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.

 

Just wanted to share this Vid. 911/truth

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
and the booms could have easily been....

Yes, all of the facts "could" be explained by this, or "could" be explained by that. But all you're doing is making stuff up to explain way the evidence.

The collapses looked like controlled demolition; sounded like controlled demolition; collapsed in a manner and speed consistent with controlled demolition.

Occam's Razor dictates that the easiest explanation is usually the correct explanation. If the collapses looked, sounded, and collapsed like controlled demolitions, then they were controlled demolitions. Anything else is speculation against the facts.



IF it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, well then obviously it's a gold fish! Only those crazy conspiracy nuts would think it was a duck! Sheesh! They'll believe anything that makes sense... sooo gullible!

Stigma Six:
And there is that little idea of a coverup.. and since TPTB pretty well own the MSM and are more than influential (via their financial support of funding of research and such) in who's papers get chosen to be in the OS approved 'scientific manuals', do you really think the professionals NOT ascribing to the OS would be allowed to publish those whacko traitorous papers?? Really?
edit on 9-9-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
The point is, you would be able to hear explosives very clearly from very far away.

You can in the video called "9/11 Eyewitness". It was filmed from about 2 miles away and you can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions.

You can also hear some of the detonations in my video here:

www.youtube.com...


Maybe my ears aren't working, but I didn't hear anything similar to explosives. The only noises started after the collapse began. How did the collapse initiate then? There literally has to be at least a single bang before the thing starts to go down. Why was there nothing?




Do you have any evidence of that video being faked? They all look in the direction of the explosion.

I'll be expecting you to back up this claim, because your continued ignoring of the witnesses, and calling everything faked is getting rather tiresome.


Here is the page where I got the info.

ae911truth.info...

I'm not sure when the video surfaced, but it was probably around 2007 [edit: while going through the thread where the video was debunked, I found the video to have surfaced in 2006] when the audio was still able to dissected (unfortunately, constant re-uploading to youtube has flattened out the audio to full mono.)
edit on 9-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


Edit: While I was looking through that thread, I found a very good explanation for why the video is sketchy and likely faked:

forums.randi.org...


1. Only two individuals in the entire video appear to even notice the explosion, and their reactions are not sudden as expected from an explosion. Three of the individuals in the video appear entirely oblivious to the explosion, at least of them talking over the top of it.

2. The explosion audio does not peak at any point, despite being louder than the speech of the individuals within said video (which does peak quite badly).

3. The video does not have echoes of the explosion, as would be characteristic of an explosion that occured within an urban environment of tall buildings.

4. The explosion audio has high volume levels at both low and high frequencies, indicating close proximity to the explosion. However the explosion does not contain either of the alternative expected characteristics of such close proximity:
A) A sudden jolt of the camera due to the shockwave from the explosion
OR
B) a muffled explosion due to building structures shielding the camera, followed by clearer echoes as the explosion refracts around the building.

edit on 9-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
How did the collapse initiate then? There literally has to be at least a single bang before the thing starts to go down. Why was there nothing?

There was nothing because you don't want to hear anything. You can hear a loud explosion that initiates the south tower collapse in most south tower collapse videos. In "9/11 Eyewitness" you can hear large explosions before both towers collapse. Those same explosions are documented in the First Responder Oral Histories.

We are not, yet again, going to get into the fact that microphones cannot pick up everything that the human ear can. The explosions were at a different frequency at 2 miles away, and there was much less noise pollution at that distance. That's why "9/11 Eyewitness" picks up the explosions better than any other video.



Originally posted by Varemia
Here is the page where I got the info.

ae911truth.info...

There is absolutely nothing on that page that proves the video is fake. There's no link to the "original" audio. A person's opinion written on a webpage is not proof that anything is fake. You have seriously got to be kidding me if you thought you were going to pass that page of text off as "proof".

Everyone, including the cameraperson, looks in the direction of the explosion. Even the firefighter that just walked up to the scene pointed in the direction of the explosion with his hand. The same direction everybody else looked at.

There may very well have been an "enhancement" of an already-existing explosion to make it more audible for people that don't have the sound systems to pick up the original audio. But there was most definitely a sound that made everybody look in the same direction. That means the video is not fake in the least.

You're in a losing battle here. Care to continue?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Re-read the last part of my post and stop ignoring information, please. There are a lot of very good points made about the explosion that point to it being absolutely fake. The fact that you're willing to accept it so easily simply because it "supports" your view is telling. I'm not denying it just because it is an explosion video. I'm denying it because it is fishy and doesn't make sense.

In the case of the other videos, I would love it if you could show me proof of an explosion or more that took place a few seconds before the tower(s) started to collapse. It is really annoying that all the explosions start after or right when the collapse begins. This doesn't make sense, and is much better attributed to the impacting of concrete and steel.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Re-read the last part of my post and stop ignoring information, please. There are a lot of very good points made about the explosion that point to it being absolutely fake.

As I've already stated, someone writing their opinion in text on a screen is not proof of anything. The points only prove to it being "absolutely fake" in your world of denial and ignorance. You have demonstrated your willfulness to blatantly ignore evidence that supports controlled demolition so that you can cling to the fire-induced collapse fantasy.

But, for ships and giggles, let's take a look at the first point, shall we?

1. Only two individuals in the entire video appear to even notice the explosion

This is absolutely false. In actuality, four of the individuals appeared to notice the explosion.

1.) The individual on the phone with the respirator on looked in the direction of the explosion.

2.) The individual with the white head-wrap started looking in the direction of the explosion just as the camera turns away from them.

3.) The cameraperson points the camera in the direction of the explosion.

4.) One of the firefighters that walks up to the scene points his hand in the direction of the explosion and says something similar to "(something's) exploding", further verifying an explosion occurred.

Since the first point is proven false, I don't need to concern myself with anything else your source opines about.



Originally posted by Varemia
I'm denying it because it is fishy and doesn't make sense.

What's fishy about a video where an explosion is heard and at least 4 out of the 5 individuals acknowledge the explosion? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.



Originally posted by Varemia
In the case of the other videos, I would love it if you could show me proof of an explosion or more that took place a few seconds before the tower(s) started to collapse.

Again, for the third or fourth time to you: you can hear the pre-collapse explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness". Those same exact number of pre-collapse explosions for both towers are corroborated by first responder testimony.



Originally posted by Varemia
It is really annoying that all the explosions start after or right when the collapse begins.

There are pre-collapse explosions that happen before either tower collapses. You can hear them clearly (as long as you have a subwoofer) in "9/11 Eyewitness". Those pre-collapse explosions are corroborated to the number, by first responders.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So... let me get this straight. You looked at his first point, and then stopped. Your brain literally stopped functioning after the first point.

I can't deal with this crap.

Edit: Look, to clarify. His first point was opinion, yes, but the rest of his points were made about the audio and how sound waves work in real life. I have heard echos. I understand echos. The sound of the explosion doesn't make sense.
edit on 10-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


It would be really helpful for you to link me to it. I did a youtube search, and I've got about 20 different results on just the front page with every title being 9/11 eyewitness.

Also, why would I need subwoofers? Wouldn't explosions be obvious? We can hear them in demolition videos, so why would 9/11 be special?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


not sure but if you look into sound....explosions can be picked up as low level rumblings...and maybe just a thouhgt here....A sub woofer would better help to to hear these low level rumblings....but hey ....you won't do it anyways....as it would go against the grain of looking at pertinent evidence.

Bass Bass BAss .........



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I have heard echos. I understand echos. The sound of the explosion doesn't make sense.

The sound doesn't make sense to you. You simply have to admit there was some sort of explosion that caused 4 of the 5 people in the video to acknowledge there was an explosion with their body language, and their spoken words. Whether the explosion in the video was enhanced or recreated is irrelevant. Those people responded to a sound, period.



Originally posted by Varemia
It would be really helpful for you to link me to it.

It's been linked here dozens of times and several times recently:

Part 1:

Google Video Link


Part 2:

Google Video Link


Part 3:

Google Video Link



Ignore the references to the helicopters, etc.



Originally posted by Varemia
Also, why would I need subwoofers? Wouldn't explosions be obvious?

The pitch and frequency of sound changes over distances. Some frequencies dissipate altogether. With a subwoofer and the above video, you can hear and feel the explosions.

Don't even try to make things up to "debunk" the explosions. It's been done ad-nauseum for years and nothing holds water against the first responder accounts that verify and corroborate the explosions in the above videos.






edit on 10-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Yup in my most honest and educated opinion: Based on the information, footage, and facts at hand, there WERE explosions, and there WAS a controlled demolition performed on all 3 buildings.

Demolition contractors get paid ALOT of money to do their job properly and to avoid damaging any nearby buildings. THINK ABOUT THE PRECISION THAT THE DEMO HAS TO BE DONE WITH>

There is nothing the debunkers can say about this. Thousands of people lost their lives that day, BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE to avoid probing this subject, in fact this should be the main reason for investigating this treason.

--GS
edit on 10-9-2011 by GeminiSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
As I recall from the mayhem surrounding the actual event back in the day ... there was a big hooplah about some news coverage that explained clear as day how to explode the towers ... I never saw this footage ... but whether it was planned or not... I believe it was... As to if it was terrorist-induced or firemen-induced... That I don't know .... but I believe that a natural collapse wouldn't of happened as quickly, or as cleanly...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Demolition contractors get paid ALOT of money to do their job properly

To Whom This May Concern,
How does one become a demolition contractor? I am a pyromaniac with a kind heart for helping people ... Meaning I would love to blow up buildings... preferably with no one inside....
Sincerely,
rschmfem



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Exactly, But regarding the argument about how much damage was done to Building 7, well basically from what I remember is that the other smaller buildings WTC 3, 4,& 5? were damaged ALOT more than WTC7 and they didn't even fully collapse. These smaller buildings were very badly damaged, BUT NO COLLAPSE. I can't find my old links, but Bones will definitely have these saved somewhere and can confirm it, just like he did with the NIST links where they state that damage alone had no real impact on the collapse of WTC7.

Am I Correct?

Edit: Sorry Just realised that this thread is 3 years old.


edit on 30/4/2014 by Skyline74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyline74
a reply to: GeminiSky

Exactly, But regarding the argument about how much damage was done to Building 7, well basically from what I remember is that the other smaller buildings WTC 3, 4,& 5? were damaged ALOT more than WTC7 and they didn't even fully collapse. These smaller buildings were very badly damaged, BUT NO COLLAPSE. I can't find my old links, but Bones will definitely have these saved somewhere and can confirm it, just like he did with the NIST links where they state that damage alone had no real impact on the collapse of WTC7.

Am I Correct?

Edit: Sorry Just realised that this thread is 3 years old.



yes its an old thread... How did you find it exactly? There is no argument from me on that. ..I too beleive 7 was not damaged enough to collapse. In fact I don't think it was damaged at all...

Gs



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If we look at how deep the "PLANE" penetrated through three heavily fortified sections of the pentagon; we should see the planes blast straight through the less fortified towers?

If the fuel is tanked in the wings, how do you explain the penetration into the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Six Sigma

I have to address this BS. First of all, the incidents you cite were situations where the building was ENTIRELY or MOSTLY CONSUMED by fire. Look at the video of the "office fires" of all three collapsed WTC buildings. They were minimal, and in no way were anywhere close to being "fully consumed".

Steel fails, yes, but it doesn't fail when it is intact. How do you explain the fact that ALL of towers one and two were reduced to dust? Undamaged steel failed all the way down? I don't think so. WTC7 was very much intact when it decided to defy physics and fall to the ground suddenly unencumbered.

What should have happened to the towers? Well, assuming the damaged floors would fail, the section of building above it would have slowly sank onto the section below it, and it would have either stayed there, or toppled off, depending on the center of gravity. Toppled off - mostly intact.

So those of you who watch these videos and side with the NIST have GOT to be uneducated and very naive. I am being very kind when I say that, FYI. I don't want to get a M&D infraction.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Six Sigma

I have to address this BS. First of all, the incidents you cite were situations where the building was ENTIRELY or MOSTLY CONSUMED by fire. Look at the video of the "office fires" of all three collapsed WTC buildings. They were minimal, and in no way were anywhere close to being "fully consumed".

Steel fails, yes, but it doesn't fail when it is intact. How do you explain the fact that ALL of towers one and two were reduced to dust? Undamaged steel failed all the way down? I don't think so. WTC7 was very much intact when it decided to defy physics and fall to the ground suddenly unencumbered.

What should have happened to the towers? Well, assuming the damaged floors would fail, the section of building above it would have slowly sank onto the section below it, and it would have either stayed there, or toppled off, depending on the center of gravity. Toppled off - mostly intact.

So those of you who watch these videos and side with the NIST have GOT to be uneducated and very naive. I am being very kind when I say that, FYI. I don't want to get a M&D infraction.


I agree 100%

GS



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit



Steel fails, yes, but it doesn't fail when it is intact. How do you explain the fact that ALL of towers one and two were reduced to dust? Undamaged steel failed all the way down? I don't think so.

You seem to forget that WTC1&2 were not built using the tried and true I-beam throughout method.
Floor trusses and flimsy exterior walls allowed the thing fall like a house of cards.

Another example you can lookup or talk to ANY fireman. Newer houses with floor trusses.
Almost all fire departments will no longer enter burning houses to fight fires because of new type wooden I-beams.
They are flimsy and collapse quickly in a fire.

But these are the same arguments for the past 13 years.
Wouldn't you think that in 13 years the truth movement could come up with one expert who could stand up to scrutiny?
But all they have are those who sell books and DVDs.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoodOlDave


I won't be able to watch this until I get home, but without seeing it, let me make an educated guess- I will wager this video is following their previous pattern of completely ignoring all the facts that show what they want to believe is wrong, like how wreckage from the north tower fell on WTC 7, destroying the fire prevention system and causing fires to burn out of control. I'll wager they'll also continue to ignore the facts that firefighters saw the fires causing three story tall bulging in the structure, or of eyewitnesses saying the lobby looked like "King Kong came through and destroyed it", or that the building collapsed from the inside out in a manner that no controlled demolitions can possibly accomplish. They'll simply say "it looked like a controlled demolition" like they've been falsely repeating since day one.

Do I win my bet?


so....why is it that these three buildings are the ONLY ones that have collapsed this way?....no other ones in the entire history of burning high-rises fell like these three did?....sometimes you have to believe your own eyes, along with the detailed descriptions of hundreds of construction engineers, and building architects. when a consensus of these experts who have put their reputations on the line agree with the official story, then I might as well. until then, a new INDEPENDANT investigation needs to take place.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   


so....why is it that these three buildings are the ONLY ones that have collapsed this way?....no other ones in the entire history of burning high-rises fell like these three did?.

Easy

Because:
No other building were constructed as were WTC 1&2.
No other buildings were hit with fully fueled passenger airplanes.


No other blimps were built like the Hindenerg after the accident.
No other ships were built with the water tight bulkheads only going a up few floors after the Titanic.
No other bridge was built like the Tacoma narrows after the collapse.

Modern history is filled with examples of major changes after disasters.



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join