It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That statement is patently false. Maybe in your mind and in your opinion there's enough pieces to rule out explosives, but the reality is that is completely false and inaccurate.
Evidence doesn't consist of only the physical kind. Evidence also consists of audio/video recordings and witness testimony. We don't need the physical pieces of explosives to prove there were explosives. There are enough videos and witness testimony to prove explosives were used at the WTC.
Numerous witness saw flashes with popping sounds on the lower floors of the towers while the buildings were collapsing up above. Numerous witnesses saw, heard, and felt explosions. Numerous witnesses heard timed booms as both towers collapsed.
You can hear explosions in video from almost two miles away. And you can see some of those explosions in the form of isolated ejections:
Anyone can sit in their armchair all day long and attempt to explain those isolated ejections away as mere puffs of air from floors compressing together. But anyone who knows how the floors were constructed will immediately know that it's not possible for something like that to happen.
However, I can show image after image of isolated ejections from controlled demolitions all day long. One can hypothesize on what the isolated ejections are caused by, but when explosions and flashes are present, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated at the WTC, just as isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.
So, no, there aren't anywhere near enough pieces to rule out explosives. In fact, every single piece of evidence indicates that explosives are the only explanation.
Originally posted by MrWendal
Anyone who thinks explosives were not used on 9/11 are actually contradicting the President's own words.
So if no explosives were used that means the witnesses are mistaken. First responders are mistaken. Those crazy "truthers" are mistaken, and the President himself is mistaken.
Please can anyone tell me how one can use "explosives on a point high enough to prevent people from escaping" and yet there are no explosions? How does that happen exactly?
Originally posted by -PLB-
There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.
Originally posted by -PLB-
All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yet the top sections of either tower never stayed together in one piece to actually crush either building. Not to mention that the top section of the south tower tilted and was destroyed in mid air. And thus not able to crush the lower part of the building.
He said he heard loud noise from above. Explosives are loud.
Many controlled demolitions employ two types of explosives to bring a building down. They use a few powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and then lots of smaller explosives. The towers employed the same. Several powerful explosives (isolated ejections) and dozens, if not hundreds of smaller explosives, which was the loud roar everyone heard as the towers collapsed.
That roar can be heard miles away, which indicates the roar was caused by explosives, not by building parts crashing into each other.
So, the loud noise he heard above was not only building parts crashing into each other, but a much louder noise of dozens/hundreds of smaller explosives being detonated.
Originally posted by NWOwned
I'm trying hard here to visualize what you are suggesting.
First of all, what 'falling steel beam'?
You mean from the core? One of the vertical core beams? You got any evidence of ANY core beam at all falling other than straight down? You have evidence any core beams "fell over"?
Seems to me, all we have evidence for as it pertains to core beams is falling pretty much straight down as with the 'spire'. Wouldn't it be doubly hard then to 'visualize' beams doing anything other than the spire when none of those core beams fell sideways or over?
Second, if the building is collapsing on the inside and the window gets poked out and debris slides down a beam channel (this what you mean?) then how do you figure that would happen? That a beam from higher up 'falls over' and punctures a floor or two (or 4 or 6) BELOW and then angles toward the lower window? Isn't the collapse wave (if I can say that) ahead of these 'falling beams' (we have zero evidence for) on the way down?
Like if the 'collapse wave' is floors impacting floors then the isolated expulsion of material would be just as the higher floor(s) strike the floor above the expulsion right? There's no time for 'falling beams' to do the job etc.
Also, are you saying you don't think the collapsing and pancaking floors are the cause of the expulsions? This is generally where I'm at, if it was floors impacting floors there would be more ejections in many more windows. (But alas I'm not going for the lone poking beams theory.)
Originally posted by GenRadek
9/11 Survivor Surfed debris
Eleven years ago, Pasquale Buzzelli somehow survived the attacks of Sept. 11 when he rode a wave of debris while falling nearly 20 stories inside the collapsing North Tower of the World Trade Center.
I'm a little surprised this hasnt been posted on ATS. It is a very interesting story of survival, and yeah, it does seem a little out there, but it is entirely plausible.
Also gives us a rare account of what was happening inside the Tower as it fell. It indicates, to me, that as the tower was collapsing, the exterior columns were being forced out by the force of the top section coming down. It severed the floors themselves from the horizontal forces of the exterior columns, causing the floors to drop and giving this guy a ride of his life. Also gives us another interesting tidbit. NO mention of explosives. If there were, this guy wouldnt be here to talk about it.
Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition.
Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by _BoneZ_
this is a crazy line of thinking. it doesnt matter if explosives were used . it is impossible for explosives to turn 60 stories of steel to dust but neither do building collapses. also i thing a HUGE clue was all the paper. its because whatever was acting on the steel and and filing cabinets and all the other metal and concrete in the building vanished while the paper was scattered everywhere. because all that dust contained the paper.
when you take away the impossible whatever remains
explosives - nope
collapse - nope
time for "out of the box" thinkng peopleedit on 22-9-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by r2d246
Could you elaborate on what is in the dust? Dust is an extremely general term. If dust refers to plaster, concrete, and fireproofing going into the air, then that makes sense. However, if you are implying that metal was being disintegrated into airborne metal particles, that would be a very strange thing to suggest. Mind elaborating? I'm tired of such general terms.