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.

 

PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

page: 17
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your first clip of the firefighters on the phone is of doubtful provenance and there is nothing to indicate the source of the explosion or indeed whether the sound has been edited.

However, there is evidence to show that it was shot between 10.15 and 10.50 am :-

www.911myths.com...

This time is some 7 hours before the collapse of WTC 7 but, interestingly, close to the time of the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28.

So, it is no proof of anything at WTC 7 and, if it was, it is 7 hours too early.

I will have a look at your other couple of clips and get back to you.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


If fire resistant hush-a-booms that leaves no significant traces is you theory, then it should be demonstrated it is possible. I don't believe it is. After you demonstrated it is possible, the next step is to come with evidnce. Or is your theory not falsifiable Darkwing? You know what we should do with such theories. In fact, I like my fire resistant army of robots with blowtorches that leaves no significant traces theory better.


Read your post again. It does not make any sense, nor does it fit in any of the context on this particular thread. Its just a string of words without reason.

I dont know what you want. You got your video where the explosions have been captured on audio. Its not bass shattering artificial audio as seen in Hollywood blockbusters on that end real life oftentimes dissapoints.

Care to try and rephrase what you meant to say? Maybe it made sense in your head, but the way you wrote it does not.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I don't don't really expect truthers to recognize logic or reason, so I see no reason to rephrase this text.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Have had a chance now to look at your other two clips.

The first one is really just a medley of peoples immediate shocked reactions to the events and, while interesting, are not much use for evidence 10 plus years on. We have the man who says there was " no second plane, it was a bomb". Was he right ? There is reference by the media to the FBI thinking there was another truck bomb in the basement. Do the FBI think that now ? But none of it is what I am looking for which is clear recorded sounds of demolition detonations at collapse or just before of WTC 1, 2 or 7.

Your final clip, by David Chandler, puts up the firefighters ( who I have already commented on) and Kevin McPadden in support. I don't think I am being unfair when I say the latter is something of a laughing stock over his allegation that he heard a countdown over a red cross workers radio. The audio which Chandler refers to primarily is the street interview just before WTC 7 went down conducted by Ashleigh Banfield. I suggest this is in fact strong evidence for no demolition explosions at the time of collapse. Chandler does his best by filtering and enhancing to prove explosions but it is an epic fail; all there is is the rumble one would expect.

On the other hand there is very good audio evidence for no demolition explosions at the time of collapse at the WTC. For example, this is video taken in the North Tower lobby just before and during the collapse of the South Tower. The scene in the lobby is fairly quiet, you can hear conversation, and then, just as you read in the FDNY Chief's face, a rumble commences and gets ominously louder and louder. But where are the explosions ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Random rambling is neither logic nor reason. You got your *hushabooms* on tape. Your reply was just a random string of words. So again, do you have a reply that fits in the context of that discussion or just more randomness?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




If fire resistant hush-a-booms that leaves no significant traces is you theory, then it should be demonstrated it is possible.


Have you seen the Cole video. Have you seen the patent I linked?

Next you will ask me to demonstrate that drinking water is possible.

The only question is how much money you are prepared to spend.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So are those contraptions from Cole fire resistant? And they don't leave obvious traces? I don't think so. Do you think it is likely that the conspirators would risk leaving behind those contraptions like in the video of Cole? Sure you will say that those are just details and hand wave it away. More than 10 years, and all you have is some superficial speculation


I see you ignored the part of my post where I ask for evidence. You also ignored the part where I asked if your theory is falsifiable. For obvious reasons. Because we both know that your theory is as falsifiable as my theory with an army of robots. And about as likely (not at all that is).
edit on 21-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Oh, you mean that bang Alfie1 already completely debunked? So you believe it was not thermite but explosives? And that video is evidence of that? Ok



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


actually he did not do any debunking.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Of course, a believer will ignore any rational argument that debunks his believe. The rest of the world understands that this loud sound (whatever it is) can not be linked to WTC7.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Random rambling is neither logic nor reason. You got your *hushabooms* on tape. Your reply was just a random string of words. So again, do you have a reply that fits in the context of that discussion or just more randomness?


Ok, so the fact that he posts a video taken inside the North Tower when South fell, and we dont hear ANY explosions, or loud bangs that ALWAYS occur prior to collapse with CD, just a distant rumble that gets louder and louder, and is noticed WHEN it gets louder. No one is freaking out and hearing BANG BANG BANG POP POP POP prior to collapse. What is funny is that if there were demo chares going off, those firefighters and people inside seemed pretty chill and not even being phased by the sound of a building being demoed right next door, until it starts collapsing. Dont you find that odd? THAT is called using logic and reason. No one does anything or even flinches until they hear a distant rumble and the sky getting darker. Where were the demo charges? Its not randomness chief. It is called using your brain and something called "Critical Thinking".

You have a video where NO explosions are herad AT ALL, and no one noticing anything prior to collapse, and then you have a distant rumble that gets louder as the collapse progresses. Show me ONE video of a demolition with explosives, where the building begins to collapse well before the explosives go off. You have the reasources of the internet, youtube, and countless other video sites, please show me one video where a building is rigged up to be imploded, and starts to collapse before any demo charges actually go off. Oh, also, videos of demolitions taken from miles away do not count as then you are using the speed of sound and distance to explain the delay (like watching a baseball game and seeing the batter hit the ball and then you hear it a second later. That is not what happened on 9/11 at the base of the WTC).
edit on 1/21/2012 by GenRadek because: spell



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The towers did not even stand anymore when wtc 7 was demolished.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The towers did not even stand anymore when wtc 7 was demolished.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Yes, the Towers were gone when WTC 7 collapsed; your point is ?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I was replying to gen radek should have hit reply to



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


But there is no audio or evidence of explosives going off prior to collapse of WTC7 either. So........ not much for that idea.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What are you talking about? The audio of the explosions prior to the collapse of wtc 7 were capured on video. The video is posted just one page back. There were mutliple whitnesses to explosions prior to the collapse in WTC 1 and 2 not where the fires were raging, but at the bottom floor and the basement, there were dead, injured and the whole scene looked like a bomb had gone off.

The reasoning of you guys is like, you have been caught with a smoking gun and a corpse with a gunshotwound to the torso and you demand of the prosecution that it proves to you that the victim did not die of a heartattack moments before you shot him.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



So are those contraptions from Cole fire resistant?


You can't light thermite or thermate with the temperatures generated in an office building fire.


And they don't leave obvious traces?


You mean apart from eutectic melting and iron micro-spheres?

No, it doesn't leave any obvious trace. The reaction products of thermite are iron and aluminium oxide.

If it was some other explosive in a purpose built containment device, all the residue would be inside the device, all that a cleanup crew would need to do is to locate and remove the (what would be fairly bulky) devices which would obviously remain physically intact. If you can safeguard sensitive recording equipment in a black box then you can safeguard much less sensitive secondary or tertiary explosives in a box like this.

I take it you know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary explosives?



edit on 21-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




Show me ONE video of a demolition with explosives, where the building begins to collapse well before the explosives go off.


Please review the discussion I have been having with PLB for several pages. There is no proof of lack of demolition in that argument.

Please review the logical rules for generalizations before responding.

In this case more than any absence of evidence (even if there was an absence if evidence) is not evidence of absence.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What are you talking about? The audio of the explosions prior to the collapse of wtc 7 were capured on video. The video is posted just on page back. There were mutliple whitnesses to explosions prior to the collapse in WTC 1 and 2 not where the fires were raging, but at the bottom floor and the basement, there were dead, injured and the whole scene looked like a bomb had gone off.

The reasoning of you guys is like, you have been caught with a smoking gun and a corpse with a gunshotwound to the torso and you demand of the prosecution that it proves to you that the victim did not die of a heartattack moments before you shot him.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


That is true for WTC7, David Chandler went to great pains to make that available to everyone, and as you say, already posted here. The heart attack idea is more confined to the towers, since OBL is supposed to have said belatedly that the collapses were an unexpected bonus, how do you make sense out of it? If they did not expect the towers to fall, what was the point of suicide attacks in what is basically cigar holders, into what is so often described as light and air buildings.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What are you talking about? The audio of the explosions prior to the collapse of wtc 7 were capured on video. The video is posted just one page back. There were mutliple whitnesses to explosions prior to the collapse in WTC 1 and 2 not where the fires were raging, but at the bottom floor and the basement, there were dead, injured and the whole scene looked like a bomb had gone off.

The reasoning of you guys is like, you have been caught with a smoking gun and a corpse with a gunshotwound to the torso and you demand of the prosecution that it proves to you that the victim did not die of a heartattack moments before you shot him.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but hearing random explosions after TWO 110 story buildings just collapsed onto hundreds of vehicles does not constitute "video" of demolition charges going off. The firefighter video of the alleged "explosion" at the phone booth is a faked audio/video clip, since the sound has been added in. No I want to hear it like this:



You know, how a REAL cd should sound like.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join