It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by NWOwned
OMG, it's 2012, you're not all still going on about "Controlled Demolitions" and "Collapses" are you? Seriously?

At any rate, it's a new year and so I'm trying to look at 9/11 again with fresh eyes after taking Christmas off.

What occurs to me now is a thought, and that is, that the popular 'slips' of the tongues, i.e. "Pull it.", "Flight 93 shot down.", "Missile." were no such unconscious accidental slips at all!

Take Lucky Larry's infamous and much quoted/discussed "Pull it."

Let's say the towers were not Controlled Demolitions at all and that therefore looking for the evidence of it would prove futile. Why then that's perfect you see? You know it wasn't Controlled Explosives so you can throw in a Demolition term like "Pull it" 'by accident', by careless mistake etc. But, not really. It's perfect. No one is ever going to find any evidence of CD so if you let it 'slip' it just looks like that's what it REALLY was, when in fact it was no such thing... Clever, very clever. No?

I mean, why just assume it's a 'slip' (as everyone thus far has done AFAIK) and not that it was intentionally said?

Now you're going to ask me, "Well, if it wasn't Controlled Demolition, why try to indicate that (ultra cleverly) if the Official Story says 'Gravity Collapse'." Right? Why?

Why try to muddy it with a slip? A slip that clearly leads in the direction of CD?

How many of you think, or have ever even considered the possibility, that Lucky Larry said "Pull it" on purpose?

Cheers, and Happy New Year!

Oh, and the BBC's newsreader's foreknowledge that building 7 was coming down was also a slip of the tongue eh?! NOT!

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by impressme
such as there were no explosion, there were no remote control aircraft, and there was no demolition at the WTC and so on…

you "forget" how the real world works,

"Those making silly claims have to back those silly claims up"

Which truthers are unable to do, so all they can do is make sillier and sillier claims about 9/11 not based on any facts at all!

Well I dont see you or any of the other paid disinfo agents providing much real data to back up your theories! At least the OP has provided a lot of factual information. You dont need to have been the building designer to understand the laws of physics. Can you explain all the flaws and omissions in NISTs weak report?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by malcr
reply to post by TupacShakur

NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.

If there was a controlled explosion to remove the floors to allow for free fall then all the floors have to have been removed at the moment the building collapses correct? If so how can a controlled explosion remove all the floors without showing any "blow out" through windows. Not one single window on any floor shows any sign of their being an explosion on that floor. Unless we are asked to believe that the explosives used were able to remove concrete and steel structures.....quietly

There are many videos showing smoke blow-out, maybe you need to dig a bit deeper.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by RSF77
I never could understand how a few terrorists hijacked a plane full of people, but that's just me. Seems like the dumbest plan anyone ever came up with, really who would've thought of this? That and if you watch the video of the tower coming down you can literally see some kind of explosives going off ahead of the falling structures, some of that "falling debris" looks rather suspiciously like a line of explosive charges as well.

I'm not an expert on this, but it smells fishy... it always has.

Yep! Bang on the money there dude! If all you OS believers/disinfo agents cannot see the smoke bursts from explosive charges then may I suggest specsavers.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by 4hero

I find this most amusing:

wow, 'proudbird' is trolling hard in this thread!

After reviewing the last half-dozen or so posts by 4hero.......

"Hello pot? This is ya been doin'?"

And by the way.....when referring to the long-ago debunked "smoke" puffs, or other things that many seem to think indicate controlled demolition explosives, watch the videos of the collapse again, and much more carefully, and compare to actual controlled demolition video examples.

In the case of the WTC Towers, you will always see the "puffs" only after the initiation of the collapse. Not prior -- as is the case in observed planned demolitions. The "puffs" are ejecta due to the force of the air from inside the building, as it escapes blows out windows, helter-skelter and haphazardly.

Oh, that's another hallmark of the chaos of the collapse, compared to a controlled demolition.

Also, you should know that the video that comprises the OP is a mess of lies, inconsistency and just plain poor "investigative" practice. It is the very, very small opinion and misconception of a tiny minority of people who stubbornly cling to this "CD" fantasy because they have, by now, invested so much effort into it, they have to tweak and twist and lie in order to keep it going, and to save face.

Look at this representative video of actual CD:

Note the marked differences, prior to the onset of collapse.

And, note that the person who posted this on YouTube is also ill-informed....making the same logical mistakes, based on the comments written:

The controlled demolition of Landmark Tower in North Texas provided a stark reminder that WTC Building 7 and the twin towers could not have been brought down by any other means than planned implosion.

In fact, the way the Twin Towers collapsed is the opposite of a "planned implosion"!! Debris was ejected chaotically, and went out in a large radius....exactly what is planned to NOT happen in a CD.

edit on Sun 22 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:00 PM
It's funny how the OS believers/disinfo agents only pick at petty things and totally ignore all the posts that provide genuine evidence! I guess it's because you cannot argue with hard evidence!

You are just selectively replying to bits, and if you think you know so much, then address EVERY post in detail.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And then there are the (3.) ejections of dust/debris:

The towers exhibited all four signs of controlled demolition as outlined above. But, I'm going to add a fifth sign: smoke coming off the ends of columns due to just being severed with explosives.

You are having a laugh! Come on. How come all the footage I look at on Youtube NOT ONE shows any debris being ejected as shown in the above still ? How come , on that right hand still, the debris just happens to be ejected at the most easily photoshopped CORNER against a plain background. How come the side of the building (with the windows and weakest area ie glass) shows NO sign of ejected debris? How come the corner facing us (far harder to photoshop) has no debris being ejected?

NB the lower the resolution the easier to edit hence why I have concentrated on the right hand still. Anyone with photoshop or gimp(me) can create the left hand effect!

Sorry but that is a doctored image (and no doubt the video). You have been conned.
edit on 14/1/12 by malcr because: spelling

see the video ofthe collapse a couple of pages back and you will see what you are looking for, and it's on the front not the corner. Besides, if something was photoshopped it would not matter where it was. Alas, there was no photoshopping going on, videos provided by the media would not contain photoshopped ejections! D'oh!

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by 4hero's some detail for you. It also directly points out the LIES from the so-called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

Don't be fooled by the shenanigans of "AE for 9/11 Truth".

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by _BoneZ_

If a theory that the towers were explosively demoed is postulated, then the theory should contain possible ways it was done so as to test those possibilities.
I see you are still avoiding this and don't want to face up to the fact that no one in the truther movement is able to come up with even one possibility other than the usual hand waving and obfuscation, as you are doing. When pressed for details, it turns out that there aren't any. Apparently, either no one in the organizations promoting the idea of controlled demolition is competent enough to actually describe a possible method in detail or they realize that they really have no case. It appears as though there is no foundation for such a theory other than the beliefs of the deluded few.

Deluded few? Hahahaha! wow! just wow! I cannot put an exact figure on the amount of people that disbelieve the OS, but I live in the UK, and pretty much everyone I know disbelieves the OS!!!

If we knew exactly how they did it then we would be part of the conspiracy, because only those involved in this act of evil know how they pulled it off. They obviously planned it over a long period and took their time setting it up, they had Bush's realtion as head of security, so access was not an issue.

There were numerous motives and gains for the people involved. BTW, do you really think 4 planes could have been hijacked? Supposedly only 4 were hijacked, and only 4 were required for this 'job', what are the chances of all the 'terrorists' getting past security, and 4 planes being successfully hijacked by a few people with limited weapons!?! The mind boggles!

Oh, and then one of the terrorists passports were found blocks away in perfect condidtion! Explain that then debunkers! You cant, like many things in this thread that you cannot explain! The more disinfo you spout, the less believable the OS is!

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero's some detail for you. It also directly points out the LIES from the so-called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

Don't be fooled by the shenanigans of "AE for 9/11 Truth".

That video is so full of BS! So what if someone got their 6's and 9's muddle up on one occasion! That proves nothing! I'm sure there are many other references by them with the correct timings. This is a very misleading video, but then it's supposed to be misleading isnt it!

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Reheat

You will never throw people off because the evidence speaks for itself!

Well, I'm convinced. But, why are you the only one except for some of your "truther" buddies who think those are squibs? Again, where is your Pulitzer? That you don't have one must mean something. I think I know what it means, but you obviously don't have a clue what it means, do you? You have special insight that some of the world's most renowned Structural Engineers and Architects don't, huh? You know more than NIST, I see.... Yes, I am impressed.......NOT

edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by Reheat

Are we here to debate, or just appeal to authority?

You expect us to take the word of NIST?

Hello! Do have any idea why we're having this discussion?

I'm getting a feeling the 911 forum is just where the lazy incessant debunkers gravitate too, because they never really put much effort into it, and whenever they run out of ammo they just appeal to the same questionable authority that the debate is all about in the first place. Lazy or dense, I can't make up my mind?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Reheat

Are we here to debate, or just appeal to authority?

You expect us to take the word of NIST?

Hello! Do have any idea why we're having this discussion?

I'm getting a feeling the 911 forum is just where the lazy incessant debunkers gravitate too, because they never really put much effort into it, and whenever they run out of ammo they just appeal to the same questionable authority that the debate is all about in the first place. Lazy or dense, I can't make up my mind?

There is no debate. You lost seveeral years back... All you have left is the same type of grumbling nonsense and your revealing that you don't understand how to apply physics.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:17 PM

Originally posted by 4hero
Dont use what is already known to you as your guide. This is the government we are talking about, they have secret technology that we dont know about. Conventional methods we know of were probably not used.

This is typical of everyone who knows nothing about demolition but wants a conspiracy. There is no evidence of demolitons so it must be super secret stuff akin to magic. Why must there be a demolition? Because some people really want one.

The challenge is still there for you. Describe the number and location of charges. Describe how the charges would be wired and how the demolition would be controlled. If you can't do that then you have no actual theory --you have a personal belief with no compelling argument for a theory.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by 4hero

So what if someone got their 6's and 9's muddle up on one occasion!

Is that all that you took away from that video??


posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:49 AM
slightly off topic....

People lie...every day.
Governments are made up off people.
Governments lie every day. It has been proven number of times.
Presidents lie. Also proven number of times.

A lie is interwoven in our society. It is almost a normal thing. It's normal not to fully inform the public. Normal to feed the public info in order to gain support for popular issues.

Having this in mind...I don't trust your/mine or any government. It is not here to give you the truth, it here to rule a group of people (nation). There a number of reasons to enter politics, and the most rare of which is, to help people, to justly rule. That's a fairytale. People get in to politics to become rich, or to become richer, or to be more powerful than they already are. All other motives are slowly consumed by the machinery.

It is a well known fact that certain members of a society profit from wars. They play both fields. Sell arms to your army, that sell it to the opposing army. They serve only themselves. Some of those people buy off senators, and congressmen, government officials, promote their profit mongering.

This is not wild speculation. It has happened before, and it will always happen.

So, having calculated the immense impact of the event. A global would trust the OS?

Why? Because surely they are not lying this time...this time it's different. As it is every other time...

I don't have proof of 9/11 conspiracy...I don't need it...I do have my common sense to accept the possibility of a cover up...because there is a clear motive to do so, and a hard undeniable fact the president at the time, is...was...and will be a liar (fact). That same man was a busyness partner of a man who is a prime suspect for the attack (fact).

All i'm stinks. You people of America should be voicing loudly...

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:14 AM
I have read alot of the structural failure of tower 1 and 2 and have noticed something that seems to have slipped past almost unnoticed. Even here.

In the first WTC attack the terrorist used a truck bomb planted in the sub level parking garage.

What I remember is that the crater was (and I may be a little off) at least 3 levels deep and very large across.

Now why do I remember this and view it as important?

The devistation at possibly one of the buildings weak point with no collapse.

Lets look at this example.

Take refrigerator Perry from the 1986 bears (yes I know people are not steel buildings but bear with me). He was a very big and stout guy. I am no slouch at 6'2" 220. But even if I wind up and hit him square in the chest with my fist it would be unlikely to knock him over.

Now even taking 2/3 that force if I hit him in the side of the knee hes going down like a sack of potato's.

Now where this causes me to question the official report is we had a bomb that went off near the buildings main supports in the underground parking garage. The pictures showed one heck of a big and deep crater caused by it.
The building did not even show any loss of structural integrity (that we know of).

Now here comes a plain that is not much bigger or much more fuel that a 707. A plane the builders "guarentee" it could take. Then both towers fell to just one strike from the 737.

Suspicious to say the least.

IMO I think there is a conspiracy. But not what others think.

I think the building in some way was flawed. Either the diesigners were decieving us that it was designed the way they said. Or more tragic it was never built to their specifications. Where short cuts in inspections, or outright non -compliance to plans were done.

Unless "say a plane" hit it no one would know the truth.

Just an idea

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:20 AM

Originally posted by R_Clark
reply to post by pteridine

Dr. Judy Wood has done the most comprehensive forensic analysis.

Judy Wood's "work" has been thoroughly debunked and nobody is buying it. She is not a 9/11 "truther", nor is her work accepted anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement. Outlined in this thread.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by Murgatroid

Is there anything that hasn't been thoroughly debunked?

And yet we still have the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills landfill covering 40 acres between 15 to 20 feet deep.

Some choose to treat it as evidence, some search through it looking for evidence. Some study the process of destruction, some stop their investigation at the precise moment the catastrophic destruction begins.

Many British police and politicians are now aware that the average particle size of the physical evidence at Fresh Kills indicates extraordinary demolition. You'll see them smiling and laughing when the subject is discussed.

Sorry, I haven't looked at your profile to see where you stand on this. I'm too busy encouraging the police rebellion that is clearing out the cobwebs on this side of the pond.


posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:53 AM
What is any of this? People always talk about "9/11"...I'm pretty sure all of this nonsense is a hoax.

Deny 9/11.


Seriously though, this thread is very nicely put together.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in