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: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the plane known as Flight 175 impacted the South Tower at about 510 knots:
web.archive.org...://911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11%2C_UA175.pdf
(see page 2). That's about 587 mph. This is only slightly over the maximum cruising speed of a Boeing 757 and is easily attainable in a rapid descent to about 1000ft. The problem with identifying the object that flew into the South Tower as Flight 175 is what the heck it was that briefly emerged out of the other side and then disappeared. If it had been the nose cone, it would have landed and been found. But it wasn't. If it was a jet of smoke and burning fuel coming through a gap or crack in the wall, it would have quickly dissipated once it expanded into the open air. But it would not then have looked as solid as it did initially. No-planers who claim that it was CGI that went wrong (nose travelled too far) have to claim that the engine component found in the street below was suddenly planted just at the right moment without anyone noticing something heavy being dropped fron a passing van. For many, this scenario is unbelievable. But then the claim that no planes hit the towers is equally unbelievable.




posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi


what the heck it was that briefly emerged out of the other side and then disappeared.


A 767 has about 19500 cubic feet of air with a mass weight of 1500 pounds inside its cabin. It is moving at 800 feet per second. This air has to go somewhere, The majority of it will continue the path it's traveling and out the other side of the building. It pushed some fireproofing dust ahead of it,this is what you see coming out the other side of the building.


If you go to this link and type in frame 55 and then continue to click the next button.

www.911conspiracy.tv...

You will see this come directly out of the center of the dust.



This is a condensation trail (a drop in pressure causing moisture to briefly condensate ). The moving air left this trail in its wake. This trail can be seen in many of the photos and videos taken that day.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Are you saying there was no wreckage from the jets on the streets after the WTC impacts?

Ever think not all the wreckage hit street level?

Part of landing gear from 9/11 plane is found wedged between luxury condos and Ground Zero Islamic center - 11 years after attacks
www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: micpsi

Are you saying there was no wreckage from the jets on the streets after the WTC impacts?

Ever think not all the wreckage hit street level?

Part of landing gear from 9/11 plane is found wedged between luxury condos and Ground Zero Islamic center - 11 years after attacks
www.dailymail.co.uk...


Haha one of the comments from your link. Which is probably true. (For a moment I thought you had switched sides)



The piece of a Boeing Airliner that crashed in Cali, Columbia that somehow materialized on the Pentagon lawn on 9/11, and was photographed there in various positions in various places, with a piece of jungle vine still embedded in it. The great thing about this new aircraft part is that the rope used to lower it into place... is still there!



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Like to actually cite the source?



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Or better yet? Actually link to or post the smoking gun picture?

And can you actually support the topic of this thread?

No cited sources.
No picture provided.
Off topic post.
Equals zero credibility.........



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Or better yet? Actually link to or post the smoking gun picture?

And can you actually support the topic of this thread?

No cited sources.
No picture provided.
Off topic post.
Equals zero credibility.........


You already posted a source to the new picture showing the rope that was used to lower this new aircraft part between the two buildings, and then it got stuck so they had to leave the rope.

It is also on topic. The conspirators needed a new airplane part to materialize with this new "no plane" video showing up again and getting attention, whether fake or real, so they found the perfect place to put it, right between the two buildings."Oh hey, look what we found after 11 years"

edit on 29-7-2017 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The part found between the buildings was part of the flap extension mechanism, not the landing gear.





Green arrow points to same part in both photos. (right click-open in new tab for larger photo)





The landing gear and the flap part are both closely attached to the aft spar on a 767.

Part of the landing gear did put a large hole in the roof of the Mens Warehouse (now Islamic Centre) one of the buildings this part was found between.





Logical explanation: The part traveled with the landing gear and separated when it hit the roof, hit the building behind it, then slid between the buildings.

The part is jammed between the two buildings, it wasn't placed there with a rope.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
That looks like video editing to me to remove the plane from the first section of the video before the real video is played.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
We beat to death the FACT that the planes hit the towers, long ago when the No Planer COINTELPRO Movement was all the rage just about got the entire 911 forum here shut down their bombardment tactics were so like out of a movie.

This "new" clip is interesting. As always you should be weary of grainy + digital artifact clips. If it's analog there shouldn't be digital artifacts there too, if its anything of a clean real clip. This one looks stepped on, which is the usual scheme with no planer clip they look like they've been rerendered about 20 times over.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: micpsi


what the heck it was that briefly emerged out of the other side and then disappeared.


A 767 has about 19500 cubic feet of air with a mass weight of 1500 pounds inside its cabin. It is moving at 800 feet per second. This air has to go somewhere, The majority of it will continue the path it's traveling and out the other side of the building. It pushed some fireproofing dust ahead of it,this is what you see coming out the other side of the building.

I read such explanations years ago and was left unconvinced by them. The videos (TV footage) that I saw then left me perplexed because something looking like a nose cone of a commercial jet accompanied all the dust and smoke that came out but vanished into thin air in a matter of a second or two. The videos you provide don't show it because they are taken from a different angle too far away. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for the puzzling images in this particular TV footage.
Here is footage taken by a TV helicopter of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower. In slow motion you see what looks like a solid nose cone emerging BEFORE any burning jet fuel and smoke, which clearly becomes visible a fraction of a second later:
www.dailymotion.com...
Here is the same solid-looking object emerging taken from the other side of the tower:
scammer.net.ee...
If what is visible initially had been merely smoke and dust, why:
1. is it visible in SHARP outline? Smoke would not retain the shape of the nose of a plane.
2. does it become seen BEFORE debris, smoke and the fireball exits two sides of the tower? Smoke and dust would not be travelling faster than the expanding fireball? The image does not make sense. It looks solid, yet seems to vanish into thin air.
edit on 29-7-2017 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: micpsi

Are you saying there was no wreckage from the jets on the streets after the WTC impacts?

Ever think not all the wreckage hit street level?

Part of landing gear from 9/11 plane is found wedged between luxury condos and Ground Zero Islamic center - 11 years after attacks
www.dailymail.co.uk...


No, I am not at all saying there was no wreckage on the streets. In fact, the very existence of such wreckage is what no-planers find impossible to account for in a plausible way, as I pointed out in my comment, which you misunderstood.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

You gotta understand this was camera tech from decades ago. Cell phone cameras today could probably catch a cleaner picture from the ground level than a news copter could from a distance back then. Now add in magnetic tape media. Then digital transfers. Then people crop and cutting and rendering then uploading them online and people use oddball apps to capture them and then re-render to upload to another streaming service which re-renders them upon upload completion (and that process done over and over again).



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Well that's easy, as I said 10 years ago either the planes ejected the parts unto the ground (as seen in the crisp photos) OR the MIB and their "Flashy Thing" would have had to plant the stuff in broad daylight on that oh so clear sky morning.

This one I wrote for a Pentagon thread but you'll get the idea:




posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: micpsi

You gotta understand this was camera tech from decades ago. Cell phone cameras today could probably catch a cleaner picture from the ground level than a news copter could from a distance back then. Now add in magnetic tape media. Then digital transfers. Then people crop and cutting and rendering then uploading them online and people use oddball apps to capture them and then re-render to upload to another streaming service which re-renders them upon upload completion (and that process done over and over again).

I appreciate what you say. But I still don't think image re-editing can explain the apparent solidity of what initially emerges from the tower. This issue was discussed in detail many years ago by serious 9/11 researchers fully aware of all the distortions created by editing and compression artifacts that the no-planers exploited for their own ends. As far as I am concerned, this anomaly is NOT an artifact of multi-generation videos. Instead, it was in the original footage, some of which I have seen from friends' VHS video tapes recorded on the day.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: micpsi

Well that's easy, as I said 10 years ago either the planes ejected the parts unto the ground (as seen in the crisp photos) OR the MIB and their "Flashy Thing" would have had to plant the stuff in broad daylight on that oh so clear sky morning.

This one I wrote for a Pentagon thread but you'll get the idea:



I am not sure what point I made that is easy for you to reply to. As far as I am concerned, some plane (not necessarily Flight 175, as that has never been proved) did hit the South Tower and parts fell down that were later discovered. So there is no need to resort to silliness involving MIB. Using ridicule to refute a point of view (no planes) that I never held in the first place seems a waste of time.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

2.[Why) does it become seen BEFORE debris, smoke and the fireball exits two sides of the tower? Smoke and dust would not be travelling faster than the expanding fireball? The image does not make sense. It looks solid, yet seems to vanish into thin air.


The Mass of air that was inside the plane would not decelerate inside the building. It would in fact accelerate due to Venturi effect, making it the first thing out the other side of the building. Moving air pushes dust and it looks like dust coming out of the building. It's a simple explanation






posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

In addition to being schooled.......

One, how long was the part between the buildings. Are you saying no junk in the city accumulates overtime?

Two, rope decays with age. Mold and mildew grows on rope over time.

Why even use a rope?



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

If there was hijackers set on a suicide action in their belief in jihad backed by foreign deep pockets and governments, why fake anything.

So the airlines, families, air traffic controllers, whole airports and staff are part of the 9/11 conspiracy to swap jets? Mechanics and FAA inspectors for maintenance records and fleet inspections.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
[ As far as I am concerned, some plane (not necessarily Flight 175, as that has never been proved) did hit the South Tower


It's been proven.











edit on 29-7-2017 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join