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 Film by A&E4911T "9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out"

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



0:33: Edited footage of building 7's collapse, omitting the first penthouse collapse.

0:43: "Videos of building 7 show a fairly symmetrical fall." Videos of the penthouse show it wasn't symmetrical. Gage weasels his way out of that by saying it was "fairly" symmetrical.


So (IF the internal structure had collapsed to the extent claimed by NIST) you're claiming there is nothing suspicious about the asymmetrically damaged, birdcage-like outer structure collapsing through itself at free fall in rather symmetric fashion while mostly only being required to bear its self-weight?

The penthouse collapse eight seconds prior does not, and never will, excuse free fall.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
So (IF the internal structure had collapsed to the extent claimed by NIST) you're claiming there is nothing suspicious about the asymmetrically damaged, birdcage-like outer structure collapsing through itself at free fall in rather symmetric fashion while mostly only being required to bear its self-weight?

The observable collapse was 40% slower than free fall. See page 600 (PDF page 666) of NCSTAR 1-9.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Building 7 underwent a period of sustained free fall which NIST eventually admitted. This is not up for debate.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
In my opinion the nail in the official conspiracy theory's coffin. Everyone needs to spread this to EVERYONE.

Spread the truth. Btw this indeed needs to be on the main page.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
All in September when a full security force should be in place.
I wonder if there will be any disruptions in the proceedings.
Hope the truth makes it through to the next month.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Being designed to survive a 707 impact does not mean they were designed to survive the impact of a more massive 767

Massive 767? Really? Let's see how "massive" a 767 is to a 707:



They are very comparable in size and weight, but the 707 goes faster than the 767. Faster means more energy at impact, which also means a 707 would have done more damage than the 767's that crashed into the buildings.

So much for "massive" 767's.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The design was for a slower speed; the idea was that a 707 on approach to a NYC airport would accidentally strike the towers. Suicide craft were not a consideration.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The design was for a slower speed; the idea was that a 707 on approach to a NYC airport would accidentally strike the towers. Suicide craft were not a consideration.

A 1964 Port Authority analysis concluded that the towers could sustain an impact from a 707 traveling at 600 MPH and striking the 80th floor. That information is right in the NIST Report.

The "slower speed" claim peddled by OS believers was publicized by Les Robertson after 9/11 (2003?). That is also in the NIST Report.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
The design was for a slower speed; the idea was that a 707 on approach to a NYC airport would accidentally strike the towers. Suicide craft were not a consideration.

A 1964 Port Authority analysis concluded that the towers could sustain an impact from a 707 traveling at 600 MPH and striking the 80th floor. That information is right in the NIST Report.

The "slower speed" claim peddled by OS believers was publicized by Les Robertson after 9/11 (2003?). That is also in the NIST Report.


That was most likely the Port Authority covering themselves.
"Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had."

scott-juris.blogspot.com...






edit on 9/14/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
"The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had."

You don't design a building to withstand an impact of any plane, and not take into account the resulting fires. That is incompetence on Robertson's part. But Robertson was only an assistant anyway.

The lead engineer, John Skilling, along with his firm, Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson, did take into account the fires and stated that the fires would kill alot of people, but the structure would still remain.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Building 7 underwent a period of sustained free fall which NIST eventually admitted.

Yes, everyone knows there were several seconds in which the visible portion of the northern face collapsed at free fall. Then it slowed down, for an average rate of significantly less than free fall.


This is not up for debate.

Does this mean you accept the NIST report as authoritative? Even I wouldn't put it above debate, as you apparently have. I think everything is up for debate, if and when the other side brings something to the table.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Still no analyses of 600 MPH impact. The design was for approach or takeoff speeds, not 600 MPH dive. To suggest so is disingenuous.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Still no analyses of 600 MPH impact. The design was for approach or takeoff speeds, not 600 MPH dive. To suggest so is disingenuous.

Then you're admitting the NIST Report is disingenuous? If there was no analysis of a 600 MPH impact, NIST wouldn't have mentioned that there was one.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
Still no analyses of 600 MPH impact. The design was for approach or takeoff speeds, not 600 MPH dive. To suggest so is disingenuous.

Then you're admitting the NIST Report is disingenuous? If there was no analysis of a 600 MPH impact, NIST wouldn't have mentioned that there was one.


I am stating that the NIST report accepted the Port Authority statement without considering why a crash analysis would be done for a jet aircraft at 600MPH during landing or taking off. There is no evidence that such an analysis was ever done and no reason to do it or design a building to withstand such an impact. That said, the building was remarkable in that it survived for as long as it did.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well some truthers claim that the steel for the core columns had been tested to 2500 degrees for several hours to prove it was resistant to fire and would have not caused any problems!





Really was that done by the same people who claim it would resist the aircraft impact!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Look how many puffs of dust for the CD of the small towers you show all round the floor of the building were they occur, funny how there is just the odd one or two for the far more massive WTC towers strange? care to explain that!

You cant see what happened internally many floors could have dropped before the walls failed so you cant really make assumptions none of us can!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Holy cow! I just watched all 2 hours and 20 minutes of the new film "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Expert Speak Out". DAMN! THIS ONE IS A CLINCHER! IT'S 1000 PERCENT IRREFUTABLE!

30 minutes into the film, I was mesmerized at how many professional experienced structural engineers spoke out about how the government's "fire collapse at free fall speed" is absolutely false and defies basic physics. These are professionals with many years of experience designing buildings, and have prestigious careers and awards earned. They definitely know what they are talking about. This film lends HUGE massive credibility to the 9/11 Truth arguments with tons and tons of credible experts and authorities. SO MANY OF THEM! Anyone who watches this film, even half of it, with a 10 percent open mind, will change their mind about 9/11. For sure. There is no way anyone can come to any other conclusion after hearing so many highly qualified experts speak on this subject. Also included are award winning nationally acclaimed scientists and engineers in various other fields. Together, so many qualified experts make a very AIRTIGHT case and form an EXPERT CONSENSUS that will convince even the biggest scoffers of 9/11 Truth. This film is a 1000 PERCENT MUST SEE!

This film is THE CLINCHER that finally wins the debate. No question about it. The only people left who still cling to the disproven government conspiracy theory are: 1) ignorant of researching the objective evidence and science, or 2) harbor and emotional/psychological block toward the issue and are unable to examine it objectively without anxiety and cognitive dissonance.

I would be willing to bet $100 that if any rational person with a 10 percent open mind watches even half of this film, that they would change their mind and reconsider the subject. The film presents a rock solid case many times over, that NO ONE can refute.

Anyone who watches this film will NOT see the 9/11 Truth movement as a crackpot movement any longer. That much is guaranteed. Please watch it and show it to all your disbelieving friends who have an emotional attachment to the government's conspiracy theory.

Near the end of the film, several psychologists are featured, who explain why so many people have a mental and psychological block regarding 9/11 which prevents them from analyzing the evidence objectively. Instead, they go into denial and cognitive dissonance, because the scientific evidence destroys their paradigm of how they think things are, thus causing them so much anxiety that they prefer not to deal with it. What these psychologists say about people's denial, makes a lot of sense.

Here are some key points in this film that the deniers can NEVER explain away or account for:

- Thermite residue and iron microspheres have been found in the WTC dust. This is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of artificial explosives and chemicals used.

- There is no way that a small chunk of the WTC could plummet through the main portion of it, 80,000 tons of steel, like thin air, at near free fall speed. That is 100 percent impossible. Even a child knows that. It's common sense.

- Thousands of people from all walks of life heard explosions at the ground level of the WTC, just before the collapse. Some even heard them BEFORE the planes hit. This is well documented and there are many hours of video proving this. Even mainstream media reporters heard explosions and said it was a bomb. The simple explanation is that explosives were used or detonated, probably under the base of the WTC.

- Never before or after 9/11, have steel high rises collapsed from fire. Fire deforms a building gradually, and unevenly. You can't escape that. It does not demolish a skyscraper in seconds. Nor does it pulverize concrete to dust. That is a fact. You could pour kerosene all over the WTC and light it on fire, and the steel STILL wouldn't melt or even weaken. Only a deluded person totally out of touch with reality would deny that. If fire could do that, then the demolition company would be out of business and there would be no need to spend months rigging a building with explosives. Common sense. Even children know this. AE911Truth.org's qualified engineers and welders have tested fire's effect on steel, and found this to be true.

All lines of evidence say the official conspiracy theory and "fire collapse theory" are 100 percent wrong and 100 percent impossible. There's no way around it.

If you'd like to help AE911Truth.org, the producers of this film, please sign their petition and make a donation to their valiant efforts at:

www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



Yes, everyone knows there were several seconds in which the visible portion of the northern face collapsed at free fall.

Great, so the original point I made still stands (nice try skirting around it though):

So (IF the internal structure had collapsed to the extent claimed by NIST) you're claiming there is nothing suspicious about the asymmetrically damaged, birdcage-like outer structure collapsing through itself at free fall in rather symmetric fashion while mostly only being required to bear its self-weight?



Then it slowed down, for an average rate of significantly less than free fall.

But was still accelerating through itself, which means the structure was providing a smaller resistance force than it was pre-collapse.


Does this mean you accept the NIST report as authoritative? Even I wouldn't put it above debate, as you apparently have. I think everything is up for debate, if and when the other side brings something to the table.

AE9/11truth brought this to the table and put pressure on NIST to finally admit free fall. If you have something else to bring to the table then by all means, but we both know that you do not.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Yeah, this is the most conclusive and thorough compilation of expert testimony to date on the 911 truth.

I really want to see a counter arguement to all of these experts, debunking everything they have talked about in their interviews.

They even interview psychologists about why some people will always reject the evidence no matter what, and it's because the truth is too much for them to handle. Literally, they can't handle the truth, and it's not because their not intelligent or bad people, it's because physiologically, they can't handle it.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Yeah, this is the most conclusive and thorough compilation of expert testimony to date on the 911 truth.

I really want to see a counter arguement to all of these experts, debunking everything they have talked about in their interviews.

They even interview psychologists about why some people will always reject the evidence no matter what, and it's because the truth is too much for them to handle. Literally, they can't handle the truth, and it's not because their not intelligent or bad people, it's because physiologically, they can't handle it.


I am "physiologically" and psychologically capable of handling any truth despite what you believe. It is those who so desperately wish a conspiracy that they are blind to reality that can't handle the truth.
The self-proclaimed "experts" have only opinions.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join