounds distinctively different than what was caught on video.



As you said, only because it sorta is like it, does not mean it is it.

I am sure those are exploding transformers

edit on 14-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Ever actually heard a transformer explode? And I don't mean watched a utube video where you can adjust the sound, but actually standing near an electrical explosion? Puts most explosives to shame.

Remember once when we energized a new substation and some of the framing wasn't properly ground. We were 2 miles from the nearest house but people called the fire department.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Ever actually heard a transformer explode? And I don't mean watched a utube video where you can adjust the sound, but actually standing near an electrical explosion? Puts most explosives to shame.

Remember once when we energized a new substation and some of the framing wasn't properly ground. We were 2 miles from the nearest house but people called the fire department.



hoop... as a matter of fact, I was driving to work Wednesday morning up here in New England. We were in the middle of a blizzard. (yes I am a dedicated employee) I saw a bright flash and heard a LARGE explosion. I swear to God, for a brief moment I thought it was a bomb. The lights all around the neighborhood all went black. It was then I realized it was a transformer. IT was replaced yesterday.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
it doesn't address the peer reviewed and factual science.


Wait... what? Peer reviewed? By people in his 9/11 Cult? You call that peer review?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I watched your video....again, this is the sort of crap put together by people who just MAKE STUFF UP out of their fevered imaginations.

LOOK again at the demo, in the first few seconds (before it cuts to actual 9/11 historical footage).

The "test" explosion. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK the filmmakers took to set up JUST THAT ONE EVENT, in order to film and record it???

Multiply that by THOUSANDS....in an OCCUPIED building, that is constantly monitored.....and still....come up with a "triggering mechanism".....ETC. ETC. ETC.

Do you see, yet??

EVERY more and more convoluted "conspiracy claim" gets more and more complicated, with each iteration......



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I dont see how it does. You have 2 explosions there, which sound pretty much identical. You keep trying to debunk with sorta like that and things that could have occoured, but are very unlikely to occour. If there is a cult here, it is the official conspiracy theory cult. Also what is wrong with looking up exploding transformers on youtube? Do you think they all conspired or something?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
In view of this absurdity, how can ANYONE trust a word the man says about what he believes he has found to support his theory that thermate or nano-thermate was used to assist the destruction of the North and South Towers?


Easy. By looking at the data he actually shows.


WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE clearly influences his scientific work and therefore his analysis and pronouncements cannot be trusted.


Kind of you like your whole problem I guess?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Ever actually heard a transformer explode?


Any evidence a transformer exploded? It would be pouring out a lot of damned dark smoke.

Transformers don't just explode for no reason either. They have to be overloaded with current, which heats the metals up so much, so rapidly, that the explode and create an intense fire. Breakers are also designed to cut off all current when an overload starts to occur, which is why transformer explosions are actually rare compared to how many are used all over the country on a daily basis.

Lots of things explode, but you don't seem to want to consider the most obvious source of an explosion during a "terrorist" attack.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
!!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! as those connections failed, snapped, went !!BOOM!!

Your logic is complete fail. There were thousands of connections in each tower. Witnesses heard about 8 or so BOOM's in a timed succession. Thousands of connections and they only hear 8 booms? Yeah, your logic doesn't come close to explain that one.

Further, your logic also doesn't explain the numerous firefighters that saw flashes going "up, down and around" both towers during collapse and preceding the collapse fronts. Those flashes were also reported to have "popping or exploding sounds" associated with them.


I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: You debunkers will make up anything possible to explain away the evidence, but the towers fell in a fashion as to resemble a controlled demolition, had timed booms as controlled demolitions would, had flashes all around the buildings as controlled demolitions would. Oh, and then there's the ejections or "puffs" of dust/debris which are also only seen in controlled demolitions.

Every single bit of evidence suggests controlled demolitions, but you debunkers dismiss it out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Denial? Take your pic, but intelligent, logical people without agendas aren't falling for it.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
a little bit of thinking and reflection will help lead people to the comprehension, and NOT the immediate leap to "demolition"---- which is, frankly, ludicrous for many, many reasons

Flashes, ejections, timed BOOM's are all signs of controlled demolition, NOT anything that is associated with fire-induced collapses. Add on top of that the way the buildings fell, and the incendiaries found in the dust and you have a solid, open/shut case.








edit on 14-1-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
!!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! as those connections failed, snapped, went !!BOOM!!


If you think bolts snapping causes loud "!!!BOOM!!!" 's, I'd hate to see what sound you think explosives actually make. I guess then you would be expecting the equivalent of a nuclear detonation.

Bones is dead on though. If that's what was causing the explosions then we're a few thousand short, not to mention they were happening in all the wrong places before the towers even started collapsing (basements, etc.).



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The people getting thrown about was from the pressure wave of compressed air coming down the shafts, stairwells, and openings as the building was collapsing above them. The air was compressed downward, launching people and objects down and around. If they were explosives detonating, they would not be alive today.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


_BoneZ_....sorry, but in attempting to call MY logic a "complete fail".....well.....in a 100+ story skyscraper, your 'argument' here? Is rather weak:


Your logic is complete fail. There were thousands of connections in each tower. Witnesses heard about 8 or so BOOM's in a timed succession. Thousands of connections and they only hear 8 booms...


"Witnesses hear about 8 or so BOOM's...."

In a ......"timed succession." you say.....watch the "Big Blue" crane failure, again....were THOSE !!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! !!POW!! !!POW!! sounds in a "quick succession"?? AS IF sounding similar to being "timed"???

In any event...."8"?? On a building like WTC 1 or WTC 2???

Must I repeat THIS video??? (Actually, before the one I THOUGHT OF, these):







(Notice any differences???)

AND (of course)....THIS one:



ANYONE who cannot (or will not) see the obvious differences?? That person WANTS to reside in fantasyland.....







edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
Ever actually heard a transformer explode?


Any evidence a transformer exploded? It would be pouring out a lot of damned dark smoke.

Transformers don't just explode for no reason either. They have to be overloaded with current, which heats the metals up so much, so rapidly, that the explode and create an intense fire. Breakers are also designed to cut off all current when an overload starts to occur, which is why transformer explosions are actually rare compared to how many are used all over the country on a daily basis.

Lots of things explode, but you don't seem to want to consider the most obvious source of an explosion during a "terrorist" attack.









Moreover the one that has been thoroughly grounded on scientific foundations, backed up by multiple scientists and over a thousand of architects and engineers.
edit on 14-1-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



.....aside from being very informative and intelligent, his voice is very relaxing.


SO is Garrison Keillor's voice......"relaxing". (Reknowned from "A Prarie Home Companion", on the radio)....

ALSO... Garrison Keillor (or just about ANY voice actor of note) is also "informative"...as he/she reads from a script. And, "intelligence" based upon hearing someone, again speaking from a script??

Well.....it's called "acting".........
edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ANYONE who cannot (or will not) see the obvious differences?? That person WANTS to reside in fantasyland.....

You resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of sticking to the facts. There is an obvious difference. There doesn't need to be an obvious controlled demolition, to be a controlled demolition.

You still keep ignoring the flashes that preceded both collapse fronts. The flashes that also had "popping or exploding sounds" associated with them.

Sorry, but you can't explain away the facts and you keep beating around the bush while ignoring the evidence. Flashes, ejections, timed booms are all indicative of controlled demolitions and none are indicative of fire-induced collapses. Do you yield this fact or not? If you do not yield, show proof that all of these factors can be found in the same fire-induced collapse. If you cannot, you have to yield. Period.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In any event...."8"?? On a building like WTC 1 or WTC 2???


I don't know what he's basing the number 8 on but there are many, many more witnesses than that to explosions occurring all over the building prior to the collapses, and during the collapses. The firefighter testimony on the Naudet brothers' footage could be referring to 8 or more "booms" just in itself, and that was during collapse, and they weren't thinking of bolts snapping when they described what it was like.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ANYONE who cannot (or will not) see the obvious differences?? That person WANTS to reside in fantasyland.....



And all one has to do is compare any of the videos you posted to the Naudet footage from the bottom of the towers as the first one collapsed to see this whole notion of controlled demolition is nothing more than a complete fantasy.

Of course once faced with that fact, they did switch to magic hush-a-booms, basement nukes, and the ever so laughable space beams!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Of course once faced with that fact, they did switch to magic hush-a-booms, basement nukes, and the ever so laughable space beams!


"Hush-a-booms" because no one heard any explosions going off, right.



First you "debunkers" say that the explosions could have been caused by anything, and then you pretend they never even happened. I have never seen such willful ignorance on any subject other than religion.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Hush-a-booms" because no one heard any explosions going off, right.




Where were they on the Naudet footage?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Hush-a-booms" because no one heard any explosions going off, right.


Where were they on the Naudet footage?


Two things you'll find in the Naudet footage to back up the fact that explosions were occurring, in case that film is now your 9/11 Bible or something, are firefighters talking about "boom boom boom boom boom" as if there were "detonators" as the buildings were "collapsing," and as they approach WTC1 after the first impact you can actually see physical damage to the lobby, windows shattered, ceiling tiles hanging and fallen, because of an explosion that came up from the basements according to other testimonies. A police officer named William Walsh testified that elevators to the basement floors were blown out of their hinges, but not the elevators going to higher floors, and he was even questioned about this during the interview and said he was absolutely positive of this memory. People working in the WTC basements said the same thing: there were explosions there that destroyed the parking garage, just like in 1993.

If you ever look outside the Naudet footage, you'll find plenty more than that. I'm not even going to ask why you demand an explosion has to be in that footage and nowhere else, because I already know how completely unreasonable your "discussions" are.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join