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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by ImAPepper


HAHAHAHA Really? Showing the collapse in Super Slow-Mo? Sorry, Seventh I don't think many here will fall for that. You have seasoned debunkers and truthers here that won't buy that.


Damn, there was me thinking I could capitalize on the *Pancake Collapse* induced Air Squibs (now caused by random explosive items, a change brought about by yet another huge amendment of the OS, and it`s knock on affect of having to change aspects to suit), by blatantly showing exactly the same frames, but not as many a second, which in due course makes the random exploding items look very similar to timed and controlled explosions, I would have got away with it too, if it wasn`t for those pesky seasoned debunkers
.

Or are you trying to derail the video by some none existent and to be blatantly honest, time worn and predictable fake positive approach?, which to me seems the obvious intention here.

Footnote - Addressed here to the pure neutrals and general public, reducing the amount of frames per second does not change any aspect whatsoever, of any relative videos, in fact, on the contrary, it does the complete opposite, showing things otherwise missed, a huge example here for the hot blooded males amongst us - Sharon Stone - Basic Instinct - Police interview.

Sorry ladies, no such slow motion freeze framed content for you
.

Could be mistaken here though, but nope, I do not think that reducing frame rates would have created such a wondrous vision.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh


Damn, there was me thinking I could capitalize on the *Pancake Collapse* induced Air Squibs...... words...rant...

Or are you trying to derail the video by some none existent and to be blatantly honest, time worn and predictable fake positive approach?, which to me seems the obvious intention here.


We are talking about the South & North towers here. Are we not? I have to keep repeating myself and have yet to hear an answer.


Please Seventh, I trust you have watched the close up shot of the collapse? If so, please point out the explosions.

Your super-slow-mo video shows the collapse. Do you have the audio for that? Oh, and can you point out on THAT video where the explosions are?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Seventh


Damn, there was me thinking I could capitalize on the *Pancake Collapse* induced Air Squibs...... words...rant...

Or are you trying to derail the video by some none existent and to be blatantly honest, time worn and predictable fake positive approach?, which to me seems the obvious intention here.


We are talking about the South & North towers here. Are we not? I have to keep repeating myself and have yet to hear an answer.


Please Seventh, I trust you have watched the close up shot of the collapse? If so, please point out the explosions.

Your super-slow-mo video shows the collapse. Do you have the audio for that? Oh, and can you point out on THAT video where the explosions are?




"Or are you trying to derail the video by some none existent and to be blatantly honest, time worn and predictable fake positive approach?, which to me seems the obvious intention here."

Pepper, You don't want answers, cause your not looking for them, no one here claims to be a demolition expert except Hooper.

Talk about evasions, you evade more than Barry Sanders.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


I didn't ask for anyone with expertise. You all know how to do a search on YouTube. Heck, it's what drives a lot of you!

Search for some controlled demolitions with audio. Then compare them to the 46 second video I posted.

Last step: Point out the demo charges going off at the start of the collapse.

Oh, and BTW, there in not ANY controlled demolition expert the feel 1 & 2 are controlled demolitions. Now before you jump on the Danny Jowenko train, he stated that 1 & 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

- sounds of explosive
- video evidence of explosives

Pretty interesting that the collpase initiates right at the point of impact huh?

Thank you,

Dr.P



you can see a huge wall of flame burst out to the right, BEFORE the building has descended more than a few feet.
that is also the same corner where yellow hot molten metal was streaming out only seconds before, and it is plain to see fire through the perimeter columns at the corner.
so, here's a question for you. where is all the rest of the alleged building weakening flames? because, clearly, when they are there, you can see them, yet you hardly see any, anywhere, for very long.
the fire was nowhere near the inferno that the NIST computer game makes it out to be.

you know, i don't even hear sirens, shouting etc. in that video. are you saying there were no sirens when the collapse happened (because they are in many other videos where the camera was closer to the tower)? not to mention that the bit rate of the audio has been crushed to super lo-fi. not to mention that that camera zoomed in from several blocks away.
however, there IS a sharp crack about two seconds after the building moves. at the distance the camera is away from the building, that's could be an explosion sound two seconds away (at the speed of sound) from the camera, or it could be someone near the camera dropping something or slamming a car door. nothing is proven either way, although if one were to know the distance from the camera to the tower, one could calculate if that crack coincides exactly with onset.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper


We are talking about the South & North towers here. Are we not? I have to keep repeating myself and have yet to hear an answer.


Please Seventh, I trust you have watched the close up shot of the collapse? If so, please point out the explosions.

Your super-slow-mo video shows the collapse. Do you have the audio for that? Oh, and can you point out on THAT video where the explosions are?


I will give videos of explosions when you give evidence of the exact jet fuel placement, which in turn, is the whole basis of and the alleged collapse cause, in the mean time, the dust here is mainly generated by the concrete floors, rather than have the exact captures of the explosions, explain to me how this dust that is seen ejecting from all four faces, when the 30 or so storeys above are leaning to one side, has been created symmetrically and forced outside of the respective towers footprints?.

Asking people to produce media evidence that was at the very least, heavily censured, does not in any way prove or disprove anything, as stated earlier, there is no evidence whatsoever of how much and where it was placed, regarding the jet fuel (to name but one aspect).

In the mean time here is a picture, there are quite simply one of two things happening here...



1). The building has started to collapse due to structural failure.

2). It is a controlled explosion.

On show is - A fountain of dust produced simultaneously around all 4 faces x two, 80% of the debris falling outside the footprints, huge parts of the exterior sections being propelled over 400 feet and embedding in other towers, the speed of descent, the % of debris in height per storey ratio, being vastly lower than the normal average, 2000+ bodies never recovered, parts of human bone this big - (16th of an inch) found on roof tops 150 metres away, no furniture, no huge chunks of concrete, molten steel, etc, etc.

A steel skeleton subjected to collapse would fall and buckle in huge sections, and large sections of concrete would be visible also.

Pictures of the aftermath, and videos of all three collapses, do not need to be backed up by audio or visual effects, to indicate a none conforming collapse.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
mr imapepper, if the only thing you are relying on for evidence of explosions is audio or video, and ignore the other evidence, it is pretty easy to see how you come to your interesting, but questionable conclusions.

For me, the most convincing evidence of massive forces way beyond gravitational collapse forces is the fact that multi ton beems and 4 ton wall units were hurled as far as 500 or 600ft and speeds over 50mph in all directions. And this happened all the way down as they collapsed, for each tower I believe. If you are interested in testing your debunking chops then please go to www.csi911.info... and let us know what you think generated the force to hurl these so far so very quickly.
thanks!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
So, the top portion of this huge tower starts to buckle to one side, and then the structure miraculously corrects itself leaning back to the other side, with the building (whatever was left of the instantly incinerated debris) then collapsing straight down. If this event was caused by structural damage and the ensuing fire, common sense would say the top leaning portion of the building should have snapped off and fallen to the street due to gravitational forces.

After the top of the tower started to lean to one side, what caused it to defy gravity and miraculously lean back the other way? A well timed compromise of the interior support columns is the only thing I can think of which can defy the laws of gravity and perform such an improbable feat.

The audio on the above close up video which zooms out sounds completely fake. Although the video is taken from the street, it sounds like someone's radio or tv is being recorded from within an apartment building.

I wonder why there was this overwhelming need to tamper with so much video and audio which was recorded on that day. These media companies have the best and most expensive video and audio equipment and the best they could do was low-resolution images with altered color hues and edited sound. You could have obtained better images with an early 1970's Polaroid instant camera.

But then again, any graphic design flunky can tell you, the lower the resolution, the easier it is to conceal digital manipulation, such as layering.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
reply to post by turbofan
 


Please point out the explosions in the video I posted.


Why do you need to see explosions?

An understanding of simple physics should be enough to clue you in that something is wrong with the collapses.

If you found someone shot to death would you require to see a video of the bullets entering the body before you believe they were shot? No because the physical damage would be consistent with being shot. So why do you need to see bombs going off when the physical damage to the buildings is inconsistent with a 'natural collapse'? You don't need to know the cause of the actual collapse to know it wasn't a 'natural' collapse. What we need is a new investigation, but it's a little late now isn't it?

There are some serious questions regarding the official explanation as to what happened, just because you can't see explosives going off doesn't change that fact. The tilting of the top of WTC 2 is a HUGE smoking gun. You cannot explain how that happened, and still be in context with the official version of events. If it had happened as we are told then the building would not have tilted in the first place, and it would not have fell through the path of most resistance. The undamaged building bellow was more than enough to hold up the top, something it had done since it was built. That is why the top tilted. The top didn't start to drop until the building under the top started to collapse, watch the videos.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 



Lots of Demo guys out there, You talk to all of them ?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
You don't need to be a 'demo' guy to answer this, but it would sure help!

Can someone explain to all of us why the West side of the South Tower
continued to explode out laterally if the top section was tilting over and
off center?

The GL's claim the top crushed the perimeter columns, and/or there was
some sort of domino effect with the floors 'pancaking' down. So why
did the West well of Tower 2 get ejected laterally when there was nothing
above it?

See the pretty picture again:



Remember everyone, the blueprints show that the floors are suspended
between the core columns and perimeter columns like this:

||____||||_____||
||____||||_____||
||____||||_____||


Which demo guy wants to take a shot at explaining this miracle?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Hopefuly not the person with the "the steel turned to a springy school ruler which boinged the debris about 500 ft." theory....

Interesting...



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You don't need to be a 'demo' guy to answer this, but it would sure help!

Can someone explain to all of us why the West side of the South Tower
continued to explode out laterally if the top section was tilting over and
off center?

The GL's claim the top crushed the perimeter columns, and/or there was
some sort of domino effect with the floors 'pancaking' down. So why
did the West well of Tower 2 get ejected laterally when there was nothing
above it?

See the pretty picture again:



Remember everyone, the blueprints show that the floors are suspended
between the core columns and perimeter columns like this:

||____||||_____||
||____||||_____||
||____||||_____||


Which demo guy wants to take a shot at explaining this miracle?


You ask "questions" but always assume what you are asking about is absolute fact. Everything you stated is just your interpretation of what was happening based on your review of a single photograph.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, it's NOT based on a single photo graph. There are several still frame
shots on my FTP and slowmotion video to show the tower 'collapse' progression.

Never mind that, the photo I have shown clearly proves the top section
was off axis and NOT loading the West perimeter columns. What are
you going to tell me next "Hooper", the upper block slid back up and
centered itself?


Answer the question with some honesty. YOu will see that you cannot
explain the gravity driven force that blew out the west steel beams laterally.

Try it...I dare you type a theory to explain something other than explosives.

Just remember you have only gravity to work with here...



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Really, how do you know what was going on under that cloud of debris? This is getting almost silly. Why not just a still frame from each micro second of the collapse and ask for trajectory calculations for each and every piece of falling debris? This way when nobody bothers to answer you can step back into your delusion comforted by the knowledge that you think you have asked reasonable questions and are therefore exempt from trying to exam the situation rationally.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan
 


Really, how do you know what was going on under that cloud of debris? This is getting almost silly. Why not just a still frame from each micro second of the collapse and ask for trajectory calculations for each and every piece of falling debris? This way when nobody bothers to answer you can step back into your delusion comforted by the knowledge that you think you have asked reasonable questions and are therefore exempt from trying to exam the situation rationally.



Turbo asked a question, answer it, it really is plain and simple.

What part of `The top 30+ storeys are clearly leaning at an acute angle, therefore not contributing towards a gravitational collapse` do you not understand?, even more importantly, what aspect of Tino`s assessment makes him delusional, for correctly stating this?.

However you are 100% correct regarding this is getting silly, he provided ample evidence backing up his points, you apn here on ATS - replied with the cookie cutter macroed response containing no reasons why his points are wrong, nothing whatsoever on why yours are correct, and ofc the obligatory state of mind aspects depicting anyone whom see sense with the whole fiasco are clearly nutjobs.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
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.



I see a massive building collapsing with tremendous force.....

There are likely internal collisions between some of the various sections of the building not to mention some turbulent flow of air + debris.

Nothing in the video implies controlled demolition.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Exactly what part of "you don't exactly what is happening" by simply looking at one photo don't you understand? You have no clue as to what is structurally going on under that cloud of dust. What pieces are falling where, what exactly is impacting what and exactly where the debris you see is coming from and what forces are acting on it.

Then to make the impossible leap to "it must be controlled demolition" because not all the answers are readily available by viewing one photo just goes to prove that "truth" is your last objective.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




The original size of the upper block was reduced to 1/3 before the tower
began to descend. See the photo proof here:




By the time the tower was half destroyed, there was nothing left of the
upper block yet the demo wave continued accelerating, and debris
continued to arc up and laterally.

How does this happen, along with pulverizing concrete in mid-air if there
is nothing left to crush ?
www.procision-auto.com...

Also how does the West side of the tower continue to break apart if the
load is no longer situated above those columns?

Come on GL's you're not that blind are you?


Nobody has come up with a gravity driven explanation yet...not even
Mr. Mackey the man of "20 Internet Ph.D.'s"

Come on GL's, notice the debris and powdered concrete getting shot "up
and out" of the West side:



Where is the top section gone? See if you can point it out. Remember,
it was over 300 feet tall before the collapse began. It also tipped 23 degrees to the East before any major descent could be measured.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper


Exactly what part of "you don't exactly what is happening" by simply looking at one photo don't you understand? You have no clue as to what is structurally going on under that cloud of dust. What pieces are falling where, what exactly is impacting what and exactly where the debris you see is coming from and what forces are acting on it.

Then to make the impossible leap to "it must be controlled demolition" because not all the answers are readily available by viewing one photo just goes to prove that "truth" is your last objective.


Amazing, you flew right over the whole point of this aspect... The dust - Forget what is going on under the dust, here is the $64,000 question, what caused the dust (concrete mainly) to become dust, and to be ejected out of the tower?.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join