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.

 

WTC6 and the respective damage that caused the crater.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
When the film crew enters the North Tower shortly after impact, there are people in the lobby on fire from flames that traveled down the elevator shafts.

It saddens me that people actually believe this garbage. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and all available evidence goes against what you've been programmed to say.

A magical fireball will not destroy the lobby, cause multiple explosions in the lobby, destroy a 10-ton hydraulic brake press in the machine shop in the basement levels, destroy the parking garage in the basement levels, kill and mame numerous people in the basement levels, and knock out windows and in adjacent building(s).

You've got to be kidding me if you believe a fireball can be that destructive, even when fireballs aren't explosive. Explosives are explosive.

FDNY firefighter John Schroeder talks about what happened in the north tower. He was at his station when the north tower got hit. From the time it took them to saddle up and get to the north tower and then get their orders from the command post in the lobby of the north tower, he talks about an explosion in the lobby, well after the first plane had already hit. Then he talks about going up to the 24th floor and the entire building getting rocked and them getting bounced around in the stairwell from explosions in the north tower as the second plane hit the south tower.

In videos of the second plane strike, you can see smoke in the north tower being disturbed from internal explosions timed with the second plane strike.

Then John talks about making it back down to the lobby and the lobby being completely destroyed from the explosions in the north tower. Mind you both planes had already struck, yet explosions in the lower levels continued.

He also talks about how the glass in the lobby was 2"-3" thick and how the elevators were on the other side of the building, opposite the lobby and that there were no fires or burn marks, only explosive damage.

Here is John's interview (short version). The long version is also on YouTube:






So don't ever say for a second that a magical fireball caused destruction multiple times in the lobby and lower levels, destroyed the lower stairwells, destroyed a 10-ton hydraulic press in the basement levels, destroyed the parking garage in the basement levels, killed and mamed numerous people in the basement levels, and blew out windows in a near-by building.

Heat (fireballs) travel UP not down. A fireball wouldn't travel a quarter mile down and cause destruction over at least a 45-55 minute period and to adjacent buildings also. Get researched and stop spreading government programmed disinformation.




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You can't see that face sure, but you also do not see any smoke coming from these supposed explosions. If the buildings FACE was damaged, I think it'd be safe to say that something OUTSIDE the building caused it. As per your other post I'm trying to keep this as about building 6 as I can. Would be happy to discuss that in anoter thread, or what that focuses on that.

So lets say there were explosions in 6. What were they for? Destroy evidence? Weaken the building? Was it a small localized explosion so you couldn't see any damage or note the explosion from outside? Was it so large it blew a chunk of the building away?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It saddens me that people actually believe this garbage. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and all available evidence goes against what you've been programmed to say.

Get researched and stop spreading government programmed disinformation.




On this note I remove myself from this thread and discussion.

And people wonder why noone takes the "9/11 conspiracy" seriously.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You can't see that face sure, but you also do not see any smoke coming from these supposed explosions.


It doesn't matter; I have seen them in other photos. I have also read about them in eyewitness testimonies. There was also at least 1 car on fire on ground level that served as one source of smoke, but there was additional smoke coming up from below the lobby, probably from the parking garage.


If the buildings FACE was damaged, I think it'd be safe to say that something OUTSIDE the building caused it.


Agreed, but it is hard to imagine what in the world could have scorched the whole face like that. It really must have been some powerful fireball that erupted out of the lobby of WTC1.



So lets say there were explosions in 6. What were they for? Destroy evidence?


That's something I would like to know as well, that a real criminal investigation could address. At the moment, simply because I don't know why it would be a priority to do this, doesn't change the evidence I am seeing in favor of it.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
On this note I remove myself from this thread and discussion.

And people wonder why noone takes the "9/11 conspiracy" seriously.

Good. People like you don't take 9/11 conspiracies seriously because you don't want to believe or acknowledge the evidence. You would rather call all of the first responder that were there that day liars instead of believing what they have to say.

You also remove yourself because you can't explain the explosions that destroyed the interior of the north tower and an adjacent building before either tower came down. You have no explanation so you run off with your tail between your legs.

The physical evidence and witness testimony all debunk what you've been programmed to believe.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
We know there was a fair size hole in the face of WTC6 which covers around 5 floors, that is 60% of it`s height from ground level, the few floors above the hole are by far the weakest point of the building, why did they not collapse?.

We have the debris raining from above that manages to destroy all ten floors and pan a right angle to punch a hole through the face of WTC6, and whilst this was happening an upright steel in the dead centre managed to avoid being obliterated, also the steel that was bent right back in the least expected direction.......



Come what may, some more unexplainable aspects of 9/11 (from the OS PoV), that certainly point in the direction of explosions.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
On this note I remove myself from this thread and discussion.

And people wonder why noone takes the "9/11 conspiracy" seriously.


You'll be back later to lob more insults at us, and back away from discussion again. In the years since 2001 the trend you see here has only increased; we are taken only more and more seriously, though I'm sure you don't like to know that.

Everyone who realizes they have no good argument gives up. You can go off back to denial land, but this thorn is going to stay in society's side and just get bigger and sorer until you are forced to notice it yet again.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
This is a rather incredible and thoughtful discussion. Probably the best I've seen in a long, long time.

I hope it remains so, and I hope you guys keep bringing up good points.

I'll lurk, and when something comes up and I feel I can contribute, I'll contribute. I only responded now, albeit with nothing constructive, because I wanted to reinforce the positive aspects of this thread. It's already been shaken with a little derailment.. so, stay strong.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I found some more relevant pictures, the 1st is taken just as the debris flood from WTC2 appeared.....



If there is any better evidence of an explosion from that day, i`ll give up drinking, my money is on another lobby blast in WTC1 and the smoke from it blended in with the debris dust cloud.......



And as I invariably do, I was going through some videos looking for a certain clip, when something caught my eye and I got sidetracked, what the hell is this?, just as WTC2 was hit, I slowed it down as best as possible, whatever it is, it is very very fast........


(click to open player in new window)


I ran the frames off which show it also.....



On a side note, if the crater was caused by debris why hasn`t the whole building collapsed, or at the very least a few storeys here and there, again, it just does not add up - an area where all 10 storeys were decimated, and not even some sporadic storey collapses all over, plus a hole which weakened the few storeys above it, but they remained intact, and only 1 storey worth of debris laying in the basement.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
what the hell is this?, just as WTC2 was hit, I slowed it down as best as possible, whatever it is, it is very very fast........

It's just an insect or something along those lines. Been discussed years ago. Nothing important.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Seventh
what the hell is this?, just as WTC2 was hit, I slowed it down as best as possible, whatever it is, it is very very fast........

It's just an insect or something along those lines. Been discussed years ago. Nothing important.




An insect
, as it appears from behind WTC1, that`s some bug.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
An insect
, as it appears from behind WTC1, that`s some bug.

It doesn't appear from behind the WTC. You see how blurry it is? It's out of focus, which means it's very close to the camera.

But you can make it be whatever you like. You can call it a missile, a bird, a UFO, whatver floats your boat, but it's close to the camera which is not close to the WTC and it's not important.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   




It's a bird .



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Seventh
An insect
, as it appears from behind WTC1, that`s some bug.

It doesn't appear from behind the WTC. You see how blurry it is? It's out of focus, which means it's very close to the camera.

But you can make it be whatever you like. You can call it a missile, a bird, a UFO, whatver floats your boat, but it's close to the camera which is not close to the WTC and it's not important.




Oh God, we are Mr angry this week aren`t we?.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne




It's a bird .



That video has been edited, I just downloaded it as it looks completely different to the B.B.C. video and I got a `MPEG import filter no video stream` error caused by..

MPEG-2 decoding which caused adjacent chroma ... A video stream that has been spaced with drop frames to a higher frame rate ... Frame server sent garbage data if the video filter chain changed the frame size. ... Doing a paste with no selection caused one frame to be deleted before.

Will update this soon.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


It's a bird.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Oh God, we are Mr angry this week aren`t we?.

No, this is just elementary stuff that was discussed years ago and dismissed. If it's blurry and out of focus, that means it's close to the camera and no where near the WTC. I don't understand where you get the part where it comes from behind the WTC.

People do see what they want to see, though. Can't help that.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Yeah it's just a bird.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
No Bonez, the difference between me and a lot of people is - I don`t see what they want me to see, this is what I picked up on as soon as I saw the other video, firstly the frame count of the object - the B.B.C camera captured 6 from 8 frames, the TLC camera managed to capture 22 from 25 of the object moving, a frame count of 25 v 8 on exactly the same object, which is completely different in every aspect possible, the frame count of when it appeared to the last frame in sight...




And the respective frames from the captures (I missed a few due to cramming all the frames in, and copied over where it was, but the point is made).....



I will add the slowed down TLC video soon, I defy anyone to state that the object in the B.B.C. film and TLC show any identical comparisons to each other, as I stated as soon as the post was made showing this film and I d/l it and converted to MPEG, VirtualDub could not open it due to it being out of sync (audio mismatch due to added frames probably) and showing signs 100% of being edited.


I see rather well imo (mostly).

EDIT: Added video link, compare the B.B.C. film to this one, there is a reason for how many frames a video capturing device will create whilst filming moving objects, and that is the speed of the camera (fps) and obviously the speed of object being filmed, nowadays with cameras with a 1000 plus fps things are a lot different, anyway`s the video in slow motion...
.......

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. I forgot to add that from row 4 the frames read from right to left, and both video clips are 1 fps, the time stamp of when the object 1st appeared and the last frame it is seen in is....00.03 of a second for the B.B.C film, and 03.40 seconds for the TLC one.


(click to open player in new window)


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Seventh]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join