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.

 

9/11- Something just occurred to me...

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.


Are you suggesting that the OS about the WTC is true?
I don't believe that explosives were used to take the WTC buildings down.




posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

The debris cloud could be and is considered a pyroclastic flow, which travels faster than gravity would permit without any other force. Free fall speed is easily visible and easily calculatable when measuring the top of the building and following its trajectory downward, given distances that are known. It's not advanced math, it's back of the envelope stuff.


Nonsense, the falling debris in no way relates to a pyroclastic flow.

Back to the 'diagonal cut steel beams'.

If they were cut at the bottom at the time of building collapse as some would like to think (despite all the evidence to the contrary), why then did the building fall from the top down?



We got a live one, here!

I think he had said something about not believing the whole thing but most of it?

Why do you make things up?



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.


Are you suggesting that the OS about the WTC is true?
I don't believe that explosives were used to take the WTC buildings down.

neither does nist! That's why they omitted any and all investigation into explosives, even though experienced firefighters heard explosions, eyewitnesses inside both towers heard explosions, demolitions experts pointed out key elements, nano thermite and spherical iron were found in the dust, not a single phone computer or any other furnishing survived being pummeled into dust along with a majority of concrete and metals, the existence of molten steel and iron months after the collapse, firefighter testimony about being in a "foundry" under the towers.

Yeah no reason to believe any of that, not when our government had so much money to make and laws to push forward .

"Dont waive your rights with your flags"



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.


Are you suggesting that the OS about the WTC is true?

It seems to me, as before, there are a lot of people who would rather 9/11 fade into the distant past by either just not talking about it, or just making daftness the order of the day, in the hope that people get so pissed off as to stop talking about it. The real truth is that there are so many loose ends in regard to 9/11 that are not being discussed anywhere, except for those diehards, who frankly in may cases have made more contributions than the few bucks that were spent by officialdom, who also ignored many grave issues in the aftermath, or even that American security was an issue long before 9/11, not just in spite of the whizz bang computer surveillance, but mainly because of it.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Iconic

A picture is worth a thousand words.

It is just nonsense to say the debris falling from the WTC tower is a 'pryoclastic flow'.

The debris field is clearly ahead of the collapse, thus debunking the 'free fall' so dear to controlled demolition theorists hearts.

And again, if you invoke the 'diagonally cut' steel beams, I must ask you, why was the collapse top down?



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

If it wasn't you that said that quip about not thinking the os was gospel, yadda yadda, I apologize I thought it was.



Also, just to throw it out there, more than twice as much money was spent investigating Clinton's sexual exploit than 9/11
edit on 28-4-2017 by Iconic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Even nist eventually conceded and admitted free fall speed. I don't know why that's the crux of your argument, especially when it's so easily observable when you do anything but rely on a picture of debris being expelled by explosive force, be it from actual explosions or not. The force was there to propel the debris.

I'm not debating freefall anymore. It's been overly proven a million times. It's like debating the gender wage gap at this point.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
nvm OP says not the thread to debate in
edit on 28-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


I don't believe that explosives were used to take the WTC buildings down.


So you do believe in the OS about the WTC then. There are only two stories about the WTC, and one of them has been found pretty credible and that one is demolition.

Considered all the new evidence, and experts not working for the government and many credibal technical papers written by these experts and some proved the OS of the WTC was a fraud.

The fact is, the only people that scream A&E for 911 Truth is a fraud, are the only one's supporting the OS of the WTC and no one else.

The photo in questions is one of the evidence that supports demolition.


edit on 28-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Go do some looking around. I'm not weaseling out of anything except a circular argument that this

Thread
Is
Not
About


edit on 28-4-2017 by Iconic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Iconic

It's because Osama Bin Laden is "dead" lol.

We haven't had a large scale government backed terrorist strike in a while. Most of the more recent ones have been small scale hoaxes (Boston, Pulse, etc.).

We are overdue. I believe we are going to see another "attack" perpetrated by our shadow government and The Mossad relatively soon. I think that the less Trump plays ball, the sooner it will happen. If the puppets don't go along with their global wars, they will make them go along with their global wars.

My best guess, is that the next government sponsored attack on our soil will be another Timothy McVey character. It will be someone that they will brand as alt-right or as a white nationalist. Something along those lines. Either way it will be a Trump supporter. They are trying to censor our words and thoughts, and stepping up the media and internet machines to stop people from straying too far from the narrative of acceptable thought.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Iconic

Why did you just post a video of WTC7, you realize the picture I showed was not WTC7 right?.

I don't believe you have enough of an education in the area of physics to properly debate this, you will rely upon youtube videos and your own twisted reasoning of how gravity works.
You don't even realize that an object thrown horizontally takes the same time to fall to the ground as one dropped from the same vertical height.
Pointless engaging in debate, which you seem to want to avoid anyways. (I would too if I had as little knowledge of physics as you do).
Anyways, carry on with your thread, you wish not to debate anything about this and it's your thread.

Cheers.

edit on 28-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

More ad hominem attacks to bolster your credibility.It's related because you can judge freefall speed the same way with both buildings.
Anyway, see ya. I'll miss you, and being called too stupid to debate!



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

If it'd be a useful tragedy like 911, we could expect to see the MO rear it's head again. The MO from 911 that has disappeared from the attacks we've seen.

Except this time it's not the Disney villain, it's the right wing, trump voting, cis gendered white male he-devil.


ETA: Hoping the thread was not derailed by that jargon up there. Guess that's why the mods are so careful about this topic.

edit on 28-4-2017 by Iconic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Iconic

A picture is worth a thousand words.

It is just nonsense to say the debris falling from the WTC tower is a 'pryoclastic flow'.

The debris field is clearly ahead of the collapse, thus debunking the 'free fall' so dear to controlled demolition theorists hearts.

And again, if you invoke the 'diagonally cut' steel beams, I must ask you, why was the collapse top down?


Pyroclastic flows of dust and debris are a characteristic of controlled demolitions too. What you see there is so similar with a tremendous acceleration upward and outward, and even a 'little' mushroon cloud in the middle.
A s for from the top down, it doesn't figure, both towers lost those parts above the collapse, they mostly fell off and disintegrated since they were already weakened by the collisions. Once those upper parts had gone the rest of the building should have had a chaotic collapse, but it wasn't like that, it just kept rolling, and spewing outwards all the way down to the lower floors where it stopped.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

I was looking for a discussion i had found (yes, by experts) about the thick smoke hitting the ground first, and what it meant. But alas, it is lost to the catacombs of the internet.
edit on 28-4-2017 by Iconic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy
AE911 have "Pyroclastic" as one of their main points of evidence, except now they have changed it to the meaningless "pyroclastic-like". But the people there still parrot "pyroclastic" as if it means something.

You guys don't get it. The dust cloud on 9/11 was not a cloud of super heated deadly gas moving at high speeds. If the only criteria for "pyroclastic like" is visual then every dust cloud should be deemed a pyroclastic flow.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


You guys don't get it. The dust cloud on 9/11 was not a cloud of super heated deadly gas moving at high speeds. If the only criteria for "pyroclastic like" is visual then every dust cloud should be deemed a pyroclastic flow.


For one to support the OS, one must ignore credible evidence. Many cars parked safely away from the WTC were burned from these "pyroclastic flow, and the fact is the "pyroclastic flow" was so hot, it melted many car and firetruck engines, while leaving the rear ends of some of these vehicles unscathed. These photos are all over the internet. The only thing that could have melted those car engines like that, had to be some kind of heated chemical pyroclastic flow that was recorded on all the News Media that morning.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

www2.ae911truth.org...

Here's some additional info from AE911Truth
edit on 28-4-2017 by Iconic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

and curiously vacant in later reports, might I add.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join