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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 





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.


Apparently you did not read the design specs I posted - probably because it was not a Youtube video

The "steel mesh" as you call it is the exterior wall of the towers composed of C shaped steel beams 1/4" thick held together by spandrel plates (the
square shape plates) bolted together in 30 ft sections




The buildings' signature architectural design feature was the vertical fenestration, the predominant element of which was a series of closely spaced built-up box columns. At typical floors, a total of 59 of these perimeter columns were present along each of the flat faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch square section, spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center. Adjacent perimeter columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 inches in depth. In alternate stories, an additional column was present at the center of each of the chamfered building corners. The resulting configuration of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels created a perforated steel bearing-wall frame system that extended continuously around the building perimeter.


As for the concrete you stated it was several feet thick

The only concrete in the towers were in the floors which was 4" thick (5 in center core) poured into a corrugated deck


Now 4-5 inches is long way from several feet



Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches. Outside the central core, the floor deck was supported by a series of composite floor trusses that spanned between the central core and exterior wall. Composite behavior with the floor slab was achieved by extending the truss diagonals above the top chord so that they would act much like shear studs, as shown in Figure 2-6.


Try reading the design specs

www.designaids.com...




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Now 4-5 inches is long way from several feet

That would be an important point if the plane had hit those floor pans vertically from above. Hitting them side on means that the plane would have been ploughing into a 4" or 5" thick layer of concrete that was more than 200 feet deep and supported by the steel pans themselves plus the trusses.

In the video we should see evidence of severe stresses to the fuselage, tail assembly and wings. We should see the exterior box columns of the building peeling strips of aluminum off the fuselage like shards of banana peel.

The plane enters the building without so much as a wrinkle, without a decrease in velocity, without any kind of shuddering or jarring. I don't buy it.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Who cares? Another stupid distraction!

How can the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper crush the rest in less than 18 seconds?

Why don't the physicists demand the data necessary to do the analysis on some simple Newtonian physics? Is Newtonian physics too difficult for grade school kids to understand the principles?

Whether it was a ball, or a normal airliner or a switched in military aircraft does not change the physics of the supposed collapse. This is just more distracting bullsh!t to argue about.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How can the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper crush the rest in less than 18 seconds?

Who cares? Another stupid distraction!

Why dosen't psikeyhackr reseach the data necessary to do the analysis on some simple Newtonian physics? Is Newtonian physics too difficult for psikeyhackr to understand the principles?

Whether it was (not) a ball, or a normal airliner or (not) a switched in military aircraft does not change the physics of the supposed collapse. This is just more distracting bullsh!t to argue about.

hooper



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
great, more oggidyboggidy nonsense to throw into the mess of 9/11. Fact 9/11 was not what it seemed, that much is obvious. IMO there are one to many mis/disinformists running around who are just making the situation worse for those who actually want to know the truth, guess thats the point.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Who cares? Another stupid distraction!

How can the top 15% of a 1360 foot skyscraper crush the rest in less than 18 seconds?

I agree with you but truthers have to meet every potential voter's dumb assumptions about 9/11 with well reasoned and clear explications of the truth. We can't say, "Right, I've got it. Checkmate, let's move on."

This is above all a political battle. We should never tire of debunking the debunkers, no matter how inane it gets.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
We should never tire of debunking the debunkers, no matter how inane it gets.
No need to debunk debunkers.

Just prove your case. Just provide:
*Proof of the holograph projectors.
*Proof of the demolition charges being placed in the buildings.
*Proof of the Nanothermite being used.
*Proof that a 'magic ball' blew down the buildings.
*Proof that Flight 93 landed in some mid-western airport, instead of crashing in Swanksville, PA.
*Proof that a missile hit the Pentagon.
*Proof that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.
*And on and on and on.....
*until another theory with no basis in reality comes up to chase after.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicious Jones
great, more oggidyboggidy nonsense to throw into the mess of 9/11. Fact 9/11 was not what it seemed, that much is obvious. IMO there are one to many mis/disinformists running around who are just making the situation worse for those who actually want to know the truth, guess thats the point.


EXACTLY!!!

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Couple of inches?

I looked at your "specs".But the youtube video showed more...like the concrete for instance.See all that concrete that they poured on every floor?It's actually a lot more then a couple of feet.It goes all the way to the core columns if you want to get technical.That's the concrete I'm talking about.And you act as though there was none.The concrete braced those steel beams that covered the outside of the towers.The designers said it themselves they were designed to take "multiple plane impacts".

There was concrete on every floor.You debunkers act as though the floors were hollow.

Then it's funny seeing all the debunkers rush to give you stars for lying.For instance.You said "what steel mesh,what concrete"?I guess there was no steel or concrete...even though I showed actual video of the thick steel beams used for the mesh and all that concrete being poured.The planes would have had to get through all that just to get to the core columns.Which is highly doubtful.

I guess the towers were made of toothpicks?That's why the planes cut through them like butter.No crumpling of the nose,wings or any part of the plane for that matter,THEN came out the other side THEN exploded??How is this possible?The plane should have hit and exploded at the moment of impact not go through the building then explode.

I'm not saying it wasn't a plane I just think it was modified somehow.No windows?

Also to the guy who showed the jet hitting the wall vid.That jet is a lot stronger then a 757 because it's more compact just so you know.Not that it helped seeing that it exploded on contact,as would be expected.The second plane that hit went in inside the tower and came out the other side then exploded.As though nothing was there.

Do you understand why people are skeptical?This is just one tiny aspect of all the unbelievable BS that went on that day..

You have former FBI coming forward saying it was an inside job.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have firemen coming forward saying it was an inside job.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have people dying in the basement from explosions.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have Larry Silverstien putting an insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.coincidence?

Then you have Nist lying.Saying "nobody said anything about molten steel".
www.youtube.com...

Then you have George Bush lying and said he saw the first plane just before he went in the classroom on 9/11..he even jokes about it.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have the commission report saying they were set up to fail.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have the pentagon situation.

13 witnesses place the plane on a different path than the light poles!
www.youtube.com...

Lloyd England the cab driver who's cab supposedly got hit by a light pole says it was planned and that he was "in it" and that "we" meaning him and the planners "came up on the bridge together!You can't get more blunt than that!
www.youtube.com...

Lack of plane,bodies,luggage,hole size,Lloyd's wife works for the FBI,Lloyd's neighbor just happen to be there taking pictures..just coincidence?

There's no way the soft aluminum nosecone that a bird could take out went through all that concrete and steel and came out the other side unscathed..like it shows here!
www.youtube.com...

Birds can damage planes.
www.youtube.com...

Don't act like it's only one thing people are complaining about..there's many things.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
No need to debunk debunkers.


Actually, a very good point.

This is a controlled demolition.



There isn't the slightest doubt about it. This is where the inside job turned itself inside out for everybody to see.

As you say, there is no need to debunk the debunkers. All the truth movement really needs to do is give WTC 7 the publicity it deserves.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Your example is not.


This is a controlled demolition.


Of course, it's convenient that there is no sound in that clip...must be a copyright issue with the History Channel??

Because, for the thousandth time....CD of buildings and other structures involve VERY loud, very obvious sequential explosions...loud as in audible, and obvious for the same reason...also obvious for the visual aspect. Most angles, depending on distance, can see the explosives going off.

Nothing like that was seen on ANY of the WTC buildings. Zero evidence for a CD.

Sorry.

Here is some audible, to go with the visual...these ARE actual CD:



Holy moly!





















Had enough yet?

Really...stepping out of the "CT" world, and looking at reality does wonders for a person's view....
~~~~~~

...and, thinking about it...although it may appear this might have strayed from the point, not really --- the OP posts a video that poses a very "out there" hypothesis, with little substantial evidence, and with poor analytical backing. The "CD" meme is just as bad, in that vein. Lacking evidence, and common sense....and mostly a response to misinterpretation of a scant few videos, and NOT thoroughly reading more on the details. Information that fleshes out the situation to a greater extent, and puts the videos in context.

Plenty of threads deal with those details, already.

AND, the "ball" video is well and shown to be utterly worthless, IMO. Reasonable people should be able to see that, by now?



[edit on 10 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Of course, it's convenient that there is no sound in that clip...must be a copyright issue with the History Channel??


And your point is . . . ? (Apologies to Sensfan for using her trademark response.)


Because, for the thousandth time....CD of buildings and other structures involve VERY loud, very obvious sequential explosions...


These were attested to in the case of the towers and in the case of WTC 7. You know that. You know it very well.

(Weedy, are you really weedwhacker? I've had a feeling for a while now that weedwhacker is on vacation and that some ill meaning but ill informed person has been typing in Weedy's place. Personally, I liked the old Weedy better. He was tenacious and on the wrong team but not often ill informed.)



loud as in audible, and obvious for the same reason...also obvious for the visual aspect. Most angles, depending on distance, can see the explosives going off.


Most of the WTC 7 shots were from a distance.


Nothing like that was seen on ANY of the WTC buildings. Zero evidence for a CD.


Current Weedy, would you speak to your supervisors and ask them to cut weedwhacker's vacation short and get him back into the office. The truth movement doesn't mind putting up with genuine debunkers but a shill shilling for a shill is too much.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



Most of the WTC 7 shots were from a distance.


And your point is....?

Watch the videos.

This one, for instance....it is also from quite a distance.

It is zoomed well in, to start...watch, he zooms out after it's over:




How "far away" ya think, here?:




Just two......
~~~~~~~~

And, this is yet another misstatement, and mishearing and misunderstanding:


These were attested to in the case of the towers and in the case of WTC 7. You know that.


This is referring to the lack (my point) of demolition sounds, with the counter assertion (your point) as above.

YET, the video, with soundtrack, evidence seems to belie what is claimed as "attested to".

Could it be that what was really "attested to" was merely a few reports of some sounds, that were 'explosions', but that were NOT sequential, nor timed in such a way as normally seen in CD?

This applies to all three buildings....it has been addressed thoroughly, as I mentioned, already in other threads....still, it goes fully to the intent of the OP's psoting, and that video's authors' misleading attempts. They make NOTHING out of...well, nothing. With a good dollop if innuendo, though, to hope the entire thing fools at least some of the people, some of the time --- which, it seems, works.



Note the 'distance' apparent in this example video...you can gauge that distance, by reference to the surrounding buildings (with some effort --- NY natives might be more readily able):


Google Video Link


Sudden, complete surprise on the part of the onlookers, as recorded on the videocamera audio sound track.

As we've seen (and taking into account the speed of sound, versus light)...FIRST, charges go off....can be seen before heard, of course...time delay depends on distance, and speed of sound.

There is a delay, as well....internal DEMOs go off, you hear...more time goes by, THEN the structure begins to succomb to gravity.

Not seen on any of the three WTC buildings.

(Oh...and no "ball", either....)

I notice, with some dismay, that the average internet search results are teeming with the same old, same old CT claims....no wonder this nonsense gets so many people's attention!! They usually never get past page #1 or #2 of their search results, I suppose....











[edit on 10 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Current Weedy, this is shilly stuff. The videos you are embedding are meant for broadcast. Undoubtedly effort was made to get the sound right.

In the case of WTC 7, a lot of the video is shot from a distance either using handy cam style video cameras with inadequate mikes or by professional cameramen operating with on-the-street-style reporters using hand held proximity saturation mikes designed to filter out backround noise. They use these mikes so that backround noises will not drown out the people they are interviewing.

Most of these people had no idea WTC 7 was going to be demolished and made no preparations to capture sound. In some cases video of WTC 7 is from stationary skyline of New York style cameras perched on buildings with no audio component involved.

You are really teeing this one up for me:




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
A controlled demolition means controlling the demolition.Building 7 looked like a controlled demo.Seeing the whole building fell as though it was hollow straight down with no resistance.Also showed signs of a controlled demolition with the classic crimp in the middle.

Debunkers say it didn't look like a controlled demo..but yet it fell at the speed of a normal controlled demo straight down onto itself,and in seconds.Just because they didn't blow it up the way you wanted doesn't mean they didn't blow it up.

I guess that would be the smartest thing to do to hide the fact it was a controlled demo....by making it look like exactly like a controlled demo.

If fire could take out steel and concrete buildings like a controlled demo..like building 7,fell straight down in seconds into a ready to go pile..then all the demolition companies would be out of a job.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Here's the audio of the explosions for building 7!

www.youtube.com...

Nist was caught again lying.First it was the molten steel.Now it's "there was no explosions caught on tape"-Nist

Such lying would be suspicious to any normal investigator.I guess it's okay because it's the government?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by XxiTzYoMasterxX]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
I know people who saw the second plane hit with their own eyes.


Are they absolutely without a doubt 100% sure that they did see a plane?
They really actually saw with their own eyes something that was 100 something stories up, going at 400-500 mph? I don't think so. I don't think that, at the time, they even knew what happened. It was probably when they got home and turned on the television and radios and heard that planes hit the buildings. Having heard that, they start believing that what they "saw" was an airplane.

Of course there are those videos also of the plane flying into the building. Seriously how hard is it for us today, to create a grainy low quality video of a plane flying into a building? Not very hard with all the video editing software we have today right? Also not very hard to get someone who works for whoever thats behind 911 to lie that he/she recorded it at ground zero and then distribute this video into the public as evidence either right?

I've also read threads about how that the "plane" was actually just a missile disguised as a Boeing.




Income Tax



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 





Are they absolutely without a doubt 100% sure that they did see a plane?
They really actually saw with their own eyes something that was 100 something stories up, going at 400-500 mph? I don't think so. I don't think that, at the time, they even knew what happened. It was probably when they got home and turned on the television and radios and heard that planes hit the buildings. Having heard that, they start believing that what they "saw" was an airplane.



Some 50 of my co-workers saw the second plane hit WTC 2 - they were on the upper floors of our building. We could see WTC clearly from NJ

In the plant down the road (it was oil/petro chemical complaex) many workers climbed up on the catwalks to get a better view.

My boss came downstairs and told me and my partner what they had saw .

Even to today many of them are too upset to discuss it..



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX

If fire could take out steel and concrete buildings like a controlled demo..like building 7,fell straight down in seconds into a ready to go pile..then all the demolition companies would be out of a job.
Fire does take out buildings in controlled demolition. That and physical removal of many structural supports, and partial cutting of beams and columns.

Controlled demolition involves the use of explosives. An explosion is the rapid combustion of a fuel, a really fast fire.

Question: Has there ever been a controlled demolition of a building of the same type as the twin towers? 'Type' meaning design and method of construction.

I have seen the inside of a building that was prepared for CD. A lot of structural members were completely removed, and a lot of others were cut nearly in two. If the towers were dropped with the use of CD, wouldn't you think it would have been done in a similar way to ALL the others?



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

It's time to deduce the obvious conclusion with Professor Nathan: www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join