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.

 

*New 9/11 Theory*.."The Ball Theory"!

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Even though I know people will think I'm a crazy kook, I think that the ball theory is possible (outlandish, yes, but possible). Until it's been investigated thoroughly and ruled out, I don't think it deserves derision quite yet. Of course, for it to be true, it would require for a remote-control anti-gravity floating ball with good manoeuvrability and high-speed capabilities to exist, and that's the bit I'm struggling to get past, not least of all because I've never seen one... and as far as I'm aware, no such thing has ever been proven to exist. Until I see an anti-gravity ball flying over my roof, I can't take this theory entirely seriously. Though, the observation he makes that the undercarriage of the 767 could be the ball with a graphical image of a 767 placed over the ball is interesting. That black bit on the bottom of the 767 has always baffled me. Also, how the plane impacted the building, especially in one shot looks slightly out of the ordinary; no parts break off the plane and neither did it appear to decelerate (though that's just a guess on my part from my layman's analysis of the footage, I haven't run any mathematical tests). It sure does look strange though, it just melts into the building like butter and looks hermeneutically empty set beside what one would expect. Cue attack dogs. So, in conclusion, I think it's possible, but severely lacking evidence.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nathan-D]




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 

Weedy derides the movie September Clues, but I think that they haven't done a fraction of the damage they could do to broadcast video of 9/11, if they were working with a serious budget and first rate digital animators to illustrate their points.

The aircraft slides into the WTC without so much as a wrinkle appearing in wing or fuselage. We are told that happened because the aircraft was travelling in excess of 500 mph. It's still an unbelievable story, but now along comes a new development.

Someone has used a model of the WTC to calculate the aircraft's speed. Even giving a huge allowance for error, it appears that the speed must be between 200 and 300 mph. That's 200 mph. at least, below the officially accepted speed.

That knocks a major hole in the "knife through butter" theory of the penetration of the South Tower.

I don't personally think the aircraft in question was a ball but, in my book, Mr. Hall has already hit a triple, if not a home run, for Team Truth.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





The aircraft slides into the WTC without so much as a wrinkle appearing in wing or fuselage. We are told that happened because the aircraft was travelling in excess of 500 mph. It's still an unbelievable story, but now along comes a new development.


For the millionth time THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE WTC TOWERS WERE NOT SOLID!

They were composed of lattice work of beams and spandrel plates bolted
together in 30 ft sections. The aircraft upon impact caused the bolts
to snap or shear - the aircraft simply pushed the now disconnected sections of the wall out of the way

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept

Here is picture of one such panel laying in the street




Also explain how a picture of the "wrinkles" could be captured by such
a camera given the speedof the aircraft, its distance and the size of such
an object



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

I'm not going to re-argue all of this over again. That whole argument is baloney. It's not convincing at 500 mph. and much less so at less than 300 mph. If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Guess it's time to dust off this old gem video??

You are parroting the (incorrect) and mislieading claims that some sort of 'deformation' should have been observed on the airplanes' structure, as they entered the WTC Tower building facades?

Forgetting the fact, for the moment, that the exterior (as thedman pointed out) was not solid steel, or masonry....here is the iconic video of the F-4 used to test a concrete wall...a SOLID concrete wall, designed to hopefully comprise future nuclear powerplant domes:



Even the slo-mo close-up portion (at about :25) shows NO evidence of fuselage 'crinkling' --- the action occurs too fast for the materials to react in that way. This is something that should be obvious to most people, even without a video!

Try comparing slo-mo videos of car crashes if you want.

The 'crinkling' or accordian look only is apparent AFTER the event is over...not during. Of course, in some low-speed car crash video, you may see some initial bending of metal, in slo-mo....but, that's because of the SLOW speed of the vehicle. I don't know how else to get this across to people.

Of course, at speeds in excess of normal automobiles, the destruction is much more severe.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Very interesting.


Thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I think the video largely makes my point, although I would like to have seen the aftermath of the wreck. I don't believe the presenter's assertion that the plane turned into dust. I think there would have been crumpled metal lying around. Do you believe her when she says that the plane turned into dust?

Also in the video, the wingtips of the plane survive because they extend beyond the ends of the hardened wall. But the rest of the plane was crushed.

I think we should see the same thing going on at the WTC. parts of the plane should enter the building and parts should fall, as crumpled metal, down the face of the building. Instead, even the very wingtips of the plane slice through the box beams of the building with almost butterknife-like precision. Sorry, not believeable.

As far as the building being "solid" is concerned, at the level of the actual floors of the building, you can consider it solid concrete from one side to the other. In 9/11 video, no problem. The plane goes through this solid mass a couple of hundred feet thick as if it were as empty as the spaces above and below it. And not a debunker to notice a problem!

No stress, no effects of twisting or torsion on the fuselage. No transmission of force from the impacts of the engines to the rest of the wings on impact.

Not a single part of the plane was not stronger than steel box beams and concrete. This aircraft is the feather that penetrated the Rock of Gibraltar, in places.

And the plane was not going 500 mile per hour. In fact, as Mr. Hall's calculations have shown, the plane was going substantially less than 300 miles per hour.

Nice video though. Too bad they left out the ending.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



And the plane was not going 500 mile per hour. In fact, as Mr. Hall's calculations have shown, the plane was going substantially less than 300 miles per hour.


Mr. Hall's calcs about the velocity are WRONG!! I linked you to the ATS thread, hope you read it sometime...



I don't believe the author's assertion that the plane turned into dust. Do you believe her when she says that the plane turned into dust?


I do not think the narration implied that....the "dust" was from the concrete.


I think there would have been crumpled metal lying around.


Well....a lot of fragmented metal bits, of various shapes and very very small sizes, sure. The actual distribution of such an energetic impact is impossible to accurately predict beforehand --- too many variables.

BUT, we have many examples of OTHER high-speed aviation impacts that are NOT in dispute, yes??? Pay close attention to those, and the state of the debris in the aftermath.



Also in the video, the wingtips of the plane survive because they extend beyond the ends of the hardened wall. But the rest of the plane was crushed.


Yes! The wingspan of the F-4 was wider than the width of that particular concrete block used in the test. Again, though....the structure of the airframe was shattered. Into teeny tiny bits, and some of those likely had twisting forces as well, which would be evident when examibned afterwards.

But, here is the reality disconnect you seem to have:


... at the WTC. parts of the plane should enter the building and parts should fall, as crumpled metal, down the face of the building.


NO! It's funny how many "conspiracy" websites cry and cry about what they think "defied the laws of physics", but if any of THEM put that idea in your head, they are perpetuating a physics myth!

An object in motion, at sufficient velocity, and if it is of sufficient density, will NOT suddenly come to a complete halt, and then make a 90-degree change of direction in the fall.

Those are the behaviors of some materials, and at lower velocities...perhaps. Will depend a great deal on the variables.

But, in the time span of a fraction of a second?? No, not with the energies involved...inertia, velocity, force --- remember?

BTW, THAT is a way to get a better gauge of the airplane's velocity....knowing the length of the fuselage, simply time the event, from contact of the nose with the building,until the tail enters. Care to take a stab at it??



Instead, even the very wingtips of the plane slice through the box beams of the building with almost butterknife-like precision.


Nope. Look again. But, hard to see, since all the videos are from a distance, the details aren't possible...we'd need an up close, and slo-mo, which we don't have.

The force of impact caused some of the facade to break away....the basic outline resembles the basic shape of the airplne, because, of course, that's what hit the building!! But, it isn't an exact match, for obvious reasons. Lots of secondary "tearing" of the facade pieces....take a step away from the silly "conspiracy" sites and think!!

The rest of your comment about "solid" concrete?? The floor pans were HOW thick, again? About six inches, maybe less, maybe more....BUT, compared to the entire airplane, edge on?? Think about it....


The plane goes through this solid mass a couple of hundred feet thick as if it were as empty as the spaces above and below it.


See the mistake in your reasoning, there? A horizontal slab of concrete, struck from the edge....it's not "a couple of hundred feet thick", that is a misconception that leads to misunderstanding.



No stress, no effects of twisting or torsion on the fuselage. No transmission of force from the impacts of the engines to the rest of the wings on impact.


AGAIN...see the length of time involved. It is all about that, and the way materials behave. Surely you've seen exreme slo-mo events, that at normal speed look very different??? Google them...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW, THAT is a way to get a better gauge of the airplane's velocity....knowing the length of the fuselage, simply time the event, from contact of the nose with the building,until the tail enters. Care to take a stab at it??


I would take a stab at it but I don't have the time. I will say this though. Inconsistencies in the speed of the aircraft portrayed in different videos, beyond some very small margin of error due to camera performance, means a virtual guarantee of video manipulation.

All of the video broadcast on the day had better be in near perfect agreement, as to angle of attack, vector of approach and speed, not to mention other elements of what is seen in the videos.

People should look at September Clues and see for themselves if there are unexplained differences between videos of the same scene, or other tell tale oddities about the video.

The issue of what damage could have been expected from the impact of the plane on the building has been argued in depth before, more than once, in these forums. I'm not going to go over it all over again.

Visualize an aircraft flying very fast at a building or a building flying very fast at an airplane. Depending on your psychology you will see either one sort of an effect or the opposite sort of effect. But from the point of view of physics, these two events are the same. There is no difference in the results to be expected in each case.

If a fly swatter came down on a fly, I would expect to see the fly mostly crushed with possibly bits of it protruding through the holes in the fly swatter. That's what I would expect to see at the WTC with the aircraft. There is no way a fly goes through the fly swatter completely without leaving some of itself on the face of the fly swatter, even at 221 mph. Even at 500 mph.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
First off off the towers had a steel "mesh" they called it that covered both towers,then a couple feet of solid concrete(yes solid)then more concrete and thick steel beams that interlaced the floors.What cut through all that?And waht cut the core columns?The wings?After exploding on contact?There's no way.

Just so people know,I don't agree with the ball theory i Just thought it was interesting.I was thinking more of the lines of a missile with wings.Pay very close attention to the dive of the plane.And in other videos the plane goes straight across.

I'm not a no planer.

I made a video because I think a couple of the 911 videos might have been faked.Take a peek and tell me I'm not seeing things.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
All i see in here is two abrasive narrow minded people with very closed minds trying to just bash any idea that does not fit their needs views values or understanding.

the fella in the video clearly states the ball "could BE " some kind of new techology.

which is not outside the realm of possibility.

pixallization of the object...what kind of crap is that cause then other objects in other shots were not pixalized.

least the guy is trying to go out and show something logically and trying to analyse something practically rather than just bashing.

and to come down on the OP for posting something they may have found somewhat interesting with psychobabble bs only show your true Igmorance.

the maker of this production did not try to fabricate he just analysed and presented.

so just cause two bashers believe that there is no conspiracy behind 911.

many many many people do and are willing to look at any and all evidence being presented.

so thank you for posting OP...

and apprecaite that your willing to take the backlash of narrow minded self absorbed arrogant nimrods...just as i know i will feel the grief from these same blank minded individuals

[edit on 123131p://f01Monday by plube]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 





First off off the towers had a steel "mesh" they called it that covered both towers,then a couple feet of solid concrete(yes solid)then more concrete and thick steel beams that interlaced the floors.What cut through all that?And waht cut the core columns?The wings?After exploding on contact?There's no way.



Steel Mesh? Several feet of concrete ?

When did you make up all this garbage?

Here is article showing complete design features of the WTC Towers

Read it over

www.designaids.com...

Oh and just in case have trouble there are plenty of pictures......



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by trebor451
 





Looks like someone forgot to take their meds........


...or took too much of them.



Where can the rest of us get the stuff this clown been taking ?

I hear that followers of the Grateful Dead still have big parties called Jerryfests. If you go there it seems like those people have gotten a hold of some 'medication' that makes reality seem a lot different.

Did anyone notice how he says "on 9/11, the first alleged plane" in the first video. 'Alleged plane', yeah somebody is taking something that isn't FDA approved!



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Your post is just the typical personal attack from a debunker who has nothing to contribute to the discussion. Believe me posts like yours don't help your cause. If I was a debunker, reading your post, I would suspect you of being a truther acting the fool just to make debunkers look like they skipped summer school and decided to re-repeat the year.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 
My third sentence gets right to the point.

There are people out there, making videos, posting on ATS, that say there were NOT any planes that hit the buildings on 9/11!

They do not have a very strong connection with reality. There were planes hitting those buildings, a lot of people died because of those crashes.

To listen to silly people talk about crazy theories that there were no planes, just holograms, there were demolition charges set beforehand, that they used technologies that are invisible, OMG!

It is very sad.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


In your third paragraph of this post, you refer to the "mockumentary" called 'September Clues'.

As if you found that piece of ## somehow 'good'?? Since it's mentioned, also, in the "ball" video this thread is about, let's see what people who have examined 'September Clues' have determined, as it's analyzed, and destroyed utterly:


Google Video Link



"Simon Shack" is a hoaxer and a liar --- or completely inept, and no "expert" at all....



[edit on 9 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I will say, Anthony Lawson does seem to take an almost pathological interest in anathematising other 9/11 sceptics' videos. He's the only self-proclaimed 9/11 sceptic I know who regularly "debunks" other 9/11 sceptic videos. Quite why he doesn't spend more time debunking the official story is anyone's guess. That said, begrudgingly, I agree with him. Simon's videos are full of many assumptions, albeit the nose-in-nose-out shot still looks like a good match to me, irrespective of what Lawson claims.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I have no objection to people watching your embedded video and drawing their own conclusions. I would hope that in the interest of fairness that they would also view September Clues.

In the interests of thouroughness, in addition to viewing the videos, I would hope that they would check out this topic, video fakery on 9/11, on the web, where they will find a lot of detailed analysis, some of it quite technical.

The video you embedded has been discussed before in this forum. I don't want to wade into it here. I think it makes some legitimate points but I do not think it is decisive in removing the topic of video fakery from the discussion of 9/11, even if one restricts objections to how points are addressed within the video itself. Obviously we disagree on that.

The person who narrates the video is at least as annoying as the inserted titles in September Clues. There is a lot of dripping acid on both sides of the 9/11 debate and it is no surprise.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 

I know I said that I didn't want to get into a discussion of this particular video and I don't want to range wide in discussing video fakery, but I think that people should exercise caution when viewing Lawson's video.

In discussing the 'fade to black" issue (10:21 of the video), Lawson says that these blackenings of the screen were related to explosions occurring as the plane slammed into the South Tower. He also derides the notion of explosives causing the damage attributed to the plane. Well either you have explosions or you don't have them. An aircraft breaking up and bursting into flame is not an explosion, despite appearances.

But worst of all, the television transmission antennae were in the other tower.

Tony needs to dismount from his high horse. September Clues might be wrong in spots or jump to unfounded conclusions in places but it doesn't deserve the sort of acid tongued savagery visited on it by Lawson.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Before all you debunkers hop on his nutsack,here's actual video of the world trade being constructed,not no "article" that shows a few pics and diagrams.

"What steel mesh,what couple feet of concrete"?

Are you serious?what did you think they were made of?

2:05 in.See those huge steel beams that make up the walls of the towers?That's called a steel mesh..at least that's what the world trade designers called it.Look it up it's out there.

www.youtube.com...

Are you saying there was no concrete used in the world trade?

Here's the concrete being poured for you.

2:29 in.
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join