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.

 

New video of explosion at the Twin Towers without a plane

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
I think its about time we start questioning the official story... (sarcasm)

I do wonder if 9/11 will ever be revealed for really what it was.. Or will it be buried similar to the JFK conspiracy (and so many others)?


long buried.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: manuelram16

Which one? The one that the planes would have basically hit the towers and stopped was pretty damn funny.


That's what I thought should have happened at the Pentagon. ALUMINUM Plane hits reinforced concrete and explodes on the OUTSIDE of the building.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Yeah sorry for being so brief and i'm not sure what to make of it but FBIAnon just dumped some videos on voat and this is about 9/11. It looks like the plane was added after the explosion happened. I thought it is important so i posted it here.

vid.me...

Edit: 9/11 is not exactly my forte so if it's nothing new please just ignore it. I never post to just get S&F.


So, like...
Augmented Reality computer graphics could have been overlayed onto the live video, or done immediately in pre z prepared overlay imagery for post production on a slightly staggered live feed.

Augmented Reality video as most of us are aware of, overlays photo-realistic computer imagery on top of live video experienced by the user/audience.

Gov tech is well in advance of the public consumer market's level of technological ability.
This could have been easily performed.
Don't you think?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: prevenge

Despite the tech available back in 2001... at least publicly available.

But if you are correct, then how to you explain to the thousands of eyewitnesses on the ground and in the surrounding buildings?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: theruthlessone



World trade center 7 never even got hit by a plane


NO it got hit by a 110 story building, WTC 1 (North Tower), which was just as good

Laid open most of the south face of the building and started fires on a dozen floors......


Causing it to collapse in its own footprint all at once (just like the other 2 gigantic buildings)?

Buddy, please....


What does "collapse in its own footprint all at once" mean?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: slapjacks
I can't believe it's almost been 16 years. It's still so surreal, regardless of the "official" story.


Right?

I still get chills when I see the plane hit, in an instant, so many lives wiped out...

just so chilling.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Strange how an aluminium aircraft could cut its way through solid construction steel, and JP 4, that burns at 900c can melt steel that melts at 1,200c, or have I got it totally wrong ?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Strange how an aluminium aircraft could cut its way through solid construction steel, and JP 4, that burns at 900c can melt steel that melts at 1,200c, or have I got it totally wrong ?


Yes you have



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



That's what I thought should have happened at the Pentagon. ALUMINUM Plane hits reinforced concrete and explodes on the OUTSIDE of the building.


Just one problem - its not reinforced concrete ......

Its brick covered by façade of limestone simulating marble

Perhaps like to explain if a 757 could not penetrate the Pentagon 60 years before a much smaller plane, a B25
bomber converted to personnel transport, could tear a hole in the Empire State Building

www.youtube.com...

Penetrated 7 walls according to narration .....



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff



Strange how an aluminium aircraft could cut its way through solid construction steel, and JP 4, that burns at 900c can melt steel that melts at 1,200c, or have I got it totally wrong ?


One - its not solid construction , a lattice of steel columns held together by bolts and welded on sprandrel plates

Plane impact sheared the bolts and welds

Two = civilian airlines don't not use JP 4, that's a military fuel , Use Jet A kerosene

Three - steel does not need to melt to fail, just reach high enough temperature to lose its load bearing ability

at 1000 F steel retains only 1/2 original strength

Three strikes and you are OUT !!!



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Lets not discount the scores of people who said it was a small Cessna-type plane that hit the towers, and not a commercial airliner. Lots and lots of people claimed to see it, and they were certain there were NO windows on the plane.
Anyone ever seen a Tomahawk Missle in flight?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

What troubles me, is how the plane cut through the WTC, wings intact, but at the Pentagon, they sheared off...



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brian4real
a reply to: pikestaff

What troubles me, is how the plane cut through the WTC, wings intact, but at the Pentagon, they sheared off...


Sheared off? In what reality did that happen? There were no wings on the Pentagon lawn.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: manuelram16

Which one? The one that the planes would have basically hit the towers and stopped was pretty damn funny.


That's what I thought should have happened at the Pentagon. ALUMINUM Plane hits reinforced concrete and explodes on the OUTSIDE of the building.


That's exactly what would've happened if a plane hit the pentagon



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
After fallowing the 911 event i have looked a bit back in history to try and figure out why we are letting Our selves be run over like this. I personally think 911 is the greatest scam the world has ever seen up Close and personal in later days. But before that we have ww1,2 and then the US involvment in the Vietnam war.

Personally i think Norman Dodd explains everything very well in his interview With G. Edward Griffin done in 1982.

What he beasically states is that different Foundations have different agendas to groom the population(s) to fallow a strict future policy (collectivism). Norman Dodd explains how these Foundations practically takes controll over the Power structure of Our government and how they conduct surways to evaluate its progress.

Many will probably not be able to Connect the dots from this interview. But for the once who can....this video will probably open some doors.

There is a reason why Our societies both Accept and Place doubt in what is taking Place. Pay attention to what he mentiones at about 26minutes into the video. There is a reason to why we see all these WARs today.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
The film is a poor quality, low-resolution video that has been edited to remove the image of the plane, then passed off as original by someone pushing the "no-planes" theory with the claim that the plane was added afterwards. Afterwards? Millions watched live TV coverage of the impact, although not this particular piece of footage. I saw footage taken from a helicopter of a large plane coming down towards WT2. The notion that all the plane footage was CGI added later and passed off as real is just plain ludicrous. It is advocated by either those wishing to hurt the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement by making easily debunked claims or those who want to create their own internet cults and followers. There are many examples of both out there.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi


I Guess you can explain how the buildings could freefall from top to bottom also. Since you know that these images have been altered to suit Your narrative?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: pikestaff



Strange how an aluminium aircraft could cut its way through solid construction steel, and JP 4, that burns at 900c can melt steel that melts at 1,200c, or have I got it totally wrong ?


One - its not solid construction , a lattice of steel columns held together by bolts and welded on sprandrel plates

Plane impact sheared the bolts and welds

Over ALL the floors? Nope. And you need that to happen in order to explain why EVERYTHING came down, including the 240 core columns. You are ignorant of the way the architects of the two towers designed them so that a fully loaded Boeing 707 crashing into their side at high speed would enter them withoot causing extensive damage to columns. There is a video available of the construction manager explaining the effect being like a pencil passing through chicken wire. They were built so that a large plane could NOT cause enough bolts and welds to shear for the tower to collapse.


Two = civilian airlines don't not use JP 4, that's a military fuel , Use Jet A kerosene

Your correction is irrelevant as it still cannot explain evidence of melting of steel girders in some of the photos released by FEMA, not the pools of molten metal noticed by clean-up workers that lasted many weeks after the towers came down.


Three - steel does not need to melt to fail, just reach high enough temperature to lose its load bearing ability

at 1000 F steel retains only 1/2 original strength

But that implies that the two towers would have collapsed like pancakes, successive floors piling on one another. Even NIST finally admitted that this scenario was wrong. Instead, each floor was blown up. None of the hundreds of videos of TV footage reveal ANY evidence of floors DROPPING or being crunched together - as they would have done had the collapse been due to failure of supports and pillars due to shearing of bolts in girders and softening of steel girders due to heating. Instead, each floor is blown to smithereens by demolition charges ignited in rapid succession. There is a video of fire fighters reporting hearing such charges. Some explosions of charges going off prematurely happened long before the towers came down. Each tower was rigged for controlled demolition this way in order to minimise damage to the WTC complex. Because of their size/weight, a conventional pancake-type demolition would have cracked the so-called "bathtub" in which all the towers were built, flooding the WTC complex. So each floor was designed to be blown up into very small parts, when finally they were to be demolished, in order to minimise the weight of debris falling onto the ground. And so they were.


Three strikes and you are OUT !!!

No. Your corrections are irrelevant and your arguments are factually inaccurate or bogus.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Except you're talking about several hundred thousand pounds, moving at several hundred miles an hour.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Definitely planes hit the buildings.

What I understand is the building above where the plane hit would implode as it did but from below the plane, I would have thought that wouldn't implode downwards so easily because that was still being held firmly in place or am i wrong?


edit on CDTTue, 25 Jul 2017 07:31:17 -05000000003107x117x1 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join