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.

 

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

The evidence of steel suddenly becoming compromised and giving way to a disentegrating chunk of building (top section) that's losing mass at every juncture of collapse. That same steel was stories below any jet fuel, yet; as it held this mass up for years before, less mass combined with some momentum was able to sheer through the entire building much like a controlled demo would. This defies physics and wasn't adequately explained by anyone, because you can't without an accelerator like explosives, extreme heat, DEW, etc. Simple laws of the earth aren't enough to bring buildings down - if they were, we wouldn't line them with explosives to demo, we'd just sever a floor and let the laws of nature do the rest. That is not the case.


No, it does not "defy physics" and yes, it has been explained AD NAUSEUM by physicists the World over. But keeping thinking that the mean ol' gub'ment did it. If that helps you sleep at night, believe away. . .




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

The evidence of steel suddenly becoming compromised and giving way to a disentegrating chunk of building (top section) that's losing mass at every juncture of collapse. That same steel was stories below any jet fuel, yet; as it held this mass up for years before, less mass combined with some momentum was able to sheer through the entire building much like a controlled demo would. This defies physics and wasn't adequately explained by anyone, because you can't without an accelerator like explosives, extreme heat, DEW, etc. Simple laws of the earth aren't enough to bring buildings down - if they were, we wouldn't line them with explosives to demo, we'd just sever a floor and let the laws of nature do the rest. That is not the case.


No, it does not "defy physics" and yes, it has been explained AD NAUSEUM by physicists the World over. But keeping thinking that the mean ol' gub'ment did it. If that helps you sleep at night, believe away. . .


No it has not. That is a total lie. NIST does notnstand behind their results. Have you read the NIST report? The trials they used were laughable and done with as little funding as possible which is all they could get out of an establishment that had already started a war before any results.

Stop lying to people. You add up ever engineer that did not sign the re-open 9/11 as engineers that believe the OS rather than just not caring to bother. You are speaking for people that have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Tldw but explain to me the mechanism that brought the twin towers down please.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

You're not here to discuss anything. I didn't say the government had any hand in this. You're here to suspend critical thought. Nobody has scientifically proven that a natural collapse, such as we witnessed, is even remotely possible. I won't even get started on the hogwash your knowledgable disposition spews about WTC 7. This site is about discussing possibilities, not spamming possibilities as truth. It's a shame and posters who quell thought should be reprimanded.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

You're not here to discuss anything. I didn't say the government had any hand in this. You're here to suspend critical thought. Nobody has scientifically proven that a natural collapse, such as we witnessed, is even remotely possible. I won't even get started on the hogwash your knowledgable disposition spews about WTC 7. This site is about discussing possibilities, not spamming possibilities as truth. It's a shame and posters who quell thought should be reprimanded.


Yeah, actually they have. You just plug your ears and ignore it. And the same applies to Building 7. The only way to believe in a controlled demolition is to willfully ignore piles of facts larger than the debris left by those buildings. The burden, in any case, IS NOT ON ME. The burden is on YOU to PROVE that there was a controlled demolition. 14 years later and you and your ilk are STILL COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF DOING SO. Sorry, the truthers lost. . . to reality.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

The evidence of steel suddenly becoming compromised and giving way to a disentegrating chunk of building (top section) that's losing mass at every juncture of collapse. That same steel was stories below any jet fuel, yet; as it held this mass up for years before, less mass combined with some momentum was able to sheer through the entire building much like a controlled demo would. This defies physics and wasn't adequately explained by anyone, because you can't without an accelerator like explosives, extreme heat, DEW, etc. Simple laws of the earth aren't enough to bring buildings down - if they were, we wouldn't line them with explosives to demo, we'd just sever a floor and let the laws of nature do the rest. That is not the case.


No, it does not "defy physics" and yes, it has been explained AD NAUSEUM by physicists the World over. But keeping thinking that the mean ol' gub'ment did it. If that helps you sleep at night, believe away. . .


No it has not. That is a total lie. NIST does notnstand behind their results. Have you read the NIST report? The trials they used were laughable and done with as little funding as possible which is all they could get out of an establishment that had already started a war before any results.

Stop lying to people. You add up ever engineer that did not sign the re-open 9/11 as engineers that believe the OS rather than just not caring to bother. You are speaking for people that have no idea what you are talking about.


Ha ha ha, riiiiight. Reputable engineers who oh so clearly have no idea what they are talking about. As opposed to, oh I don't know, internet YouTube guy, lol. Whatever.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

No, I don't plug my ears, I consider it all in the realm of possibility. Just highly unlikely. Why don't you do us an experiment and start trying to promote 9/11 truther theory and see how far that gets you? Then, maybe then, you'll quit playing obtuse and understand how "so many reputable" engineers and architects have remained quiet.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

No, I don't plug my ears, I consider it all in the realm of possibility. Just highly unlikely. Why don't you do us an experiment and start trying to promote 9/11 truther theory and see how far that gets you? Then, maybe then, you'll quit playing obtuse and understand how "so many reputable" engineers and architects have remained quiet.


Actually, no they haven't. They have gone out in public in peer-reviewed journals and National publications to completely mock and destroy the controlled demolition theory. So yeah, you are plugging your ears. I don't waste my time on truther theories for the same reason I do not chase fairies or magic beans. . . because it would be a complete waste of my time to do so as they are make-believe.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Oh, that's right - you live in the world that "scientific" research is free and always promotes the truth. Who peer-reviewed NIST's CPU simulations? Were they able to see the constraints of said experiment? I'll hang up and listen...



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

Oh, that's right - you live in the world that "scientific" research is free and always promotes the truth. Who peer-reviewed NIST's CPU simulations? Were they able to see the constraints of said experiment? I'll hang up and listen...


Now you're just moving the goal posts in typical truther fashion. First it was "there's no proof." Now it's "I do not believe the proof because it did not meet my personal standards." Sorry, it does not work that way. The proof is there, it is peer-reviewed, it stands up to rigorous scrutiny by QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This IS a wonderful video!

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect :
www.aerospaceweb.org...

The huge problem with Jeff Scott's thorough explanation is, that he assumed (as any sane pilot), that the A/P function was set "on" in all planes on 9/11. We only know of two Digital FDR's that were recovered, for Fl 77 and Fl 93. Both show all three autopilot systems to have been switched off for the last minutes of their flight paths.
Thus, again, it will be a very BUMPY ride in the last 450 yards of Fl 77 its final approach towards the Pentagon's west wall, at about 15 to 18 feet wings height, flying at about 500 mph, deep into its own 125 feet high ground effect. (See above link for the figures)
Which (slight, at that speed) ground effect was forcing the pilot while he was flying MANUALLY (shows the D FDR), to change pitch as fast as he could with his steering column, by moving it unbelievably fast up and down to compensate for the constant change in lift for the wings, caused by both wing tips their trailing vortices's, which influenced the lift constantly and forced the plane up all the time.
To be able to keep focused on the second floor slab its height of the Pentagon's west wall, the pilot had to react impossibly fast, to keep track of that impact point, otherwise the plane would have been forced slightly upwards and missed its target.

As Jeff Scott explains (and still thinks happened), when the A/P function was on in Fl 77, the software would have compensated for those needed corrections, much faster than a human pilot can do. It interacts with the servos directly, not with steel cables and pulleys like the pilot had to use. A human pilot flying that low at 500 MPH would have been deflected upwards too much to have ever been able to hit its nose cone in the second floor slab at about 3 yards high from the lawn.
The 5 cut light poles on its way in, show the factual heights of the wings of Flight 77 when they cut those poles.....And that's deep into ground effect, even as it decreases at high speed, it is still there, as the last 5 seconds of the D FDR show.



The miraculous problem we have at hand is that the last 5 seconds of the D FDR from Fl 77 show exactly such in-human fast reactions of the pitch related steering column movements.
Which leaves us with the logical conclusion that some sort of non-auto piloted automated system must have effectuated those very fast corrections in those last 5 seconds, to compensate for those ground effects.

Those were not possible at all for the human pilot, who has to deal with the known latency in the 757 systems of parts of seconds, or a second, before the plane reacts on his hands, pulling the steering column down or pushing it up, at that speed in that thick air.
But the A/P system could do that.
So, was the A/P in reality still on, but did those D FDR falsifiers who put it off, 9 minutes before impact in their false D FDR, forget about those pesky pitch corrections in the last recorded 5 seconds?
Or, was an unknown double automated system build in for assistance of the rookie hijacker pilots? As an extra safety measure for the 9/11 planners. With the risk that such system its remains could have been found back in the rubble?

But what the heck, we already suppose that the US military/industrial complex was heavily involved in 9/11, and this was in and on their most sacred OWN turf, so easily stonewashed away, whenever such remains surfaced.
We know that the first civilian investigators that were allowed to enter the wrecked part of the Pentagon in October 2001 all lamented that there was little to investigate, only some cleaned-up, damaged concrete columns still erect, since what they entered was a totally cleaned up impact region, with clean floors and empty spaces, no plane parts, or anything else left. There are by the way only a few photos around of the real damage inside the Pentagon, only a few from the first two days.

References :
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com... (last 5 s diagram)

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
www.youtube.com...


Go to 1:05:31 from 1:56:06 and read the translation from the Italian Airline pilot :
"You just touch the stick and it leaps off". He refers to the ground effect at 500 MPH just above ground level. And he sure as hell will have used the auto throttle, auto pilot and all available other automatic flight functions of his plane when flying that idiotic low trajectory while in the Italian Air Force. For sure not manually. View the next two minutes too, the other airline pilot explains it to be extremely difficult, too.
View the ten minutes before this point in this excellent video, about Flight 77 and its A/P functions switched off 9 minutes before it full-circled down 3000 feet at 270 to 310 Knots, then accelerated in the last straight and crazy low stretch to crash at 504 Knots into the west wall.
At 1:07 you see the PfT member captain Rusty Aimer his guest perform the 350 degree circling down to the Pentagon, but at much higher speeds (400 to 500 Knots) inside that circle, than the recovered D FDR shows.
With those slower speeds (watch the Aimer part, its NTSB animated video, in its top right air speed meter showing 270 to 280, at last 310 Knots inside the circle)..
It's not that difficult at all at the right speeds, as the Dutch pilot shows at 1:06. Which shows that Pilots for Truth videos are to be watched with a healthy part of criticism.

PS : See my 4 LINKS below for how exactly WTC 7 fell.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

There's no proof. Now post it and it better be proof or you'll be nothing more than a liar in this thread. Post your proof and I'll post mine. Okay??!



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I will believe the controlled demolition theory. When someone shows one other instance in the history of controlled demolition that started at the very top of a multistory skyscraper.


Because it doesn't happen they blow out the loadbearing beams at the bottom and work their way up.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

There's no proof. Now post it and it better be proof or you'll be nothing more than a liar in this thread. Post your proof and I'll post mine. Okay??!


Sorry, I am not going to waste my time grabbing all of the reputable research available on this in every reputable publication. There is no mystery as to how or why any of the towers fell. You are well aware that it exists and you are placing an unrealistic burden on someone who does not have to prove that which has already been proven. You can rant and rave all you want like you know oh so much about how a building can and cannot fall, but to do so you need to ignore the wisdom of those who actually know what they are talking about. Face it, you just want to live in denial and you are willing to ignore any and all proofs which contradict your theory in order to continue to do so. . .



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

And the goalposts are moved. Nothing has been proven and if you believe that, you're a liar



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
my god 9/11 forums are painful.
How is there a question still ?
Watch the video doubters. Then,
If anyone can watch the four part
documentary 9/11 Ten years of Deception
(which is on Hulu I believe) and still doubt, they are
bought and paid for. Natural collapse...sheesh already .



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

The evidence of steel suddenly becoming compromised and giving way to a disentegrating chunk of building (top section) that's losing mass at every juncture of collapse. That same steel was stories below any jet fuel, yet; as it held this mass up for years before, less mass combined with some momentum was able to sheer through the entire building much like a controlled demo would. This defies physics and wasn't adequately explained by anyone, because you can't without an accelerator like explosives, extreme heat, DEW, etc. Simple laws of the earth aren't enough to bring buildings down - if they were, we wouldn't line them with explosives to demo, we'd just sever a floor and let the laws of nature do the rest. That is not the case.


No, it does not "defy physics" and yes, it has been explained AD NAUSEUM by physicists the World over. But keeping thinking that the mean ol' gub'ment did it. If that helps you sleep at night, believe away. . .


No it has not. That is a total lie. NIST does notnstand behind their results. Have you read the NIST report? The trials they used were laughable and done with as little funding as possible which is all they could get out of an establishment that had already started a war before any results.

Stop lying to people. You add up ever engineer that did not sign the re-open 9/11 as engineers that believe the OS rather than just not caring to bother. You are speaking for people that have no idea what you are talking about.


Ha ha ha, riiiiight. Reputable engineers who oh so clearly have no idea what they are talking about. As opposed to, oh I don't know, internet YouTube guy, lol. Whatever.


I said they have not idea what YOU are talking about. Another OS'er having trouble with simple reading comprehension. I'm shocked.

You counted engineers that have not spiken a word about 9/11 as pro-OS. Did it not cross your mind that they have their own lives to worry about and never got involved with the 9/11 debate?
edit on 5-5-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

And the goalposts are moved. Nothing has been proven and if you believe that, you're a liar


Ad hominem is prohibited. Stop with the name calling, please. I know it's frustrating to you as reality does not seem to be your strong suit, but please try and maintain decorum while you are ignoring reality. Thanks.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I didn't call you anything, I merely called you out on your logic. Living in a world of absolutes, like absolutely believing a theory about how the towers came down is idiotic in my opinion. There are no definitive answers to what happened that day, only questions and confusion. Now, where are those mountains of proof you have. Please, just post one, for fun



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

I didn't call you anything, I merely called you out on your logic. Living in a world of absolutes, like absolutely believing a theory about how the towers came down is idiotic in my opinion. There are no definitive answers to what happened that day, only questions and confusion. Now, where are those mountains of proof you have. Please, just post one, for fun


Yes, actually there are definitive answers. You just don't like them. Again, I am not wasting my time on Google to post a bunch of proof you clearly do not care to entertain. Planes were hijacked and flown into buildings. The buildings suffered catastrophic damage both at the time of impact and in the hours which followed. When they could take no more, they collapsed. This is not a theory. It is a statement of fact based upon what was witnessed and the reality that structural engineering puts before us. You want to talk about evidence? Sure, we can talk about evidence. Where is YOUR evidence that so much as ONE OUNCE of explosives was brought into the towers or that ANYONE at ANY POINT IN TIME saw EVEN ONE PERSON doing the EXTENSIVE prep work needed for a controlled demolition of that magnitude. I'll save you some time and tell you that you can't present it because it does not exist.
edit on 5-5-2015 by jaffo because: Grammar, spelling.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join