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.

 

9/11 Eye Witness: I Watched A Few Of Them (Bombs) Explode!

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
pressure is force per unit area. you can be quite sure that the pressure exerted by the plane on the building is far less than pressure exerted on the steel by the HIGH PRESSURE streams of sand/water. so momentum is not the word i am looking for.


How about velocity? Do you understand that? I can take a 2x4, and wack a concrete wall with it all day long, and it may not break. Accelerate that 2x4 to 120 mph, and it will go straight through.


Originally posted by pshea38
what does an avalanche do when it encounters a steel shipping container for instance. are you implying that it penetrates the steel. i don't think so. i don't know why you mention avalanches.


Well, take a bunch of snow and throw it at a building. What happens? Nothing.

Take an avalanche and put that same building in the path and tell me what happens.

Mass times velocity=Kinetic energy.


Originally posted by pshea38

you are under-estimating the strength of steel in the outer columns. remember that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a passenger plane.


Which they did. It was the ensuing fire that it didn't survive. It wasn't designed to repel an airplane crash.



Originally posted by pshea38

so what happened the wings of the plane that 'crashed' into the pentagon. a reporter present at the incident claimed that the wings folded into the main body of the plane 'like an accordian' and then disappeared into the building. do you believe this?


No, he said "It LOOKED like". Do you understand what that means?



Originally posted by pshea38

more likely they have been instructed to steer clear. They have the opportunity to silence all the conspiracy theorists and put alot of issues to rest, so why not use it. i think they are well aware that the notion itself is ridiculous.


Well, you're free to see the world as one giant conspiracy being covered up, but hey, it's cool.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"

Jim Fetzer


6/8/09 10:28 AM

On the occasion of Michael Morrissey's new forum dedicated to truth:
Critics like to attribute to me positions that I do not hold. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely. Certainly, nothing in any of their posts convince me
that I am wrong about this, but then they seem to be directed against
positions that I don't hold. Judy uses words like "dustification" to
guard against presuming that what we are seeing is familiar and fits
within our existing conceptual scheme, which is a very sophisticated
move, intellectually. For the record, here is an analysis of the World
Trade Center reflecting the extent to which I have reached conclusions.

Given all the misrepresentations, this is just for the record. I have no
illusions that those attacking me are going to "clean up their acts" and
discuss my actual positions. I don't claim that I am right on all counts,
but it is extremely unlikely that I am wrong about the general situation,
which is supported by physicists, structural and mechanical engineers and
others experts. I assume that some kinds of conventional explosives were
used in the Twin Towers, but I doubt that they--even when combined with
thermite/thermate--can explain the evidence from their destruction. I'm
still open to discussion and invite reasoned arguments both pro and con.


For more, 911scholars.ning.com...
edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Trimmed external quote and added 'ex' tags



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely.


And truthers wonder why we poke fun at them??

Plasmoids.... Jesus Christ.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by JimFetzer
. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely.


And truthers wonder why we poke fun at them??

Cause you skeptics are immature?


Plasmoids.... Jesus Christ.

Who believes that was used to take down the WTC's?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by JimFetzer
. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely.


And truthers wonder why we poke fun at them??

Plasmoids.... Jesus Christ.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


I poke fun of people who actually believe what the government tells them.

Like:

-the housing market will recover
-fannie and freddie aren't really bankrupt
-the US dollar is perfectly stable
-there is no inflation
-Socialist Security is solvent if we just raise taxes
-Saddam had WMDs
-We went into Afghanistan to fight terrorists
-etc.. etc.. etc..

Good track record.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by JimFetzer
. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely.


And truthers wonder why we poke fun at them??

Plasmoids.... Jesus Christ.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


after reading this piece, that is your only comment...waste of time even engaging with ye type of people.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


It is evident that you haven't really delved into the construction aspect of the towers , so , I will help you out a bit . You seem to think that the planes would not have been able to penetrate the outer facade of the towers , due to your belief that the perimeter columns were constructed of "thick" steel .

You are only partially correct in your assumption . The thickness of the perimeter columns was from 3-5 inches thick , at the base of the towers . However , the columns TAPERED all the way down to 1/4-inch thickness towards the top of the towers .

At the points of impact , the box columns had a thickness at or near 1/4-inch .

Maybe now , you can see that a plane travelling at those speeds would have little to no resistance when impacting a target that was about 1/4-inch thick . Think paper-shell pecans (top of tower) , versus walnuts (bottom of tower) .


Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) …
In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels.


Hopefully , this gives you a better understanding of how the impact of the planes would leave a "cutout" in the face of the tower .

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...
edit on 28-1-2011 by okbmd because: edit to add link



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
How do you explain this?




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
When you witness two planes hit buildings and everything is exploding or falling around you, including human beings hitting the pavement and splattering, you're going to be confused and mistake something for a bomb. I won't doubt there were explosives in the buildings as it's possible that terrorists could've planted them inside the towers but it's unlikely and the "bomb" reports were by witnesses who were suffering with confusion and mental trauma.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by dereks
 


Dereks, I wanted to ask you something personally if I may. Another member in another thread recently dismissed firefighter's accounts of 9/11 because none of them "took samples" to back up their obvious lies. I'm just curious what your opinion on that is. Is there ever a case where firefighters themselves are simultaneously doing their job (i.e. saving lives, putting out fires, etc), and the job of investigators or scientists? Please put aside any notion of what you or I think may of happened that day and focus on the particular question. I know you support the OS and you undoubtedly know I'm a "truther", but regardless of that, how realistic is the scenario I described above?


Budaruskie,

No, absolutely not. None whatsoever. FDNY has their own fire investigatiors that it is there job to do that sort of thing. Collect samples, look for evidence, etc.

Maybe in MUCH smaller departments you my have firefighters collecting evidence. BUT, not while they are doing their primary job of fighting fire, and saving lives. NEVER. It then becomes a liability to the fire department.

Plus, most firefighters are not trained to collect physical evidence for fire investigations. Not to mention that once evidence is collected, they are put either in a plastic bag, or, as my department does, an aluminum can (Think paint can) with a plastic liner.

This is then taped immediately and initialed. It's imperative for the integrity of chain of evidence.



Thank you for this response FDNY343, it was honestly exactly the response I expected to hear from someone who is familiar with firefighting. Since I know that same person is posting on this thread, I hope they now see that I'm not the only one who thinks that argument is idiotic.

Beyond that I'd like to ask a couple of questions regarding the firefighters and their accounts. I do not want to bicker with or convince you of anything, I would just like to hear your honest opinion.

I have seen videos with a particular clip of firemen claiming to have seen molten metal going as far as to describe the scene as "like a foundry" others say "it looked like they had detonators...boom, boom, boom..."
They are in this video

and here


Why is it that I'm not supposed to believe these guys and take them at their word?
Do you think they ever thought the gov't's official position would be to more or less say they are lying?

First time I've seen this particular video montage.




Thank you in advance for being courteous.
edit on 1/29/2011 by budaruskie because: the last video



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

Fail.

We are talking about military grade nano thermite not a conventional demolition using C4.

There is no need for wires with this.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Military grade nano thermite has been proved through scientific evidence and analysis. Peer review papers have been published and are going global for other scientists to replicate their results and findings. The Truth Movement expects international scientists to enter the picture and elaborate and expand on the scientific evidence now known.

The Bush gang is busted. Their collaborators to the criminal psychopaths guilty of this crime are in jeopardy of losing everything.

911 was an inside job and it's clear the time for these criminals and collaborators of being prosecuted and treated with extreme prejudice is coming.

What is wrong with these neocon kooks. What made them think they could mass murder 3000+ New Yorkers and get away with it?

Shame on these murdering monsters. Shame on those who sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver to justify illegal wars, The Patriot Act, torture, spying on Americans without a warrant, and to move the wealth of the country into the military industrial prison complex to the delight of the rabid false flag Neocons and Zionists.

The Patriots are coming and will make sure this cabal loses everything.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I can't really comprehend how anyone could believe the official story. Maybe at first, like me and millions others, it seemed true, but even at first the way the three towers fell or how about the fact that tower 7 wasn't even well reported. To this day i can stun people by pulling up video on you tube of a third tower falling on september 11, 2001. Most people just don't know. Most people don't really care. If more people gave a damn maybe we'd see some real justice. But how do you hang the elite when they are busy hanging you. I think most people just want to be left alone, so they can see their kids grow old. I know I do.

Thank You for the video montage. That last one was really good. It just reminds me that there is NO QUESTION that 9/11 was an inside job. It was. Period get over it. Stop living in denial. "no one saw the demo wires" LOL Thermate doesn't even make explosions, but here these people are on this thread going on and on.

I guess I liken it to aliens. People who don't believe probably never will, unless it is accepted by the masses. Or like religion. You can't really argue with someone who is religious. They just know they are right. Just like the official story people. It really makes me angry, because there are actual murderers getting away with crime and no one even is looking for them. I think we should stop posting here and start taking the next step. whatever that is.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nrd101
 



I can't really comprehend how anyone could believe the official story. Maybe at first, like me and millions others, it seemed true, but even at first the way the three towers fell or how about the fact that tower 7 wasn't even well reported. To this day i can stun people by pulling up video on you tube of a third tower falling on september 11, 2001. Most people just don't know. Most people don't really care.


What I can't comprehend is that me and many others waste our time argueing with the same people over and over in these threads..
New information is great but threads always retreat back to the same stuff..

BTW, I'm on your side..
I believe in Santa Claus more than I believe the OS..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 



How was the " nano-thermite " triggered ?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 
Ok, all loud noises and puffs of smoke don't mean bombs, but neither does it mean they weren't. It's kind of hard to prove either way since the crime scene was so thourghly and rapidly destroyed.

So unless your a qualified demolitions expert, what you say has no bearing on this.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Honestly I don't think there is anything new here, or anything that isn't apparent in some of the videos of the event. Its already been addressed by the Powers That Be. The boom-boom-boom of repeating bomb sounds as it fell were the floors collapsing on one another. The "bombs" people saw pushing debris out the windows was not caused by bombs, but rather by the falling towers forcing pockets of air below the top floors to be compressed, then burst violently through the windows. Mind you I'm not saying I am in full agreement with those debunkings I just wrote out...I'm just saying that there is nothing new here, its already been "debunked" by those who want us to keep believing the status qoue version of events.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
All these people said they were explosions because maybe that's what they were.

The thing is nobody investigated the explosions...why?They had several witnesses testimonies stating they seen,heard and felt explosions going off.Any real investigator would have investigated that.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
How do you explain this?



Ah, the infamous "Payphone" scene!

How many things would go BOOM after the towers collapsed?

HUNDREDS!

Do you think that this was a bomb/explosive in 7WTC?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 


Fail.

You still need an ignition source, whether it is a detonator or a chemical catalyst. So, again, for the WTC to have been demolished by your super-duper thermite, you would either need a detonator OR a few dozen people willing to die hanging out in the inner core of the WTC to use a catalyst.


Wait.....scratch that....a few hundred or so people for three buildings.
edit on 29-1-2011 by vipertech0596 because: had to add



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Thank you for this response FDNY343, it was honestly exactly the response I expected to hear from someone who is familiar with firefighting. Since I know that same person is posting on this thread, I hope they now see that I'm not the only one who thinks that argument is idiotic.


No problem. I try to stay above the namecalling, and attacking people. It doesn't help anyones case at all. I'm not innocent, but I try my best. I could tell by your post you were honestly asking a question.


Originally posted by budaruskie

Beyond that I'd like to ask a couple of questions regarding the firefighters and their accounts. I do not want to bicker with or convince you of anything, I would just like to hear your honest opinion.


Not a problem. I may not convince you of anything either, so that's ok.


Originally posted by budaruskie
I have seen videos with a particular clip of firemen claiming to have seen molten metal going as far as to describe the scene as "like a foundry" others say "it looked like they had detonators...boom, boom, boom..."
They are in this video

and here


Why is it that I'm not supposed to believe these guys and take them at their word?


Well, the first problem is to identify WHAT metal it was that they saw.

Could it have been aluminum? Absolutely.
Could it have been brass, bronze, lead, phosphoris, or tin? Absolutely. All of those metals melt at or below 1800 deg. F. Which is a temperature quite easily reached in the rubble piles.

Could it have been any one or a combination of those metals? Without a doubt. Can we rule those out as a source of this molten metal? No, we cannot. ALL of those metals were found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC.

As far as the comment about detonations. He is describing the collapse. He also uses similies to describe the sounds. Many people described the collapse like a train.

Here are a few.

'Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.'


You can verify all of those accounts here.
graphics8.nytimes.com...



Originally posted by budaruskie

Do you think they ever thought the gov't's official position would be to more or less say they are lying?


No, not at all. As you can see, many people described the collapse like a train, or an earthquake. Of course, we know that there wasn't a train, nor was it an earthquake.


Originally posted by budaruskie

First time I've seen this particular video montage.


Thank you in advance for being courteous.


You're welcome. Thank you also for being sincere in your questions, and actually listening.

edit on Sat Jan 29 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join