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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Going to guess that neither one of you realizes that the molten metal is proof that thermite was not there. For it to maintain the heat more than an hour or two, there would have needed to be several tons of thermite continuously added to keep the heat going and keep the aluminum, copper, zinc, molten.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Newsflash, other than backing the exterior brick/limestone wall with Kelvar netting, very little was done to the exterior wall's construction. It was still basically the same as it was when it was built during World War II and still had a major flaw in it. During the cleanup, they discovered that the original bricklayers would lay two and three bricks on top of one another before they laid a layer of mortar. The sheer size and weight of the wall meant that it would be fairly sturdy. Unless you hit it with a large object moving at high speed.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

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


My claim? You mean about no plane hitting the Pentagon?

I don't recall backing it up with a "bc I said so" but instead with Newton's third law. In response to your advocacy for the F-4 impact video, you cannot possibly use that as a comparison to any of the 9/11 "impacts".

In regards to the Sandia F-4 test. This wasn't a test to determine the F-4 Phantom Jet's structural durability, but rather the special reinforced concrete wall that it collided with. The purpose was to determine if this wall was suitable to defend a nuclear reactor. In other words, this wall was specifically designed to combat the tendencies of naturally occurring physical phenomena.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So why is it that when a plane flies into a mountain or nose dives into hard ground, the tail doesn't break off and go backwards? Funny that. It seems it only should have happened at the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Witnesses at the twin towers reported a strong smell of jet fuel. I do not think that anyone reported this at the pentagon at all. It would have been very evident.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Substantially more than a test plane designed to vaporize on a wall, designed to vaporize it, while it hits at a perfect angle, yes.

What's baffling to me is no one is denying forward momentum. That part that is questioning is you thinking an explosion holds less force, or no force, and that the origin of the explosion is irrelevant.

My point that things fly backwards without an explosion at all has sufficiently combed your sarcasm, but with an explosion it is rather reasonable to question why there is so little debris. Things don't just vaporize because it's going 500MPH, and much of the plane hit crumpling resistance and substantially less force was applied to the whole plane, similar to how a car crumples also.You don't have to watch many actual plane crash videos to see the F4 video is completely dissimilar and irelevant. I could post real plane crash videos, with tons of non-vaporized debris, but that's a bit crass.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DoneWithHumans

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.



In the case of the events of 9/11, consider that the explosions happened late in the impact sequence and were not a detonations but deflagrations that occurred after the fuel tanks ruptured. At that velocity, some of the fuel was distributed as small droplets in a mist, of sorts. These droplets had a high surface to volume ratio and provided a vapor in an oxygen rich environment. With the heat of impact, there were enough ignition points to initiate combustion of the fuel air mix and cause the fireballs seen in the videos. The fuel still in the liquid state was ignited during these events and continued to burn, along with flammable contents of the buildings.

An important thing to note is that the explosions happened external to the aircraft, not inside it, so arguments about tails blowing off have no bearing on the event. Further, by the time that the above series of events occurred, the aircraft were well if not completely into the buildings.

As Zaphod said, after impact aircraft continued on their tracks through the structures while shedding pieces. Heavier parts that did not impact building structure or had sufficient momentum continued into and through the buildings. Landing gear and engine cores are of sufficient mass and structure to penetrate nearly intact.
edit on 7/25/2017 by pteridine because: clarification



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real




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.


That is what some say about the first strike.

Mainly based on the footage.





Lots and lots of people claimed to see it, and they were certain there were NO windows on the plane.


This was claimed about the second plane.

also from footage.

I think one of the videos, In Plane Sight goes into that nonsense and many just parroted what they heard.




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



whats troubling?

Were both planes going through the same materials and the same types construction?

If they were then yes it would seem strange.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
I note that many who claim others do not understand physics are often the more ignorant.


So you mean Zaphod who specifically denies an opposite force is possible while condescendingly quoting Newton about "opposite reactions".

I also never mentioned anyone's ability at Physics. That was someone else.

I've notice people that are full of themselves are the most unobservant though.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So why is it that when a plane flies into a mountain or nose dives into hard ground, the tail doesn't break off and go backwards? Funny that. It seems it only should have happened at the Pentagon.


Off the top of my head, I can think of the Uruguayan plane crash into the Andes mountains in the 1970's. It was made popular by the Hollywood movie, "Alive".

Here's a pic of the crashed plane



Notice what's missing? Wings....A tail.....



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So why is it that when a plane flies into a mountain or nose dives into hard ground, the tail doesn't break off and go backwards? Funny that. It seems it only should have happened at the Pentagon.


Off the top of my head, I can think of the Uruguayan plane crash into the Andes mountains in the 1970's. It was made popular by the Hollywood movie, "Alive".

Here's a pic of the crashed plane



Notice what's missing? Wings....A tail.....


Breakup in shear doesn't mean that the tail or wings went backwards.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DoneWithHumans

originally posted by: pteridine
I note that many who claim others do not understand physics are often the more ignorant.


So you mean Zaphod who specifically denies an opposite force is possible while condescendingly quoting Newton about "opposite reactions".

I also never mentioned anyone's ability at Physics. That was someone else.

I've notice people that are full of themselves are the most unobservant though.


Yes, you should pay more attention to details.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

The conversion started with Zaphod claiming others were bad at Physics and litterally quoting Newton, specifically over a Law that essentially states material MUST travel in the opposite direction, without the explosion even involved.

You couldn't even see the hypocrisy of your own statement as you supported it.

Take a guess about who my statement is really about.
edit on 25-7-2017 by DoneWithHumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DoneWithHumans
a reply to: pteridine

The conversion started with Zaphod claiming others were bad at Physics and litterally quoting Newton, specifically over a Law that essentially states material MUST travel in the opposite direction, without the explosion even involved.

You couldn't even see the hypocrisy of your own statement as you supported it.

Take a guess about who my statement is really about.


Perhaps I responded to the wrong post. If so, accept my apology. The point I was making was that the aircraft momentum was carrying it forward. The deflagration explosion occurred external to the aircraft even though internal to the building. It also occurred late in the impact so would have little effect on the forward momentum of the aircraft as it moved through the structure. The forces on the aircraft from the deflagration were external to the aircraft and would not have had a significant effect on its path. They would not have caused the tail to "blow off."



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Yeah, I am going to claim that there were not record breaking put options. It was the third time that year that put options like that were being placed on the airlines. And, investment advisers were telling their clients at the end of August to take just that sort of stance with all of the bad news coming from American and United. In March, United had over 8,000 options against it, in September, 3,150. Anyway, here is an excellent collection of information on both sides of the issue.

www.911myths.com...



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

Yeah, he was a hero. Until he discovered how much money he could make by lying to people.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Slow motion Tomahawk....I don't see anything popping off here.....

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

www.youtube.com...

Nope, wings not popping off here either...



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Slow motion Tomahawk....I don't see anything popping off here.....

www.youtube.com...

Is that a joke?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Not to mention...the pilots were trying to AVOID crashing...leads to airliners bouncing on the ground and breaking apart at times before the BOOM.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join