911 The explosive reality
tags:
Stumble ThisSomething I haven't seen before - visual evidence of secondary explosions, something the NIST was too "busy" to notice while Giuliani was melting down the evidence or shipping it off to China.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
911,wtc,secondary explosions 911 The explosive reality
Comments  playlists with this video World Trade Center by choggie
who has this post bookmarked JAPR
911 The Explosive Reality Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. d3bas3r
(126 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Everybody knows that buildings tend to have tiny flickering explosions all by themselves.
I think what MG was referring to was the fact that individual windows blowing out don't well imply explosions at the core structure.
The footage of "explosions" during the actual impact of the jets seems to be pretty well related to the impacts and the concussive force they would have imparted: the air those planes displaced has to go somewhere. Not to mention the sudden and explosive ignition of the jet fuel milliseconds after impact. That windows on other floors blow out shortly after the plane hits is not really that shocking.
The other minute, one-window "explosions" seen while the buildings are burning could have been many things, but explosions that would have weakened the core structure they were not (why only one window at a time?) Likely just windows shattering as the building's structure twisted, or maybe some people managed to break them in a vain hope of ventilation.
I dunno. I've seen some videos that have made me seriously doubt the official story. This video ain't one of them.
It's also news to me that a jet plane would cause explosions five or six floors above the point of impact.
Given that this building burned for less than an hour and then fell straight to the ground in under ten seconds - which is about the same time it would take for a ball to hit the ground if it were dropped off the top - yes, I think this is a small indication that there were indeed explosives in that building.
Please explain with your apparent knowledge of physics why the debris falling off of the towers as they collapsed was falling faster the actual collapse?
Sub 10 second collapse claims are the easiest of all the silly 911 myth's to debunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
If it was indeed a controlled demolition, then pray tell, why do we not see any signature explosions from lower floors?
I think the quote was "near free fall speed", not free fall speed. Either way, even the 9/11 commission report shows the speeds to be near free fall speed instead of the misleading 15 seconds or 12 second from that video posted above by TheSofaKing (which seems to be timed incorrectly - watch the youTube clock). I will agree, however, the facts get miscommunicated as "free fall speed", which is false. It's "near free fall speed." The evidence isn't great, but it's at least worth a reinvestigation no matter how much you disagree with the contrary theories of 9/11, no? *save
I see no secondary explosions, what I see is the natural result of a massive impact and explosion venting by the easiest way possible, in the general direction that the force was applied and out of the near side of the building. Force of the impact might have carried debris out those windows even without the explosion, I see nothing unnatural there.
In the meantime we never have asked who stripped us of air cover and left us wide open in spite of that fact being printed in the papers beforehand, someone was damned well responsible and I don't remember anyone getting blame. Just medals. The head of the 9-11 commission and others complained about being stonewalled and blocked access to info, they never did interview a terrorist suspect *or* anyone who had actual contact with them but were restricted to reports the Bush admin cleared, we now know they were lied to when they asked for information and were told there were no interrogation tapes, we know plenty to establish that there are questions. We know there was negligence and cover up at least but rather than look into that we want it all.
If people would just stop insisting that Bush had to have done it himself even if we can't prove it maybe we could get somewhere with investigating what we can prove. As it stands now I tend to ignore the issue simply because it's one that's impossible to accomplish anything in, we're all seen as conspiracy theorists and legitimate questions are drowned out or ignored. There are other issues we can accomplish something in. I really wish this one one of them though, there are real issues if they could be heard through the noise.
There was a cover up of what happened on 9/11 from the very top.
For the buildings to collapse that fast, the lower floors would have to have the resistive factor of thin air.
Bush blocked the 9/11 investigation at every turn, and evidence was destroyed almost immediately.
Most of the "experts" who "debunk" conspiracy theories are basically professionals who are too afraid of losing their jobs or being attacked if they openly raise questions. They pull numbers out of their butts to justify the "official" explanation which was handed to them by the Bush administration.
The NYFD was placed under gag order.
If it's so obvious what happened, why was there such a great effort to hide everything?
They didn't have to destroy that steel so quickly.
(and there really were WMDs in Iraq, and Bush didn't steal Florida in 2000, and he didn't steal Ohio in 2004, and water-boarding isn't torture, and Dick Cheney is an honest man)
One question I really wish the theorists would ask themselves though is this. Let's assume they were every bit as evil as you think they are, or even somewhere near to it. What's the best way to make sure nobody ever looks? Make the whole thing such a joke that nobody takes it serious? That might work.
It's a matter of proof. You don't have it. You've got questions that weren't answered, holes in the story, other things of the sort. I've read the experts you guys point to myself and they don't generally declare proof of what some of you guys claim, just questions we need to answer. In that I'd agree with them, the serious ones at least. The fringe that cries proof is the problem.
If they did even 1/4 of what it looks to me like they did, cover-up and negligence at the least, maybe more, someone would be going to prison if we ever looked. If the whole thing is a joke nobody ever looks. Once an investigation starts if what you suspect is there it'll likely turn up. Best way to avoid it is not to investigate at all. I'd start to wonder who really leads the conspiracy movement if I was you.
I hear ya, man.
Everybody knows that buildings tend to have tiny flickering explosions all by themselves.
Oh, yeah. My bad. That giant exploding plane sticking out the side must have nothing to do with it.
They didn't have to destroy the steel so quickly.
What would you rather them do? keep it there for a few months? Let it sit in a pile somewhere and be a massive eyesore and a painful reminder to all who were lost?
And another question that you can't answer: How does one get the thousands of pounds of explosives into TWO buildings with no one noticing? And where do you find the hundreds of people necessary to prepare the structure and set off the bombs that kill thousands of their fellow Americans?
This brings nothing new to the table.
But, you have totally convinced me about NIST though...
It is chalked full of flaming republicans/fascists who do whatever their imperial overlords tell them to.
I heard that there is this implant that they put behind the cerebellum of researchers refuse to submit, or just for fun.
And... It is hardly even a research facility! Why do are tax dollars go there? They never publish any peer reviewed papers. All of them went to Regents College, which is a known fascist breeding ground.
People should not be arguing about who did it. That is established and ironclad. They should be complaining and arguing about what should have been done to prevent it and what changes we should make in the future to prevent another occurrence. FYI, this is exactly what the gov't has been trying to do for 7 years! I don't recall an occurrence similar to this or even similar to Oklahoma city since 9/11/2001... hmm... it's 1/5/2008... hello.
Or maybe it could be the sun reflecting the windows.
or possibly a bunch of teeny boppers taking their final myspace shots...
They are not small explosions!