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.

 

South Tower Video - Discuss

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Check out 0:49 of this video. There are several examples of this, but let's just
look at one for now.

Watch the top left corner of the video at 0:49 and look for the arcing debris, shooting
up and out in an arcing fashion.

Also notince there is no section of tower above to "crush" the remaining tower,
or cause the arcing debris.

www.youtube.com...

I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's time for a wake up call.




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's The North Tower. The video even says North Tower.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Whatever...

I found it within a South Tower forum:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

It's irrelevant to the point being made. Care to explain how that arcing
debris happens at 0:49?

How does gravity push something up and out?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Whatever...

I found it within a South Tower forum:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

It's irrelevant to the point being made. Care to explain how that arcing
debris happens at 0:49?

How does gravity push something up and out?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]


You really don't know? Watch a Gallagher (the comedian) video once. The sledge hammer and the watermellon. The sledge hammer is going down but some of the material from the watermellon goes up and out before it arcs downward. Must be an inside job. Maybe he uses explosives.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Whatever...

I found it within a South Tower forum:

pilotsfor911truth.org...



What a surprise... Captain Bob can't even get his buildings right.


Hooper... nice Sludge-O-Matic analogy! Good ol' Chandler, I wouldn't let him teach my dog.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Good ol' Chandler, I wouldn't let him teach my dog.


And yet he's the one who "schooled" NIST and forced them to change their report to include the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration.

I'd rather be taught by Chandler than Sunder. At least Chandler would tell you the truth.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
And yet he's the one who "schooled" NIST and forced them to change their report to include the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration.


Did NIST change their collapse time after being "schooled"?
Thank you.

I'm sure Turbofan does not want this thread to turn into another WTC7 thread.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Did NIST change their collapse time after being "schooled"?
Thank you.


They were asked to further clarify it.


In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video.



www.nist.gov...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Uhhh...the hammer is an impulse force.

Where is the impulse on the Twin towers? Why does the debris continue
to arc out constantly?

I think your dog is smarter than you in basic physics...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Uhhh...the hammer is an impulse force.

Where is the impulse on the Twin towers? Why does the debris continue
to arc out constantly?

I think your dog is smarter than you in basic physics...



Exactly, ahh yes


Comparing a Sledge Hammer and a Watermelon, to a(Proposed, not proven) Demolition/ Collapsed building, Splendid, observation, don't quit your day job anytime soon, (unless of course your a science teacher)



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


My "day job" includes building demolition. I've actually done what you guys theorize about. The top of the building came down like a sledge hammer. You can't ignore that with your wiseguy comments. That is why material blew out, up and away from the building. Just a fact. Sorry, there was no form or type of explosives involved in the collapse.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Did NIST change their collapse time after being "schooled"?
Thank you.


They were asked to further clarify it.


In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video.



www.nist.gov...



Once again:


Originally posted by ImAPepper
Did NIST change their collapse time after being "schooled"?
Thank you.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Where is the impulse on the Twin towers?


The name of this video....

North Tower Exploding

Where are the explosions? This is another video from A&E 4-911 "truth". You know, the same guys that invented the "hush-a-bomb."



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The thing that never gets explained to me is, when the plane hits the building, it enters either slightly to the left or right and somewhat at a slight angle. Common sense would say that initial explosions and fires started by the plane and jet fuel would cause one part to burn and perhaps melt steel as proposed by the government (that the steel melted).

Now if that happened, the top of the building should have fell over sideways and slid off the top and to the ground leaving some of the building standing intact. It did not. So why is that ?

What I see is that as the tower collapses on itself, the center is going inward and you can see smoke being sucked upward and inward and downward into the center. It is all very even and somewhat orderly. And it happened to both towers.

To me, it was a demolition job. I just don't buy what we've been spoon fed and told what to believe.


Videos of the plane impacts. Note where they hit.

killtown.911review.org...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


First, the government never claimed the steel melted this is a popular strawman offend erected by those in the conspiracy camp.

Second, buildings are not trees.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


My "day job" includes building demolition. I've actually done what you guys theorize about. The top of the building came down like a sledge hammer. You can't ignore that with your wiseguy comments. That is why material blew out, up and away from the building. Just a fact. Sorry, there was no form or type of explosives involved in the collapse.


My day job is an Astronaut..... See what I did there ?

Is this not a man who is employed by the Government ? And yes he does say, steel didn't melt, but why didn't they ???????????????????

RL Lee Group Found traces of Melted steel in their samples.

So Mr. Demolition guy, where did the traces of Molten Steel come from ?

(Btw: To be more exact RL Lee Group concluded that the lead had been pulverized.)

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


He appears to have a relationship to the NIST, I do not know exactly who employs him.

And no, I do not see what you did there. Please elaborate.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


He appears to have a relationship to the NIST, I do not know exactly who employs him.

And no, I do not see what you did there. Please elaborate.


Cousin, first off let me say I mean no disrespect, Honestly! We are both here for the same reason's to educate ourselves, so again, with what wiseguy cracks I have I do mean no disrespect to you.

However, the latter!

2nd How do you expect me to believe your a demo guy by just saying that "I work on demolitions." That's to the same effect of me saying, I'm an astronaut. See ? The same thing most of you opposing guys preach of(I'm not a truther nor debunker), I just want answers to questions I can't get answered on forums like JREF, cause when I ask them on JREF, I'm called 40 different names before someone gives me the slightest hint of an answer.

3rd, being a demo guy, If this was the result of Jet Fuel and Damage, why is there evidence of molten steel in the dust from the WTC ?





[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

3rd, being a demo guy, If this was the result of Jet Fuel and Damage, why is there evidence of molten steel in the dust from the WTC ?



1st of all. It was a combination of Fire, Damage, and dislodged fireproofing. Jet fuel acted as an accelerant.

There was reports of molten metal. It was not analyzed at anytime to see if it were steel or not. There was not any molten steel found in the dust. That sounds like Space Chimp- Judy Woods and her "dustification" crap.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

3rd, being a demo guy, If this was the result of Jet Fuel and Damage, why is there evidence of molten steel in the dust from the WTC ?



1st of all. It was a combination of Fire, Damage, and dislodged fireproofing. Jet fuel acted as an accelerant.

There was reports of molten metal. It was not analyzed at anytime to see if it were steel or not. There was not any molten steel found in the dust. That sounds like Space Chimp- Judy Woods and her "dustification" crap.



Your right, My apologies, there was not evidence of molten steel, but rather Molten Iron and Lead, and vaporized Lead.




J Lee group who were hired by lawyers for Deutsche Bank to do tests on the Dust for environmental/cleanup reasons. "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)." page 21/34 "In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust." page 23/34 "Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event." page 25/34 "The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool." page 25/34



RJ Lee Group

For lead to be vaporized the temperatures would have been over 1750 Celsius
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

1750 Celsius =3182 Fahrenheit
www.mathsisfun.com...

Iron melts at around 1535 deg Celsius

But, tell chimp lady to start singing!


[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join