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.

 

"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

there is no audio from the actual video in the link I posted.



Fine.

Then go find one that does.

Can't do it, can you?




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
If there was global failure the air would continue downwards indefinitely.



Why's that?

Couldn't it go out the sides, or down the train tunnels?

Possible or not?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Quit ignoring it.

The audio is irrelevant. We arent discussing bombs. Where are discussing a pancake theory. Explosions have nothing to do with that.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Quit ignoring it.

The audio is irrelevant. We arent discussing bombs. Where are discussing a pancake theory. Explosions have nothing to do with that.



Kinda like you're ignoring that I corrected you're wrong about NIST's statement regarding pancake collapse? Right?

You're right though. There were no explosions. Pancake progression, not initiation.

Now, if you were honest, you'd listen to videos from near the base of 2's collapse, and you'd have to admit that there's nothing there.

Will you do that?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I've seen videos on both sides. I've seen videos containing audio which would imply no explosions. I've seen videos which clearly contain explosions. To that effect, I've also read and seen videos of testimonies claiming explosions.

Again, that is all irrelevant. You can cling to to NIST comment forever, I'm really indifferent.

Now, how about that video



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy


Now, how about that video





How about you admit that you misrepresented NIST's statement?

And what about the video?

Have anything to add?

Anything you want me to address?

He makes no claims to address, right?

It's all innuendo. I especially liked the last line - What do YOU think? All it lacked was the dramatic music.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
I've seen videos which clearly contain explosions.


You mean the doctored one for the BBC show?

There is NO original footage that has any explosions at the onset nor during the collapse.

Anything else is garbage.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420
If there was global failure the air would continue downwards indefinitely.



Why's that?

Couldn't it go out the sides, or down the train tunnels?

Possible or not?


Possible in a pancake collapse, not possible in global failure.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Possible in a pancake collapse, not possible in global failure.



I think you need to explain what, in your mind, is the difference beteewn the 2, if any.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
So after numerous attempts you still act like a child and refuse to consider evidence that goes against your opinion. Not to mention the fact that since the creation of your account, what, 2 months ago, your only agenda here on ATS has been derailing 9/11 threads. You are a very sad individual.

Disinfo or not, another post in reply to you would be a complete waste of time. As they say, don't feed the trolls.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well as for not seeing the "squib effect" on the demolition video, for one thing the tower was not as high as the WTC by a long shot, and for another the windows and probably other things (such as interior walls) were removed beforehand, which would make it harder to build pressure. And the building design is different, and so on.

As for these reports of "explosions" -- how do you know that what they heard was demolition charges, especially when there is no audio recording that would corroborate such a thing? The recording you mention doesn't -- for one there's a comms/voice/radio track superimposed on top, so something could be coming from there and the source of that voice track could be much closer to the towers. Also, the things called "explosions" sound more like wind ruffling the mike, not blasts (and that some of those happened way before the collapse is very telling. You don't just set off charges at random intervals way before the "big show".). The one around the time of collapse could be the sound of the building collapsing, which will produce a rumble. But there's no banging sounds! You posted a video showing a demolition of a skyscraper. Did you compare the very sharp and distinctive sound to that in the other? Notice the difference?

[edit on 11-8-2009 by mike3]

[edit on 11-8-2009 by mike3]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Jesus H. Christ Mikey. I don't know what to say to you people any more.




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Eyewitness testimony.....
Here's a little information about eye witness testimony.


So "Harley Shirt Guy" (actor) is not credible then....
"Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

or do we the guys in the front line?

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes



[edit on 11-8-2009 by 297GT]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


I listened to what he said.

He makes no claims.

So what is there to consider?

If you'd like to make a claim, feel free.





[edit on 11-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Hokay, so splain why georgey wasn't drug outa that classroom by the SS. Either they weren't doing their job, or they knew no planes were headed that way. I mean, really, planes are flying into buildings, and they let him finish the story. PAHLEZE.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 297GT
 


Reread the part about how memories are encoded and how factors such as stress that detract from the mind's ability to encode and pay attention this time please. Then come to me with this.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by 297GT
 


Reread the part about how memories are encoded and how factors such as stress that detract from the mind's ability to encode and pay attention this time please. Then come to me with this.


Or how misinformation is distributed to distract....
why was a paid actor dressed as MR Ave American in wall street, interviewed on tv and so elaborate in his 'expert' analysis with in mins of the building falling?

I think you may need to decode and start facing facts, which are overwhelming pointing to demolition.

Lets forget the 2 towers, lets just soley focus on building 7...
Explain away please great yoda



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

Possible in a pancake collapse, not possible in global failure.



I think you need to explain what, in your mind, is the difference beteewn the 2, if any.


I like how you directly state that the difference is in my mind, as if there was no difference. Please go back and educate yourself on the mechanics of both, and if you do an honest job you won't need me to explain it.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Uhhhhhh.....

A few holes in this theory when it is applied to the towers.

A) This is a demolition. The building was prepped to collapse. Unless the 'skeptics' want to admit that the towers were prepped in the same ways then the two cannot be compared.

B) That is a very short, rectangular building. The floor the was removed was in the middle of the building. The towers had unequal damage up near the top third of the buildings. They had MUCH MORE REINFORCED structure below the impact zones still providing a great deal of support. If anything, with the uneven damage, the tops should have collapsed off and slid to whatever side had the most damage.

C) Explosives were used in this demolition. Dun dun duuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnn!

[edit on 12-8-2009 by dariousg]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


No explosives huh?

I call complete BS.

Find me a man willing to be paid to go into a building like that and structurally weaken it "just enough" to allow a collapse at any time.

What, did they all just sit around and wait for it to go? Did they shoot out structural supports from a safe distance?
I know, they went into the future and established that it was going to collapse on its own on a specific date and just evacuated it and filmed it!


It's called "controlled demolition" for a reason, its demolition is controlled by man.

Seriously, the stupidity of some people astounds me.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join