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 Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 23
106
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


What would explain the majority of witnesses that state they saw something
that looked like a missile?





“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS
septemberclues.info...

edit on 14-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Zorgon,
I'm no expert, but I believe a new weapon was introduced to bring down those three buildings. The planes were just the decoys, but scalar waves brought down the buildings.


Yes that theory was covered in a court case

QUITAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007
www.thelivingmoon.com...

They had enough evidence that it wasn't a frivolous case... which would have been illegal

There was a video around shortly after the event that showed a steel skeleton literally dissolving... I have it saved somewhere... Will have to see if I can find it later on YT again



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by zorgon
 


The impact of the crashing buildings sent a shockwave through the ground and opened up an undergronud hole that exposed an ancient coal layer wich cought on fire caused by the still burning office furniture. Later in the clean up the hole collapsed in on itself and the fire put itself out.

Anyone that thinks different is silly.


Okay.
Then, why didn't this same thing happen to the Empire State Building when it was hit by a plane in 1945?
Why didn't a gaping hole open up below it?
Why didn't it collapse in on itself?
Why did it's fire not burn for so long?

history1900s.about.com...

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.


Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It doesn't matter what was happening 'deep' in the structure.

If there were enough heat ANYWHERE on a floor to cause the steel to heat up enough to sag no one could stand on that floor. Beside if the trusses were only hot at the core they would not have sagged as NIST claimed.

Photo's of fire in other parts of the building make no difference. The one with the woman in the hole shows quite clearly there was not enough heat to cause steel to fail.

Do you realise how hot it has to be for enough heat to transfer to steel to cause it to sag? You really need to learn about heat transfer, and realise that room fire temps do not equal steel temps. It takes a long time to transfer that heat, and when that heat is removed because the fire is no longer burning the steel instantly starts to cool. Tower two fell in less than ONE hour, not enough time to transfer the heat to the steel, especially as we know the fire at the impact points, were the sagging supposedly started, had already extinguished and was cool enough for someone to survive.

You've obviously never worked with steel, just try standing even close to tons of steel hot enough to fail, you would fail instantly.

So show all the pics of the fires you want Gen, but it doesn't address the details does it?


edit on 3/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Then I wonder why, if that is the case, then why did McCormick Place's heavy steel trussed roof collapsed and failed from fire alone (a regular humdrum fire) within 20 minutes of fire start? You just claimed that there is no way a fire can transfer heat so fast to a steel structure to cause it to fail.

I must admit, even when you are wrong, and the deck is stacked against you, you do a good job of sticking to your guns. Ok, well, then I take it you know better than fire safety professionals, fire fighters, and engineers that actually study buildings and fire behavior? Where does it say that heat transfer in a regular fire is not fast at all? Something tells me you are missing quite a bit of information. Also, I ask you this as I have asked countless other truthers like yourself: Why do firefighters say, "Never trust a truss"?

Oh yeah, by the way, one minute of googling "fire heat transfer steel" produced this:

fire.nist.gov...

www.wpi.edu...

The following link pretty much lays your claims to rest regarding heat transfer in fires.

Fire resistance unprotected steel

Seems to me, me dear ANOK, once again, you left out quite a bit of information. Or didnt even bother to research anything about actual fire safety standards and fire tests with steel. And what I have found just doing ten minutes of research, pretty much shoots your comments down to the ground. You are blatantly wrong. Sorry chief. Better luck next time. I would also recommend you study on steel trusses and how they behave in fire.



Oh yeah, I am still waiting for you to provide me evidence of floors being completely ejected outside the footprints of the WTC. You thought I'd forget this? Nope. Its been nearly half a year and I still havent seen anything yet.
edit on 3/14/2012 by GenRadek because: extra stuff



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I call BS on this video along with some of the other posters here.

You can clearly see what looks like an aircraft on the right side of the screen

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but this statement about sums it up. If you know the flight path of the second plane, it is clear as day where the plane is at in the video. And it's there.

It's very sad that some people, and unfortunately a Gold-level Contributing Member, is still trying to keep the no-plane disinformation alive.

I'm further perplexed as to why this thread wasn't moved to the HOAX bin where the other no-plane threads are.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Relax, bastardo was being sarcastic. Me thinks ...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Was there a picture of that passport floating down, or around...



You were right...has been good so far.
edit on 14-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)


Not that I know of but that sucker (passport) must have had one hell of a trip being that the supposed hi-jackers were in the cabin of the air craft and first to hit so I guess common sense says that their belongings would be the first to go and hit the ground.
To bastardo....."The impact of the crashing buildings sent a shockwave through the ground and opened up an undergronud hole that exposed an ancient coal layer wich cought on fire caused by the still burning office furniture. Later in the clean up the hole collapsed in on itself and the fire put itself out.

Anyone that thinks different is silly. "

That sure makes more sense than the box cutters, good post.

I wonder how many old coal mines are under New York?
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 14-3-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
why did McCormick Place's heavy steel trussed roof collapsed and failed from fire alone

A roof collapse, and three complete steel-structured highrise collapses are not even in the same universe to even come close to being comparable.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

edit on 14-3-2012 by Iwinder because: Double post with an edit screw up.....sorry



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


ANOK had stated that there is no way a regular fire can affect a steel structure in a rapid amount of time. McCormick Place had a regular fire which cause the massive steel roof to collapse within 20 minutes. I am very aware of the obvious differences between WTC and McCormick Place. However steel is steel and fire is fire, and I have shown that fire can significantly affect a steel structure with truss-based supports rapidly.

I thought someone like you would have at least understood that. But I guess not.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Relax, bastardo was being sarcastic. Me thinks ...


Oops.

I just read his post again and I now get the exaggerations.

Sorry, bastardo. Sometimes on these long threads, I try to catch up and skim, thus missing the sarcasm.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by zeeon
I call BS on this video along with some of the other posters here.

You can clearly see what looks like an aircraft on the right side of the screen

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but this statement about sums it up. If you know the flight path of the second plane, it is clear as day where the plane is at in the video. And it's there.

It's very sad that some people, and unfortunately a Gold-level Contributing Member, is still trying to keep the no-plane disinformation alive.

I'm further perplexed as to why this thread wasn't moved to the HOAX bin where the other no-plane threads are.







When one is honest, one must realize it is sad that people are still arguiing about this at all on the internet, we all know it was an inside job, idiots and shills think otherwise, so it´s totally useless.

Some people even took my joke seriously. I mean keep the story alive but I stopped discussing 911 five years ago.

@ afterthought
edit no problem, sorry in fact didn´t mean to single you out or call you an idiot..
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
For me, the stand out strange thing about this clip, is the woman speaking at 2:45.
Object (plane?) appears in top right corner at 2:15. Disappears then huge explosion, clearly in the second tower.
Womans reaction is just not normal. No hysterics. No panic. No cursing. No fright. No reaction apart from this:
"wow, that, that, that apparently does look like its in the other building at this point".
The remaining part of the video, all she says is
"there telling us to back off" and that is after 15 seconds or so of silence!?

From where she was, she would have seen a plane coming towards the towers. I fail to see how she could NOT see the plane.
The so called plane appeared in the camera shot, so it would have been in her vision, even as it got closer.
So she
a) did not see any plane
b) reacted in a way any normal human watching such a disaster would not.
c) Did not seem to "see" where the explosion happened, but was in my opinion reading from some sort of script? Her reaction is just not natural. Not at all.
Please convince me otherwise.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Nah, these don't look like landing gear pods. Plus when compared to the normal AA flight of the time the bottom of the craft was somewhat flush with the rest of the body, but whatever. No way of proving anything now anyway. It's mainly speculation.


edit on 14-3-2012 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Shoonra
 


What would explain the majority of witnesses that state they saw something
that looked like a missile?





“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS
septemberclues.info...

edit on 14-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)


For someone who claimed back along that you want it to be a plane you seem to be twisting and turning and grasping at any straw to avoid that conclusion.

Have you any idea of the wingsspan of a jassm 158 ? It is 7' 11" compared with a Boeing 767's 158'. In this clip :-

www.youtube.com...

Would you say, given the width of the Tower at 208', the aircraft had a wingspan of 7' 11" or 158' ?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks Zorgon.

And the story continues: nomoregames.net...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Can i describe the plane? I was watching it on television, in South Africa. From around 2:30pm which would make it 8:30am NYC time? I saw it happen in real time, with some real "WOW!!!" not a helicopter woman "wow-uh" You would be able to describe it just as good as i could. Thanks to all the real rec's of it, of course. No, i cannot describe the plane precisely, other than a commercial sized airliner. I did see a plane of that size hit it though. And AGAIN, i saw the second hit., not the first hit. And so in real life, many of others did, too.

Matrix or mind bonking?

I DO BELIEVE that that the WTC was brought down via detonations...and and and, but still, we all saw the SECOND plane hit, in real time. If that plane was a commercial plane, or a plane packed with some serious s##t at its belly, it was a airplane. And if i am wrong, holy s##tballs, the matrix is real!

Why are you asking?


edit on 09/02/2012 by KaelemJames because: added



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Well is already been proved that you are BLIND as the plane can be seen at 2:15 on the video so eyes really need to be checked!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Please, show me a picture of a plane flying into the 2nd tower.

Please, show me a picture of a plane flying into the 2nd tower.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The end of the explosion has debree exploding halfway down the building! My vote is that secondary explosives took down all three buidings... Yes 3, don't forget building 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join