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.

 

WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Could you tell me dillweed, when does evidence for an explosion become evidence for explosives?

I have lots of videos of explosions, but very few of explosives. Could you tell me how to distinguish between the two?




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
"They all have 'Booms' recorded by cameras..." You seem a wee bit confused, but I'll help you out. What the camera "shows' is evidence of an explosion. You're only fooling yourself. How stupid do you think people are? There is no reason to believe that conventional means were employed that day, so save your deductive reasoning for another topic, because this one is obviously way over your head.



So am I meant to completely ignore the FACT that there was no explosive noise before the collapse? I'm supposed to plug my ears, go LALALALA, and then watch the collapse and say, "golly, that sure looks like it's exploding. Who cares about the other details of the day!"



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
"They all have 'Booms' recorded by cameras..." You seem a wee bit confused, but I'll help you out. What the camera "shows' is evidence of an explosion. You're only fooling yourself. How stupid do you think people are? There is no reason to believe that conventional means were employed that day, so save your deductive reasoning for another topic, because this one is obviously way over your head.



So am I meant to completely ignore the FACT that there was no explosive noise before the collapse? I'm supposed to plug my ears, go LALALALA, and then watch the collapse and say, "golly, that sure looks like it's exploding. Who cares about the other details of the day!"


Why do you need sound to verify what you can see with your eyes? When a building is blown to smithereens, as the three towers obviously were, there are explosive sounds involved that would go along with what you see with your eyes. If I see a video of a volcanic eruption, and there are no accompanying sounds, I'm going to suspect that somebody removed the sound. I mean, I don't have to be an intellectual savant to realize that sounds go along with volcanic eruptions. Even a little kid watching the Flintstones can recognize the difference between an explosion from an incendiary device versus a sound from something like a pancake collapse. You disinfo artists would have us believe that experienced adult firemen don't know an explosion from an incendiary device from the sounds that would accompany a building collapse from fire. The absurdity of this position is off the charts, and yet this is what you criminally complicit professional BS artists would have us believe.

Nobody is buying this crap. Get a real job.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


YOU forget until that day NOBODY repeat NOBODY had been in a collapse of buildings that size, structural components when tested to failure can make very loud noises I know because I have done and witnessed those types of tests have you?

People were under great stress and any loud noise could be taken as an explosion.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Why do you need sound to verify what you can see with your eyes? When a building is blown to smithereens, as the three towers obviously were, there are explosive sounds involved that would go along with what you see with your eyes. If I see a video of a volcanic eruption, and there are no accompanying sounds, I'm going to suspect that somebody removed the sound. I mean, I don't have to be an intellectual savant to realize that sounds go along with volcanic eruptions. Even a little kid watching the Flintstones can recognize the difference between an explosion from an incendiary device versus a sound from something like a pancake collapse. You disinfo artists would have us believe that experienced adult firemen don't know an explosion from an incendiary device from the sounds that would accompany a building collapse from fire. The absurdity of this position is off the charts, and yet this is what you criminally complicit professional BS artists would have us believe.

Nobody is buying this crap. Get a real job.


Are you serious? Sound is extremely important in demolitions. I have watched DOZENS of videos, and every single demolition one has the charge noises just before the collapse.

I'm not talking about the 9/11 videos with the sound cut. I'm talking about the 9/11 videos where you can hear everything, even the rumbling of the building components as they break and collapse down. Why is there no demolition sounds before the collapse? That should be one of the most important factors for you!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I am reading some of your 9/11 theories on how the WTC came down. Why even go there with your speculations of unknown exotic weapons.

We have the proof in front of our eyes of the WTC building being taken down with controlled demolitions. What the demolition devises were is neither here nor there so why are you wasting time over this?

You are banging on about high powered out of space technology to make people who object to the official story look like kooks by associating your nutty ideas with their concerns.

.


There is nothing wrong with speculating what might have been the weapon used to take down the towers. In fact, it is critical to the legitimate truth movement because The Imbecile has already admitted that the towers were wired with explosives and has blamed it on "operatives". On September 15, 2006, Dubya told reporters at a press conference in the Rose Garden at the White House:

merln.ndu.edu...


"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."


So they can conveniently say that the terrorists got into the building to wire them as long as conventional weapons like thermite were used, but if the exotic weapons are discovered then we can only point to the Pentagon as the culprits because there's no way the terrorists could have gotten access to them.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


YOU forget until that day NOBODY repeat NOBODY had been in a collapse of buildings that size, structural components when tested to failure can make very loud noises I know because I have done and witnessed those types of tests have you?

People were under great stress and any loud noise could be taken as an explosion.


yeah, I know... they were all deluded from stress.... of course it has to be that way, because their testimony contradicts the OS. Can't have that now can we?

Besides, it's all a moot point. See post above.
edit on 5-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
Would the 'other details of the day' include the dozens of witnesses who heard explosions throughout the day? Or, do you only mean the details that fit your agenda? You're in way over your head here. To make a statement that sounds, are very important for demolitions, is worthy of a grade school mentality.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
Would the 'other details of the day' include the dozens of witnesses who heard explosions throughout the day? Or, do you only mean the details that fit your agenda? You're in way over your head here. To make a statement that sounds, are very important for demolitions, is worthy of a grade school mentality.


So where do we get from the part where they heard explosions, to the part where you prove this is because of explosives and not things like fuel, bodies hitting the ground, structural elements breaking, floors failing, things being thrown from the towers?

Oh wait we're supposed to assume that's the case, right? We just ignore all the other causes and go straight for explosives, because in someone's mind that's supposed to be logical?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So you are saying that terrorists using explosives, obtained from the pentagon, wired the 3 buildings to come down?

If your answer is yes then my question is.........were the terrorists who wired the buildings the same terrorists who hijacked the planes?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
Would the 'other details of the day' include the dozens of witnesses who heard explosions throughout the day? Or, do you only mean the details that fit your agenda? You're in way over your head here. To make a statement that sounds, are very important for demolitions, is worthy of a grade school mentality.


Explosions throughout the day is not aligned with the process of any demolition in the history of the demo business. Is that something that you simply can't understand? When explosives go off for the purpose of damaging supports, it causes an instantaneous collapse after the explosions. There is no half-hour or even ten minute delay. It is within seconds of the explosions. Why is 9/11 the demolition exception?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So you are saying that terrorists using explosives, obtained from the pentagon, wired the 3 buildings to come down?

If your answer is yes then my question is.........were the terrorists who wired the buildings the same terrorists who hijacked the planes?


No, I'm saying that conventional explosives normally used in controlled demolitions including thermite/thermate cannot explain the type of destruction we saw. There were exotic weapons used that we cannot pinpoint exactly what they are simply because they are covert black-ops that the Pentagon has in its possession.

Bush admitted in the 2006 speech that the buildings had explosives in them and said that it was due to operatives [getting into the building to do this at some point prior to 911]. What I am saying is that the "terrorists" could not have had access to the type of technology that caused the pulverization of steel and concrete and the toasted cars and all the other anomalies, meaning that this was completely and totally an inside job carried out by a rogue faction within the US Government.

As for the terrorists, I don't believe that there were 19 hijackers that hijacked the planes. That's simply the story we've been told by the actual perps.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The explosions were not falling bodies or fuel exploding, they were very loud, bang explosions. They were not throughout the whole day but centered before the collapse of the towers. It is really a moot point because the 9/11 c-omission report does not explain how these video documented explosions are 'falling bodies' nor does the NIST report make any reference to these explosive sounding falling bodies. Maybe it would be plausible if some type of government report made note of it, but so far the deniers are following an uber-orthodox view of the official story, so much so that they just make up facts to make the OS seem more plausible despite the government not even taking that ridiculous route.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
The explosions were not falling bodies or fuel exploding, they were very loud, bang explosions. They were not throughout the whole day but centered before the collapse of the towers. It is really a moot point because the 9/11 c-omission report does not explain how these video documented explosions are 'falling bodies' nor does the NIST report make any reference to these explosive sounding falling bodies. Maybe it would be plausible if some type of government report made note of it, but so far the deniers are following an uber-orthodox view of the official story, so much so that they just make up facts to make the OS seem more plausible despite the government not even taking that ridiculous route.


As someone who has watched dozens of 9/11 videos, I have not heard any explosions before the collapse of any of the towers. Do you have some magical versions of the 9/11 videos that I have not seen, or are you imagining things?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
imo, we saw what we saw at WTC. How hard could it be to get hijacked planes to smack into the towers? No doubt those huge impacts and fires were sufficient to destroy #1 and 2. I'm open to discussion on everything else, and how we got to the point of attack, but overthinking the fall of the towers to the point of insanity does no good.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Explosions throughout the day is not aligned with the process of any demolition in the history of the demo business. Is that something that you simply can't understand? When explosives go off for the purpose of damaging supports, it causes an instantaneous collapse after the explosions. There is no half-hour or even ten minute delay. It is within seconds of the explosions. Why is 9/11 the demolition exception?



Why would they want 911 to look like a common demolition? Would using a common demolition method make sense if you were trying to cover it up?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Really?

Are you sure?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Why is 9/11 the demolition exception?


Because they wanted to fool you, and they succeeded it seems.

The 911 demolitions can not in any way on this Earth be described as normal demolitions.

You could in theory cause a building to collapse over a period of hours depending on the placement and timing of the explosives. Obviously normally that wouldn't be what you'd want.

It's really silly to try to dismiss the obvious because it doesn't fit exactly your preconceived ideas.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Bush admitted in the 2006 speech that the buildings had explosives in them .



You will of course have a link to that


Just read the link in one of your posts above the planes were the explosives look at the quote


He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high --a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped from escaping


You have misread what was ment thats all the explosives were not in the building, it was the aircraft

edit on 6-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join