Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC Challenge

page: 53
3
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
She said DEBRIS fell on 6, not the TOWER fell on 6. There was a LOT of debris that fell that day, from the supports, the planes, the offices etc. It's entirely possible that some of the debris fell onto WTC 6 and caused that giant hole.




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Here is a link where Rick Sanchez with NBC reports that police and firemen witnessed an explosion at WTC 6. The firemen thought at the time there was a car bomb or truck bomb in the garage level of WTC 6 and this was a synchronized terrorist attack. It is reasonable the firemen would think this since the first World Trade Center bombing was in a parking garage.

www.911inplanesite.com...

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Hector]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
She said DEBRIS fell on 6, not the TOWER fell on 6. There was a LOT of debris that fell that day, from the supports, the planes, the offices etc. It's entirely possible that some of the debris fell onto WTC 6 and caused that giant hole.


Read Elaine Chao's talk carefully. The first plane hit WTC 1 causing debris to fall onto WTC 6, but not causing the crater. The employees immediately began evacuating the building. When they were outside, WTC 2 was hit by the second plane. The employees did not wait outside from 9:03AM till 10:28AM watching WTC 1 collapse. The employees at OSHA witnessed the destruction of WTC 6 building seconds after the second plane hit WTC 2.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The trajectory looks wrong for the damage that was done to the building. From the angle that the "object" is leaving the building the damage to WTC 6 should have been angled into the ground from the top, but from the pics I saw it went straight down from top to bottom. At the time and location of those pics, if it was a missile then it should have already started to change its trajectory in the pics so that it was curving to dive straight into the building.

If it WAS an A2A missile that hit, then there would have had to have already been damage inside to cause a MUCH bigger secondary explosion. Most A2A missiles only have maybe 20 pounds of explosive in the warhead. 20 pounds of explosive isn't going to cause the giant hole that appeared in the building.


I agree the missile does not appear to be heading toward WTC 6. Instead, this missile may have hit the southwest corner of WTC 7. Two fighters were dispatched from Otis and presumably were on the scene.

Also the fighters may have been at an elevation considerably above the towers and shot downward toward the second hijacked plane. When the second plane hit WTC 2 the missile may have simply fell without any direction. I will leave it to experts to debate missile targeting and the type of explosive needed to create the crater in WTC 6.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Hector]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
For those who have Eric Hufschmid book "Painful Questions" available, look to page 93, Fig 8-7. In the photo you will see a US Customs official looking at the inside of WTC 6 into the center of the crater. Directly to his left is a steel beam twisted like a pretzel. Only a powerful blast from the inside would have caused the twisting of the steel beam, not falling debris.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Well Hector, the images sure look strange, but I'd rather think it's some piece of debris or just an anomaly because I've been watching the hit on the second tower from different angles and never see the same "missile".

Have a look yourself:

www.apfn.net...




THE SECOND PLANE STRIKE ON THE SOUTH TOWER

Plane Hitting South Tower. View from south (10 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472) Copy.
View from north-east (4.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480) Copy.
View from north (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472) Copy.
View from east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Copy.
Close view from east (1.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Includes the "911 In Plane Site" flash. Copy.
Another view from north (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Copy.
Short view from north-east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696x472) Copy.
Longer view from north-east (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480) Copy.



But anyway, lets stick with the other 3 towers shall we ? Before incorporating a new theory.

Also, listen to this interview with William Rodriguez

www.prisonplanet.tv...

His interview starts at abut half an hour into the mp3, but it's a good listen overall. He talks about the explosions in the tower, even BEFORE any of the planes hit.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Well Hector, the images sure look strange, but I'd rather think it's some piece of debris or just an anomaly because I've been watching the hit on the second tower from different angles and never see the same "missile".

Have a look yourself:

www.apfn.net...




THE SECOND PLANE STRIKE ON THE SOUTH TOWER

Plane Hitting South Tower. View from south (10 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472) Copy.
View from north-east (4.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480) Copy.
View from north (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472) Copy.
View from east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Copy.
Close view from east (1.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Includes the "911 In Plane Site" flash. Copy.
Another view from north (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356) Copy.
Short view from north-east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696x472) Copy.
Longer view from north-east (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480) Copy.



But anyway, lets stick with the other 3 towers shall we ? Before incorporating a new theory.

Also, listen to this interview with William Rodriguez

www.prisonplanet.tv...

His interview starts at abut half an hour into the mp3, but it's a good listen overall. He talks about the explosions in the tower, even BEFORE any of the planes hit.


Thanks for the links, but with my system I am unable to view many of the videos. I will however listen to William Rodriguez eyewitness account.

You seem to be suggesting the Gamma Press footage of the streaking object has an anomaly on every frame which to me is very unlikely. I think this is a real object.

To answer your earlier question if I were aware of other photos of the streaking object. I do recall a still photo taken at a long distance from the northeast showing the second plane hitting WTC 2 tower. Both towers are shown in the photo. At the lower part of WTC 1 (the north side of the tower) there is a faint dark streak downward toward buildings 6 and 7. However, I can not find this photo. It should be said that this photo was presented without any comment or notice of the streaking object. If I find the link of the photo I will post it.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I found the second photo of the streaking object.

www.islamicvoice.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
"Hmmm actually I was referring to our friend Howard, you're just a Troll."

Uhmm....if you w'r standing in front of me, I bet you would not call me a "TROLL"....



"You have bought nothing to this discussion that even remotely explains what happened on 9-11, yet you spout off like you know everything. "

Uhmmm....again.....when did I say I know everything???????? I've always said that we need "STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS" at the table to discuss this topic...and only then....so you and I don't know the effects of planes and fire on building structures "SIMPLE"


Saying "I am in construction" and "Go Howard your da man" does not have a whole lot of credibility on this site, sorry. I have far more respect for Howard, at least he puts some effort in even if it is in vain.

OK....I was trying to stress that yes I have been designing mechanical systems for buildings (many, many high rises) for 20 years +....and I do think my views, have "some" input into this topic.....(and sir....what do you have ??? Hmmmm......oh y'a y'r views are LAW
)

"Bring me a scientific explanation of the WTC collapse, that I can't find holes in, then maybe you'll get some respect."

(Dam...y'r so HIGH on YOURSELF...maybe you should re-word that man)

Why is it the only post I made that you answered to was this last one? (uhmm....maybe you just answered y'r own question...maybe what you brought up was so dumb and crazy)

I have asked you numerous questions about the WTC topic and you have ignored them. This tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot answer the questions. (as above....prob. just crazy things you w'r bringing up/and or already been discussed)

Agent, yeah sure...If you are an agent then damn this counties in a worse state than I thought... (y'a your Crazy leader is worse then you thougth)

Maybe if you spent some time studying government tactics you wouldn't be so quick to blindly support them. They poisoned thousands of their troops, using us as guinea pigs for testing vaccines. Many have died, and many including me are sick.
Don't trust the government, they'll stop at nothing to achieve their gaols of power and control.
(Def. agree with you on this point....just look at your CRAZY leader caused so much death and as per your own words even kills it's own troops)


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
isn't that along the flightpath of the engine that flew onto the streets ?

Hmm, after looking at the video footage again, something is indeed flying along that same path, but much slower however, indicating it's just a piece of debris.

What I meant by anomaly is, might as well be an insect flying there.
Especially because it's the only footage showing something that moves that fast. You might as well call it a ufo..

There's just too many questions involved with it so I'm not gonna touch it



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
What is the opinion of this I have seen it around for some time now but no one has really commented on it, except for the UFO people.
Is it a hoax, one hell of a fast mover, I have know idea.



slowed to one third speed



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Also, listen to this interview with William Rodriguez

www.prisonplanet.tv...

His interview starts at abut half an hour into the mp3, but it's a good listen overall. He talks about the explosions in the tower, even BEFORE any of the planes hit.


I have just finished listening to William Rodriguez account of what happened at sublevel 1(one level below ground lever of WTC 1) He speaks of being late for work arriving at his office at 8:30AM instead of 8:00AM.

When the first plane hits WTC 1 at 8:48 he hears an explosion where the electrical generators are located below him. Apparently this is the reason his co-worker came in, his body burned, shouting, "Explosion! Explosion!" Then seconds later he hears the crash of the first plane into the tower above him. I am no electrical expert but I think the generators short circuited and exploded at basement lever due to the crash of the plane above. Then at the speed of sound he hears the crash of the plane seconds later.

Later he calls for emergency assistance, perhaps around 9:00 AM, and hears a second explosion. This explosion would have been at 9:03AM near WTC 6 where the missile hit.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
isn't that along the flightpath of the engine that flew onto the streets ?


No, the streaking object was going east to west at a 90 degree angle to the flight path of the second plane. The engine that flew off the second plane came out of WTC 2 and landed in a north-eastern trajectory path.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
What is the opinion of this I have seen it around for some time now but no one has really commented on it, except for the UFO people.
Is it a hoax, one hell of a fast mover, I have know idea.



slowed to one third speed


This is significant footage. We are looking from the north-west and we see the second hijacked plane coming from the south and hitting WTC 2. I think the high speed image is a fighter. However, this fighter is coming west to east. This would have been a third fighter to have appeared on the scene since the two fighters from Otis would have been arriving from the east.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I think that's a bird ..

No fighter in the world can make that turn.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
That is not a bird shroomery, it's too big to be a bird judging by the size of it. Plus even professional pilots have said that those two jets went beyond their software compatability. If the planes weren't flown by remote control, then why did the German flagship carrier take the FCSs off of their aircraft a few years before the attack?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

That is not a bird shroomery, it's too big to be a bird judging by the size of it.


Actually, I don't think you can really judge its size because it's hard to tell how far away it is from the camera. You can see, though, that it passes in front of the buildings, so its between the buildings and the camera, and therefore not necessarily proportionate to what's behind it.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That is not a bird shroomery, it's too big to be a bird judging by the size of it.


Actually, I don't think you can really judge its size because it's hard to tell how far away it is from the camera. You can see, though, that it passes in front of the buildings, so its between the buildings and the camera, and therefore not necessarily proportionate to what's behind it.



I think it's clearly a bird.
It's infront of the buildings which places it in the foreground. That explains it's size and illusion of speed.
Watch it's movement, it runs along a corrugated path as birds do, raising it's body up when the wings down and dropping it's body down when the wings are up, this creates a corrugated flight pattern along it's straight path.
At the end it turns sharply. It's wings open out to catch the air so it can turn and you can see it's shape change from a side view to a back view with wings out.

That's a bird without question. I wish it was something else but it ain't.
There's so many avenues to prove 9/11 was meant to go down as it did without looking at blurry animated gifs. The conspiracy is in the business.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
She said DEBRIS fell on 6, not the TOWER fell on 6. There was a LOT of debris that fell that day, from the supports, the planes, the offices etc. It's entirely possible that some of the debris fell onto WTC 6 and caused that giant hole.


Some pictures of WTC 5 and 6




WTC 6




WTC-5 and WTC 6

Notice the section of WTC 1 still leaning against the side of WTC 6




WTC 6 is on the left (behind the remnants of WTC 1) and WTC 5 is on the right (with the exterior columns sticking out of it.)




What was that about a footprint?








[edit on 22-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Roark considering the size and proportions of the WTC tower complex, yes, a footprint collapse. Nice try though, some pictures of leaning post-collapse rubble really shows the trivality of arguing with you on the WTC Demolition. Damn the explosions, full speed ahead.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join