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.

 

One of the first pictures taken of the first tower.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


Not on any side of the argument, just a correction on your statement regarding plane weight, one of the planes reported as an impact was a 767-223ER with maximum takeoff weight of 395,000lbs, less than half your statement.

Boeing 767 wiki

With that, I think I'm going to bow out of this conversation as I'm not really on any side of this argument other than the physics side.
I'm also really sad because all i see when I look at those pictures is lots and lots of dead people and all the pain and suffering and loss by everyone involved and associated; families, responders, everyone.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hey I'm glad you pointed that out that was my mistake. That 350k lb difference probably has a different effect, but I still think that the vertical beams would be damaged by the wings in some way.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


yea, but wouldnt the explosion start almost on impact? So the explosion would have been traveling forward, and you wuld think it started before it completely entered the building. So some of the explosion would continue to travel out the other side, but would still push through whre the plane had impacted.. And the explosion seen on impact side would have barely made it inside to then push debris back out the same entry.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I can appreciate that. Alfie pointed it out to I put the 747 weight, my apology. Does that 395k include the weight of full fuel tank? I couldn't find it on google. It definitely was a horrible event no doubt about it. I just think if it was in fact an inside job then that just makes it like 1000x worse and then having the American people believe about the big scary terrorists when in fact our tyrannical government are the freaking terrorists.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
For those who either wish to believe some entities would never do harm or just wish to deceive others, we are not buying what you attempt to sell! Critical thinking is proof enough to critical thinkers and if you think you will convince people that their eyes are lying, you are sorely mistaken!



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I believe with everything in me that this wasn't simply a terrorist attack with hijacked planes only. I believe there were explosives and a controlled demolition of the towers. However, I do believe the towers were hit with planes. A plane hitting a building at high speeds can most definitely cause that much debris.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
In the picture, it looks like most of the debris is paper, pushed out from the impact of the plane, also the missing smoke plume suggest that the picture is taken severel minutes after the impact.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
With all the debris in the air and proximity to the site of impact, I would think this picture was taken just seconds after impact. The smoke would come after the explosion following the impact.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


No.. the wings being light material would have folded right in against the body of the plane. They wouldn't rip through punching wing shaped holes.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by stigup
 


No.. the wings being light material would have folded right in against the body of the plane. They wouldn't rip through punching wing shaped holes.


You would think that the engines which are mounted on the wings would have left a trace! I still think the wings themselves would have left an impression or at least more visible sign of damage because of the shear speed of which they are traveling!

Not to mention the mass involved with the wing tanks being nearly full!

edit on 15-4-2012 by ajay59 because: to add



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


Picture is of WTC 1 (North Tower) North face, apparently taken from a window of skyscraper



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lagrimas
reply to post by stigup
 


i dont know why people bang on about no plane theory?

If whoever dropped the towers had the time, money and will to carry it out, why not just send 2 planes diving into the building? and then drop them with controlled demolition?

It just seems to me that if I were illuminati and i was sat in the boardroom planning the whole charade, id defo say ' hmm, why dont we just fly the planes in to the building? Seems to leave less room for us to get found out'

I mean, someone is going to know its a lie simply standing at ground zero, seems such a stupid plan for a group that are so well oganised.

just my opinion.

rice and peace
It had to be done to perfection, so they couldn't risk using planes, because even the most skilled pilot could not get two planes to hit the towers in such perfect precision, if one of the planes missed or didn't hit exactly where they were supposed to the whole thing would be ruined so they used winged missiles and the planes were put in on news reels later on a good documentary on this. People and reporters who where there at the time says they didn't see a plane and didn't even know a plane hit until after they seen the news footage.

edit on 15-4-2012 by DEV1L79 because: /



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


Good point friend! I can't really say if there were or weren't any planes because I wasn't there and there is no definitive proof for either side. With that being said I live in NYC and I have seen planes that have stood still and were kind of just floating. I almost crashed one time because I was staring at this plane and it was so still and even as I was turning on a highway I was looking at landmarks and the plane to be sure it wasn't moving.

I was in total shock like how the hell is that possible. I know a plane can look like it's not moving especially when it's about to land and going against the wind, but this thing looked like it was hovering. It's funny because I'm not the only person who has saw this. Then you throw ideas like project blue beam into the mix and you really start to speculate. But it's just speculation it's hard to prove or disprove anything 100%.

Also yea it would be very hard to fly a plane straight into a target. The WTC is more plausible then the pentagon. That's just total BULLSHHHH. Also if the pentagon is one of the most protected buildings with cameras watching every angle. How come we just get a couple of crap frames from a nearby gas station?
edit on 15-4-2012 by stigup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79
even the most skilled pilot could not get two planes to hit the towers in such perfect precision


Riiight. I'm sure even the blue angels, who fly in formations tighter than a 767's wingspan could NOT have managed to hit a 200' wide target visible for miles in every direction. That would just be too hard.
edit on 4/15/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Absolutely awesome. 2nd line lol



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Photos of at least one engine sitting in the street some distance from ground zero have floated around, you have to realize that the aircraft used large turbofans, a style of engine that had a small core that makes the power to spin a big fan on the front of it, because of the nacelles, (engine housing) they look big and nasty, when really, there is not that much, or at least, not as much as you think, there.

The weight that was quoted as maximum take off weight would be the fully fueled weight, with a full load of passengers, and baggage/cargo. The is the absolute rated maximum take off weight, seeing as the aircraft had flow for a while, burning off fuel, it would be lighter. I do not know the weight of passengers and baggage on the aircraft, but that might change the weight (lighter) as well if the flight was not fully loaded with passengers and luggage. Another thing, aircraft are not like cars, where you just fill it up and run it until the tank shows lo fuel. A lot of math is done to figure how much fuel for the weight and distance, and enough fuel with a built in safety margin is loaded on the aircraft for the flight. This way of fueling saves money and fuel, as you are not hauling a bunch of extra weight around with you. This may also drop the weight of the aircraft.

In short, the weight of the aircraft may not have been anywhere near the max take off weight, it would be somewhere between the max takeoff weight[gross], and the clean dry weight [tare] (no cargo, fuel or passengers)

Also, this photo is taken from the opposite side of the building from the impact, hence no "plane shaped hole" but several smaller holes where pieces with enough momentum and kinetic energy to carry it all the way through the building (math includes mass, velocity, acceleration, resistance, all kinds of big numbers) The sudden overpressure (not much increase in pressure is needed) from the impact would have caused paper especially, to get blown out of any openings long before the fire got anywhere near them.

There may be a conspiracy in the twin towers, but your linked photo is not part of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 


Have a watch of this video, see if you are still convinced there were planes on 9/11....



youtu.be...

I await your reply after you have watched this.... Thanks

Have a look here too
______beforeitsnews/story/1935/777/9_11_Airplane_Affidavit_By_John_Lear,_Son_Of_Learjet_Inventor.html
edit on 15-4-2012 by MI5didit because: Add new link



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5didit
 


Wow , I am only 10 mins into the video but thats pretty damning stuff.
I have always disregarded the 'no plane' theory , thinking it was ridiculous as there were witnesses & footage, but this video has definitely raised alot of questions.
The 'nose out' shots are damning of themselves. The likelihood of even debris forming such an exact shape is non existent. So how the hell does the nose emerge in the exact same proportions that it went in????
Great video, I'm off to watch the rest.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I think that if a cue-ball is shot straight at the rack; unless proper English is applied, the cue-ball will be disturbed of it's momentum upon colliding with the rack of balls...and not go in the same trajectory prior to the collision...using English can steer the ball before and after impact.

Was it noted that the plane was flying straight; minus any yaw?

Is that photo of the entry hole? The blast should follow the momentum of the mass creating it, no?
Ofcourse, tempered glass will flex and burst outward...opposite of penetrating trajectory.

If that is the entry point, it's missing the silhouette of an airplane, IMHO. This ass-umation is based on the Pentagon penetration. In which case did follow a straight line; following a crazy approach none the less.

Forgot to mention marks left on pentagon; that the wings made the initial hole bigger for some reason/physics not akin to WTC7.
edit on (4/15/1212 by loveguy because:




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5didit
 


That ridiculous video made by "Simon Shack" was already posted up-thread.

It is complete nonsense.

Here.....this is the definitive video to explain the deceptive methods used by "Simon Shack" to fool his viewers:


Google Video Link



As to the OP, and the photo? The opening caused by the airplane's entry is partly obscured (in that single photo) by the smoke. ONE photo alone does not tell the entire story of an event --- surely everyone understands this concept?

As to the way the opening is not "perfectly" outlining the airplane's head-on silhouette? This was the nature of the building's construction. Specifically, the exterior lattice columns, and the way they were assembled, and where they broke (at various attachment points) on impact.

Here is another video to watch, and learn from:






edit on Sun 15 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join