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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 27
27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


You can not see the side of the building, it is covered with smoke. It seems to me that you are confusing the 45 degrees faces on the corners with the sides. Don't worry, this kind of error is to be expected from a truther.

How about this. First you acknowledge that my explanation can indeed be a very logical and rational one. Then think of a method how to disprove it. And after that apply this method to see if my explanation is any good. Currently you just desperately try to debunk it, throwing anything against the wall you can think of in the hope it will stick. In all honesty, I can not tell if my explanation is correct either. It is just the most logical and rational one I can think of. I could not find any video to corroborate it. But I could also not find any video that disproves it.
edit on 2-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Uhm, just a note PLB...

You can see the right side of the building, that shot isn't precisely head on. Look again.

He drew the green line on the far edge of the 45 degree corner. 45 + 45 is what again PLB?

Either way, this should clarify the situation:



I think it should be fairly apparent that the tilt start after the top had dropped some distance, but feel free to add lines or squiggles if it makes you happy.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


here yellow lines for you.....geez



you see PLB....i am sure others see this too....I am not trying to decieve PLB i am showing what is there and people can think as they like.....you are a fine exaple....as you are being show what is there...yet you are chosing to believe what you like....man there is hope yet...there is some truther in you......Sarcasm PLB

edit on 093030p://f57Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 103030p://f03Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Your yellow lines tell us absolutely nothing. You are just seeing what you want to see. It is impossible to discriminate between smoke and the wall.

The video posted by Darkwing is a lot clearer though. Too bad we can not see the movement in the mast. Still, it doesn't look like the complete top was tilting before full floor failure. I have looked at the NIST explanation, they say that first the south wall lost its load capacity. The load was transfered to the core and 3 other walls. It does not specify what failed first after the south wall failed. (at least not as far as I read). I don't really see why core columns failing before the remaining 3 walls contradicts the official explanation. If you think it does, please post the section in NIST where it states that the core columns failed after the remaining 3 walls. If you can find this, you may have found something that contradicts the report.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


you really either get a new monitor or possibly get your eyes checked....

OK since you can see smoke is it coming out of the side of the building or the front.....simple simple simple question......and if you answer this with i don't know...then once again i have to ignore you as a definate troll...even though i have given you chance after chance when things are placed right in front of your face....can you ever...once...possibly...maybe...answer a straight forward question....

in the video can you see the smoke coming out of the side....now i am going to ask other participants two simple question and see what they think.

1) can others see the side of the builing enought to give reference points.
2)in the sauret video is the camera point striaght at the front of the building...or is is offset to the right somewhat.

because i am a truther i aparently can only see things that are not there.....the side of the building must be a halogram then.....

now as dark kindly tried to point out....the collapse was not even tilting at this point....now also as a truther and having had a run in with you on other occasions.....you have stated you think the sauret vid is a good one to use...as i used it to point out many things before.....

Now the only reason i can think of for you to come back with foolish rebuttle is because you got caught out yet again...and can only go on the attack.


edit on 113030p://f36Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
because i am a truther i aparently can only see things that are not there.....


Finally some truth from a truther.


now as dark kindly tried to point out....the collapse was not even tilting at this point....now also as a truther and having had a run in with you on other occasions.....you have stated you think the sauret vid is a good one to use...as i used it to point out many things before.....

Now the only reason i can think of for you to come back with foolish rebuttle is because you got caught out yet again...and can only go on the attack.


My explanation was logical and rational, at least to people who have an education in engineering (which I strongly doubt you had, and if so, a very lousy one). That doesn't mean it is necessarily correct. And as it turns out, it seems to be incorrect after watching that other video. However, you can not tell this from the video you came with. Unless you see things that are not there.

But anyway, you ignored my question. Can you post the section in NIST where it says that all 4 perimeter walls failed before the core columns failed?
edit on 2-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


lmao...just cause i think your tilt idea had some validity...IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.......simple....nice thought...and you can doubt it all you like....but i guess you may as say the same thing about the fella from MIT in the video...and we have gone down this road before and informed you of the school i went too...so do you want me yet again go through once again and drag you through the mud like i had before about what you have said you are mister electrical engineer.

which you have not once ever even tried to back up......

but people can go through previous threads and see what i have stated and go through my background quite well....as i said your drawing had merit....BUT DOES NOT APPLY HERE....

also you cannot even bother to acknowledge that in the video smoke was billowing from the side....

so once again you have proved yourself a troll or a shrill....and this past convo will show it yet again....cheers for showing your true colors yet again.
edit on 123030p://f37Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 123030p://f43Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Wasn't it me who said that because of that smoke you could not see the actual side, so could not see any tilting even if it was happening? Ah yes, it was me saying that. Besides, the angle in that video is extremely small in order to see a tilt, even without smoke it would be very hard to see, if possible at all. What exactly are you so mad about? That Darkwing came with a better video and that you failed making your point using your own video?

Anyway, lets put all your straw man arguments and nonsense aside. Where exactly in the NIST report does it say that the 4 exterior walls failed before the core columns?

ps, there were indeed some funny moments in our previous conversations. Like you debunking your own image because your confused it with mine.
edit on 2-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You got a much deserved star. After I saw the antennae dropping post, but before I got to your illustration I was trying to think of how I would explain it with words. Then, duh, perfect illustration.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


you see that is where your wrong...and you know it....as i have stated all you need is a few points of reference from two sides to determine if there is a tilt...i DID NOT ONCE say it had to have a great depth of view to do this....and you should know this.....as it is simple plotting.....you have all the co-ordinates that are required....you can see it the line one the far right has movement...and you can see if the line on the far left has movement...therefore you can see all possible angles of tilting that could occur.....
I even mention that someone would try and comeback with this very statement so i pre empted it...and yet you still come back with it....

and yet again i try and give you the respect of your vast knowledge you have claimed to have over and over in threads.....and i still engage with you in conversation and you consistantly try to baffle with singular arguements and not even admitting when white is white or black is black......

one day you will learn to discuss conspiracy with an open mind....as i have never said there were halograms....atomic devices...missles or some other nefarious thing....i have stuck to what i know and understand....I DO NOT see how three steel structures with central cores could come down in one day when it has never happened before....

just as i have shown the antena here...and the time the buildings fell in....It all shows lack of resistance....and not once has anyone shown how the buildings could have exhibited this lack of resistance.....so we have to make conclusions on what we do know as human beings....we know the way to have a building show a lack of resistance to the forces of gravity Alone is to use some sort of CD.....

Now that once again being said...it is still speculation as evidence has been removed....and destroyed.

Now why not just accept some tihings you can see with your own eyes......can you or cannot see a side of the building to the right(no matter how little because of the angle).

now then lets get to the topic of the tilting......IF a said body tilts....and it is resting ontop of a structure...the said tilting body is going to take the path of least resistance....NO MATTER WHAT.

but for some reason on the day in the case of north and south tower....this did not apply....for some strange reason these two falling bodies decide to take the past of most Resistance.....

a most strange occurance to me.....but i am sure you have a full...complete understanding of this since i obviously have no idea what i am talking about...could you please enlightened the masses on MASS and falling bodies taking the path of most Resistance.


edit on 023030p://f02Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The fact that you can see that side is inconsequential to disproving the other posters tilt theory.
You can draw a big green line but if the tiny line you drop to show the distance the antennae moves were applied (as it should have been instead of the pointless deflective green line graphic) it would be very difficult to tell. Also the angle, smoke, and general s***iness of the photo makes it impossible to tell if that side has dropped that miniscule 10 foot line you drew, not to mention because of the angle you would actually be looking at a smaller degree of change. He is giving you a very good reasonable argument and you are getting a little emotional and defensive and not proving your case which isn't good. I'm not even a debunker and I agree with him so as an outside opinion you are losing the debate both in logic and professional attitude.
edit on 2-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


it does make a big difference..and if it is shown the tilt does not occur then it means that the drawning of a tilt is irrelevant....

and having two sides of the building showing is what is all important...because then PLB is correct in what he has drawn and i would agree...but...there is no tilt at this point....and watch the entire video and you can see there isn't a tilt as this is the very initial start of the collapse.

but good to see you sitting on the side until you have something that you can agree with to suit your opinion rather than making an opinion to suit what you see occuring.

also the green line could have been bigger or smaller as it repesents the aligment relative to the structure...

so if you do not understand the need to see two sides then you can stick to PLB drawning....but it is your opinion and thank you for it....i am glad of it...but i have also gone back through the thread...you may not be a debunker...but i must say you side only with the OS.

Also if you require a thinner line to make you feel better i can do that for you......as you could see Dark wing could understand the line Reference...and the need for it if you cannot deduce the alignment with out.....which i could very well...and i put the green line there to satisfy PLB.....i did not need it.....then PLB said that the side of the building was just a 45 degree corner....then he said all he could see was smoke....then he finally said he could see a little of the side.....so to so slowly drag this out...it then would seem to be relevant.

as he then said there was not enough of it there to matter...and this is not about winning or losing....it is trying to establish fact, If you think this is about winning or losing...the losers are the people who lost their lives to a crime and the crime has never been solved...and to solve the crime would be to know why exactly these buildings came down......

now you seem to think that little green line is insignifigant...well it represents almost ten ft....now if i was to see the hat truss drop ten fet....wow...i guess it is insignifigant.....say i was crossing a bridge and the road dropped ten feet...yup...insignifigant right.


edit on 023030p://f28Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


here yellow lines for you.....geez



you see PLB....i am sure others see this too....I am not trying to decieve PLB i am showing what is there and people can think as they like.....you are a fine exaple....as you are being show what is there...yet you are chosing to believe what you like....man there is hope yet...there is some truther in you......Sarcasm PLB

edit on 093030p://f57Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 103030p://f03Friday by plube because: (no reason given)


Also your yellow line in this picture is incorrect it changes angle indicating the corner and side too soon.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


No you aren't showing that the side didn't tilt. You can't show it with those photos.
Do you understand that since the side is at an angle (not that you can really see it anyway) the tilt would be far less pronounced? I'm not even an OSer I'm just helping you because in order to be effective at arguing you have to cut the theories that can be torn all to pieces out.

Here I drew I for you:



Truthers are making huge errors in how they go about getting 9/11 reexamined.
edit on 2-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


sorry once again not incorrect...you see PLB was correct.....about the corners being at a 45....the corner starts in the centre of the white angled suface...not at the edge....amazing....but thanks for trying to show how wrong it is....if i started it at the edge then it would be wrong....also that was set as close as could be only to show PLB the side as he could not see it...and even though i was just trying to highlight that there was a side to the building showing i still took the time to reference the corner correctly.

but your not doing bad for not being a debunker.....i applaud you.
edit on 023030p://f33Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


as stated this is aproxximately 1/4s i don't have to show that as that is the point when the rest of the structure initiates it's collapse...the part need to be shown ws the dropping of the antena previous to the roofline of the structure.....so please do a favour and watch the video....or tell you what...take the video...you take the frame shot out of the video..and you show how the tilt was taking place at the time....alright....then we will compare the differnce.....so much better that way.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


And i see you chose to put in a purple line...which is...ummmm...WRONG.....the corners once again were not at 90 degrees......they were flatten off or chamfered one might say.

oh well go ahead and show how much you lack ....but i must say at least your putting in more effort than PLB.
edit on 023030p://f42Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


What you think is the side wall is in fact smoke. If you look at the video zoomed out you can see that. Darkwing posted a 1000 times more clear video, so why you keep nagging on about your own video completely beats me. The rest of your post consists of incoherent ramblings and seems completely irrelevant to me. You failed to address the single question I asked you.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


are you just ummm...ok forget that...it cannot be shown in darks vid as you canot see the antena at the time it occurs.but i will show you yet again the side is visible...remember....this is 1/4s....or do you not read what is written....just cause one vids angles allow you to see parts relevant does not mean other ones do...or can you not even agree with that......

now not only did i show the side...but your partner there has shown the side...but heck....he doesn't even think that having two sides visible is even relevant...even though one would need to be able to see a front to back tilt in this insatance or a right to left tilt ......so saying why not use his vid shows how you like to twist what is being shown.

then your partner there...says the corner is wrong...even though i do agree with you the corners are chamfered,,,,,and the actual corner would need to be extrapolated out to form the 90degree.

as for how much of the side one would need to see....it would only require the back edge of the right side to indicate any tilt at the point where your saying the possibility is an illusion of the antena tilt back allowing the leading edge of the building to give the appearance of the antena droping...see i can even say it in words.

but if you require even more lines...would you like any particulr color...tell me the thickness and while your at it why not write down all the x,y co ordinates...because i don't just draw lines....i use co-ordinates and relative points to what i can ACTUALLY see...also knowing the camera taking the shots was stationary.

so in order for your illuson to work the building would need to tilt from the front of the frame towards to back in this plain of sight. so in those eight frames it would need to show the edge on the right side tilting back in order for your illusion to be true....so why not just do that........



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join