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.

 

Just wanted to share this Vid. 911/truth

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
Most, if not all of those peer reviewed studies where done in 2001/2002. The FACTS we have now are way beyond what was assumed directly after, as more and more is being let out from behind the NIST doors.


So, the science behind these papers are no longer valid? Really?


Please find a present day, up to date, peer review study done in support of the offical NIST story.


One from 2007 in there.



The list I provided is of only 1,000 names. Names of professionals demanding that the official story be reviewed and a new investigation be done.


Yet, not one of them has been able to scientifically fault the NIST investigation. (youtube videos are not scientifically reviewed)



What has the government to lose (except everything) for a non governmental investigation.


Only 20 million dollars on a redundant report when as mention above, no one has scientifically faulted the first one.


Oh right, most of the official data is held under wraps do to "national security". They must protect us from ourselves remember.


It is? Most of it huh?



We can"t even access the steel columns stored in warehouses because of national security....not to mention the black box's which have been photographed! except that officially they don't exist.


You need to get your facts in order. What would you do with the steel columns? Check for nano pixie dust? Actually, once the 911 Memorial opens up, you will be able to see the steel that was at the impact point. There will also be two of the surviving tridents.

The black boxes were only recovered from Flight 77 and Flight 93. Flight 93's boxes were recovered by a local excavator who was the only excavator company allowed on the grounds.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Fact remains buildings dont usually fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires...


Fixed that for you. (added usually, just to be clear)

You can't have a universal if you don't even have a big enough sample size for buildings that have caught fire in the past with similar specifications.


Let me reword that for you.

It doesnt make any sense from a logical & scientific (not to mention commonsense) viewpoint that a building could fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires.

And as regards having universal proof, theres been many many buildings that have had a few spot fires and not fallen down at free fall speed. In fact, I cant think of 1 that has, except of course good old building 7...

edit on 9-9-2011 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Fact remains buildings dont usually fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires...


Fixed that for you. (added usually, just to be clear)

You can't have a universal if you don't even have a big enough sample size for buildings that have caught fire in the past with similar specifications.


Let me reword that for you.

It doesnt make any sense from a logical & scientific (not to mention commonsense) viewpoint that a building could fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires.

And as regards having universal proof, theres been many many buildings that have had a few spot fires and not fallen down at free fall speed. In fact, I cant think of 1 that has, except of course good old building 7...

edit on 9-9-2011 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)


Did you see the video I posted earlier in the thread? It shows two simulations that NIST ran to determine why the building fell the way it did. The first simulation was the building with no damage, and it fell in a very uneven, crumpling manner. The second simulation had the damage factored in, and near the base (where there was structural damage), about eight floors buckled inward, causing eight floors of free fall, and the appearance of a straight down, implosion demolition. The fact is, the building did not implode. It collapsed in a very different manner.

Here is the video again. It is only 1 minute and 11 seconds, so please, take the time to look at it and see if it gives you any insight into the manner of the collapse:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
almost free fall speed


neither WTC1 or 2 fell at almost free fall speed, they were a lot slower - just watch the collapse, you can clearly see the debris falling at free fall speed, the collapsing building is falling slower above it.

Why do conspiracy theorists keep claiming it was "near free fall"?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
and the booms could have easily been....

Yes, all of the facts "could" be explained by this, or "could" be explained by that. But all you're doing is making stuff up to explain way the evidence.

The collapses looked like controlled demolition; sounded like controlled demolition; collapsed in a manner and speed consistent with controlled demolition.

Occam's Razor dictates that the easiest explanation is usually the correct explanation. If the collapses looked, sounded, and collapsed like controlled demolitions, then they were controlled demolitions. Anything else is speculation against the facts.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Three questions I ask truthers and seldom get answers:

1- Why is it required that steel is insulted with fire resistant materials?

2- If you were on the 30th floor of a skyscraper and found that floors 50 - 56 were on fire, would you feel safe where you are?

1- So steel will last longer against fires than what it does without insulation.

2- Yes. Steel-structured highrises do not and have never collapsed totally and completely due to fire. And because of my knowledge and experience, I would bet my life on it.

3- Errr, where's the third question? Don't worry though, I won't call you "Einstein" in a derogatory fashion like you did another member.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Why do conspiracy theorists keep claiming it was "near free fall"?

The calculated free-fall time of dropping something off the top of the towers and hitting the ground is around 9 seconds. The actual collapses were about 15 seconds. That is very close to free-fall speeds and thus the claim "near free-fall" is actually accurate and factual.

In the case of WTC 7, it fell at free-fall for one-third of its collapse, the other two-thirds were near free-fall.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


That video is quiet misleading as there doesn't seem to be
a) and elevator shaft (if there is it disintegrated......)
b)support columns (or they also disintegrated...)
c)and end collapse....they only show you the first 5 seconds because I can bet ya, in Both cases they fall sideways.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
reply to post by Varemia
 


That video is quiet misleading as there doesn't seem to be
a) and elevator shaft (if there is it disintegrated......)
b)support columns (or they also disintegrated...)
c)and end collapse....they only show you the first 5 seconds because I can bet ya, in Both cases they fall sideways.


It's actually quite scientific, why there were only the first 5 seconds shown. If they allow the simulation to go on any longer, then the percentage for error goes up exponentially. The point was that using a physics model, they were able to get a similar collapse using a calculated collapse point and structural damage.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
and the booms could have easily been....

Yes, all of the facts "could" be explained by this, or "could" be explained by that. But all you're doing is making stuff up to explain way the evidence.

The collapses looked like controlled demolition; sounded like controlled demolition; collapsed in a manner and speed consistent with controlled demolition.

Occam's Razor dictates that the easiest explanation is usually the correct explanation. If the collapses looked, sounded, and collapsed like controlled demolitions, then they were controlled demolitions. Anything else is speculation against the facts.


Looking like it with no audio evidence of it sounding like it is not heads up for a controlled demolition. Now, if we had audio evidence that indicated a series of timed explosions which led to the collapse, then you'd have a good theory. Unfortunately, you just have witnesses who say they heard booms as the building was collapsing. Remember that the penthouse of WTC 7 caved in before the building came down. That is a source for a lot of noise, unless you know of steel and concrete that collapses silently.

The point is, you would be able to hear explosives very clearly from very far away. That's one of the major points NIST tried to make in the past. If there isn't the right sound marker, then there can't be explosives. It really is as simple as that. Someone's video had to catch it, and none did (unless you count the faked video, of course, with the firefighter yelling at the other one for being on the phone in a dangerous area, overlayed with an SFX explosion that no one else in New York noticed)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
But was not WTC7 out of the nist report? Why are there simulations then? It wont matter how many times you try to sell us that steel rises fall from fires, it just dont happens. But its always nice to see people trying to defend the OS, and then calling us nuts and "truthers", speaks volumes about the people really.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello
But was not WTC7 out of the nist report? Why are there simulations then? It wont matter how many times you try to sell us that steel rises fall from fires, it just dont happens. But its always nice to see people trying to defend the OS, and then calling us nuts and "truthers", speaks volumes about the people really.


NIST did a separate report on WTC 7.

Here, if you scroll down you will find the entire pdf version of it:

www.nist.gov...

Edit: Direct link to the pdf: www.nist.gov...

edit on 9-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Possible, probable, its all they say. But we should believe them right? You do realize that believing the OS is being a conspiracy theorist too right? As this paper shows, many universal laws got broken that day, glad they went back to normal afterwards...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by Varemia
 


Possible, probable, its all they say. But we should believe them right? You do realize that believing the OS is being a conspiracy theorist too right? As this paper shows, many universal laws got broken that day, glad they went back to normal afterwards...


The idea isn't to believe. It's to analyze the evidence and determine through logic what was most likely. You are free to look through the report and challenge their methods.

The paper didn't say anything about universal laws getting broken unless you plan on citing them.

Plus, it's not a universal law that skyscrapers cannot be taken down by fire. It is conjecture.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Why is it a code requirement to insulate steel?

We can't assume the WTC was built to code.

The Port Authority was not required to follow NYC building codes as the builder of the WTC.

Both the firm overseeing construction and the steel supplier had strong ties to organized crime (as reported in the Village Voice in November of 2001). And, the firm rushing to remove the debris from the crime scene also had strong ties to organized crime, and hand-picked their own samples given to investigators.
edit on 9-9-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The point is, you would be able to hear explosives very clearly from very far away.

You can in the video called "9/11 Eyewitness". It was filmed from about 2 miles away and you can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions.

You can also hear some of the detonations in my video here:

www.youtube.com...


As I've already told you before, microphones can be overwhelmed and then nothing else can be recorded after that. Once a microphone goes into the red on a mixer, it cannot pick up any more sound because it is overwhelmed. It's called red-lining.

I asked you before to go learn about audio mixing, but you are now still repeating the same debunked stuff you just did this past week.

A microphone can be overwhelmed and not be able to record any more. The human ear takes alot more noise in dB than a microphone to be overwhelmed. Thus the human ear can pick up additional sounds that a microphone can't if the noise is too high for the microphone but not for the human ear.

And to add on top of that, not all microphones can all pick up the same frequency of sounds. Too many microphones have too many variances in what they can or can't record. All human ears can pick up the same frequency of sounds and thus are more accurate than microphones.



Originally posted by Varemia
(unless you count the faked video, of course, with the firefighter yelling at the other one for being on the phone in a dangerous area, overlayed with an SFX explosion that no one else in New York noticed)

Do you have any evidence of that video being faked? They all look in the direction of the explosion.

I'll be expecting you to back up this claim, because your continued ignoring of the witnesses, and calling everything faked is getting rather tiresome.






edit on 9-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
"Plus, it's not a universal law that skyscrapers cannot be taken down by fire. It is conjecture. "

AGAIN AGAIN, no one is stating that skyscrapers cannot be taken down by fire. You don't seem to be listening/reading/watching any other material than your own.

What is being repeatedly said by thousands (literally) of professional engineers/architects/chemical engineers/demo experts...etc,etc is that the offical statement on how these building fell are in complete contradiction with the universal laws of physics...which includes....statics/dynamics/thermodynamics/chemistry/etc



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
If you asuume the worst about a tragedy you are probably right.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Plus, it's not a universal law that skyscrapers cannot be taken down by fire. It is conjecture.

It is not conjecture, it's fact based on history of other steel-structured highrises burning for far longer and hotter than the WTC and most not even exhibiting a partial collapse.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
...history of other steel-structured highrises burning for far longer...

Were those buildings built by a builder who didn't need to bother with local building codes, like the WTC?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join