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: 25
106
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Iwinder
 


What I "smell" is the cover-up.......the covering up of the fact that there were inter-agency squabbling and turf wars, and a complete lack of communication between the NSA, CIA and FBI (to name only three)....and the ultimate failure which rests squarely on the shoulders of President Bush, and others in the White House, for allowing the intelligence gaffes to become so overt as to lead to this disaster.

THAT is what has been hidden, for the last decade. Each and every convoluted and more ridiculous "conspiracy theory", from magical "hush-a-boom explosives" planted by teams of secret Ninjas, to the Judy Woods of this world, and her "DEW" claims, to the "missiles" to the "No planes at all", and to all the other loads of complete nonsense....too many "theories" to name them all.


The timing and execution of those four teams of hijackers (and there is some indication of a possible fifth team that was thwarted....unknowingly, while they were still on the ground, at JFK. On United 23.

Video

Checking the BTS statistics, United 23 did not take off that morning....the shut-down of airspace was going into effect, and also JFK (as well as Newark) were ceasing operations even before the Nationwide order was given.

United 23 was also a trans-con flight, from JFK to LAX, and a Boeing 767. Scheduled departure time from JFK was 09:00.


Now, as to the actual carrying out the hijackings, there is simply no reason to suspect anything other that the way it occurred, from looking at all of the information. To include, the radar recordings that have been published (and that [idirectly refute the "no planes" nonsense).

...
Finally, for the Towers (and even Building 7), the collapses are satisfactorily explained by their unique and specific designs, along with the severe damage, both from the impact of the airplanes (Towers 1 & 2), and then the collateral debris from the North Tower that impacted Building 7.....that damage, combined with the fires that went un-fought, and uncontrolled.






Wow! I actually feel bad for you! But I have begun to realize that you are always there, not only debunking every "conspiracy theory" but that you seem to always side with the "official stories".
Hmmmmm...
Makes me wonder.

Anyways, If you actually really believe in the official story then I really feel bad for you.
However, I know that you're too smart for that, so hmmmmmm.... something doesn't add up.

My apologies for this post, but are you saying: ?

-some terrorists masterminded by afghan militia men took flight classes for a little while (did any of them pass or even learn how to fly?)

-got onto planes for the morning flight on another busy day in America (weren't those planes not even filled to half capacity?) (I've been flying since the 80's and this is so rare that it only happens on red eyes from LA to NYC leaving from Burbank)

-managed to successfully take over and command at least 3 airliners. (Yeah right)

-then these guys, using their years of flight experience and all of the wisdom from all of those years, manage to pull off some amazing top-notch pilot style stunts by crashing booth planes right on target. (These kinds of maneuvers would be very difficult even for the best of pilots) (I'm sure you can back me up on that one)


-two commercial airliners bring down the massive towers and another fairly large building! (um, yeah right)

SO. Is this the official story that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE ????


Somehow I don't believe that you do.
Somehow I think that you are either in denial or something worse.
Something much worse...




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Do you really think that any sane architect would not fill up that huge hole when he started to lay the foundations?

No and that shows that you know nothing about constructing large buildings.

You construct the foundation using piers secured to the bedrock. You can then throw what ever fill you want into the extra voids. Typically they would use gravel



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Here it comes, hold your seat :
WHY DID THEY NOT EQUALIZE THAT POTHOLE AT THAT TIME,
WITH THE REST OF THAT BEDROCK LEVEL ?

Do you really think that any sane architect would not fill up that huge hole when he started to lay the foundations?

I doubt this "pothole" caused the Twin Towers to collapse, look what happened to the TWC7, and there was no airplane hitting TWC7.

Dimitri Khalezov claims the three WTC buildings were brought down by underground thermo-nuclear explosions

And then i previously mentioned that witnesses claim there were explosions in the Twin Towers moments before the planes hit them...
edit on 14-3-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


No, I have not a conclusive opinion on that pothole (it's one hole, not holes) yet.....

I have been one of the first to have contemplated on the eventual use of thermite, and later Dr Jones took over the Olympic flame, then Dr Harrit. Now I read a new study done on 4 different samples of WTC dust, and my conclusion on that one is as follows :

If that dust is truly comparable with the dust samples used by Harrit, Jones, et al, I conclude that one of those samples is a false flag.
Since the new one concludes it is simply paint chips (btw, the JREFers who ordered and payed for it, they sought after that conclusion , and so to see they also told that to the research lab), and the Harrit et al sample seemingly showed thermite deposits. However, that one had some flaws in their techniques, just as this new one.

I abandoned it, for one reason : it's too slow to blow up those Twin Towers and WTC 7..
You can't bring those towers down in those few, easily calculable seconds from video material, without stronger and faster means.

Perform an ATS Search, terms : "LaBTop thermobaric" and "LaBTop seismic"
when you are really interested in my opinions and conclusions.

I think the huge boxed-in/closed-off H-shaped 47 center columns of both Twin towers were shattered from the inside, with thermobaric devices that flushed those confined spaces inside those immense steel columns with their mixtures, calculated months and years ago already in test labs where they used the same column parts, to just shatter them, not blow them in all directions, just as glass breaks, at certain heights, to give the start for the collapses, then the gravitational energy took over, and after this initiating event those towers were doomed.
The only thing they used further, were cutting charges, because the relatively low audio footprint of those, were drowned by the immense roar of the collapse. These were only needed to keep the pace in the collapse sequence.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Something else to consider:

whatreallyhappened.com...


"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse"

"...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..."


"We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..."


"We've got another explosion at the tower..."



Personally I am of the opinion it was all of these things and maybe more...

1) There were terrorist, a case of entrapment or enticement

2) There were explosions in the towers (see point 3)

3) Someone knew about the many failings that took place during the construction of the towers, which happens a lot in construction e.g. over pricing, exaggerated quotes and under delivery - many areas may have been skimped on e.g. no or inadequate material and fire proofing.

4) Thermite and/or other materials were used on these known weaknesses

5) Some or all of the agencies were complicit or more likely like in the case of 7/7 in the UK, a war game (or games) were being executed, that were the actual events to help mask what was going on by key people in various agencies (need to know basis).

6) Wanton destruction of evidence by the alphabet agencies...who the hell exports the evidence off site and/or melts it down without a proper investigation?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The helicopter was positioned such that the towers blocked out the approach of the aircraft, indeed the explosion that is captured on camera suggests that an aircraft entered the tower on the opposite side to where the helicopter was filming from..

Why is it so hard to believe that Muslims hijacked planes and attacked the United States?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I thought for sure you would mention the lack of interception capabilities since they were there and were capable of doing just that.


Which "interception capabilities" are you referring to specifically?

There is a lot of laymen misconception about the posture and capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in 2001.

Remember that the cold war and the associated funding had been gone for a decade. In truth the need to fund an hairtrigger continental anti aircraft defense began to diminish the day the U.S.S.R. successfully demonstrated a true ICBM by launching Sputnik in 1957.

The infrastructure simply didn't exist for the military to respond any faster or more efficiently.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Originally posted by LaBTop
I do not think anything of it now, what I see is an old ice age pothole (they say), that they were filling with concrete.
But why not fill it up totally, the plastic is normally used to let it cure and to keep a bit of rain out perhaps. Not huge rains, that will fill the hole up with rain water.
Why not fill it up all at once, the rest of the soil is also bedrock, so why must it be re-barred with steel?

Where I am highly interested in, is the exact longitude and latitude data of that hole.

Okay, so you are just posting about this "pothole". When did they fill this "pothole" with concrete? Was this "pothole" there all the time untill and after the collapse of the Twin Towers? And how about the WTC7? Is there any "pothole" just under were WTC7 building was? You also have to keep in mind that NO airplane crashed into WTC7.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)


No, I was answering the last post above my post, where someone went on about a hole that opened up and coal layers in it were lighted by burning tower debris. CAPICE?
Ask them, when they filled it with concrete. How should I know?

Now that's the main question, was it molten by some unknown excessive energy source, was it all the time since erection of the Twin Towers laying under there?
WHY WAS IT NOT FILLED UP WITH CONCRETE IN THE 70ies ?
I have no photos from the WTC 7 basements cleanse operation.

Do a search on ATS, use : "LaBTop WTC 7" or "LaBToP WTC7"
I think I know more about certain WTC 7 subjects than you.

And I am a planer. All planes on 9/11 were physically in the air, but it is quite clear from what many 9/11 researchers have unearthed, me included, that the recovered FDR's has been tampered with, at least the last 10 to 20 seconds of them.
The seismic evidence shows explosives as the initiators, not normal gravitational collapses.
The gouge in the top of the generator trailer shows irrefutably that AA 77 impacted the west wall of the Pentagon under an attack angle of 75° to 80°, enforcing the North of CITGO gas station flight attack path, seen by at least 22 witnesses. Which immediately nullifies the whole official flight path south of that CITGO station, and also shows to us that those 5 downed light poles in the SoC flight path were staged.
The ASCE report attack angle concluded on by the Pentagon internal damage path, the "exit hole" position and those 5 light poles, is impossible, in that case, the right jet engine would have smashed in the generator trailer and blown it to a myriad pieces. When you outline the gouge on top of that trailer, and shift the form of the gouge to fit a 42° angle of attack, then the plane would have ended up with its nose cone penetrating the far end of the Helipad control tower where Sean Boger was watching AA 77 smashing into the west wall.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TimesUp
 



-some terrorists masterminded by afghan militia men took flight classes for a little while (did any of them pass or even learn how to fly?)


Yes, they (the ones who actually flew) had at least Commercial pilots licenses, issued here in the USA.

And, most were Saudis, not Afgahnis.



-got onto planes for the morning flight on another busy day in America (weren't those planes not even filled to half capacity?) (I've been flying since the 80's and this is so rare that it only happens on red eyes from LA to NYC leaving from Burbank)


The flights were cased in advance, likely for weeks, to see trends in passenger amounts that varied...And, it is certainly not uncommon for such flights as those that were selected to have very light loads. Boston to Los Angeles, for instance, is a competitive market. Newark to San Francisco, as well. United 93.....if it had been a Continental flight they had chosen, out of Newark, then it could have been more full....since Newark is (was) a major hub for Continental.

But, NONE of that matters, ultimately....the standard "response" at the time was known as the "Common Strategy"...and it was deemed safest course of action to "cooperate" with a hijacker(s) in those situations. (Among other things...). As it was, there was no way for the passengers, or surviving crewmembers, to know what was happening -- as far as they knew, they were alone in the experience. Until the delay of United 93 allowed the communication to be conveyed, to the passengers.



-managed to successfully take over and command at least 3 airliners. (Yeah right)


Yeah.

Correct. Four, actually.

How difficult is it for a determined criminal to barge in and attack defenseless pilots, who were taken by complete surprise? It would have taken only a few seconds.

This is what they had planned, well in advance. It was the "plan"....and is not hard to understand to anyone who's actually worked in the airline business, and flown the damn airplanes.




-then these guys, using their years of flight experience and all of the wisdom from all of those years, manage to pull off some amazing top-notch pilot style stunts by crashing booth planes right on target. (These kinds of maneuvers would be very difficult even for the best of pilots) (I'm sure you can back me up on that one)


No, they didn't have "years" of experience, as your dripping sarcasm attempted to intimate.

But, what they actually flew was so basic, they had plenty of experience to be able to have done it. I mean, just what was a "top-notch pilot style stunt", anyway? Most of the time they used the autopilots, already engaged at the time of the cockpit intrusion. Then, it was "steer and aim" at hitting huge buildings.

Say...do you think you could drive your car into the side of a building? Can you imagine how easy it would be? Or, even something more narrow.....like a bridge pylon. Is it really that difficult?

"Steer and Aim.....Aim and Steer".



-two commercial airliners bring down the massive towers and another fairly large building! (um, yeah right)


The Towers were uniquely designed, and the severe damage was sufficient, in their cases. Yes. Right. We saw it.

WTC 7 was damaged extensively from falling debris, from the collapse of the North Tower. It is documented. ALL of these facts are well understood, and the science and the physics are clear.

Personal incredulity based on ignorance notwithstanding.......



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
is it just me, but i see no plane, they are shooting from the back, so how can you tell there is an explotion before the plane hit?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
is it just me, but i see no plane, they are shooting from the back, so how can you tell there is an explotion before the plane hit?


Is it just me, or did you not bother to read the thread before you replied?

2nd



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Do you really think that any sane architect would not fill up that huge hole when he started to lay the foundations?

No and that shows that you know nothing about constructing large buildings.

You construct the foundation using piers secured to the bedrock. You can then throw what ever fill you want into the extra voids. Typically they would use gravel


Another insane answer.
Do think a little over what you just said....quasi-genius.

NOW, what EXACTLY are you seeing in MY posted two photos?

They are filling that hole up with CONCRETE. And used re-bars. NOT GRAVEL.
Before they are going to lay the foundation for the new heavyweight towers.
Damn JREF'ers, no brains left at all. Only vitriol filled cavities.

And I have 42 years of experience in building huge buildings and constructions, you nit wit.
Not in the USA, but mine still stand.

And for the rest of the less impaired:
Why did they construct those handy water holes, fitting right over the former Twin Towers footprints?
Building space is DAMN costly in Manhattan. A Jewish owner, hell bent on making huge amounts of profit, decided to waste a lot of that expensive space on two huge water basins...... for the patriots....
Water is a damn useful medium, to hide something. Or to shield off something. Whatever.
For a long time to come.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOriginalGeeza
Why is it so hard to believe that Muslims hijacked planes and attacked the United States?

Maybe because of this

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 14-3-2012 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I didn't see the plane but I did find it odd that the reporter being in the air didn't see the incoming plane hitting the building. Videos and audio of that day had shouts and gasps from people on the ground observing the supposed "planes" hitting the building, is it not reasonable to think the reporter would have had a similar reaction if she saw the same thing while in the air?

I can't prove it but I just feel it in my gut that maybe holographic technology was used either to disguise missiles or to create the illusion there was planes hitting the building while explosive devices exploded within those buildings. Although a bit off topic I've always thought it was funny how in the aftermath rescuers (including the dogs) not to mention those who helped remove the rumble were exposed to radiation, no one has attempted to explain that oddity.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Chai_An because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well, you make a sound argument, but I respectfully disagree.
However, after reading what you think, do you believe a shadow team, or TPTB masterminded this or do you think the Saudis did to drag us into the middle east to neutralize their enemies?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TimesUp
 



-some terrorists masterminded by afghan militia men took flight classes for a little while (did any of them pass or even learn how to fly?)


One they were not Afghans - most (15 of 19) were Saudi, rest from other Arab countries in area (Egypt,
Lebannon, UAE, Yemen)

Most had some college. The hijacker "pilots" were college graduates, some with advanced degrees

The hijackers pilots had pilot licenses with commercial ratings, also had training in jet simulators to
familiarize themselves with operating a large aircraft



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
There is clearly something wrong with this footage. The "UFO" in the beginning crossed with the "thing" that appears from 2:15 in the upper right corner and then suddenly disappears is a clear sign to me that this video has been manipulated through CGI programs. Something is really wrong with frames at 2:15. So obvious that it could only have been done by an amateur because if that was some USA government "conspiracy" work, it wouldn't have such violent flaws... I'm not against the 9/11 inside job theory but you need to be realistic. This footage is not raw.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 



No sale... Sorry mate.

I've looked in to this and whilst there are certain aspects of the attacks that makes one think wtf the idea of an inside job just does not add up in my opinion. Clearly you will and do disagree and I respect the fact you do have a different opinion.

With regards to the physics of a building collapsing after an airliner slammed in to it I am totally at ease with this reality; since it happened for obvious reasons..

Oh.. and by the way I am actually an Applied Physicist.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Glacial pothole




Archbald Pothole is 38 feet (11.6 m) deep and 42 feet (12.8 m) wide at its maximum diameter. The pothole cuts through layers of sandstone, shale and coal. A pothole, in geologic terms, is a hole that is worn into the bedrock of a stream in strong rapids or at the base of a waterfall. The force of the water spins rock fragments, sand and gravel into a small indentation in the bedrock. After years and years of constant spinning, the stones and sands carve out an elliptical hole. Potholes are also formed by the action of glacial meltwater. Archbald Pothole is an example of just such a pothole.


remember when kid my uncle took me and my brother there........



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by thedarktower
is it just me, but i see no plane, they are shooting from the back, so how can you tell there is an explotion before the plane hit?


Is it just me, or did you not bother to read the thread before you replied?

2nd


i did read it, and like many posters, i too cant see a plane either



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join