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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Whoever said the plane didn't penetrate the building is either lying or didn't see the videos of it going right through and then exploding,and went about half way out the other side before exploding.The nerve of some debunkers trying to pass that off as smoke.That's not smoke.How does the soft nose of a plane penetrate all that steel and concrete unscathed?It's impossible unless it was modified.
Let's watch that again shall we?
www.youtube.com...

And whoever showed the f4 test crash video..that plane is a lot more stronger than a 757 because it's smaller and more compact.Not that it helped because it still blew up on contact,which is what would be expected.

Did someone say no flashes?You mean like these?
www.youtube.com...

The best evidence of flashes right here...Smoking gun type stuff.
www.youtube.com...

No sounds of explosions caught on video you say?

Then what are these?Are you sure you debunkers don't work for Nist?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The post with the construction photos of the WTC was very good. It is hard to believe that there are people who think you could fly one of those airliners into this without breaking the wings off it. It is really too much. I can understand a shill selling his line of crap, after all people sell all kinds of crap to suckers, but to actually believe in the crap . . . !?!?!




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 





Whoever said the plane didn't penetrate the building is either lying or didn't see the videos of it going right through and then exploding,and went about half way out the other side before exploding.The nerve of some debunkers trying to pass that off as smoke.That's not smoke.How does the soft nose of a plane penetrate all that steel and concrete unscathed?It's impossible unless it was modified.


Here is an analysis of the failure mode by MIT engineering professor

Its not in a video ......

web.mit.edu...



4.2 Exterior columns

The 64m (208 ft) wide façade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice. The exterior columns are narrowly spaced and finished with a silver-colored aluminum cladding. The main building block of the outer structure was a prefabricated element, which was comprised of 3 floors, was
11 m high and 3.07m wide,
The prefabricated panel consisted of three columns connected by 3 transverse plates, called spandrels. The steel columns are of square cross-section ( b´b´t = 356mm´ 356mm´ 9.5mm). and they were spaced 570 mm apart from each other. The segments were staggered and bolted to their neighboring elements in every direction,
Each column was a box structure, almost square, with a assumed wall thickness of 9.5mm ext t = . In actuality, the exterior columns were variable in thickness of 12.5mm at the bottom of the buildings to 7mm at the top. The true columns thickness of that portion that was hit is not known to the authors. In the present analysis, the columns were assumed to be made of the medium grade A36, constructional steel characterized by:





4.5 Connections

Each prefabricated panel was bolted through spandrels to its horizontal neighbor with 2 rows of 18 bolts each. This is, again, an estimated value, but as you will see later on in this discussion, a bolted connection is so weak that the diameter of these bolts within plus and minus 5mm is really insignificant. It is easy to calculate the cross sectional shear strength of
the bolts, and is approximately half of the shear strength of the parent material, and possibly less because of stress concentrations. The photographic coverage of “Ground Zero” has proven that individual, prefabricated panels were almost all separated at these bolted seems, and it can further be said that it was actually the bolts which fractured rather than the material in the spaces in-between them. Concerning the connection between the staggered, prefabricated elements in the vertical direction, there were only four bolts adhering the interfaces of two
columns. The bolt cross sectional areas in these joints comprised approximately 2.3% of the column cross-section. Clearly there is a gross incompatibility between the strength of the connections (in shear and in tension) with the strength of the columns themselves. Elementary,
beam-bending theory calculations show that these bolts would have failed with only 1 mm transverse deflection of the columns (loaded as a beam). For all practical purposes they may be assumed to have negligible strength in bending, shear and tension. The strength of connection
between the exterior wall and floor trusses is discussed in Section 6.


Operative phrase - bolts fail with only 1 mm tranverse deflection

The exterior wall failed at the connections between the beams



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
Whoever said the plane didn't penetrate the building is either lying or didn't see the videos of it going right through and then exploding,and went about half way out the other side before exploding.The nerve of some debunkers trying to pass that off as smoke.That's not smoke.How does the soft nose of a plane penetrate all that steel and concrete unscathed?It's impossible unless it was modified.
Let's watch that again shall we?
www.youtube.com...

And whoever showed the f4 test crash video..that plane is a lot more stronger than a 757 because it's smaller and more compact.Not that it helped because it still blew up on contact,which is what would be expected.

Did someone say no flashes?You mean like these?
www.youtube.com...

The best evidence of flashes right here...Smoking gun type stuff.
www.youtube.com...

No sounds of explosions caught on video you say?

Then what are these?Are you sure you debunkers don't work for Nist?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Grasping at straws. In controlled demolitions, flashes go up the entire building. There were only 2 flashes in those videos, not enough to prove it was a controlled demolition. As for the other videos on explosions, there are far more explosives in that in controlled demolition, plus those popping sounds were most likely the debris falling down to the ground. Try looking at this from a rational point of view.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


2 flashes?

What a blatant lie.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You act as though it was just a empty shell.They were built with planes in mind.You don't think they had the outer wall reinforced?

I believe the people who built the towers over some unknown debunker online with no credentials.So you can take your BS somewhere else.

There are tons of flashes in those videos and you lie and say there were 2??WOW!

Next!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
You act as though it was just a empty shell.They were built with planes in mind.You don't think they had the outer wall reinforced?

I believe the people who built the towers over some unknown debunker online with no credentials.So you can take your BS somewhere else.

There are tons of flashes in those videos and you lie and say there were 2??WOW!

Next!
You really can't argue credentials when there are many people with credentials who don't subscribe to your irrational claims, yet you refuse to believe out of mental illness/the need to be in a group/fear/gullibility/etc. Sure, there may be people with credentials in your movement, but it's a very small number of people, even minus of the people who haven't looked into 9/11. And the people who built said that it could withstand Boeing 707's (I decided to link to a site with a clear truther bias so you don't cry disinfo: www.911oz.com...), not Boeing 767s, not to mention ones that were being used as missles for that matter. As for the video, there were not enough flashes to prove it was a controlled demolition. It's really hard to argue against what a video you posted shows. You only say there are tons of flashes because you want to believe there is. Stop being a denialist and think rationally.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
There are clearly lots of flashes before and during the collapse.Stop lying with your only 2 flashes BS.I'm surprised how blunt with the lying you debunkers are.Even after video evidence is shown.

Those 1 or 2 flashes you say,were happening everywhere before the collapse.AND there were lots of flashes during the collapse like this video shows.
www.youtube.com...

Here's a different video that shows the flashes.
www.youtube.com...

Are you saying I'm lying?.. when you can clearly see the flashes yourself?

I've shown you proof of the flashes and explosion sounds caught on tape when you said there was none.

I showed you proof that there was thick concrete on every floor and steel that covered both towers which someone said there wasn't.The plane would have to of gone through steel and concrete no?Am I right?Yes.

I've shown evidence of the object going through and coming out the other side perfectly unscathed before exploding.

And you debunkers just come out and basically call me a liar.What a weak retort.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Think, though.....the flashes??

Are they sequential? Meaning, in a pattern, as seen in other CD examples. OR, are they rather random, irregularly spaced in time?

What ELSE might "flash"...on a bright sunny Fall morning....on on office building/skyscraper that has a whole bunch of windows on its exterior?

What could have been happening inside, as the fires raged, and internal structures were failing, falling...things that aren't visible from the exterior?

Getting out and away from the Internet for a time is helpful, for learning about this topic. Getting more perspective.

Check your local library....just one book that is interesting (of many) --- one that describes what was happening INSIDE the Towers, described by survivors. Those who were desperately escaping; And it details some of the obstacles they encountered, and reveals what they saw/heard inside.

Book is "102 Minutes"

Of course, as some "truthers" are destined to do, some will try to claim that all of those people in the book are "lying" --- or something.....





[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Getting out and away from the Internet for a time is helpful, for learning about this topic. Getting more perspective.


That's priceless. lol.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Getting out and away from the Internet for a time is helpful, for learning about this topic. Getting more perspective.


Sounds like running to me. In my experience running from something only prolongs the inevitable.

Any perspective you could find "out there" you could find on the internet. Knowledge from every different trade is represented here ya know and easy to access. "Get off the internet" is just an escape, and a pretty funny one too. The mainstream media is always telling me the internet is lying to me too.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I have read most of the pages on these 2 simultaneous 'magic ball' threads and I think that all of you need to do some research on 'Scalar Wave' technology. There are many facets to the use of this technology, one of which is Scalar Weaponery'.

That 'magic ball' could well be explained as being 'Tesla Plasma Globes' which involve remotely targeted scalar beams used in various methods of destructive warfare.
This is not a new technology, however it is an intensely guarded secret kept by governments for their unconventional warfare needs against eachother. This technology was stolen by USGov from Nicola Tesla who, like Einstein, did not intend his scientific discovery to by used in this destructive fashion, rather for extracting free energy. Yes: FREE!...LoL...
I'm not going to get into detail on this theory, so I suggest that you decide for yourselves whether this info could apply here, rather than arguing about nose cones and building structures.
Keep in mind that the controlled demolitions were likely detonated upon impact, in a chain reaction from the initial Scalar impact. Entire floors in those buildings had been totally off limits, due to the fact that they were fitted with the secondary bombs that struck their final blow by taking the buildings down into vertical free fall.
Learn all about Scalar Weapons here:

www.angelfire.com...

I can't get the link to print out in full, so the above is followed after com by

/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html

Hope that works.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starling
I have read most of the pages on these 2 simultaneous 'magic ball' threads and I think that all of you need to do some research on 'Scalar Wave' technology.


Jeez.


There are many facets to the use of this technology, one of which is Scalar Weaponery'.


Jeez.


That 'magic ball' could well be explained as being 'Tesla Plasma Globes' which involve remotely targeted scalar beams used in various methods of destructive warfare.


Jeez.


This is not a new technology, however it is an intensely guarded secret kept by governments for their unconventional warfare needs against eachother. This technology was stolen by USGov from Nicola Tesla who, like Einstein, did not intend his scientific discovery to by used in this destructive fashion, rather for extracting free energy. Yes: FREE!...LoL...
I'm not going to get into detail on this theory, so I suggest that you decide for yourselves whether this info could apply here, rather than arguing about nose cones and building structures.


Jeez, jeez, and double-jeez.


Keep in mind that the controlled demolitions were likely detonated upon impact, in a chain reaction from the initial Scalar impact.


Jeez, that would explain the delay between the time of the impacts and the time of the detonations of the buildings. Jeez. I never thought of that.


Entire floors in those buildings had been totally off limits, due to the fact that they were fitted with the secondary bombs that struck their final blow by taking the buildings down into vertical free fall.


Jeez.


Learn all about Scalar Weapons here:


I think I'll stick to nose cones and structure, thanks. It's hard enough getting them into court. Going the Buck Rogers route, even if it's valid, is a non-starter.

Maybe you should pursue this in another thread.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AquariusDescending
 


"running"????

As in, "running away"???

What part of LEARN from other sources wasn't clear?

How do you think I know about all the other materials out there, that you CANNOT read/access on the Internet??

Folks...you do understand a thing called "copyrights", correct? And, the concept of "profit"?

People who have information, who write books and investigate deeply don't always give their results of research away, for free! 'Cuz, that's what's on the Web....you get what you "pay" for, sorry.

In the realm of "9/11" (oh, and Apollo landing "hoaxes", and "scalar weapons"
and HAARP, etc, etc....) you get crap from people who think they're the ones who are "Blowing the lid off this dastardly conspiracy!" by posting what usually amounts to their own self-deluded paranoid fantasies....

...of course, IF you bother to rise out of all that muck, and do proper searches there ARE resources on line as well, for free. Proper research papers, very technical things though....stuff like doctoral dissertations, things like that are free, and public domain.

BUT...the majority of that stuff isn't readable to most people....it is usually field-specific, and requires a certain level of knowledge, training and experience IN the area of expertise that is discussed.

How many "truthers" bother to go beyond the "conspiracy" websites, or where those same sites steer them?? No, what many (most) do is just agreee wholeheartedly, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous the next "theory" is...like the one at the start of this thread.

As I said....people, in general, are lazy....not a bad word --- maybe "too busy" in this fast-paced world would be a better description?

In many, many of these so-called "conspiracy theories" that currently abound, there is a great deal of Confirmation Bias that occurs. It is quite easy to see, when you step back and regard these things more objectively.


AND....why do you think this (talking the "9/11" stuff, now) isn't MORE prevalent??

Think about it....(and look to the subjects of alien abductions, ET UFOs, Illuminati, Reptilians amongst us...you name it, it's out there as a "conspiracy theory", and MOST have little to no real evidence...just an avid 'belief' of a very small core group --- and most of THEM disagree on the details!!)







[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


For once, I think I'm in agreement with you, ipsedixit....regarding these "weapons".

A quick glance should be enough for people to see through it (no pun).

Only took me a few moments to follow the link, see "1904" and then (and I knew it was coming next) "Nikola Tesla" to see that it is yet another of those well-off-the-chart fringe "theories" I was ranting about....didn't think to go into specifics, we can let the sites do their own burying....er, "talking"....



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For once, I think I'm in agreement with you, ipsedixit....regarding these "weapons".


I think we should just keep this rare coincidence of opinion between ourselves. There is no need for others to be aware of it. Over and out.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
So, according to this rocket scientist, a top secret anti-grav flying saucer hit the WTC, because a real jetliner posed too many problems if things went wrong....

Riiight. My lawyer demands you refund that half our of my life.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





What ELSE might "flash"...on a bright sunny Fall morning....on on office building/skyscraper that has a whole bunch of windows on its exterior?

What could have been happening inside, as the fires raged, and internal structures were failing, falling...things that aren't visible from the exterior?


The flashes of light most likely windows failing as the building becomes unstable and begins to twist out of plumb

The windows either shatter or are popped out of their frames as the building twists

Firefighters are taught to look for this as sign of impending building collapse



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
The debunkers here lie a lot.Even when you show them evidence,they act as though it don't exist.

The reason for most of these conspiracies is because there IS evidence.Lots of it.Overwhelmingly so.That's the whole reason why there is a "truth movement".People know when they are being lied too.They're not stupid.You debunkers only help prove that there are people out there that lie and put out dis-info to try and keep the public from finding out the truth.

Your debating is weak when all you do is call people liars.Especially when you're the ones caught lying.

The soft nose of a plane went through a 200 feet wide building made out of steel and concrete and came out the other side..unscathed people.That's not possible unless it was modified.Sorry.
www.youtube.com...

You debunkers lie and say we see conspiracies because we want to..weak tactic.It's because of all the evidence.If there was no evidence people wouldn't even think about it.Simple as that.Then you turn around and say you're "delusional,crazy or a kook" just because people have a different opinion.Resorting to insults is all you can do.You call people with evidence a "conspiracy theorist" and call them crazy.What kind of reasoning is that?You can't win the debate so you call them names??So childish,and you expect people to take you serious?

All I have left to say is...NEXT!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
The soft nose of a plane went through a 200 feet wide building made out of steel and concrete and came out the other side..unscathed people.That's not possible unless it was modified.Sorry.
www.youtube.com...

Just curious, what modifications do you think would be sufficient to the plane to allow it to do what you are claiming. It would be interesting to hear what an engineer thinks would be necessary to add to the airframe to make this a 'do-able' idea.

Afterwards, it would be interesting to see if an aeronautical engineer thinks the plane would be able to take off from a runway after it was so modified or if it would be controllable while in flight.

It would probably be quite an engineering feat to make the modifications to the plane with no outward signs of this having been done. Also to do it and have room for all the fuel, passengers and what? Maybe a load of supernanothermite, too?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join