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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I tihnk the key point people like you need to get in their heads is that there is no 'good' or 'bad' side. Nor is there a 'right' or 'wrong' - not simply anyway.
When you overcome that hurdle then things will become clearer and yet more complicated all at the same time



Well i agree with you there. im not sure where you ge the idea i dont think that way.
I agree, there is no good and bad, right or wrong, left or right (thats all relative), yet you used the term 'you lot' as in you think there is a conspiracy crowd and a non conspiracy crowd, when of course as you have just pointed out life just isnt that simple and stereotyping is only for morons who cant think clearly.




posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
I work in materials testing (not steel, I grant you) and we try as best as we can to perform our tests in the most controlled environment we can. Even then, it is nearly impossible to get identical sets of results accross, say, 50 tensile tests upon the same material.

My problem with the towers collapsing in the manner they did, is that it seems to require failure at EXACTLY the same time at each of the four corners of the individual towers. And this being in an extremely UNcontrolled environment.


What do you make of Valhalls opinions that uniform collaspe was to be expected, (posted on 17-12-2005 at 02:37 PM), ?
I guess you disagree with that?

[edit on 18-12-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
Well i agree with you there. im not sure where you ge the idea i dont think that way.
I agree, there is no good and bad, right or wrong, left or right (thats all relative), yet you used the term 'you lot' as in you think there is a conspiracy crowd and a non conspiracy crowd, when of course as you have just pointed out life just isnt that simple and stereotyping is only for morons who cant think clearly.


When I talk about 'you lot', I tend to mean the people that entertain ridiculous ideas and line the pockets of fraudsters. Don't think for one minute I don't believe any conspiracies, I just think that some of these ideas are completely OTT, wrong and detract from what people should be concentrating on.

I just get upset when you get people that buy a domain name, hash a crappy video together and flog it to anyone that will buy it. What else is upsetting is the sheer number of people that swallow the crap.

Not everyone in official positions wants to eat your heart, and not everyone on the conspiracy side wants to actually help or do what's right. There are countless people out there all selling their idea and making money from a tragic incident, or simply seeking some sort of personal power trip in feeling they can influence a large number of people.

I also get annoyed when people try and put all government people, agencies, etc into one basket and criticise any formal investigation into an incident. The problem is the only people with the evidence and the means to conduct an educated investigation and conduct effective computer based and physical simulations are the appointed agencies and no-one else has the resources or evidence to accurately form an opinion or hypothesis.

It's amusing that an independant agency comprising of highly educated and experienced individuals can put together thousands of pages of information gathered over a period of years and using computers far beyond the computing power of anything we have available, yet people will say it's all crap before they have even had the time to read the Introduction.
In constrast, some nobody comes along with a 2 hour hashup video comprised of crap and everyone's kissing their butt and saying how marvellous it is.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
What do you make of Valhalls opinions that uniform collaspe was to be expected, (posted on 17-12-2005 at 02:37 PM), ?
I guess you disagree with that?

I guess I do. I think I will always maintain my suspicions concerning this whole issue regardless of what anyone, be they 'expert' or layman, tells me.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

It's amusing that an independant agency comprising of highly educated and experienced individuals can put together thousands of pages of information gathered over a period of years and using computers far beyond the computing power of anything we have available, yet people will say it's all crap before they have even had the time to read the Introduction.
In constrast, some nobody comes along with a 2 hour hashup video comprised of crap and everyone's kissing their butt and saying how marvellous it is.


Its the power of tv. i am constantly amazed as well.
Never underestimate the power of tv



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
Its the power of tv. i am constantly amazed as well.
Never underestimate the power of tv


Very true, it has more to blame for the state of affairs than anything else I reckon. Even I when watching the video at first thought he had a point on some things - until I thought about it properly and watched it again. The style in which it was presented was very good, it really gave you the idea that what was being said was simple and you would be stupid to disagree. Sad that it worked so well on some people.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by AdamJ
Its the power of tv. i am constantly amazed as well.
Never underestimate the power of tv


Very true, it has more to blame for the state of affairs than anything else I reckon. Even I when watching the video at first thought he had a point on some things - until I thought about it properly and watched it again. The style in which it was presented was very good, it really gave you the idea that what was being said was simple and you would be stupid to disagree. Sad that it worked so well on some people.


I thought it was ok, what are the problems you have with it?
I have spotted a few cannonball like trajectories in other fotage actually, but they didnt do a very good job of highlighting them in the film.
Other than that though?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I talk about my major problems with it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The cannonball trajectory idea was a big blooper to me because it was something they concentrated on and was grossly inaccurate. Problem is it wasn't exactly complicated and even though I can excuse viewers being sucked in by it or not noticing, someone who takes on the responsibility of a teacher and presents something that can easily influence a lot of people can't be allowed to make such blatant mistakes or lies. (I had to watch it again to confirm what I was seeing - problem is the way it is presented I found even I as a skeptic was sucked in and missed this obvious deception).
As supporters of the guy I can perfectly understand why you would be happy to excuse this or let it slip by, but it's just not acceptable - you wouldn't and don't allow it when it's the other way round and use any mistakes made by official figures or organisations to throw their whole idea or theory in disrepute.

I'm frankly suspicious of the whole thing, the logic behind their assumptions is flawed, they speculate far too much when they should be presenting evidence for people to make decisions on themselves and I think they are in it for the money. The unconfirmed statement of how much money they were offered for the footage frankly means nothing.
The manner in which the whole thing is presented, including things like the way everything is literally spelled out while the guy speaks in a monotonus voice is suspicious and the exact tactics one would employ when trying to 'program' people with an idea that holds little water. Just becasue this guy says his on your side and clearly is not on the government's does not mean he is your friend, nor does it mean he has your best intentions at heart.

The fact the guy (if it's really him) was on here and got put on Global Ignore trying to flog his next DVD says it all really.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
As supporters of the guy I can perfectly understand why you would be happy to excuse this or let it slip by, but it's just not acceptable - you wouldn't and don't allow it when it's the other way round and use any mistakes made by official figures or organisations to throw their whole idea or theory in disrepute.


Where on earth do you get this stuff from, when did i become a 'supporter' of this guy, is this the black/white, yes/no, left/right thing again?

Of course we all would and do allow it the other way around, they lie about every single thing all day all the time, they hardly ever tell the truth on anything.
Deliberate obfuscaion is very very different from a mistake. i dont know what the guys agenda is if he has one but he sounds fairly genuine and he doesnt have to be perfect he made his video just like everyone else.
Every video or anything that is sold based on 911 is profiteering, lots of people are at it.



I'm frankly suspicious of the whole thing, the logic behind their assumptions is flawed, they speculate far too much when they should be presenting evidence for people to make decisions on themselves and I think they are in it for the money. The unconfirmed statement of how much money they were offered for the footage frankly means nothing.
The manner in which the whole thing is presented, including things like the way everything is literally spelled out while the guy speaks in a monotonus voice is suspicious and the exact tactics one would employ when trying to 'program' people with an idea that holds little water. Just becasue this guy says his on your side and clearly is not on the government's does not mean he is your friend, nor does it mean he has your best intentions at heart.

The fact the guy (if it's really him) was on here and got put on Global Ignore trying to flog his next DVD says it all really.


Give him a break, he doesnt have to be perfect he is just voicing his opinion, he is not an educator. Adults need to learn to take responsiblity for what they believe at least to a minimal extent, those people cant always rely on being spoonfed thier opinion by others, or theyll get taken advantage of.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Another piece of evidence was the dustclouds at the base of WTC1. This is also erronouse as these are not clouds from explosions, merely fires from falling debris:

www.flurl.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The topic of this thread is not any particular member, their status, their actions, or any other aspect that does not directly pertain to this subject:

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

For you "board lawyers," please do not attempt to tie the fact that a video is part of the thread topic to recent drama... That will guarantee thread closure.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
Yes. I agree. The two arguments contradict each other.

- The debris flew so far out they would need explosives to propel them.
- The building fell in it's own footprints.

Either its blows outwards or dosen't, makes your mind up.


Don't listen to Howard. He doesn't necessarily have your best interests at heart.

The argument does not contradict itself. It's the exact same argument. The material was roughly 80% ejected outwards, and the center of gravity remained in the footprints. That means it was ejected around the footprints. Watch any video of either collapse. Big Surprise!: the material is being ejected pretty evenly in all directions. And which way is the building falling? Straight down upon it's footprint. See? Complicated stuff! Sometimes you may even need to use your head!


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Take a yardstick, stand it upright and push down on the top end until it begins to buckle in the middle. What happens when it breaks? Do the pieces shoot across the room, or do the fall in a neat little pile at your feet?


Better yet, Howard: The stick will implode and collapse upon itself, the top part crushing the lower part until, not only is there materials shot out everywhere, but you have a huge dust cloud, too. It's just what gravity does. Try it. You'll see. Shocking, really.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Take a yardstick, stand it upright and push down on the top end until it begins to buckle in the middle. What happens when it breaks? Do the pieces shoot across the room, or do the fall in a neat little pile at your feet?


This analogy is really irrelavent Roark. Steel and wood act VERY differently under bowing. Metal is more maliable than wood. The steel would bow and instead of snapping it would bend not snap in two. If I'm wrong....any materials experts out there...let me know. You've even posted pics of the bent steel. Nice try though.....shows your thinking about it.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Yeah, thanks for reminding me of that, MacMerdin. It slipped my mind.

Steel is also malleable at high temperatures. Granted, enough friction from twisting under weight and you could get some heat going, but remember: each 12-foot floor of hundreds of thick steel columns was blown out in around 0.15 seconds or less (I can't remember the figures - have to do them again - but I'm sure it wasn't far from that mark. The figures I'm referencing are also from video and indepedent from total collapse time variations.). The amount of energy required to provide malleability to the steel would that much more energy taken away from the actual collapse via gravity, just as the concrete pulverization no doubt took much energy, let alone the ejecting of large materials.

But what do you see on 9/11, being ejected from the collapses? Shards of straight steel? I did. And straight core columns on the back of trucks, I can post some pictures of that. Granted that a lot of the straight pieces of metal you see flying out from the buildings were the aluminum facades that covered the columns, there were actual columns that were cut and ejected as well.

They should have bent bent, because steel doesn't snap like that. It isn't brittle. Only at extremely high temperatures will steel snap (well beyond what anyone is even asserting for the fires, excepting a few ignorant claims).

Or some sort of cutting charge.



And keep in mind,



no part of a downwards collapse should cut steel like that. Just another "anomaly," I guess, even though I can tell you exactly why that steel is so finely cut.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
You do realise that these pieces were bolted together - so they tended to shear at the connection points. If you look at detailed pictures like in the NIST report for instance (which has dozens of detailed photos of WTC steel) you will see that most of it did exactly this and some bent on itself, ripped apart, etc.

Of course you may have seen pieces with smooth cuts being taken away on trucks because they cut the steel up on site for easier transport.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You do realise that these pieces were bolted together - so they tended to shear at the connection points. If you look at detailed pictures like in the NIST report for instance (which has dozens of detailed photos of WTC steel) you will see that most of it did exactly this and some bent on itself, ripped apart, etc.

Of course you may have seen pieces with smooth cuts being taken away on trucks because they cut the steel up on site for easier transport.


Yes, and NIST also shows in their "sketches" that the connections consisted of 2 bolts on either side of the trusses. I say BS to that. No engineer in their right mind would design trusses to be bolted with only 2 bolts. Next time you drive over a steel bridge...notice how many bolts are in the connections......WAY more than just two. Another anomaly about NIST huh? Seems to be stacking against them.

BTW.....the core columns were WELDED together...not bolted....as far as I'm aware.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Agentsmith,
i dont like to get into the technical side of things, i genrally tend to just trust my instincs, but you seem to have a complete understanding of all things 9/11, your knowledge and dedication in pointing out all the inconsistancys is truly admirable and helpfull,
but ever since 9/11 i've not been able to accept what accured on that horrible day, infact it changed my life, as well as everybody else's life of cource, you can take away the explosions, witnesses, computor analisis and all the technical data, i've listened to all the arguments, pro's and con's, but what i'm left with in the end is only that what i saw, WTC 1, 2, and 3 collapse in the way that they did, i can not accept this was natural way for these buildings to fall, as for WTC 3, anyone trying to proove that this was due to the two planes hiting WTC 1 and 2 cant be plausible in anyone's imagination, and the pentagon incident, how if a 757 can make such little expression at one event and an unimaginable impression at another, i'm sorry but i just cant get this monkey of my back, if you could wave a magic wond and make this all go away then my life would be simpler and i would be forever in there debt, but alas knowbody can.

Respect.. ian



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Ian....

Playing devils advocate here but, you do realise that the pentagon was made of reinforced concrete and not steel. The pentagon walls are much stronger than the tower's walls were, etc. Comparing apples to organges when you try to compare the towers with the pentagon. As far as what else you said...I agree...it doesn't sit well. And obviously it doesn't sit well with many people or why would we have to have so many reports, investigations and committees?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Yes, and NIST also shows in their "sketches" that the connections consisted of 2 bolts on either side of the trusses. I say BS to that. No engineer in their right mind would design trusses to be bolted with only 2 bolts. Next time you drive over a steel bridge...notice how many bolts are in the connections......WAY more than just two. Another anomaly about NIST huh? Seems to be stacking against them.

BTW.....the core columns were WELDED together...not bolted....as far as I'm aware.


There's a very detailed report here with dozens of images of recovered steel, showing the connections and where they failed, why not take a look? It's the best look at any evidence we're likely to get..

wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

Here's a few of the many images to get you interested:









I might have misunderstood what I'm looking at, but in this image it appears that the connections at either end are with bolts, not welds.



It also looks like there were two bolts holding the truss on:



Of course I might have misunderstood what I'm seeing.

You'll have to excuse me for being a little concerned, but as you said you are an engineer and trying to re-create a simulation of the event - I would have hoped you would have read all the evidence available and studied the images.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Ian....

Playing devils advocate here but, you do realise that the pentagon was made of reinforced concrete and not steel. The pentagon walls are much stronger than the tower's walls were, etc. Comparing apples to organges when you try to compare the towers with the pentagon.


Thanks MacMerdin,
I understand what your saying, but nevertheless its not just the damage to the building that doen't sit well with me, its also the lack of debri surrounding the building, plus the 5 frame's of film made available that only show the event before and after the plane hit the pentagon, these are part of the things that seem more unbelievable to me, even more so than American airspace being taken over by terrorists,

All the best... ian

[edit on 073131p://4216 by iamian]

[edit on 073131p://4316 by iamian]




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join