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.

 

WTC1 Impact, weird stuff going on.

page: 1
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+25 more 
posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I was watching this video earlier and 07:50 seconds into it at time of impact I noticed some very weird happenings.......

www.youtube.com...

I tried to capture them best I could....



Not sure if they have been brought up before but worth a mention I guess.

EDIT: Changed link for film.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Seventh]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

S&F defiantly explosions going off! Great photos, another nail in proving the OS is a lie.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Yes, very nice.

Also include the fact that the antenna sat on a 'hat truss' assembly,
( a matrix of steel beams angled and tied together) yet managed to fall FIRST. Nobody has been able to explain how the antenna fell before
the core.


Musta been some of those explosions cutting the core and hat truss for
that to happen.

Nice screen shots by the way.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Thanks guys
, I persistently hover around the smaller evidence scraps etc looking for those overlooked bits or completely unnoticed, the bigger pieces have been smashed senseless by the more than prepared for them GL`s etc, so I do tend to side step these, some I have made basic mistakes with, but there`s still at least 3 things i`ve picked up on floating around here, that have not even been attempted to be debunked


/cheers

P.S. I think these frames more than seal the nail in that horrific why no rooftop rescues? coffin, 700 plus first hand eye witnesses to the obliterated for no apparent reason *hat* support beams, would have been very hard to ignore.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 



Oh just thought of something else, i`m sure, in fact positive, that I read somewhere a lot of the small independent news companies were basically put off air due to that antenna being damaged, not sure where I read this or how true it was, but could well be worth looking into, i`m not sure how many small or independent news broadcasters you guys have, but it does appear that any footage you see is from one of the big 5.

Just a thought
.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

Here we go.....

killtown.911review.org...

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
From the video 911 In Plane Site



"The question should be; if Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then where is it? And keep in mind, if we do find someone, a group, an agency, that is involved in the obfuscation, distraction, distortion, or coverup of any of the information of any of the events of September 11th, does that not indicate possible involvement and even guilt in the event of September 11th?"


Gee isn't Dave vonKleist describing our very own duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics and shills and government loyalists here on ATS and elsewhere?




[edit on 8/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
holy crap somebody slipped up there is more here than meets the eye excellent post.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Well done, S&F.

This is the first video I've seen that explains the theory that 9/11 wasn't what it appeared to be, that did so in a calm, rational way without excessive hype of its idea. Many other videos showed similar information, but kept throwing in comments about "this *MUST* be X, this *CAN'T* be Y. This video just put it out there and asked reasonable questions, allowing me to draw my own conclusions. For that, I am truly grateful.

All of this together means I've got to rethink the whole 9/11 issue. I still don't know that it's the Government, or whatever. I don't know what really happened. What I *do* know is that the common explanations given to us don't appear to fit the facts. And the questions don't seem to require any special circumstances, any weird information - just what was evident on that day. I remember seeing many of those clips on the first day, the common assumptions that there were explosions in the towers, bombs going off, etc. But only for the first few hours on the first day; then suddenly "everyone" knew there were no explosions.

This was by far the best 9/11 video I have ever seen, well done, convincing, without any hysteria about plots. Just a calm display of the facts, questions asked, suggested answers, but not shoving anything down my throat.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
S+F - Good find! I'm quite suprised someone hadn't noticed that before though. There could well be other things that reinforce that the OS is official crap.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





Also include the fact that the antenna sat on a 'hat truss' assembly,
( a matrix of steel beams angled and tied together) yet managed to fall FIRST. Nobody has been able to explain how the antenna fell before
the core.

Musta been some of those explosions cutting the core and hat truss for
that to happen.

Nice screen shots by the way.



Well looK here....

Seems someone did explain how the hat truss failed - bringing down the
antenna structure on top of it




6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1

After the aircraft impact, gravity loads that were previously carried by severed columns were redistributed to other columns. The north wall lost about 7 percent of its loads after impact. Most of the load was transferred by the hat truss, and the rest was redistributed to the adjacent exterior walls by spandrels. Due to the impact damage and the tilting of the building to the north after impact, the south wall also lost gravity load, and about 7 percent was transferred by the hat truss. As a result, the east and west walls and the core gained the redistributed loads through the hat truss.

Structural steel expands when heated. In the early stages of the fire, structural temperatures in the core rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls. About 20 min. after the aircraft impact, the difference in the thermal expansion between the core and exterior walls, which was resisted by the hat truss, caused the core column loads to increase. As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward. At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads were transferred by the hat truss to the exterior walls due to thermal weakening of the core; the north and south walls each gained about 10 percent more loads, and the east and west walls each gained about 25 percent higher loads. Since the hat truss outriggers to the east and west walls were stiffer than the outriggers to the north and south walls, they transferred more loads to the east and west exterior walls.

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.
1



Of course since doesnt play into your conspiracy fantasy probably find some facile excuse to ignore it...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Originally posted by thedman




Well looK here.... Seems someone did explain how the hat truss failed - bringing down the antenna structure on top of it Of course since doesnt play into your conspiracy fantasy probably find some facile excuse to ignore it...


NIST`s fantasy have ignored the blatant explosion seen as jet impacts, you need to buy yourself some reality glasses, seems you guys get blinded at the 1st sight of evidence that cannot be character defamed.

This isn`t so much as the hat truss fail thread as it is `Here we go MSN the world is your oyster, the air waves are yours, we`ll even share our main stream link with the little guys... perfect`.

A reminder of your history (of which there are not many centuries of)..

1). Spanish-American war, 1898:- Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.

2). World War I, 1914-1918: - 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.

3). World War 2, 1939-1945: - Pearl Harbour, broken the Japanese encryption codes, Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbour,.

4). Korean War, 1950-1953: - US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.

5). J.F.K. 1963 - Murdered.

6). Vietnam War: - "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened.

7). Grenada invasion: - The Grenadian leader favouring long range Soviet aircraft, was replaced at a moment when he was negotiating in the UN, New York for a more open UN UFO policy based on Grenada initiatives. The proffered reason for the immediate invasion was that American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence.

8). War on Drugs: - Launched by Richard M. Nixon. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Vietnam. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.

9). Panama invasion: - The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand the control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.

10). US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: - The US has built power bases in the Middle East, Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.

After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.

The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

11). Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): - Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

12). War on Terror: - The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.

13). Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.

14). Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".

I can see why you love your beloved country so much, their unblemished history speaks volumes.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Whether you like it or not, there's a portion of september clues that proves 100% without a shadow of a doubt that live video footage was being manipulated.

It's the famous "perfect zoom" shot. The chopped has a wide shot of the skyline, it suddenly zooms it, then a couple seconds later it does a final zoom. Within a second, the plane enters the screen and smashes into the building.

So whats the problem?

Well the problem is, only a few seconds exist between when the camera is completely zoomed out, to when the camera is completely zoomed in.

While the camera is zoomed out there is NO PLANE IN THE SKY! Thus, in the few seconds it takes to make a couple well timed 'zooms', there is no way a plane could have "snuck up" on the shot. To anyone who sees the video has no choice but to realize that it's fraudulent.

I'll embed the clip later when I find it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipStorm
S+F - Good find! I'm quite suprised someone hadn't noticed that before though. There could well be other things that reinforce that the OS is official crap.


There are plenty my friend, i`ll dig some out later for you
.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
Whether you like it or not, there's a portion of september clues that proves 100% without a shadow of a doubt that live video footage was being manipulated.

It's the famous "perfect zoom" shot. The chopped has a wide shot of the skyline, it suddenly zooms it, then a couple seconds later it does a final zoom. Within a second, the plane enters the screen and smashes into the building.

So whats the problem?

Well the problem is, only a few seconds exist between when the camera is completely zoomed out, to when the camera is completely zoomed in.

While the camera is zoomed out there is NO PLANE IN THE SKY! Thus, in the few seconds it takes to make a couple well timed 'zooms', there is no way a plane could have "snuck up" on the shot. To anyone who sees the video has no choice but to realize that it's fraudulent.

I'll embed the clip later when I find it.


There`s loads in September Clues that still hold water, it was a double bluff, with the blatantly obvious manufactured evidence in with that which was not, people watching the debunking and clearly visible made up crap do the obvious human mind thing and pass it all off as one huge fix, thus laying to rest some pretty damning evidence in the process, including the nose out scene, okay wrongly depicted as to what it was etc, but it is still there, no doubting that, there`s a frame by frame depiction of it curtsy of Fox doing the rounds somewhere
.

Also the 17 second delay, check the seismic data out, WTC2 the South Tower impact, there`s some info here..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have a whole heap more very interesting stuff to add to that thread later, anyway`s work beckons.

/cheers



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Ok, I'm not here to argue what really happened on that day. I just have a question about this paticular piece of evidence.

What good would those explosions do, they are practically on top of the tower?

Someone mentioned the antenna, but none of those "explosions" are anywhere near the antenna. On top of that, one pack of explosives would render that antenna unoperable.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Well, part of the problem is you might need to get more resolute video. Because I went and dug up a decent original of the first impact clip, and captured a screen of what you are talking about. You can clearly see here those are some kind of boxes mounted on the building. Definitely not explosions, imo. And you can see the same thing in the corner of the other building too.



So I want my star and flag back!
lol, j/k, keep em. You get an A for effort, my friend.


[edit on Sat Aug 29th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


None of the incidents you cited has any bearing on what transpired on 9/11. Trying to show that the US Government *could* have done something, isn't the same as showing that they did it.

Your response doesn't address the issues raised by the engineering report. Perhaps you could address those issues, instead of resorting to a history lesson.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
reply to post by Seventh
 

Trying to show that the US Government *could* have done something, isn't the same as showing that they did it.


But showing that others *could not have* done it, does leave the question hanging.

I think you'll find that the majority of people simply want another investigation, they are willing to withhold blame until a PROPER investigation is completed to show what actually happened, without defying the laws of physics, without ignoring evidence and without creating convenient imaginary terrorists.

The first rule of asserting responsibility in any criminal investigation is motive. Who would benefit from this?

If the evidence is true and this was not done by an outside terrorist force, who else could have gained from it?

1. The U.S. Govt. (see Project Northwoods)
2. Owners of the property (see insurance records and the report on the safety of those buildings)

Who else is there?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Proved me right again - said would find some quick excuse to dismiss
the failure of the hat truss

You have any REAL evidence besides your incohert rant against the US !

Tighten up your tin foil - its going to be a bumpy ride....



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


As per normal evidence gets side tracked and this is intended for both you and Chiron a few above, this is not as I stated (learn to read and comprehend) evidence of how the hat truss failed, it is however clear and damning proof there was at least one other independent explosive occurring simultaneously with the impact, jeez you lackeys.

Understand it yet.

Another.

Explosion.

Not, how roof truss failed.

Now you want to twist this, fine, I expect nothing else.

From - look here, clearly, there`s another boom, to - side track, on view for all to see, notice the debunkers with an IQ above 0 have avoided this thread.

Why is that?.

They can see, the clearly shown unaccountable for - explosion.

Which is what this thread entails.

Not thinking you have debunked it asking for proof for something not related to the intention of this thread.

Which by all means is ..... explosion, when/where there should not be one.

Don`t flatter yourself into thinking you worry me into anywhere near the level needed, to make me wear tin foil (I take it you meant hat and not the prescribed oven ware for turkeys with this statement?).

Savy?.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join