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.

 

Video showing calculations behind throwing 4 ton beams 600ft

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I didn't intend to come off as self-righteous; my apologies that it seemed so to you. I'm a disabled vet, so time is one thing I've got plenty of, so I guess I've just had more time to absorb than other people are privvy to.

I don't believe everything I read, nobody should. Further, I do not instantly liken to an alternative theory simply because it's not the official story. To name two examples, I remain unconvinced that a missile was shot into the towers, and I belive the "holographic planes" theory is complete tripe.

Now, regarding "evidence"...let's say you find a dead man. His wound is consistant with a gunshot. There are powder burns about the entry wound. Blood spatter on the wall behind him is inconsistant with a gunshot. But you find no gun and no bullet. Is this lack of gun evidence that the bullet was thrown by hand? Is the lack of bullet evidence that it must have incinerated itself inside the body? Doubtful, and you'll laugh at someone who says so; it's only a matter of finding the missing pieces.

So, let's look at the WTC. We have extremely heavy steel beams that were somehow ejected at velocity away from the buildings when they otherwise should have come down with the rest of the debris, especially given their weight. We have puffs of smoke that, while not conclusive, are similar to explosives used in some buildings to bring them down (again, these are not conclusive, but people have been convicted and sentenced on evidence concluded this way). We have pieces of steel that are cut at angles consistant with demolition charge cutting. And we have numerous witness accounts of multiple explosions. And so many other things that it would be derailing this thread to put them all here.

Witch hunter, I am not. It's taken me a long time to piece everything together, put my own preconceived notions aside, and just see what the picture looks like. I pride myself on knowing things, and I don't like to be wrong, so that was a little hard for me. But this is no witch hunt; it's the examination of a horrible tragedy that didn't have to happen, and finding those responsible for allowing it to.




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
[edit testing embed]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Good stuff, ADVISOR, and good timing on that embed. Math doesn't lie.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Even you must admit that you seem to be more willing to believe the unproven outlandish then unproven mundane. I just require really good evidence & proof before making such leaps.


Well, this is how I look at it. Take this thread's topic as an example.

When you have huge sections of steel being ejected onto the roofs of buildings some ~600 feet away, and the pieces are unbent and show no signs of torsion, then you have a problem with the "official account" (just entertain me here, because of course the "official account" doesn't even freaking mention this stuff, in all its conclusiveness and proven-ness).

We could stop right there and just say, "Welp! Dunno! You got me there; who knows."

I don't like doing that, though, for whatever reason, and so try to imagine what might have done that. Guess what? Not many things come to mind. Very few, actually. Really, only one: additional energy sources in the Towers. That is to say, gravity alone obviously did not do that, for simple and obvious reasons mentioned above (huge section, unbent; no torsion or anything so simple).

What other energy sources can we think of? Fire wouldn't do that. Air is now being suggested, apparently, but that's an insufficient answer as well considering that the buildings could not have generated much pressure since they were not airtight, and the windows and all number of things would have gone well before such massive sections of steel, and even then, the energy that would require would be amazing in context.

Not just gravity/torsion, fire, air, thinking critically here. We can debate each one of those possibilities all day, which is what usually happens: knit-picking on whether or not an alternate explanation offered by the fed sympathizers is even legit in the first place.

If you keep on little things like this, the only logical explanations (to me, at least) come down to "additional energy" translating into "explosives" of some kind. It would have to be, reasonably, unless someone can present something more plausible that has alluded us so far (and no one has, or I'd like to think I'd jump that boat instead).



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
+No plane on every location.
Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews


He is either a disinfo agent or he should be shot. He went on Fox News and must have known he'd be forced into a soundbite. He rambled and presented no evidence whatsoever apart from saying that no planes hit the towers: I watched the news live that day and I believe I saw the second plane hit. I'm not CERTAIN that it was the passenger plane that allegedly contained all these passengers, but I will take a lot of convincing that no planes hit, certainly more than Reynolds offered. He really blew a chance to get something sensible out on Fox... or, he was paid disinfo to make the truth movement look stupid, which he certainly did.

To say that an aluminium plane could not go through the steel columns of the WTC is to discount entirely the phenomenon of momentum. You can put a soft wax candle in a shotgun and fire it through a thick sheet of hard wood. A plane going 500mph or so will have significant penetrative capability.


Trailer for "WMD at the WTC" Be in DC Sept 11, 2006 for the premiere
video.google.com...


I was IMMEDIATELY put off this movie by the rhetorical question, "is this nuclear winter?" That's the kind of half-assed rhetoric that gets the truth movement a bad name, and while I'm very keen on the truth movement people sticking together, I also think that the scholarship that supports the assertions has to be pretty damn solid.

"Nuclear Winter", up to now, has always meant a global climate change brought about by a massive mutual nuclear attack, hypothetically between the US and USSR. What is visible in the video is the cloud of dust from the demolition of at least one of the towers. That's a LONG way from nuclear winter.

What is INCREDIBLY valuable in the video, however, is the sound of the explosion: if only the time that this footage was shot were better documented.

The list of "proofs" that indicated the use of nukes is unconvincing to me, except for the elevated tritium levels. I'd like to see more evidence of that. All the other "proofs" could easily have other explanations. The vaporisation of office equipment like computers (which is still, to my mind, most likely to have been effected by explosions throughout the building) releases a lot of highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.

The evidence for the EMP is interesting, although I thought EMPs were supposed to disable electronic equipment completely, unless specifically hardened against their effects.

I'm now open to the possibility that a nuclear demolition device may have been placed in the basement, but imo this would only be to sever the base of the building so it could collapse in on itself. The floors collapse one by one from the point of impact down, and there's no visual evidence to suggest that an enormously powerful explosion at the base caused a top-down collapse. The link about nuclear demolition devices was interesting but I stll think charges were placed throughout the buildings.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
... the more "initiated" of us "truthers" had realized that NIST never outlined a global collapse mechanism to begin with, so all the pancake-theorists were basing their opinions upon absolutely nothing but vague conjecture from a few independent papers and FEMA.


Thanks for the links. NIST are certainly relying on their official position to palm off some sloppy thinking on an uninformed and compliant public. There are holes in their logic you could, er... fly a plane through...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The plane is so fake that even blind people can hear that is not real:
Why there were no planes at the WTC

[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I'll bet the passengers thought it was real. Explain that away please, and do it in the proper thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join