Overwhelming evidence that disproves the official story

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
This has to be one of the most complete collections of eye witness videos, that confirms bombs and explosions were used to bring down the twin towers.

Government officials, and government agencies have said that there was nothing that gave them reason to think explosives were used to bring down the towers, and WTC7. They did not test for explosives, and discounted untold eye witness' reporting bombs & explosions.


The video starts off with no audio, and shows the towers in all their glory before they were on fire, then just before 5 mins the audio starts.

It then shows countless eye witnesses, reporters and first responders talking about bombs and explosions, also many different angles of the tower collapses, including WTC7.


After that, you will see the aftermath at ground zero, then engineers, architects, reporters, & many other people stating that it should not have collpsed because it was so well built.

This really is a fascinating video, so many unseen camera angles and eye witness accounts caught on camera, with a few familiar clips amongst them.

After watching this, there can be little doubt, that some form of explosives were used on both towers.

If you do watch this montage, the footage from 24:07 - 24:27 is probably the best I've seen where you can hear explosives detonating on different floors as the tower collapses.


With these eye witness accounts, and all this visual/audio evidence, I do not understand how any government agency investigating 9/11 could not come to the conclusion that explosives were used.

Based on what we see here alone, they had every reason to test for explosives, and they chose not to, and they expect people to believe their official reports?


Watch for yourselves, I think anyone will see that this video has overwhelming evidence that disproves the official story.

edit on 28-7-2012 by DeeKlassified because: spelling corrections




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
After watching this, there can be little doubt, that some form of explosives were used on both towers.


Don't you mean all 3 towers?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I couldn't even watch this whole video. It's so horribly edited, and even deliberately takes some witnesses statements out of context.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
After watching this, there can be little doubt, that some form of explosives were used on both towers.


Don't you mean all 3 towers?


I do think that all 3 buildings look like they came down with the assistance of some explosives, and even though WTC7 does feature in this montage, the twin towers are the main focus. That is why I said the 2 towers, because WTC7 is not really classed as a tower. I do reference WTC7 in my description though. But yes, I agree with you that all 3 buildings look like explosives were used to bring them down.

It's what the people in the video that have to say that is the main focus, and the footage itself.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I couldn't even watch this whole video. It's so horribly edited, and even deliberately takes some witnesses statements out of context.


What was it about the video you found horribly edited? It's a montage of clips, that naturally wont flow like a slick TV or film production because they are from various amateur & media sources. I don't think it's that bad, they could not have made it any better, it is what it is.

It actually gets better as it goes along, more incredible footage appears the further you get into the video, like the part at 24:07 - 24:27 that I highlighted in my description.

How does it deliberately take some witness statements out of context? Their statements are about what they saw and heard as it happened, the context is the explosions and bombs they witnessed on the day before and during the collpases. There can be no other context.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I couldn't even watch this whole video. It's so horribly edited, and even deliberately takes some witnesses statements out of context.


I thought it was me; this vid is a travesty.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
So Dr, Judy Wood can be thrown out with the bathwater now that we have this "conclusive" proof?

No.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 

An appropriate response to this video has already been made though in regards to a different subject:

"Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science."

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011

edit on 29-7-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I couldn't even watch this whole video. It's so horribly edited, and even deliberately takes some witnesses statements out of context.


What was it about the video you found horribly edited? It's a montage of clips, that naturally wont flow like a slick TV or film production because they are from various amateur & media sources. I don't think it's that bad, they could not have made it any better, it is what it is.

It actually gets better as it goes along, more incredible footage appears the further you get into the video, like the part at 24:07 - 24:27 that I highlighted in my description.

How does it deliberately take some witness statements out of context? Their statements are about what they saw and heard as it happened, the context is the explosions and bombs they witnessed on the day before and during the collpases. There can be no other context.


There's a video I saw on youtube called 10 Best Explosions or something, can't remember exactly, I'll try and find it. Anyway it was a compilation of cool explosions. The thing about it was one of the explosions was close and clear it its definition of smoke forming force and it reminded me of a clip of the South Tower 'collapsing', round about the middle you see the exact same force cloud formation etc. It's the same more or less.

So there I was looking at a video that clearly stated it was of 10 cool explosions (all by explosives) and it looked JUST LIKE the cloud formation associated with the South Tower. I might even make a post to compare if anyone is interested.

As well, I was looking at the Fukushima reactor explosion too, and some guy made one of these comparison videos of a nuke cloud going up and when you compare the skinny mushroom type cloud to the Fukushima video, it's pretty much the same formation. Even same height and width and same size mushroom top!

So it's like cloud formation forensics. But so what? I could show you the video comparison to a known explosive and the South Tower collapse and they could even match 100%, but for "smoking gun" purposes it really is nothing.

There were loud bangs and people talking about 'explosions' but these people were likely just describing things in layman's terms. By that I mean their testimony doesn't exactly amount to a "smoking gun", they are after all not the perps.

Now if a perp came forward and said he was involved, said he placed such and such explosives and said X Y and Z men/company did it. Then that would be groundbreaking. Talk of explosions and what terrified regular people seen and heard under stress isn't going to cut it. I'm not denying what they said and reported nor do I agree with the official story of collapse, I'm just saying a video with 100 different regular people giving their opinions is not enough evidence for anything.

To prove guilt, to bring a court case or a new investigation.

Someone could just say, "Well there were fire extinguishers and who knows what on the floors and in the mechanical rooms that went boom boom boom..." And there you are dead in the water.

You seem to have too much of an expectation that evidence recycled for ten years and all compiled into a single video is going to sway anyone really, or open a new investigation.

Don't get me wrong I get and like that you're trying but you got to kick the "smoking gun" evidence up a critical notch. It's really more like overwhelming editing than overwhelming evidence. What I'm saying is people have seen all these clips separately for over 11 years, putting them all together looks more like a cry for evidence plea rather than solid singular evidence that just nails it conclusively.

Again don't take this the wrong way, I am trying to be constructive critical really.


Cheers



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


First post on ATS. I came here for the UFOs but signed up just to post on this 911 topic.
I remember when I was watching it happening on live TV and saw the towers go down, my first gut reaction/thought was "they gave up on the towers and decided to take them down." It was too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. Does common sense matter to the skeptics at all? Are you guys like machines that operate on data only? I know common sense cannot be proof nor do I wish to prove anything with this post. I'm just curious and disappointed that deny ignorance can mean deny common sense. I'm applying it only to the way the towers came down. So please don't go off on a tangent trying to argue why common sense can mean a lot of ignorance in many other situations - I know that.

I also know some people in real life who can't accept that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. It's not because they don't have common sense but that their life philosophy does not allow for the possibility that our government lied to us. Sure this isn't the kind of post that has any rigorous science but I've described my gut reaction/feeling while watching the towers coming down live on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by xinkid
reply to post by NWOwned
 


First post on ATS. I came here for the UFOs but signed up just to post on this 911 topic.
I remember when I was watching it happening on live TV and saw the towers go down, my first gut reaction/thought was "they gave up on the towers and decided to take them down." It was too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. Does common sense matter to the skeptics at all? Are you guys like machines that operate on data only? I know common sense cannot be proof nor do I wish to prove anything with this post. I'm just curious and disappointed that deny ignorance can mean deny common sense. I'm applying it only to the way the towers came down. So please don't go off on a tangent trying to argue why common sense can mean a lot of ignorance in many other situations - I know that.

I also know some people in real life who can't accept that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. It's not because they don't have common sense but that their life philosophy does not allow for the possibility that our government lied to us. Sure this isn't the kind of post that has any rigorous science but I've described my gut reaction/feeling while watching the towers coming down live on 9/11.


Hi,

I am new here too, It will come of a shock to see these buildings come down to people like you and me. Once we look into the physics of the collapse however it becomes more clear that the structures were never going to stand once collapse initiation begun.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
all one has to do in the uk to totally disprove the gov story is engage mouth & ask what time they first heard of event AM .is the common one ??????????????????????????
it was a film



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I see there are a couple of people knocking the video, I guess that is to be expected on 9/11 forums.

There are many people that ignore the obvious when it is staring them in the face. The official reports are not to be trusted, they have come short in so many ways, and there are too many people questioning their reports.

If they did a thorough and transparent job with their official reports then people would still not be questioning them. It happened over a decade ago, and many, many people all over the world will not settle because they know in their mind that those buildings came down with the assistance of explosives.

These people in the video talk of many explosions and bombs, they know what they saw, they know what they heard, they just know. There are experts in disbelief, and many other professionals including first responders that cannot accept everything that is in the official reports.

This video is the best source for eye witness accounts, and no matter what anyone says, those personal accounts cannot be argued. They are what they are, all those different people were not mistaken, they were there, it was real, they know what they saw, they know what they experienced.

No one on a forum can really dispute what these eye witness' have to say, some have tried in this thread, but there will always be some people who to support the official story, and when opinions are formed in the mind early on, some people will never change those fixed views. Even if the government came out and finally admitted explosives, those that believe all of the official story, would still believe it.

If one or two people said multiple bombs, and multiple explosives, then perhaps the government agencies investigating might have let it go, but when you have an incredible amount of people saying the same thing, and other evidence to support explosives were used to bring the buildings down, then there is absolutely no excuse to not test for explosives.

Where is the video montage of people saying it was not explosives? There isn't one!

I see a couple of people made new accounts just to comment on this thread, and I suspect they are troll accounts made just to be awkward, but you can make as many troll accounts as you want, you cannot take away what people say in this video, and you cannot deny what you can see, or hear when the tower's collapse.

This video is not just about eye witnesses, it's clearly shows in some places that explosives were used as the tower collapses, and as I've mentioned already if you go and watch from 24:07 - 24:27 you can hear explosives detonating on different floors as the tower collapses. I'd love to know what people who still believe all the official story have to say about 24:07 - 24:27!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I see there are a couple of people knocking the video, I guess that is to be expected on 9/11 forums.

There are many people that ignore the obvious when it is staring them in the face. The official reports are not to be trusted, they have come short in so many ways, and there are too many people questioning their reports.

If they did a thorough and transparent job with their official reports then people would still not be questioning them. It happened over a decade ago, and many, many people all over the world will not settle because they know in their mind that those buildings came down with the assistance of explosives.




Hi,

For the record I am new here and not an existing member creating an additional account. I think that when I read witness statements they commonly contain the word explosion or explosives, and I am not surprised, during fires and collapses of the proportion of the WTC's. Many people say it was like an explosion or like explosives going off, the collapse can be very loud with elevator motors etc being very heavy and floors smashing into each other with other materials etc.
edit on 29-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xinkid
 





I remember when I was watching it happening on live TV and saw the towers go down, my first gut reaction/thought was "they gave up on the towers and decided to take them down." It was too obvious that it was a controlled demolition.

You said it. It was a gut reaction.
Gut reactions are wrong far too many times.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xinkid

I also know some people in real life who can't accept that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. [/qu0opte]

Count me as one.


Originally posted by xinkidIt's not because they don't have common sense but that their life philosophy does not allow for the possibility that our government lied to us. Sure this isn't the kind of post that has any rigorous science but I've described my gut reaction/feeling while watching the towers coming down live on 9/11.


Has nothing to do wit being lied to.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 




These people in the video talk of many explosions and bombs, they know what they saw, they know what they heard, they just know. There are experts in disbelief, and many other professionals including first responders that cannot accept everything that is in the official reports.

This video is the best source for eye witness accounts, and no matter what anyone says, those personal accounts cannot be argued. They are what they are, all those different people were not mistaken, they were there, it was real, they know what they saw, they know what they experienced.

They know what they saw? Ever heard of Antiques Road show? People don't know what they see.
Experts and professionals and first responders are in disbelief because they are the experts and they know what they are talking about. They have examined the evidence. And yet not one of them say there were explosives planted.
Even the truther touted expert Gage refuses to speculate on how and where explosives were placed. Ever wonder why?

There is a hugh difference between evidence and speculation. This video is not evidence. None of these Youtube vids are evidence. It's all speculation



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

They know what they saw? Ever heard of Antiques Road show? People don't know what they see.
Experts and professionals and first responders are in disbelief because they are the experts and they know what they are talking about. They have examined the evidence. And yet not one of them say there were explosives planted.
Even the truther touted expert Gage refuses to speculate on how and where explosives were placed. Ever wonder why?

There is a hugh difference between evidence and speculation. This video is not evidence. None of these Youtube vids are evidence. It's all speculation



To top it off, the vids are absurd even more so if they are to be considered evidential. I hope I never have the OP as my defense attorney.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by xinkid
 
Welcome. I had the same thoughts when watching WTC 1/2/7 fall into their own footprint live on TV. It was quite the production, wasn't it?

Don't forget FL 93, went down like a bunker buster bomb... Completely disappeared into the earth. Nevermind the report of a debris field six miles away. One member here even tried to claim that the wind must have carried it away!





 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant