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.

 

New 9/11 Film by A&E4911T "9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out"

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by pteridine
I ask for actual physical evidence.

There is plenty of evidence of controlled demolition in the form of audio, visual, and witness testimony.

To ignore all available evidence strictly due to the lack of physical evidence shows a clear bias and denial.


I have not ignored anything, I have just found it wanting. How many demolition experts have taken down a building from the top so they would know what it would look like? What do their demolitions look like? Do they have randomly spaced "explosions" or a clear pattern? How many can sequentially clear floors in 150milliseconds per floor? How much explosive would be needed to do so? If the floor trusses were sheared by demolition, how would the collapse look different from a gravitational collapse? What about WTC 5 and 6?

All anyone can say is that "it looked like CD to me." That is not evidence.




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Observe carefully all the videos of the destruction of all three highrises, bring your stopwatch, and a grade 10 physics book (or whatever level it is in the US), outlining Galileo's law of free falling bodies and Newton three laws of motion.


And when you do that you will discover that none fell entirely at freefall speed. The towers took 13-15 seconds to fall and WTC7 took a similar amount of time from the penthouse collapse.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Observe carefully all the videos of the destruction of all three highrises, bring your stopwatch, and a grade 10 physics book (or whatever level it is in the US), outlining Galileo's law of free falling bodies and Newton three laws of motion.


And when you do that you will discover that none fell entirely at freefall speed. The towers took 13-15 seconds to fall and WTC7 took a similar amount of time from the penthouse collapse.


"none fell entirely at free fall?" well i suppose you are right... 1 second more is not entirely at free fall.

bravo! you are the expert physicist now... i salute you


by the way WTC7 took 6.5 seconds which is not "similar amount of time from the penthouse collapse" as you put it
and the twin towers were how much taller than the WTC7 building?

thank you.
edit on 10-9-2011 by EmilNomel because: poor grammar



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
All anyone can say is that "it looked like CD to me." That is not evidence.

You continue to be deliberately deceptive or dishonest. They didn't just look like controlled demolition.

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.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You must be easily overwhelmed. As to "what more evidence" I could ask for, I ask for actual physical evidence. Some evidence that wasn't imaginary would be nice. Evidence that did not count on the incredulity of the presenter when questioned. Evidence that was more than people saying that it "just didn't look right" and "buildings don't fall that way."
edit on 9/10/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


by the way... are the photos and films not an "actual physical evidence"??

in the court of laws pictures and films are treated as hard proof evidence of the crimes as long as the photos and films are genuine and not tampered with...

thank you.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EmilNomel
 

The collapse of #7 took about 13.5 seconds. The reason that the truther sites claimed 6.5 was because "we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth." See S. Jones quote below.


"Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
'We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.'" --S. Jones
911booger.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


They collapsed in a manner and with the speed of gravitational collapse. The explosions were not timed. Controlled demolition starts from the bottom up, not top down. Because you like videos so much, watch a few CD videos and then compare those to the towers. You will discover that they are not at all alike except for the buildings collapsing.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
They collapsed in a manner and with the speed of gravitational collapse.

Yet again being deceiving. They collapsed in a manner and speed of gravitational collapse with no resistance which is impossible without something taking the resistance away.



Originally posted by pteridine
The explosions were not timed.

Is this your opinion? Because there are many first responders, by-standers, and survivors that state otherwise. Why would you say such a thing when so many witnesses are on video publicly stating the exact opposite? When you say such things, it makes me go back to what I keep saying about you: you are either being deliberately deceptive or dishonest.



Originally posted by pteridine
Controlled demolition starts from the bottom up, not top down.

Another deliberately deceptive or dishonest statement. Here are a few top-down demolitions:






Looking at the ejections of the Implosion World image on the left, you can see those apartment towers were started at the top as well:




Then we have this from CDI:




Examples exist for every aspect of all three towers' collapses. Do you still want to keep making false claims, or are you ready to concede that you've been wrong?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AskWhy11
 


Nanothermite has been discussed on many other threads. It was not shown to be nanothermite and is likely the red primer paint that covered the buildings.
Just because I disagree with your position doesn't mean that I am a troll; check terms and conditions before you mouth off again.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Not with NO resistance. You are repeating what you read without thinking, again. NO resistance means that the towers would collapse at a speed such that the ejecta from the top would reach the ground as the building did. Watch the videos again and rethink your statement.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by AskWhy11
 


Nanothermite has been discussed on many other threads. It was not shown to be nanothermite and is likely the red primer paint that covered the buildings.
Just because I disagree with your position doesn't mean that I am a troll; check terms and conditions before you mouth off again.


According to the "'Official Report"" ?

because you have a picture full of experts that say otherwise



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Nanothermite has been discussed on many other threads. It was not shown to be nanothermite and is likely the red primer paint that covered the buildings.
Can you post the evidence that was used to determine that the nanothermite was paint? Because I haven't seen any, I've just heard the claim itself.

Here's some evidence that it wasn't primer paint:
After that test, the iron-rich spheroid produced was photographed, tested, and compared.


The chemical composition of the spheroids formed as a by-product of thermite vs. the spheroids found in the dust vs. the spheroids created during the ignition of the chip as seen in the video:
But regardless of how similar the composition is, the fact that it even created iron spheres to begin with is proof that the sample reached a high enough temperature to melt steel. There is not a single primer paint on the market that chemically reacts when ignited in such a way that it actually forms iron spheres.

Source
edit on 11-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Not with NO resistance.

The towers didn't quite get there, but 7 fell with NO resistance.

Free fall for a sustained period means the structure was providing no resistance.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Here are a few sites about Jones red paint

www.darksideofgravity.com...

11-settembre.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I found the link to the Youtube version, Thank you. This was a blessing, as I did not have to watch the pagan wargod love-fest between all of the MSM lapdogs of the official story.

I watched, and am so grateful that these educated engineers and architechts put their careers on the line, to allow possible justice for the victims of 9/11.

Because the A&E for 9/11 truth (unlike NIST et al) are not government funded and controlled, they as experts can come forward with the real reasons for requiring a new investigation. I pray for their safety and support from the ever growing numbers of those who are becoming "Aware" of the problems with the 9/11 commission report, and the MSM lies and misgivings.

In support of the US civilians, soldiers, foreign innocents and others who have died and suffered in the name of 9/11, I recommend watching the video so that education may ensue and justice may be done.

I say these things as a patriot realist; I look at truth no matter how painful the reality may be. I never wanted to this to be so, but I believe that there are some criminals and traitors in our midst. We must find them and bring them to trial. The victims both domestic and abroad deserve this.

Because I watched the OP video, I did not watch the MSM corporate war machine propaganda: fully under orders... no investigation... auto-fellatio contest between all the so-called media watchdog outlets and their corporate/govt counterparts. That was too depressing.

I watched



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
You can now watch the whole film on YouTube here:

www.youtube.com...

If you like it, please order a copy from AE911Truth.org or make a donation to them. They are working very hard and deserve our financial contributions and help.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 

I clicked pseudo-randomly around that video and saw more of the same weasel-worded nonsense the truthers have been peddling for years.

0:33: Edited footage of building 7's collapse, omitting the first penthouse collapse.

0:43: "Videos of building 7 show a fairly symmetrical fall." Videos of the penthouse show it wasn't symmetrical. Gage weasels his way out of that by saying it was "fairly" symmetrical.

0:56: "It did not seem possible that these towers, that were designed to survive an impact from a 707, could collapse in such a short order of time. ... designed to withstand one if not more airplanes." Being designed to survive a 707 impact does not mean they were designed to survive the impact of a more massive 767 and the subsequent fire. Nor does being designed to survive something mean an object necessarily will survive that event in reality; the speaker is placing a lot of faith in whatever simulations they did in the 1960s (while ignoring the simulations done in the 21st century, I bet).

1:27: A few minutes ago they were claiming explosives, only explosives could have thrown those beams out of the collapsing buildings. Now they're talking thermite. And they helpfully show us a quote from the military demonstrating that thermite is not an explosive. At 1:28, the speaker seems mystified that sulfur might be found in the WTC rubble and jumps to thermite. No other sources of sulfur in the WTC were considered. Another guy at 1:29 seems to imply that the sulfur was inside the steel, lowering its melting temperature so much that thermite would not be required. After an edit, he's onboard the thermite demolition train and doesn't mention the steel's melting point again. This is really embarrassing.

2:10: "The observation that pride is one of the basic human flaws is absolutely correct." The truest thing they've said.
edit on 11-9-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


A little late for the explosive theory.
Can we try the Directed Energy Weapon again.
I'd like to put a Tesla little shaker to the test for the Judge
who said there was no such technology. But bombs don't
work either. Such a multipronged attacked and Osama denied
first hand knowledge yet warned us every month for what seems
now an eternity. Laxing of hijack protection initiatives worked
comfortably over the years as attention was taken away from Cuba.
The new revised Northwoods initiative found a new enemy to pin
on an attack. All written down in conspiracy history.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join