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.

 

Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
911blogger.com...



It's a presentation from David Chandler


The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g. The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. Wh


As is said in the video, this is an example of outside energy being present in the collapse.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Rocket projectile?

Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


He calls it a downward projectile. He then says he "loosely" refers to it as a rocket projectile because of the appearance and behaviour of that projectile.

Though I'm not sure that it was directly caused by explosives. I do have my doubts that this was caused by downward inertia of the upper floors sling-shotting a peice of debree down because it simply had no where else to go.

Interesting to say the least.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thousands of times of watched the videos of these buildings falling and I never see the opposing force of the lower floors have any effect whatsoever....huh??


9/11 was a false flag operation that was allowed to happen.
edit on 27-9-2011 by godfather420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?

Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?


Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?

Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.

Just throwing this into the debate.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
so no explosives now? wher did ther rocket come from?
this just more and more crazy as thew years go on



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?

Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?


Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?

Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.

Just throwing this into the debate.
That I can swallow.

I just thought that the title was a little extreme. I mean, if you read the title, you would expect there to have been a recovered projectile from a rocket that has been analyzed.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 
Excellent! Just one more inexplicable occurrence that screams for a new, independent investigation into the collapse, and murders that took place that dark day. Who knew that gravity could be so destructive? Good luck with this one, 'boys'.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It was a large piece of exterior cladding that may have been propelled initially by gravity-induced tension that released when the bolts attaching it broke free.
Being oblong it's rate of speed would vary depending on the angle of the panel due to wind resistance.
As it tumbled it later turned edge-on towards the ground reducing wind resistance and increasing the speed.

While I'm no fan of the OS I don't see this as any hard evidence of explosives or the use of external force.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Dave wrote that. Just because you're a 'mod', it doesn't make you immune to skepticism. If you're still looking for 'evidence' of an explosion, then you can't be for real.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Very interesting, i have always been a big fan of anything 911.. This is my first post but ive been creepin for about a full year but thank you for the vid.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I've been studying 911 since the summer of 2002... This is an amazing video.

This video and all of the other evidence that has been collected and studied by highly qualified individuals, pilots, physicist, demo experts, it amazes me how anyone could NOT question the official story. Sometimes I wonder if a lot of higher ups are leaving it alone because they feel it will put the USA in greater danger once the truth is out...I think quite the opposite would happen. I think people around the World would commend/ applaud *We the People* for NOT allowing anyone in our Government to murder anyone for end game and going the distance to hold these criminals responsible for murdering all those people not only on 911, but all the MILLIONS since then that have died on a LIE!!!

I'm so disgusted with Washington. I trust NO ONE...it's a joke. For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be associated with being an American. I want back what my fore-fathers fought for.... Freedom & Truth.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?

Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?


Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?

Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.

Just throwing this into the debate.



That would then be the worlds biggest fire extinguisher.

Are you telling us that the WTC housed the worlds largest Fire Extinguisher ?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The term rocket is being used loosely, not truly a rocket but a perimeter wall section still with energetic incendiary or explosives attached and still reacting as the unit was falling causing the unit to accelerate and change direction.

This "rocket" effect is very evident in the demolition of both towers, but most appear as "rocket" style ejections upwards and outwards.
This one is unique in that the "ejection" continues whilst travelling downwards, the changes in acceleration and direction is easier to detect and measure.
edit on 27/9/2011-09-27T13:44:13-05:002011-09-27T13:44:13-05:0011 by Alpha20mega because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


It's a claim the Government might make.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


Well said.

I am hearing someone really speaking their mind.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha20mega

The term rocket is being used loosely, not truly a rocket but a perimeter wall section still with energetic incendiary or explosives attached and still reacting as the unit was falling causing the unit to accelerate and change direction.


So which is it incendiary, explosive, or propellant ? I say it is just an exterior column and the smoke trail is just fireproofing dust. You did know the exterior columns were coated with a 2' layer of spray on fireproofing....Right ?


They had them rockets in the north tower too. The thermnight propellant in this one is so advanced you don't even see it. It don't even leave a smoke trail.







I think the video in the OP vividly illustrates just how dimwitted David Chandler really is.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?

Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?


Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?

Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.

Just throwing this into the debate.


There are probably a dozen or more legitimate explanations for what that was, including your example of a fire extinguisher, but Truthers prefer to invoke the dark, dismal, evil Bush Family Evil Empire claims....a rocket or some sort of propulsion system that accelerates some piece of debris.

Why? Why would some piece of debris get accelerated out and beyond and in front of the rest of the 500,000 lbs of debris?

Why it is so blatantly and obviously clear!

I'll let the Truthers provide their reason.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Dave wrote that. Just because you're a 'mod', it doesn't make you immune to skepticism. If you're still looking for 'evidence' of an explosion, then you can't be for real.



I'm a true skeptic and frankly neither the OS or the "truthers" have totally convinced me of anything much.
Without a new, truly independent investigation with subpoena power I'm afraid we may never know.
Harritt and Jones have proven that there is thermitic residue in the WTC dust.
That would certainly lend credence to the idea of controlled demolition.
If openly debating alternate explanations regardless of whether or not it reinforces my own beliefs is not an option then I have abandoned all claim to rational thought.
Am I wrong to question what I may already believe?
edit on 27-9-2011 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



thermnight propellant
They prefer that you add the prefix- nano-thermite, I think that's what they like to call it.

Super secret nano-thermite.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha20mega
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The term rocket is being used loosely, not truly a rocket but a perimeter wall section still with energetic incendiary or explosives attached and still reacting as the unit was falling causing the unit to accelerate and change direction.

This "rocket" effect is very evident in the demolition of both towers, but most appear as "rocket" style ejections upwards and outwards.
This one is unique in that the "ejection" continues whilst travelling downwards, the changes in acceleration and direction is easier to detect and measure.
edit on 27/9/2011-09-27T13:44:13-05:002011-09-27T13:44:13-05:0011 by Alpha20mega because: (no reason given)
Like I said, the title says..... "Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2".

How accurate is that? It is sensationalist, IMO. When I read the title, I was expecting a story about a projectile, either a rocket, or a part of a rocket....... that had been analyzed.

I can't say that I was disappointed, because I really didn't believe it when I read it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join