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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 28
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Hey Varemia...remember when you said on this very page....

"So, please, enlighten me if you have information that would help me understand this. And no using rhetoric to act as if it is self evident. I will not accept the words "it's obvious," "anyone can see," or "there's no way" when referring to the official story."

-- Then several posts later you counter our rock solid logic regarding your magic fuel theory with the following statement...

"Fuel obviously went into various elevators due to the various blow-outs, though a couple elevators were serviceable by firefighters."

-- So for our info we couldn't use such a definitive term as "obviously", yet you use it yourself.

I am serious my friends, this "kid" is some sicko who gets kicks out of this type of trolling. Go ahead reread his many posts here and ask yourself...would a normal person get repeatedly schooled on a single thread and still rear his head so often? Seriously!

Reread this thread from the very beginning. You are not interested in the truth...it is clear.

Have you not asked yourself where your truster friends are? Seriously, where are they? They refuse to align themselves with your foolishness.

So although it has been fun in a way, I am going on the record as saying that this "kids" posts are to be shown as the height of a truster doing anything he can to clutch on to his shredded credibility.

Like they all will one day.

#911truthwinning

edit on 22-3-2011 by Game_Over because: removed extra letter




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I haven't gone so far as to calculate all that. I'm just a layman -_-

But I'll give it a shot since I do have one picture of the floor plan (minus the office accessories).



I'm not sure where to find out the exact locations of the elevators, but I'm going to assume that the blank spaces in the floor plan may be elevators. (I can't be certain, remember that).

Anyway, why the heck am I doing this anyway? Shouldn't you be able to prove your side just as conclusively? I mean, you keep saying that I need to prove that it wasn't your idea, yet you haven't provided any proof for your idea either. No tests that indicate what happens during a fuel laden crash explosion... not even the hint of a scientific paper to illustrate the complete burning up of all fuel during an explosive impact.

reply to post by Game_Over
 

Sigh. I said obviously, but then explained what made it obvious. You guys usually just say that it's obvious to see that the OS is a lie, using no backup ideas or evidence. Also, thanks much for the ad hominem approach. I love it when people focus on the person and not the information.

Edit: I also did not appreciate your comment on my profile suggesting that you think I am a woman who portrays herself as a man. One, I don't see how that's relevant in any way to my ability to think and debate, and Two, I am most certainly a male. I think I would have preferred to have been born a woman (since I'm too nice for a guy), but regardless, I have the male bits and they're not falling off any time soon. [/end off-topic rant]
edit on 22-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWhite665
reply to post by Ben81
 


Has anyone noticed why the Japanese people haven't caused riots or looted stores like the blacks did during Katrina?


What does the reactions to Katrina have to do about this? This is a 9/11 thread, not a cultural thread. I can see the similarity with it being a natural disaster, but we're comparing structural damage of one building against another, not who looted who in the last big catastrophe.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Anyway, why the heck am I doing this anyway?


I'm not sure why, but you were going to try to convince me and the readers that jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts before it exploded into a fireball.



Shouldn't you be able to prove your side just as conclusively?


I've been saying planes couldn't cause the damage and I've offered an explanation for what could cause it. I was hoping you'd provide a conclusive argument that the damage is consistent with the official story.




I mean, you keep saying that I need to prove that it wasn't your idea, yet you haven't provided any proof for your idea either.


I have. You won't address what I've presented. You'd rather talk about a jet fuel "waterfall".




No tests that indicate what happens during a fuel laden crash explosion... not even the hint of a scientific paper to illustrate the complete burning up of all fuel during an explosive impact.


The damage is not consistent with what a jet would do. I've provided evidence that proves this. Why would I want to read scientific papers about jet fuel?

edit on 22-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Oh, but good effort by the way.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well I had a look at your link to Killtown's blog lots of video and stills of the IMPACTS and some great entertainment for anyone that knows a little about photography or video.

As usual some really STUPID assumptions made and passed of as fact.

Lets look at some.

Shadow Planes.

These consist of long range shots of the 2 towers with the second hit about to take place, they say


“The following videos show a "shadow plane," that is a dark object with no discernable markings on it other than being shaped like a Boeing 767.”


Now these videos are all long range with mostly blue sky as a background now as the exposure is set up to correctly expose the buildings sunlight shining on them and correct exposure for the sky THATS WHY the plane shows up as dark.
Whats totally STUPID is they have pictures taken from the other side of the South Tower of the second strike the plane can be seen and its not dark of course.
LEARN SOME PHOTORAPHY /VIDEO BASICS IE EXPOSURE!!!


NAUDET BROTHERS.

AGAIN SOME REALLY AMATUER ASSUMPTIONS MADE HERE LETS SEE

The site say's


Video taken by the Naudet brothers who also caught the 2nd crash. Notice the aircraft captured on the video is unrecognizable and brief explosion seems to come out of the North Tower before the aircraft hits.


Again long range and what was the resolution of their video camera in 2001.

Thats not taken into consideration
its as bad as Jim Fetzer and his posts on here when he thinks he can uses videos like that shot at the time by “Joe Public” filmed at 30 fps and honestly think they will see detail of the impact. So any lab thats doing experiments on high speed collisions don't spend thousands of £/$'s developing cameras that can take pictures at 100/1000 and now even 1,000,000's of frames per second just film at 30fps and send it to these idiots.

Last comment for now BIRD STRIKES.

THIS ALWAYS GIVE ME A GOOD


They claim that the planes couldn't damage the building as the building is harder/tougher than the plane.
How do they shows this by showing pictures of planes being damage by being struck by something SOFTER/NOT AS TOUGH as them and they don't even see the IRONY of what they are doing.

So how does that fly in the face of your idea of physics Yankee451 and Jim (faulty physics) Fetzer.

Thats just a quick look at the BS you linked me to Yankee451 have a couple of other things to bring up they comment on later re their comments on Tina etc.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Where, in all your gibberish, did you discuss Tina Cart, Robert Clark, and Wolfgang Staehl's identical images?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Where, in all your gibberish, did you discuss Tina Cart, Robert Clark, and Wolfgang Staehl's identical images?



What did I say at the bottom of my post and as two members of my family are ill at the moment YOU are not a priority ok!

I take it you mean this shot




Please tell me how they are identical because is Tina's picture full frame or cropped, Roberts was obviously taken with a better quality camera and Wolfgang's was cctv.

Were does Wolfgang live or is his business based around there and do you have any info on the camera Tina or Robert used because that has a big factor on these pictures.

Also even if the pictures were taken from roughly the same area what has that got do to with it as no doubt hundreds of pictures were taken of event with many people in each location.

ALSO as the site you linked me to says bold and underline!


The unknown "amateur" TinaCart1 crash (and collapse) video, Robert Clark photo, and Wolfgang Staehle CCTV still looks like they were all taken from the same location:


Looks like NOT were NOT definitely


Be back latter with more BS from this site link you gave!!!!
edit on 23-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry, I do skim, my bad. Priorities I understand, by all means tend your family.

All razzing aside, I am interested in your analysis of the photos. If they are not showing identical perspectives, please use your experience to explain it.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well Yankee451 wasted 10 mins of my life finding your links for Tina etc they wasted another 30mins having a look at some of the flawed reasoning regarding their pictures and some others on the net.

Going to work now will be back on later pointing out the flawed assumptions re the photographs, when it comes to photography/video the truthers as as bad as the moon hoax believers when looking at pictures and video


I'll let this do the talking for me.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Varemia states:
"As to your post, yes, I do think that's what happened. Certainly not exactly as I imagine it, as that was no more than an amateur guess with no actual evidential support to back it up, but something "along those lines" had to have happened. Otherwise the blown out lobbies and basement would make no sense whatsoever, and there would be no apparent reason to do it with bombs since we have video and firefighters talking about the blown out areas."
-- Thank you for clarifying that. I now have full confidence that your posts are to be ignored. Not out of ignorance, but rather to deny your ignorance. You have proven without a doubt that your mind will support any fantasy necessary to make it fit with the OS.

Varemia states:
"Why the heck would it be covered up if jet fuel can easily explain it? And yes, perhaps it didn't 'outrun' the combustion. As I said, I'm not an expert, but the fuel certainly made it down there."
-- No it didn't. Here is a test. Ask the other trusters on this site if they agree with you.

Whats that sound?

Crickets.

Varemia states:
"Unless you can tell me why explosives would be set to go off at the same time as the plane impacts in areas where there was no impact and severed no known supports, I can't see why it would be anything other than the plane's explosion that would cause it."
-- I get that you can't see why explosives would be set to go off simultaneously. No, in fact you could see, if you'd only look. But like I stated above, you are ignorant and therefore, denied. Your posts are now filtered for being irrelevant.

Varemia states:
"So, please, enlighten me if you have information that would help me understand this. And no using rhetoric to act as if it is self evident. I will not accept the words "it's obvious," "anyone can see," or "there's no way" when referring to the official story. You have to actually use reasons and logic to explain them, or else I will not be able to acknowledge it as reasonable and meaningful in my understanding. Thanks, and I await your response."

-- Well then listen up son, cause here is that "reason" and "logic" you crave so much. With one's own eyes you can see the majority of the "jet fuel" is ignited on impact into the towers. The speed at which fuel ignites is very fast. Faster than the speed of that same fuel traveling through the air. Therefore it would be impossible for unburned jet fuel to beat the explosive fireball and pour down the elevator shafts as you described and believe.
Secondly, there is not enough fuel in those tanks to cascade all the way down the multiple elevator shafts in any meaningful amount even if the fuel remained liquid and did not ignite on impact. Did that help?

As a matter of fact though, I don't really care if it did. I honestly believe you are not mature enough to comprehend this level of thinking. So with all due respect, I look forward to talking with you in the future, until then "May the Truth be with you."


Agreed, it's impossible for any jet fuel to leak without blowing up with the rest of it. It's IMPOSSIBLE.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by Game_Over


Agreed, it's impossible for any jet fuel to leak without blowing up with the rest of it. It's IMPOSSIBLE.


Really? How many jet crashes have you helped pick up? There is almost ALWAYS jet fuel that is not consumed by the inevitable fire ball in a crash.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


There buildings are base isolated to prevent collapse in an earth quake. Please explain how this would protect a building from a plane crash??



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Along the lines of our conversation, I started a thread here about another similarity between an amateur photographer and a documentary photographer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?



Chew on this game -over


British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."



May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry, I do skim, my bad. Priorities I understand, by all means tend your family.

All razzing aside, I am interested in your analysis of the photos. If they are not showing identical perspectives, please use your experience to explain it.


iT'S ok see we may not agree but we can be civilized run off my feet at the moment, having a good look at videos and pics on the site and some of the claims are a joke! About 10-15 mins on a camera review site would show lots of there claims are BS!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
wmd_2008 states:
"Chew on this game -over.
British-born survivor tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

-- So, let me get this straight, he smelt it rushing?
His sense of smell is so refined that he could interpret quantity and speed of the the fuel? Can he also smell how fast a car is going?

If you're going to quote the man, do it right...Here is what he actually said:
"PAUL NEAL: Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

Not a big deal to me but when quoting people please quote what they actually said, not what you want them to say. I pasted my quote form the transcript of Nova found here:
www.pbs.org...

You did leave out a few key words though and one wonders why you would choose to edit his quote?

Why is it hard for you to grasp that he smelled Jet Fuel? I am not denying the fact that jet fuel was present. Nor am I denying that the fumes from the explosion would have traveled down the elevator shafts.

Smelling Jet fuel vapors and liquid jet fuel "rushing through the lift shafts" are two different things, aren't they?

In fact lets look at the passage from the Nova transcript that comes just before Mr. Neals statement:

NARRATOR: Leslie Robertson's radical design seemed to have worked, but there was more devastating damage hidden inside. Although the aluminum aircraft shattered on contact with the exterior wall, the speed and force of the fragments and the intact steel engines severely damaged the columns and stairwells in the core, and jet fuel began saturating the building.

-- I am particularly interested in that last sentence..."jet fuel began saturating the building."

Saturation refers to an object reaching a maximum capacity. Think of it like a paper towel soaking up a spill. There is a point where there is no more room left to soak up any more liquid. At this point, the paper towel is considered saturated with water.

Can anyone in the world actually make the statement in 2011 that the towers were "saturated" with jet fuel? Laughable. Notice how they set up a complete lie and then follow it with some statement from a witness in order to complete the narrative.

But if you want to use Nova as a source lets continue with some other items brought up in the documentary:

GENE CORLEY: Looking at the films of the North Tower, it appears that the antenna starts down just a little bit before the exterior of the building. That suggests the core went first.

MATTHYS LEVY: It was very much like a controlled demolition when you look at it, because the building essentially fell almost vertically down, as if someone had deliberately set a blast to take place to cause the building to fall vertically downward.

-- Now taken out of context and isolated it can be interpreted that this Nova documentary actually endorses the theories of controlled demolition.

Lastly WMD_2008 states:
"May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions"
-- yes, I have seen a lot of Hollywood explosions. I have worked around many Hollywood explosions. I am always amazed at the incredible feats of trickery we pull off creating film and television. I see first hand how reality can be shaped and controlled. I know how things are rigged to look normal and natural when they are anything but normal and natural. Maybe you should see a few more Hollywood explosions first hand. You will be amazed at how they safely can make almost anything happen with the right amount of prep time and money.

So I chewed on it pal...swallowed it too. No problem for me. How about you chew on it -- I'll be here waiting to watch you choke.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 


Well the typical truther see's something and JUMPS to his own conclusion I didn't post a link to where I got the text did I! So straight away I am the one that edited his word's what makes you think your link is 100% correct?

See the problem is journalists/media want to make their story seem better a bit like conspiracy theorists when the true story is just not exciting enough.

The link you can check the words.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Dont worry you dont have to apologies just dont JUMP to conclusions but you can have a second bite!

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
wmd_2008 states:
"Well the typical truther see's something and JUMPS to his own conclusion I didn't post a link to where I got the text did I!
-- No, you didn't post a link. How am I supposed to guess where you got your info from or if you copied it as written if you don't tell us where you got it from?

wmd_2008 states:
"See the problem is journalists/media want to make their story seem better a bit like conspiracy theorists when the true story is just not exciting enough."
-- Are you implying that 9-11 was not exciting enough as it was? I could easily use the example of Todd B. and the "Let's Roll" fantasy to illustrate this.

Secondly I am not apologizing to you for sloppily copying text from a BBC article about a show originally aired on PBS and edited.

Now, care to address the other factors in my previous post where you were rightfully schooled?

-- So, let me get this straight, he smelt it rushing?
His sense of smell is so refined that he could interpret quantity and speed of the the fuel? Can he also smell how fast a car is going?

Why is it hard for you to grasp that he smelled Jet Fuel? I am not denying the fact that jet fuel was present. Nor am I denying that the fumes from the explosion would have traveled down the elevator shafts.

Smelling Jet fuel vapors and liquid jet fuel "rushing through the lift shafts" are two different things, aren't they?




top topics



 
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join