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.

 

Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt
The UA175 debris in my last post was located on the roof of WTC 5. It can be seen in this photo:



Some photos of other debris:

Corner of cargo door opening, UA175.



Window section AA11.



UA175's Starboard engine with oil still steaming out of it. If they planted this engine they would of had to heat it up past the boiling point of oil before they dropped it off.



Window section AA11



Window section UA175



Window section AA11



Window section AA11



What appears to be 767 inboard aileron hinge/actuator.




As far as how some parts survive and end up here or there, one thing you need to consider that you have probably never thought about is that airplanes have a large amount of air inside them. A 767 has 19,500 cu/ft of air that would have a mass weight of just under 1,500 pounds at sea level, it's traveling the same speed as the aircraft around 700 fps. That is a lot of inertia, and when the aircraft crashes that air is going to go some where and it is going to push carry and drag stuff along with it.



The photo below is a composite before/after crash in it you can see the effects of the air passing out the other side of the building leaving a contrail in its wake. This is what carried that piece of debris through the building and out the other side.




Here's a video I made a few years ago that explains it.


edit on 24-3-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
As I said I can see debris. I can't "clearly see plane parts." I am looking still though. a reply to: samkent



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Thanks very much. This is really good stuff. Cheers. a reply to: waypastvne



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
As I said I can see debris. I can't "clearly see plane parts."


Probably because you do not want to see them....as they clearly destroy conspiracy theories!
edit on 24-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
This is another textbook example of you latching on immediately to someone else's post as it supports you when it actually counters something you said in the two posts you left before. Based on the outlandish things you say and how often you contradict yourself I'm not even sure you're an actual person. You are here for all the wrong reasons and will never get another reply from me. I sincerely wish you luck on whatever journey you are on.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: peacefulpete


The towers really did seem to explode, vaporize, and float away in massive clouds. Very odd collapse, wasn't it?



Do you understand that a building is constructed of materials?

How much drywall, aka sheetrock, do you think was in those towers?

Do you know what drywall is made from? Do you know what happens to drywall when it is crushed/pulverized?

By the way the fireproofing used to coat the steel is also dusty. When broken up it is nothing but dust.


Well yeah drywall turns to dust when it's crushed or even scratched.

Steel normally doesn't turn to powder and drift away in giant clouds. Hence the conclusion of explosives being used to create that very strange vaporization of both towers. Gravity alone sure doesn't turn steel into dust powder.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: peacefulpete


Photographic and physical evidence that shows the NYC engine was wrong.



Thank you for providing us with your Youtube evidence, now here is the real evidence that shows what a load of crap that video is.

Your video claims that the JT9D-7A and the JT9-7R4D are a different engine type and size this is not true. The 7A does have a larger fan but it is the same type and size engine.

They also claim that this part PN 769316 is not found on the JT9-7R4D



This document explains in great detail how to replace or modify PN 769316 on the JT9-7R4D

119.97.245.12:8080...技术部门/手册/维修及维护手册/Eagle%20Disc%20JT9D-7R4G2%20EM%20and%20EIPC/sb/72-512.pdf

Since most Truthers have a phobia of clicking links that destroy their claims, I took the liberty of Highlighting in green some of the parts of the document that debunk your video.



The engine found on Murray st. was the engine from UA 175. There is no evidence to the contrary.
I can provide other documents linking PN 769316 to the JT9-7R4D if you want.

And to top it off both the port and starboard landing gear from UA 175 were recovered.
The landing gear is defiantly from a Boeing 767 no doubt about it.
Therefore the engine also came from a boeing 767.





The flap actuator (yellow arrow) they found ....



also came from a B767.




This piece of debris can be directly identified as belonging to UA 175 (N612UA)











UA 175 / N612UA crashed into the south tower, the engine found on Murray st. came from UA 175 this is a fact.





Well look, I don't know anything about airplane parts. I simply found a video detailing physical reasons the engine was supposed to be wrong.

At least the focus is right, to be discussing physical qualities of it.

When people seem to dismiss anything & everything from YT, it makes me wonder what sources are we supposed to be using, if not the single biggest online video-sharing website?

It's the biggest source of video-sharing on Earth, AFAIK. Which would suggest that everything can't be automatically wrong on the site. There are even mainstream news reports on YT, which I know you guys believe in. Or does YT make everything wrong including the mainstream news that you believe in?

And I think I get it that debunkers dismiss everything from YT and also everything from any site about 9-11 truth. Which doesn't leave much to look for sources, besides... mainstream media sites?

I clicked on your link and it doesn't work. Your site seems OBSCURE though, if we are going to argue sources, you posted a broken link with a name in Chinese characters???

As for photos, it still seems a tiny bit of debris which resembles it being planted there, more than an actual plane crash, in my eyes.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: peacefulpete


The towers really did seem to explode, vaporize, and float away in massive clouds. Very odd collapse, wasn't it?



Do you understand that a building is constructed of materials?

How much drywall, aka sheetrock, do you think was in those towers?

Do you know what drywall is made from? Do you know what happens to drywall when it is crushed/pulverized?

By the way the fireproofing used to coat the steel is also dusty. When broken up it is nothing but dust.


Well yeah drywall turns to dust when it's crushed or even scratched.

Steel normally doesn't turn to powder and drift away in giant clouds. Hence the conclusion of explosives being used to create that very strange vaporization of both towers. Gravity alone sure doesn't turn steel into dust powder.


What do you think was in the massive debris piles?

You need to seriously check you FACTS and stop the ignorance.

Steel to dust powder? Seriously?

As with the other posters, I am done replying to you obvious lack of ability to understand exactly what you are trying to imply.

You do not want to know the facts, you only are fixated with your twisted version of what you believe.

Have a good day and good luck in your endeavor.
edit on 24-3-2015 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

For others that might care, here are just a small number of news clips that clearly show the back side of the impact as it happens. I I I studied these for a few minutes and my initial reaction is that debris certainly does eject from the crash but at first glance I see no large or discernible pieces of aircraft. This could be because of the huge fireball obviously and it could be that my sort of conceptual idea of what size those pieces are is skewed by comparing them to the very large building they come out of. I havent ruled anything out yet but see nothing definitive. If anyone who hasn't already announced they don't believe there are any videos showing the back side of the impact cares to comment please feel free.


The explosions don't seem to show any large plane pieces anywhere. They just look like explosions. It does seem a contradiction with the photos of plane pieces.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: peacefulpete


The towers really did seem to explode, vaporize, and float away in massive clouds. Very odd collapse, wasn't it?



Do you understand that a building is constructed of materials?

How much drywall, aka sheetrock, do you think was in those towers?

Do you know what drywall is made from? Do you know what happens to drywall when it is crushed/pulverized?

By the way the fireproofing used to coat the steel is also dusty. When broken up it is nothing but dust.


Well yeah drywall turns to dust when it's crushed or even scratched.

Steel normally doesn't turn to powder and drift away in giant clouds. Hence the conclusion of explosives being used to create that very strange vaporization of both towers. Gravity alone sure doesn't turn steel into dust powder.


What do you think was in the massive debris piles?

You need to seriously check you FACTS and stop the ignorance.

Steel to dust powder? Seriously?

As with the other posters, I am done replying to you obvious lack of ability to understand exactly what you are trying to imply.

You do not want to know the facts, you only are fixated with your twisted version of what you believe.

Have a good day and good luck in your endeavor.


You're done talking with me, OK. Did you think I was focused on talking with you in particular? I wasn't lol.

I think the debris piles were not massive, and much too small to account for the towers. There are tons of photos showing exactly this. So if the towers' debris didn't land on the ground, what happened to it? Video shows billowing clouds of dust floating away and apparently taking most of the towers' wreckage with it. Which is quite unlike a collapse but is quite similar to the steel being exploded and vaporized.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
www.drjudywood.com...

I can't seem to post a picture but that link shows photos of steel turning to dust.


edit on 24-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: pasted the wrong link at first.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
www.drjudywood.com...

I can't seem to post a picture but that link shows photos of steel turning to dust.



Wrong, all it shows is the spire falling into the building, the dust was just on it from the collapse of 2 WTC



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
www.drjudywood.com...

I can't seem to post a picture but that link shows photos of steel turning to dust.



Wrong, all it shows is the spire falling into the building, the dust was just on it from the collapse of 2 WTC




Wrong, the photos clearly show the steel dissolving into dust. I've seen the same thing in video and that is definitely what this is showing. I don't think anyone can honestly disagree with that.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   


A gif of steel turning to dust. Isn't it painfully clear what's being shown?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Wrong, the photos clearly show the steel dissolving into dust. I've seen the same thing in video and that is definitely what this is showing.


Still wrong....



As you can clearly see, the spire just collapses, it does not "dissolve into dust"!


I don't think anyone can honestly disagree with that.


No one who has seen the video can agree with the silly claim the spire dissolved, only those who refuse to watch the video as they know it destroys their silly conspiracy theory claim it dissolved!

As always, the facts destroy a silly conspiracy theory! (steel dissolving into dust.... as if!)
edit on 25-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
...
edit on 25-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Wrong, the photos clearly show the steel dissolving into dust. I've seen the same thing in video and that is definitely what this is showing.


Still wrong....



As you can clearly see, the spire just collapses, it does not "dissolve into dust"!


I don't think anyone can honestly disagree with that.


No one who has seen the video can agree with the silly claim the spire dissolved, only those who refuse to watch the video as they know it destroys their silly conspiracy theory claim it dissolved!

As always, the facts destroy a silly conspiracy theory! (steel dissolving into dust.... as if!)


I watched your video. I don't exactly trust NIST FOIA as trustworthy for a video like this, given that we're talking about a government-conspiracy.

I almost wonder if the steel in your video wasn't added in CGI for the express purpose of "debunking" the actual photos and videos of steel really dissolving on that strange day.

Your video is compelling but it just doesn't seem the same event as the one I've posted already.



There ya go, steel dissolving in mid-air. It looks pretty clear to me...


edit on 25-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
I watched your video. I don't exactly trust NIST FOIA as trustworthy for a video like this, given that we're talking about a government-conspiracy.


So you believe a conspiracy theorist, with magical "beam weapons" that there is zero evidence of anywhere....
How do you know Judy Woods did not plant your video.... after all, she makes money from her theory!


I almost wonder if the steel in your video wasn't added in CGI for the express purpose of "debunking" the actual photos and videos of steel really dissolving on that strange day.


I showed the actual video that shows what happened, all you have a few frames in a gif, much easier to fake a few frames with cgi!



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Yeah, it is the same event, from a closer location and using a better flipping camera. The steel did not "dissolve"



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Well I'm just not convinced it's the same event. The steel looks exactly the same but then the process looks different. My gif seems to show it clearly dissolving while your video shows it collapsing.

I'd bet it's a CGI creation that was made specifically to debunk the actual videos of steel dissolving.

There are more photos and videos out there, showing steel turn to dust in mid-air, though I think what I've already posted is very convincing.






edit on 26-3-2015 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join