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.

 

Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   


‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction’, in other words when two objects collide the resultant force is equal to both objects, the weaker object will lose regardless of which one was moving. This shows why the plane crashes severed columns hypothesis-is is very questionable. Aluminum is not going to sever steel columns. Think about it…


That's a simplfied way of seeing it. Ever hear of a straw being rammed into a tree by a tornado?

The plane is not a paper plane. It is built for strength and lightness.

Not just lightness.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by albieThat's a simplfied way of seeing it. Ever hear of a straw being rammed into a tree by a tornado?


Oh jeez when are people going to learn to research before they try turning myths into analogies they claim are based on facts.

Science has yet to discover why the phenomena of straw sticking in trees happens. There are currently two common theories, one is that the tree bends in the wind creating temporary cracks that the straw get trapped in. The other theory has to do with static electricity or something.


Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens vellingand the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.


Source

Your understanding of mass and velocity is based on myths, not true science.
'Almost impossible to simulate in the lab', in other words it's not simply velocity as you are assuming.

So, I stand by my 'simplified' way of looking at it...


Which btw you don't seem to understand the point of. The point is objects collide with an equal energy, both objects push against each other equally, regardless of which one was moving or how fast or how strong or how light.

Answer this question...While driving, a bug strikes the windshield of a car. Obviously, a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the windshield?

If you answered 'they would be the same' you would be right...

Now think about hitting an aluminum plane with a few steel columns traveling at 500mph, in other word turn the situation around, which would be the winner? If you said the steel you would be right. Now what was that about equal reactions? Newton says it doesn't matter which object is moving, or how fast, the forces on both objects will be the same. I think Newton has yet to be doubted..


[edit on 17/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
The plane is not a paper plane. It is built for strength and lightness.

One good point to bring up is that most modern arrows are made of light metals like aluminum. They are nothing more than hollow tubes. You can bend them easily from the side, but when they run into an object on the end, they have great strength.

That's not to say that an airplane running into a building is the same thing on a larger scale. Still, you have to admit that a metallic tube hitting something head-on dramatically increases the strength of the tube. Sure, the airplane will buckle, but you're going to get quite a bit of penetration before that occurs.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
^There's no doubting there would be penetration.

What is in question is whether they could penetrate and still have enough energy to, as NIST claims, sever central core columns. Without the central core damage the official story gets even less plausible...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^There's no doubting there would be penetration.


That's what she said! Sorry couldn't resist that one.


But seriously if you think about it the walls were not solid steel, the outer steel frame work had holes where the windows would go. Needless to say, the windows are not going to give much resistance to a plane travelling 400+mph.



Notice between each steel beam there is an empty void, in fact the empty area is wider than the steel beams which I believe would allow for segments of the plane to pass on through. In fact I would expect the some parts of the plane hitting the steel to bend then slip into these holes.



Still not convinced? Then check out this WWII photo of a kamikaze Pilot dive bombing and penetrating the thick steel hull of a battleship! Obviously there were no holes in the steel for windows on the battleship yet we have a clear outline of where the plane entered, much like the scenario at the WTC.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
^
We don't know the full story behind that picture, just a random pic of a ship with a hole in it is no proof a 757 could sever columns. Maybe the plane that hit that ship was carrying bombs or a torpedo, very likely in fact. I would also say the core structure of the WTC was far stronger than a ships hull.

Sry but these left-field analogies ain't going to convince me a 757 severed those massive columns after being shredded, and slowed down, by the outer columns...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
to anyone who hasnt seen this yet, i know many of you have watched it but think it is the best explination for what happened, an event that was under hundreds of cameras, how can they lie and the countless hundreds of others who survived. I fyou where not there how can you judge from your couch, this is the best documentary put together on this topic, please watch if you havent seen it already.
video.google.ca...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
If the kamikaze pilot used a bomb it makes no difference, you can see where the wings entered. The bomb didn't cut out that hole!

Additionally its not impossible that the impact zones of the WTC were weakened or sabotaged in some way. But that would also indicate the planes hit exactly where they were supposed to (drone flight).

Anyway I think we wandered off topic. IMO whoever rigged those buildings were most likely aware of the plane operations. For me I have seen more than enough evidence to know for myself these buildings were taken down with explosives, there is no doubt in my mind about this. Everything else for me is still open to speculation but explosives used to bring down those buildings is fact.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



but i have to ask old friend, how much research have you done into explosives and what they can/cant do in order to support your facts?

i mean im willing to agree to disagree but it just seems that if youre going to accept something as fact it might help to have done equal amount of research into the topic


if you want any suggestions for reference materials ill be glad to u2u some to you, though ive never looked to see if they are available online as i have hardcopies here at home.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



but i have to ask old friend, how much research have you done into explosives and what they can/cant do in order to support your facts?

i mean im willing to agree to disagree but it just seems that if youre going to accept something as fact it might help to have done equal amount of research into the topic


if you want any suggestions for reference materials ill be glad to u2u some to you, though ive never looked to see if they are available online as i have hardcopies here at home.


well I guess you wouldn't know but I have been interested in explosives for a very long time (well over a decade) and I have family in the military, I was reading the cookbook in Archimedes format long before the Internet formally existed and had alsorts of deviant information on IEDs. Lets put it this way I knew how to make thermite from scratch at 14 years old.

Thanks for the reference materials, I do have plenty but cross reference is always good. In fact cross reference is something I always like to do to make sure I get my facts as straight as I can!

Now whilst I am currently convinced explosives were used I am still not sure exactly what type. To me it looks like c4, and sounds sort of like c4. You also know I think its quite possible low yield atomic demolition munitions were used. But I think the c4 was used initially and slowly after the first plane hit. With all the noise on the street no one really heard the pops, and broad daylight made the flashes less obvious although BOTH can be observed. Not to mention the dozens of people who were there hearing explosions. I still do find it strange so when I say 'explosives' I mean it in a very broad term!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
p.s Here is a funny story. I am actually good friends with a explosives and pyrotechnics expert who is in his late 60s now (and probably the most healthiest 60 year old i have ever met). I can tell you he is behind one of the biggest firework organisations in the UK and put on firework displays for the Queen, I just can't print his name up here because it will be found via google and I am sure he doesn't want to be tied with this info.


I actually and very nervously sent him an e-mail one day to ask him his opinion on the WTC collapse since I knew I could trust his words. I was nervous because I had that much respect for him and was worried he would laugh at my question and dismiss it as nonsense. His reply was basically 'check this out' and a link to web page he made filled with links to videos of government cover ups from the Vietnam, JFK, Cuba, CIA drug traffiking and money laundering all the way up to 9/11.

I was like.. whoa.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   




You can downplay the force the planes had when they struck the towers all you like. You don't know what went on in there. You don't know what damage was done.

That's the ambiguity of the situation that the laws of physics has only a small bearing on. Laws that you cannot predict on this type of situation.

That's why the engineering scene is split on this whole thing from first impact to the collapse.

There is room for both explanations. So why are you bothering to debate something that you can never prove?




A tornado is a violently rotating column of air which descends from a thunderstorm to the ground. No other weather phenomenon can match the fury and destructive power of tornadoes. Tornadoes can be strong enough to destroy large buildings, leaving only the bare concrete foundation. In addition, they can lift 20-ton railroad cars from their tracks and they can drive straw and blades of grass into tree and telephone poles.


www.wunderground.com...



[edit on 19-12-2007 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   


thanx for the answer James, but a straw is weaker than a pencil and a tree is stronger than a 1/2" of ply. What was the velocity of the pencil? I guess the question is...is it possible for a wheat straw to penetrate say a 10" tree trunk going 300 miles per hour? when you say "fast enough" that goes without saying right? I mean at 17,000mph it would go through a chunk of steel. lets say 300mph for an F5 tornado max speed. thank you again for your reply James.


en.allexperts.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   


Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.


mythbustersresults.com...

"At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree."

That'll do me.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
science.howstuffworks.com...

Water can cut through steel.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Also, the planes weren't all aluminium. Consider the engines and any other steel parts.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


heh well if he's bored, send him the lnk to that debate thread i u2u'd you the lnk for. id love for you to get his thoughts on it and compare notes with me. (feel free to use the "yahoo" button under any of my posts)

during the course of that debate WUK actually consulted an EOD guy several times to try to verify what i was typing. apparently i checked out. so thats good in light of all the demo classes i had to teach while i was in the army lol (and before anyone jumps on me ask any soldier, who teaches classes once they are out of bootcamp? and they should tell you that everyone eventually teaches classes on pretty much any topic related to their platoons mission. last class i ever taught was on IED's which is why i had one of the "training aids" in the trunk of my car when i got popped for a "random inspection" going onto the post my wife was stationed at (i was moving into our apartment on post that night, had just spent 6 days driving across the country)(i paid for the materials to make my training aids so i kept them, and forgot i had one in the trunk. it got interesting for a while, i just thank god they finally listened to me and called off the bomb squad which was on its way from the naval air station 30 miles away lol))

man i tend to babble when i post, sorry guys, i blame the meds.

anyway back to my point. your friend may be a conspiracy buff. but, id be interested in his thoughts about my thesis' on the cd theories. (of course though i would like him to back up any critical comments with more than "cuz i said so" lol)

[ /off topic rambling ]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Also, the planes weren't all aluminium. Consider the engines and any other steel parts.


this is a good point. i think many people hear "how can aluminum cut steel?" (another popular thread in this forum) and think soda cans vs structural steel. yeah, a soda can at 500mph likely is going to just disintigrate on contact.

but, go to the nearest machine shop or anywhere that sells steel, buy a 1 foot piece of 1" diameter forged aluminum and load that into a compressed air cannon (small barrel or sabot i dont care) and fire it at 500mph at a steel column and see what happens.

not ALL of the aluminum on a plane is thin sheeting



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   





With only a few seconds warning, Hinsdale just above the could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart— only one member of the watch survived death by scalding steam from the exploding boilers.


en.wikipedia.org...

Airplane, ship. Bang.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


heh well if he's bored, send him the lnk to that debate thread i u2u'd you the lnk for. id love for you to get his thoughts on it and compare notes with me. (feel free to use the "yahoo" button under any of my posts)

your friend may be a conspiracy buff. but, id be interested in his thoughts about my thesis' on the cd theories. (of course though i would like him to back up any critical comments with more than "cuz i said so" lol)

[ /off topic rambling ]


Well first off I doubt I could persuade him without a really good reason as he is a very busy chap and by the looks of things I doubt he has time to come here and do a proper analysis but I could probably communicate with him on issues we maybe stuck on. Although I could be completely wrong for all I know he could be a resident member. hehe
Either way it wouldn't be a surprise.

Second of all I do take notice and try to take onboard all the points you raise although I may not reply I do have much respect for your input since you have first hand experience with explosives. Your just the right type of guy we need around here to keep us on the right tracks and glad you take time out to post.

Anyway you know I think some alternative type of explosive/WMD brought down those towers besides c4. I did look into your debate on explosives used in the towers and I agree with your scenario that what we are seeing is not what we would expect, there wasn't enough noise, the amount required to get that building down was tremendous with c4 (i forget the figures right now!) which all seems to check out and I am sure is all very much correct I have no issues with that. The issue really is the types of explosives used in the grand collapse which basically counters the entire arguement. Unfortunately I wish we had more solid ground to go on but much can be done with educated deduction. After all there IS an answer to all this, (or answers)

Like I said before we can see what appears to be c4 travelling up the towers but I am thinking this was just to weaken the structure and not to take it down. Just a small amount of c4 and cutter charges to break up the internals quickly and allow the building to fall apart neatly when 'whatever else' was detonated in the towers final moments, which seems to make some sense. The whole point being c4 was used but not in the quantity required to completely destroy the building. Just enough to weaken the internal structure. Maybe in even less quantity than what is used in buildings half the size.

Calculations are almost irrelevant in this scenario except the fact of massive energy requirements to pulverise all the concrete in such a evenly distributed way. Packages of explosives don't account for this unless every square meter of concrete had its own payload. Basically if your trying to calculate it all in c4 then your not going to end up with the correct results and an almost impossible scenario which you have proven to us time and time again. To me it literally screams something other than your normal explosive/bombs were used in the final moments of collapse. If you had all the variables for the device used then it would all make perfect sense I am sure but we don't have those variables, we can only make educated guesses and deduction of the scenario. However they give us some very heavy pointers to something unconventional, and its not just the event itself but the final results and all the relative information coming out after that.

I have looked into the 93 WTC bombing, OKC bombing, the Kobar tower bombings, Bali bombing, politics and affairs, intelligence and news feeds, drug traffiking and covert operations and a whole lot more to help deduct the possible WTC scenario and there are similarities and patterns to be found in all of these events. There is no doubt in my mind explosives were used I just don't know what exactly, but i feel I am close and have a pretty good guess.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join