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: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real

Many of the no widows people were a mile or more away. The United paint job was grey and blue. I've posted high resolution pictures of them through a telephoto lens that you can barely see the windows.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The ultimate double-take talking about if it was planes vs bombs.

It was planes and bombs.

And there is 1000% evidence it was an inside job on the stock market alone.

Several hundred people made stock put offs on nearly every company in the building. And obviously the Airlines.

Many people became instant millionaires.

Want to know who? Too bad, the CBOE 'lost' the data of all the people that made such financial options in a 'data error'. Not only is that completely illegal for them, but all heat from the public was purposely diverted and they were let go for losing such data, even though such a thing has never even happened before.

Explain this to me in the context of it 'not being an inside job'.(spoiler, you can't.)
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So an object that weighs over 129,000 pounds when empty is going to hit the wall at the Pentagon and just crumple like a soda can? Seriously?

Then maybe you can explain the B-25, with a significantly lower maximum weight, and lower speed, going all the way through the Empire State Building.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DoneWithHumans




Several hundred people made stock put offs on nearly every company in the building. And obviously the Airlines.
Many people became instant millionaires.

You have no clue about what you are talking about.

This is the problem with the truth community.
They read something on a website and internalize it without having a clue about the topic.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DoneWithHumans




Several hundred people made stock put offs on nearly every company in the building. And obviously the Airlines.
Many people became instant millionaires.

You have no clue about what you are talking about.

This is the problem with the truth community.
They read something on a website and internalize it without having a clue about the topic.


I've made more investments than you probably buddy.

What part of this do you disagree with? Then we can use Google together and you can hold my hand through it.

Want to start debunking me by finding CBOE records during 9/11?

Or are you actually trying to claim there weren't record breaking investment hedges on major companies in the building that day to fail?

The airline ones are easiest to find, they were so suspicious it was on Television News.

I like mostly how you say my 'claim' is incorrect though and add no additional details about what I suggest or how it's wrong.

What's to stop me from thinking you're the one spinning information?

When you're done with that, explain the stolen Gold, over 700 million that's 'unaccounted' for. Then explain the 200 million recovered that was in a 10 wheel truck in the service tunnel, not where it's supposed to be.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So an object that weighs over 129,000 pounds when empty is going to hit the wall at the Pentagon and just crumple like a soda can? Seriously?

Then maybe you can explain the B-25, with a significantly lower maximum weight, and lower speed, going all the way through the Empire State Building.


I never said it would crumple like a tin can. However if a plane actually hit the pentagon, the impact would've left massive pieces of the aircraft on the Pentagon lawn. There were no large pieces on the lawn. The grass wasn't even burned or tore up at all. This is completely obvious and no technical information can change that.

And yes, an object weighing 129k lbs still obeys the laws of physics. Regardless of whether both objects are in motion or only one, upon impact energy is released into BOTH objects. The impact would have sent a shockwave through the fuselage causing, at the very least, the tail to instantly eject outwards away from The Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX


What the public sees and hears is manipulated, as you have noted. Considering your age at the time, you are quite precocious and perceptive in being able to understand that.

Another perfect example of what you say is the way they treated Willy Rodriguez at the 911 Commission, itself "set up to fail" according to its chairmen.

Rodriguez was a hero that day, in that he helped many of his coworkers escape the buildings.

The Commission finally took his testimony, but behind closed doors. And then his testimony was not included in the final report.

The cover-up is worse than the crime, some people say.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Except for the minor fact that there were things in there that explode really well, and the tail section is going to continue to go forward, and impact the wall. And when it did, it was going to shatter like the rest of the plane. Unless Newtons Third Law has changed.

Unless the laws of physics have radically changed, the tail section was not going to suddenly alter direction. It certainly wouldn't have ejected away from the building. You should watch the video of the impact of an F-4 into a concrete wall. There was nothing left of that one, and certainly no tail being ejected away from the wall.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Newtons third law is suggested in his theory an explosion inside of the apex plane would cause movement in all directions.

The explosion itself is the secondary reaction of movement.

The force applied to the plane on contact would push back an object also. This is what the whole 'equal and opposite' reaction part means. If force meets another object, energy is easily diverted backwards. Newtons laws suggest debris everywhere. This is evident in nearly every other projectile that exists.



Unless you're suggesting it only could explode in 1 direction into the building, because of it's initial movement.

And that would be wrong.

Ps. thef4 hit a wall specifically designed to take in energy. It was designed to block the plane, not just general building material. The entire purpose of the video is to showcase the wall for Nuclear Power plants. Not that planes can vaporize at high speed. If you know this or not, idk, but calling it 'concrete' is laughable.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If you assume the tail would continue forward then you don't truly understand Newton's Third law. Stick to aircraft tech, that's your strong point. Not physics.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yeah, sure. Then you should be able to back up your claim, right? Beyond your "because I say so". Right?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

And there was debris everywhere. But you can't seriously claim that the tail section, with all the momentum it has, is going to stop in midair, and suddenly reverse direction and land on the yard, or suddenly stop. There was debris left on the lawn, that was thrown in all directions. It just wasn't large debris.

The F-4 video is an example of an aircraft hitting an object, and everything continuing to travel in the same direction. There was no indication that the tail section stopped or was ejected in the opposite direction. It hit the wall, and continued to travel in the same direction it was originally going. So, if the tail was going to stop, or get ejected in the opposite direction, why didn't we see it there? Or was 77 a special case?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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......



There is evidence to suggest that WTC7 was damaged before the aircraft struck.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

And there was debris everywhere. But you can't seriously claim that the tail section, with all the momentum it has, is going to stop in midair, and suddenly reverse direction and land on the yard, or suddenly stop. There was debris left on the lawn, that was thrown in all directions. It just wasn't large debris.

The F-4 video is an example of an aircraft hitting an object, and everything continuing to travel in the same direction. There was no indication that the tail section stopped or was ejected in the opposite direction. It hit the wall, and continued to travel in the same direction it was originally going. So, if the tail was going to stop, or get ejected in the opposite direction, why didn't we see it there? Or was 77 a special case?


It's not unreasonable to suggest it could happen. That's the main point you're at ends with.

The force of the static impact is enough to launch material places, as demonstrated in my last post.

An explosion only increases the scatter, and even removes objects from it's attachment to the initial static force also and can launch it in it's own direction.

If that is, or isn't what happened is debatable, but it's potential is not.

The f4 did not hit a static object. The 'concrete' wall was designed to crunch in, like a can, to absorb energy. The slow crunch of the wall is what caused the plane to 'vaporize'. A f4 hitting normal concrete would look nothing like that. Debris would be everywhere.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

The tail had as much momentum as the rest of the plane. By the time the explosion got back to the tail, the tail was already hitting the building. The plane is only 155 feet long. In the fractions of seconds it took for the explosions to start, the tail section was still moving forward. The plane didn't hit the wall, and the tail instantly fly off in the other direction. The aircraft began to break apart almost instantly, but those parts kept going in the direction they were traveling.

And yet, even if it hit a normal wall, the tail wouldn't stop and do a 180 and land behind it. It would keep traveling in the same direction.

edit on 7/25/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/25/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You still fail to grasp the F4 video is designed to counter the exact force that causes 'opposite reaction'.

A better way to express it, is that the F4 never really hit the wall at all. It continued forward motion because there was no reverse static force to destroy the plane as the plane hit the crunching wall.

Had the wall been designed to repel like a hard material, the static force would exist and cause the visual you're claiming is missing/impossible.


The F4 video is the worst side-by-side comparison of the force he's talking about, as the wall was literally designed to reduce that effect as much as possible.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

I don't fail to grasp it at all. But forget I bothered to say anything. Amazing how every other crash that had forward momentum all the debris continued forward, but on Flight 77 we're supposed to believe that the tail would have snapped off and gone backwards, leaving a huge piece of debris on the lawn. Yeah, sure it would have.
edit on 7/25/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DoneWithHumans
The ultimate double-take talking about if it was planes vs bombs.

It was planes and bombs.

And there is 1000% evidence it was an inside job on the stock market alone.

Several hundred people made stock put offs on nearly every company in the building. And obviously the Airlines.

Many people became instant millionaires.

Want to know who? Too bad, the CBOE 'lost' the data of all the people that made such financial options in a 'data error'. Not only is that completely illegal for them, but all heat from the public was purposely diverted and they were let go for losing such data, even though such a thing has never even happened before.

Explain this to me in the context of it 'not being an inside job'.(spoiler, you can't.)

I remember hearing about this in the days after 9/11. Many people actually made a profit from this attack, and we never heard a word about who they were. This is one of the key pieces of evidence for a coverup. There are a couple big pieces of evidence that they can't handwave away. Another one is the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes early, when you could even see the building still standing on the screen behind them!



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Nope. It damaged the surrounding buildings as well. Definitely NOT into its "footprint"



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Quickness? It was eight months before all of the steel was even removed from the site. And the only steel that was sold off..to China, India, several dozen places in the United States, was steel that was looked at and cleared by investigators.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join