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.

 

First Impact Caught in Video

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 



You showing me a bulltet hitting a solid Object (the WTC was a steel mesh) to undermine your point? Really??


Are you deflecting the actual discussion intentionally?

The question posed was why did the material eject outwards, on impact, rather than be "pushed in". I showed ONE example of the dynamics of an impact. Then, this distraction to say that the bullet in the video hit a "solid Object", compared to the WTC "steel mesh"???

NO one can be this obtuse in real life. Regardless of the design of the WTC outer walls, they were still a solid, and the impact and debris would behave similarly.



So why didn't the second plane had this flash on impact??


It did.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   


NO one can be this obtuse in real life. Regardless of the design of the WTC outer walls, they were still a solid, and the impact and debris would behave similarly.

You are probably right, but they certainly can be that disingenuous!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Hellas
 



You showing me a bulltet hitting a solid Object (the WTC was a steel mesh) to undermine your point? Really??


Are you deflecting the actual discussion intentionally?

The question posed was why did the material eject outwards, on impact, rather than be "pushed in". I showed ONE example of the dynamics of an impact. Then, this distraction to say that the bullet in the video hit a "solid Object", compared to the WTC "steel mesh"???

NO one can be this obtuse in real life. Regardless of the design of the WTC outer walls, they were still a solid, and the impact and debris would behave similarly.



So why didn't the second plane had this flash on impact??


It did.


It did not..

But carry on with that brainwashed live of yours. I dont even care what you think, but your bad examples just showed that you dont even think.

Keep waving that flag






edit on 27-1-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   


Here is an ultra close-up of the first hit.

Again, two things to point out:

1. Stop this vid at 14 seconds and really really look at it full screen. Why? Because it shows a horizontal shadow across the building face. "Yeah, so what?" Well, the sun is upper left in the sky and should only cause right downward angle shadows like on other parts of the 'plane' and like on the buildings in the foreground. That's why.

2. Now stop it at 17 seconds. Why? Because as you will see when you do so the damage to the building in the supposed right wing tip location clearly happens before the wing section with the engine on it gets to the building.

Which, as I have already noted, is impossible.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


The "extreme close-up" is so poor in resolution that you cannot possibly make the claims you did with a straight face?

The shadow is exactly what one would expect to see as the airplane neared, with the Sun in the position it was in. You are seeing the shapes of the wings and other parts of the airplane casting the shadows, and the shadows shifting as the airplane gets closer.

And, no.....there is no indication (not that you can tell anyway, such a poor video and lack of detail) that the point where the right wing hits is affected 'before' impact.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned


Here is an ultra close-up of the first hit.

Again, two things to point out:

1. Stop this vid at 14 seconds and really really look at it full screen. Why? Because it shows a horizontal shadow across the building face. "Yeah, so what?" Well, the sun is upper left in the sky and should only cause right downward angle shadows like on other parts of the 'plane' and like on the buildings in the foreground. That's why.

2. Now stop it at 17 seconds. Why? Because as you will see when you do so the damage to the building in the supposed right wing tip location clearly happens before the wing section with the engine on it gets to the building.

Which, as I have already noted, is impossible.


Cheers



3. Freeze this vid at 16 seconds... Now what you will see is an indistinct blob in the center of the building. To the left of this a lighted triangular section. To the right of the blob, pointing down, a line of shadow. If you have frozen it right at 16 seconds you'll see what I have just described but you will also see at the same time, above the right shadow (pointing down) the damage being inflicted to the building where the right wing tip supposedly hits (upper right).

All these things in one freeze frame. The blob, the shiny left side, the shadow right side (angled down), and the ISOLATED damage upper right.

Now how can a shadow not appear between the isolated damage spot (upper right) and the central blob if it's the wing that's causing the damage?

4. This is related to point 1. I don't know how a horizontal shadow could even be produced (freeze at 14 seconds) but if it is suggested that it's a shadow from the plane, you mean the wing? So it's a wing shadow? A horizontal right wing shadow?

That would mean, to have a shadow on the building at all etc., that the wing is very close to the building and impact, VERY CLOSE, but it's horizontal... That being so, how do you then explain the 33 degree upper angle gash the right wing supposedly makes on the right side?


Cheers



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
9/11 as a psy op has been very successful on the most part convincing people that planes hit the WTC. Hell, even some supposed 'conspiracy theorists' on this website have been fooled



Just ask yourself, why would they plant one of the 'hijackers' passport's on the streets of NYC, what are they trying to prove?

I gotta get me one of those indestructible passports BTW, wrecked too many in the washing machine over the years




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibonz
9/11 as a psy op has been very successful on the most part convincing people that planes hit the WTC. Hell, even some supposed 'conspiracy theorists' on this website have been fooled



Just ask yourself, why would they plant one of the 'hijackers' passport's on the streets of NYC, what are they trying to prove?

I gotta get me one of those indestructible passports BTW, wrecked too many in the washing machine over the years



You think it is unique for flimsy id documents to survive a major crash ? Have a look at this :-

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


What am i supposed to be looking at in that article?

Anything on board that flight didn't have to pass through a building as well, sure it didn't....



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


try playing the video genius - click on the picture



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
9/11 was a fakery extravaganza. I keep saying it because it is true.
Provably so.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


9/11 was an inside job , or at the very least , we let it happen .

but anyone who thinks that missles or anything else but planes hit those buildings are fools. i saw the planes hit the towers with my own two eyes . live & in person , not on some grainy ass u-tube video.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Gibonz
 


try playing the video genius - click on the picture


My point still stands, genius, documents on that flight didn't have to pass through a building as well...

Awaiting your response.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Good to hear from people who did research on this. This would be the greatest fake vid ever if it was fake. How they could fake the firefighter is beyond me. There are 4 first impact shots I think.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Levelsquare
reply to post by pshea38
 


9/11 was an inside job , or at the very least , we let it happen .

but anyone who thinks that missles or anything else but planes hit those buildings are fools. i saw the planes hit the towers with my own two eyes . live & in person , not on some grainy ass u-tube video.

I wonder how many people acutally saw the first strike and why they looked up?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 





I gotta get me one of those indestructible passports BTW, wrecked too many in the washing machine over the years

Personal effects from the Columbia disaster were found intact too. Was that another conspiracy???



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Gibonz
 





I gotta get me one of those indestructible passports BTW, wrecked too many in the washing machine over the years

Personal effects from the Columbia disaster were found intact too. Was that another conspiracy???


Go and ask NASA why don't ya...




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


I have to jump in here....because......since the obvious example of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and tragedy was used, and then "discarded" by another ATS member as somehow, what? Insignificant??

Here. for posterity:


Go and ask NASA why don't ya...


It is insulting, in the extreme.

The example was valid, as to compare the VERY different event of the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia....and to dismiss it so cavalierly??

Disgusting, in my opinion. Not surprising, but still.....disgusting......



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Disgusting, in my opinion. Not surprising, but still.....disgusting......


Want a tissue?

Wise up to yourself and stop over exaggerating...



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Is anything not a conspiracy to you, or have you become so open minded your brain has fallen out?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join