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.

 

This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

The pics show a possible early explosion and no fire...

...and I thought fire is what brought the towers down ?




posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I'm starting to think this guy is another 9/11 fantasist. Was he actually there that day. are these his photos, or stock pics he's stolen from somewhere.

What was he doing at the moment of impact, Holding the lobby door or taking pics...what's it to be Rick.?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I'm starting to think this guy is another 9/11 fantasist. Was he actually there that day. are these his photos, or stock pics he's stolen from somewhere.

What was he doing at the moment of impact, Holding the lobby door or taking pics...what's it to be Rick.?


Have you seen the video I just posted, he`s talks about it some more and shows the pictures.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Thanks for the vid - the guy clearly doesn't physics and wrongly calls air/debris displacement explosions and bases the rest of his tale around this myth. I don't think he's a fraud, just someone desperate for an explanation of what they experienced.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Yeah, it`s more like an add to the other "evidence" about all the abnormalities surrounding the official story.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I'm starting to think this guy is another 9/11 fantasist. Was he actually there that day. are these his photos, or stock pics he's stolen from somewhere.

What was he doing at the moment of impact, Holding the lobby door or taking pics...what's it to be Rick.?


Have you seen the video I just posted, he`s talks about it some more and shows the pictures.

Yeah, watched the video, the pics seem too far away for a guy who was at the lobby door when the second plane hit.

Anyway, nothing Earth shattering in the video as was promised previously.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

To me the absence of a big fire in one of the towers rattles the whole "they were brought down by out of control fire" explanation.
edit on 14-9-2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It's normal for fires to self extinguish when deprived of oxygen then explode when a new source of oxygen is found (i.e a window breaking under heat, someone breaking one to jump out). I think the term is called 'backdraft' by firemen.

Also absence of fire doesn't mean there isn't enough heat to reduce the tensile strength of steel beams to their buckling point.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Soloprotocol

To me the absence of a big fire in one towers rattles the whole "they were brought down by out of control fire" explanation.

It would only have taken a out of control fire on a couple of floors to bring the building down the way it came down. the problem lay in the structural design, once one floor collapsed the weight from the floors above did the rest of the damage. Boom, Boom, Boom...each floor impacting on the floor below.

I must admit i was surprised that buildings like that could fall the way they did. People like to think that they fell on their own footprints, they didn't, as the videos since have proven. it was more of a scatter effect. the thin layers of concrete and Asbestos would just turn to dust before it even hit the ground.

We would need to study the plans and have a degree in structural engineering to understand the exact science of why they fell the way they did. My first guess would be Gravity + Weight = terrible things...i'm sure there's a equation that relates to it.
I worked in Structural Engineering, I once saw one 13 ton beam crash through three concrete floors with ease, so I can understand how and why the came down the way they did. The noise must have been Horrendous.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Soloprotocol

To me the absence of a big fire in one of the towers rattles the whole "they were brought down by out of control fire" explanation.


You're looking at a single photograph, from a single perspective, and coming to the conclusion that the fire went out even though ALL of us watching it live that day saw smoke billowing out of both towers right up until they came down? Come on, man...

His other photos of "premature explosions" have been debunked multiple times. When you have hundreds of tons of concrete and steel coming down like an accordion, it's going to push a lot of dust and debris out of every possible corridor like... for example... elevator shafts and stairwells.

The "I heard multiple explosions" statement has also been debunked multiple times. Think about the sound of multiple floors slamming down one after the other... of course it would sound like multiple explosions as that much mass starts to come down.

I'm not convinced that Al Qaeda isn't a CIA-controlled entity used to justify perpetual war BUT I've never bought into the idea that the planes didn't bring down the towers. Simple fact is, the event was unprecedented. Never before in history had 2 massive skyscrapers been brought down without a controlled demolition so how can anyone possibly know what is peculiar behavior and what is normal? Truthers speculate based on what they think should have happened and sadly, many base their opinion on what they've seen in movies. "A building only comes down that way if it's a controlled demolition!" Really? Tell me how you can possibly know that. How many enormous skyscrapers have you seen come down due to structural failure? We all know the answer. Even the "experts" are merely speculating because, again, it was an unprecedented event. I don't care if you're a structural engineer or any of the other so called "qualified experts" touted by the truther movement (a guy who welds for a living is an expert? ok...), you don't know what stresses occurred to the structure at the point of impact and the subsequent fire so you're speculating.

Once a single floor gave way due to the impact damage and the effects of high heat on the steel supports, the rest of the floors weren't able to take that sort of stress so they failed consecutively and it collapsed like an accordion. There's no reason it should have come down any other way.
edit on 9/14/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It's normal for fires to self extinguish when deprived of oxygen then explode when a new source of oxygen is found (i.e a window breaking under heat, someone breaking one to jump out). I think the term is called 'backdraft' by firemen.

Also absence of fire doesn't mean there isn't enough heat to reduce the tensile strength of steel beams to their buckling point.


Fire needs oxygen, so your logic says it isn`t raging, it becomes raging again with added oxygen.

It still needs a certain amount of heat to actual get to it`s buckling point.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
He just posted on twitter 6 minutes ago




the new never before seen pictures from 9/11 pictures are coming out soon on WeAreChange.org... I apoliogize


Also is this them?



EXTRA LINK OF PICTURES imgur.com...



edit on 14/9/2014 by Taggart because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/9/2014 by Taggart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I only said it wasn`t as raging as being told.

Good for you made up your mind, I still haven`t, still too many things which don`t seem to add up.

And the too big to pull off argument is a non argument for me, because it can be done.
edit on 14-9-2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
pic at 16.30 nicely shows the top section tilting which (according to me) would have fallen sideways unless the base of the tower was removed. Therefor demolition.

But yeah, all this has been seen before, nothing earth shattering. I was hoping for a clear pic of the underside of the plane or something, oh well......



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: numberjuggler
pic at 16.30 nicely shows the top section tilting which (according to me) would have fallen sideways unless the base of the tower was removed. Therefor demolition.

But yeah, all this has been seen before, nothing earth shattering. I was hoping for a clear pic of the underside of the plane or something, oh well......


Or the top section tilted in the most-destroyed corner (which would be expected) and the floor beneath that corner couldn't hold the extra weight so it started to give way and created a vertical domino effect.

Physics: when the top section tilted at the destroyed gap, it exerted vertical and diagonal pressure on the floor just below the damage which caused the supporting structure of that floor to fail. Once that floor collapsed, the whole thing was just a cascade of floors failing onto each other until it built up speed and came straight down.

I'm not a structural engineer but I'm pretty good at analyzing why and how things work and I have a good understanding of physics, metal, and how support structures tend to fail. I've also played a lot of Jenga so I'm at least as qualified as 99% of the truther experts.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I'm just using basic physics knowledge too, I would imagine that the top would tilt in that situation, even if the base destructs as you say, the top will have a torque. As the lower part of the top will have the upwards force from the destruction and the upper part (of the top) will not.

It would be more like a tree falling down, than a jenga collapse.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: numberjuggler
I'm just using basic physics knowledge too, I would imagine that the top would tilt in that situation, even if the base destructs as you say, the top will have a torque. As the lower part of the top will have the upwards force from the destruction and the upper part (of the top) will not.

It would be more like a tree falling down, than a jenga collapse.


You're thinking about it as though the top section was completely detached as it tilted in that photo.

If the corner opposite the tilt was still attached, the top would have leveled back out somewhat as the floor underneath gave way.

The only way I can think to describe the effect would be a soda can. Place your hand on top and apply extra pressure at one corner until it starts to crush, then notice how easily the whole can crushes flat. Once the structure is compromised at one corner, the additional stresses cause the rest of it to fail. Sure, the corner with the most pressure leans a bit at first but then it levels back out as the structure collapses.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me why nobody saw or noticed the planes flying so low just before it hit the towers? There were no eyewitnesses of the planes heading toward the towers even though making more than enough noise to be spotted. Heads only turned seconds before the impact.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: numberjuggler
pic at 16.30 nicely shows the top section tilting which (according to me) would have fallen sideways unless the base of the tower was removed. Therefor demolition.

But yeah, all this has been seen before, nothing earth shattering. I was hoping for a clear pic of the underside of the plane or something, oh well......


Or the top section tilted in the most-destroyed corner (which would be expected) and the floor beneath that corner couldn't hold the extra weight so it started to give way and created a vertical domino effect.

Physics: when the top section tilted at the destroyed gap, it exerted vertical and diagonal pressure on the floor just below the damage which caused the supporting structure of that floor to fail.

I'm not a structural engineer but I'm pretty good at analyzing why and how things work and I have a good understanding of physics, metal, and how support structures tend to fail. I've also played a lot of Jenga so I'm at least as qualified as 99% of the truther experts.

Once that floor collapsed, the whole thing was just a cascade of floors failing onto each other until it built up speed and came straight down.
so would this mean the fall would be slower 'until it built up' the speed needed?
could you show examples of other times where structures have come down in this way?
there are lots of examples of tall building burning hotter and longer yet they still stand. help explain this.
also if the top is tilted then how could it have "exerted vertical and diagonal pressure on the floor just below the damage which caused the supporting structure of that floor to fail". the tilt would mean an uneven weight was pushing down more on the side with the tilt. in this how would the falling floors not be unevenly failing?
thanks ..... Painfulhead



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

Because it's normal to hear planes flying around. There are three major airports in the area. It's not normal to hear them low and near the buildings.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join