More evidence of explosions on 911

This clip was aired on 60 Minutes in Australia on Sunday the 3rd September, I have added part of the “discussion in the firehouse” to give the clip some context.

www.youtube.com...

Before you label this clip a hoax please view the original at

ninemsn.video.msn.com...

“Return to Ground Zero” and you can forward to 4:42.

There is a Google video of the same clip,however, the audio is different. I am tending to lean towards something that has been broadcast nationally in Australia and backs up the firefighters experience!


[edit on 4-9-2006 by mintaka]

Think this footage has been posted a number of times continually on this board.

However, it is still worth noting the firefighters of 9/11 are still suspicous about the WTC collapse, and were denied a thorough investigation into the whole thing.

I know that much is legit.

That video clip of the South Tower is one of the most damning. Aside from the sounds, you can see rows of puffs coming out, racing down a face of the building.

These are the exact same puffs that people blame on enormous air compression, even though it's plain as day that those buildings were not airtight. Steel was being thrown from them everywhere, and yet air supposedly could not escape, and became super compressed. These are the same puffs that ejected fine dust, as much as 50 floors below the rest of the collapse wave.

And you can see them coming out in rows in the above video, below the free-falling debris.

I have seen the towers come down over and over and i seem to be swingng side to side on the conspiracy, I have an openmind and am prepared to work with what i am gave...the first time I thought and really looked at them come down it looked as if it went straight down supporting the controlled demo theory...i have watched it a lot more since and I notice that it looks more like a side of the tower 1 leans outwards when it is collapsing supporting a more "natural" collapse. still my mind is not made up... though I am slightly more toward controlled demo theory.

One day we may know.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by marcopolo]

~~

here's a second attempt to get past the censors
isn't it funny how the ATS computer eats up your posts, sometimes?!

link: chapelhill.indymedia.org...

there is comments on those 'explosion' anomalies in this comprehensive
analyses of the WTC towers construction & global collapses.

Since when is the FEMA Report conclusive, St. Udio? That's the same report that threw its hands in the air when it came to WTC7, and did a poor enough job on the Towers to warrant another "investigation" and report from NIST. It was preliminary, but does have good info insofar as the impact damages and etc.

I uploaded two vids here repeating the same scene a few times.. If this can
be explained by anything other than explosives i guess miracles do exist.

video.google.com...
video.google.com...

Originally posted by zren
I uploaded two vids here repeating the same scene a few times.. If this can
be explained by anything other than explosives i guess miracles do exist.

For those that say the buildings weren't burning, watch the first video in zren's post, and pay special attention to the building that isn't collapsing. You can clearly see fire in the impact wound of that building. Had that been an explosive, why did the building remain standing afterwards?

As to the videos themselves, really zren the only thing we can see is the building coming down. Not saying you're wrong, but the only thing these photos prove is that buildings did indeed collapse.

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by zren
I uploaded two vids here repeating the same scene a few times.. If this can
be explained by anything other than explosives i guess miracles do exist.

For those that say the buildings weren't burning, watch the first video in zren's post, and pay special attention to the building that isn't collapsing. You can clearly see fire in the impact wound of that building. Had that been an explosive, why did the building remain standing afterwards?

As to the videos themselves, really zren the only thing we can see is the building coming down. Not saying you're wrong, but the only thing these photos prove is that buildings did indeed collapse.

Im on the fence about the conspiracy about explosives being used but i must point out in your post that there is a difference between demolition devices and incendary devices. Sure if someone wanted to make it look like they building was hit by a plane then collapsed they would first use incendary devices to simulate the impact of the planes then some few hours later activate the demolition devices to bring the towers down.

Also it could be this this: Demolition charges in place ready and waiting, The towers are legit hit by planes which cause there own incendary explosion then the masterminds behind the whole plan some hours later activate the demolition charges to make it look like the buildings collapsed due to the fire and heat raging for hours beforehand

Originally posted by thesaint
Im on the fence about the conspiracy about explosives being used but i must point out in your post that there is a difference between demolition devices and incendary devices. Sure if someone wanted to make it look like they building was hit by a plane then collapsed they would first use incendary devices to simulate the impact of the planes then some few hours later activate the demolition devices to bring the towers down.

There was no need to simulate the impact of the planes, because PLANES HIT THE TOWERS.

Also it could be this this: Demolition charges in place ready and waiting, The towers are legit hit by planes which cause there own incendary explosion then the masterminds behind the whole plan some hours later activate the demolition charges to make it look like the buildings collapsed due to the fire and heat raging for hours beforehand

That's possible, but then we're grasping at straws to create an otherwise unprovable theory, rather than examining legitimate issues.

Here's MORE proof that there were bombs in the buildings.......

In this one a fireman comes out saying to clear the area as bombs were found in the building:

www.youtube.com...

In this one a police officer says on MSNBC news they had found a "suspicious device" under the building that were used:

www.youtube.com...

personally i think that it was a controlled explosion due to the pyroclastic flows which only usually occur in volcanoes and lateral controlled explosions here is a video.

video.google.co.uk...

Look, not trying to bring you down, but this doesn't PROVE a whole lot. For example, in the first video we don't know where the fireman got that information. He, or the person who told him, may have assumed that information themselves after being told of secondary explosions within the building. We don't even know if that particular fireman was in the building or not.

Regarding the second video, the reporter says they found a suspicious package on a street corner. Obviously it didn't explode, since explosions on the street were never reported. This reporter-like so many other people- was caught in the middle of the panic of 9/11.

Believe it or not, I'm not being argumentative for no reason. Half-statements, he said/she saids, partial news reports, et cetera do not PROVE a damn thing (that's not to say such things are meaningless, either).

Of these two videos, the only one that actually concerns me is the first, with the fireman. There's too much we don't know in there to call it either way.