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.

 

WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

page: 19
32
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That kind of makes sense, but I don't have another plausible explanation other than the OS. Demolitions have no documented evidence yet, and until they do, I cannot support them.

Before it's brought up, hearing explosions is not the same as having evidence of explosives. I've seen plenty of demolition videos, and you can distinguish the charges from the collapse every time. They always start before the collapse, and they are very loud. For some reason, 9/11 is devoid of this characteristic. Therefore, I tend to think explosives were not the culprit.


It is entirely plausible. Open your mind a little more yet. Think thermite... the nanothermite that was found in the dust can cut through steel without the loud KABOOM of traditional explosives. Also realize that the fires were hundreds of feet from ground level. The distance and the street noise may have made it difficult to hear, and by the time the buildings were coming down... I am sure the collisions of hundreds of tons of debris didn't fall without a thunderous roar that would have surely masked any explosions.


Thermite doesn't act fast enough on the structure to be used as demolition material. Cutting charges leave telltale signs on the structure and none of those were noted.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite doesn't act fast enough on the structure to be used as demolition material. Cutting charges leave telltale signs on the structure and none of those were noted.


There have actually been examples of it being able to be used at a cutter charge, but yes, there are distinguishable signs. None of them have been shown, so by the nature of science, which is substance before imagination, I can't credit them as existing.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Varemia
 


Sorry, here is one before the clean up...... even more damning. Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt.
Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


This is a faked photograph, as indeed all the rest of the rubble photos are.
The shadow cast by the building in the lower right corner does not gel with
other shadows and the apparent position of the sun.

Faking The Rubble

We really need to start thinking in terms of 9/11 'Movie'.


How is that a fake photo lol?

So do you now admit that that photo shows the building in its own footprint, so you now have to claim it's fake?

It's a trip how you guys argue something is not the case, and then when you fail in that argument you have to make up another excuse to dismiss the evidence.

I own and have used Photoshop for a long time, and I'd love to know how that pic was faked.

Is this one faked also...



This one from the same angle...



This one....



These





Photo's from different angles show the same thing, the outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building, evidence that the building collapsed mostly into its footprint.

So where are the original unaltered pics, and what do they show? You guys just get more desperate everyday as you are forced to defend against mounting evidence.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



Yes they are all faked Anok!
Did you go through the link I provided above for conclusive proof?

Can you see any problems with these two images that you posted?


www.wtc7.net...


www.infowars.com...


You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It will not be able to cut in rapid sequence as the time for the steel to heat and deform is much slower than the collapse rate. It can't keep up to one floor every 150 milliseconds or so. It could be used to start the collapse, but so could deformation by fire. The rest of the collapse was gravity driven.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





the top yellow-orange color is 1371 C. it is the max temperature iron can be forged at, and steel melts before iron. it is well beyond the temperature range of jet fuel and office fires still, the pictures above have an even whiter glow.

as always, metal (and pretty much everything) color to temperature is pretty consistent.

oh yes, and that nasa photo...temperatures beneath the rubble were estimated to be between two and three times higher than the surface. it was taken several weeks after, and surface temperatures were around 1100F.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 




fire weakened the building, and it was just too heavy to be supported the weaker it got


Sometimes I feel heavy too and explode into dust.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by cartenz
 




the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees


I believe parts of a match flame reach somewhere between 1500 and 1800 deg. f.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


These are false color images and temps are noted as "over 800F" and not nearly as high as you are claiming. From 911research.wtc7.net...

"In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet. The spectral data for the maps shown here were measured at 6,500 feet and have a spatial resolution (pixel spacing) of approximately 6 feet (2 meters).

AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800*F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16. "



More information here: www.911myths.com...



edit on 9/21/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


At least you see how ridiculous his line of reasoning is. I wonder how long it will take you to figure out he is a truther and stop making fun of him because he is in your camp



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Woah woah woah, where exactly is pshea an "OSer"? i dont see it whatsoever. Geeze ANOK, you are starting lose grip of who is who.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I'm in agreement with the others here. pshea38 is a self-proclaimed no-planer.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


One guy didn't design those towers, multiple engineers and architects did!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Anok, Are you smoking something funny?

If you look through my posts you will see that I am not and never have been since joining ATS
an Official Story Supporter. I know 9/11 was an inside (demolition) job but i also know that it was
the biggest Hoax in history, whereby preprepared computer generated imagery was passed of as
legitimate footage and flogged to the public by a complicit and sold-out MSM.
There were no terrorists, no planes and very few if any real victims, most being computer generated
entities with no basis in reality. 9/11 was a fairystory, a fictional narrative backed by fictional 'footage'.

No truths from that day can be garnered from the analysis of, or the application of real world
physical principles to the faked, bad quality (for the most part) movie style effects, virtual cartoons
that we were treated to.

A plane could 100% not bring down the buildings in the manner seen in the footage, according
to the basic laws of physics you so constantly elucidate.
So either the buildings were brought down by other means and the footage is genuine or the
footage is not genuine and we can not tell exactly how the buildings were demolished.
I have seen enough evidence to know that the footage is not genuine.


Hologram says he. C.G.I. says me.

Do you understand my position now?

-------------------------

The shadaw cast by the building at the bottom right of the first picture of my last post is anomalous
to the shadows cast by other buildings and objects!

Do you not see any clear differences between the two photos above that you posted to
support your claim that the footage is genuine?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


do you have some evidence that the color in those pictures is wrong.

oh. and btw, the second image has been very obviously photoshopped/manipulated, so i'm going to trust that site for temperature references?


take a good look at where the orange-red is in the first, and how in the second it is in the middle of the water


you're using photoshopped evidence, and you're saying the photos i gave are off color?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I'm in agreement with the others here. pshea38 is a self-proclaimed no-planer.


You two obviously didn't understand what Anok was saying, regardless of what anyone believes you two are only looking to hear what you want and not what was meant! So much bickering on this sight about 9/11 it's almost become a religion with all these posts coming up about truthers or the ones who believe opposite, nobody is changing any ones mind about this and the only way any body's mind will change is if that persons wants to change! Get over it, 10 years of bickering both sides have excellent points!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


At least you see how ridiculous his line of reasoning is. I wonder how long it will take you to figure out he is a truther and stop making fun of him because he is in your camp


Do you care to comment on the anomalous shadow cast by the building seen in the right hand
bottom corner of this photograph, when compared to the rest of the shadows cast?
.



Do you care to comment on the clear anomalies observed between the two below photos?

www.wtc7.net...


www.infowars.com...

Ridiculous, eh?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I'm in agreement with the others here. pshea38 is a self-proclaimed no-planer.


You say that with a certain haughtiness and arrogance.
How foolish.

Is this what passes as reality to you verminia?
The footage was certainly passed off as genuine!


Once again. He says holograms. I say C.G.I.
This is a preprepared computer generated virtual reality scenario.
You know, like you see in the movies!
edit on 21-9-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pshea38
You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


So now you admit I'm right about the physics, but the pics are fake?



So where are the real pics of WTC 7?


BTW I will be using this in the future, priceless stuff from the OSers. NOTE to 'truthers' this OSer admits we are right about the physics.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Woah woah woah, where exactly is pshea an "OSer"? i dont see it whatsoever. Geeze ANOK, you are starting lose grip of who is who.


I have been called a tOSser plenty of times but never an OSer.
Perish the thought!
I ain't that silly...anymore. Not since I changed address.





new topics




 
32
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join