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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

The pulverized concrete ? No ! Not just no but, well you know.



I know hat you are trying to argue by repetition, assertion and emotion in this instance.

And I know that makes me think you are not actually interested in the evidence.




posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


A few seconds either way makes no difference.

There are other videos, for both buildings' destruction, from different perspectives, but I don't think any of them show the ground itself, so it's an extrapolation based on the continuous momentum of the descending debris wave, which did not slow in any appreciable way, all the way down, and might even have accelerated slightly, in spite of the fact that by that time there was considerably less building above the remaining length of structure given the explosive nature of the outwardly ejecting debris wave as described in a previous post.

If you want to add another second or two, be my guest.


Regards,

NAM

P.S. What did you think about the explosive testimony in my earlier reply?

Next up, to show the presence of explosives, perhaps we might want to look at super-high temperatures in the pit of destruction, along with the presence of small droplets (spherules) of atomized steel, setting aside for the discovery of thermite chips discovered in the dust (which lacks the proper "providence") but of course you know all about that, and more, having access to all the information, unlike average American Joe for example who's clueless about these types of things.


edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





do you have any idea what the DYNAMIC LOAD of thousands of tons of material falling would be


Don't even have to know that to know that those riisers should
have broken and pushed up thru any and all of the concrete floors especially
X ten as we can see the concrete being completely pulverised in the
free fall anyway. You want me to believe both the crete and the risers
failed with no opposing force between the two?


Get out !


The dust is not only concrete!!!! as i SAID above

Now as for all the BS claims re dust, it's sheetrock (gyproc) , sprayed on fire protection, paint ,THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of each dust in uncleaned areas of the building, concrete from the floor slabs,glass that's the dust cloud NOT STEEL.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
A few seconds either way makes no difference.

If you're talking about free fall speeds, it makes all the difference!




P.S. What did you think about the explosive testimony in my earlier reply?

Very big and heavy things, suddenly failing under stress, can sound a lot like an explosion.

Hell… back when I was at the university for physics, we made balsa-wood bridges to hold 1,000 pounds. Police came to the testing lab because the failure of a few ounces of balsa-wood under 2-ton press was sounding a lot like gun fire… and someone reported it.

(even more so if you cheated and made laminated balsa-wood members… those failed really loudly)
edit on 4-12-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


In some cases, in areas of the building well away from the impact area, they were quite literally getting blown right off their feet, and there were explosions on the ground and in the sub-basement levels as well, but you KNOW all this, you of all people have already accessed all the data and information.

And are you really going to argue over this free fall issue, because it (the destruction) occurred at nearly free fall speed, and may even have accelerated at one point to the rate of absolute free fall. I know what you're going to say here - "define nearly".

I figured you were a very scientifically minded type of guy, who's well aware of all the issues.. and who's seen all the videos and evidence.

Are you sure that you're not being willfully ignorant or blind? Could they have gotten to you of all people with the Big Lie?

You're skeptical by nature. Therefore you must be equally skeptical of the official story, both as presented by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the NIST report, which are the only official historical accounts of the event, surely?

Incredulity can't surmount physical evidence or physical reality.

If you're just a proud American who cannot fathom it, I can understand that, to a degree, but if you're a true investigator, and a true skeptic, then something's amiss here, because you would not in good conscience willfully protect or stand guard for such a monstrosity and evil I know you wouldn't do that, not intentionally, as the owner/operator of one of THE largest Conspiracy Forums on the Internet, so I'm at a loss here to explain your position and rebuttals including "not freefall", "shoddy construction and steel", "no explosions" etc. You also said you went to university for physics, in which case you'd definitely understand the various issues involved here as outlined on the last page, starting here.

Allow me to bring this next piece of evident to your attention

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...

How do you explain that?


Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Apples with Apples as the saying goes you CAN'T compare totally different structures as the same as for things like dust many on here claim steel was turned to dust BS, think of all the materials in the structure that could produce dust do you want that listed as well ?


We are comparing dust from two supposed controlled demolitions, WTC and Kingdome. Because that is all the data we have. Not because they are ideal examples. We could do a comparison by rebuilding the WTC and doing an experiment. That would be better. Until then let us use the data we have.

The Kingdome was like other controlled demolitions. They produce dust as a byproduct and a liability. The Kingdome dust lasted about 20 minutes. It was not much dust.

The dust from the WTC blocked out the sun at times. It lasted for days. Its quantity was huge.

Where have we seen this type of occurrence before? In controlled demolitions or volcanic eruptions?

I do not like your tone or your language (BS).






Now as for all the BS claims re dust sheetrock (gyproc) , sprayed on fire protection, paint ,THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of each dust in uncleaned areas of the building, concrete from the floor slabs,glass that's the dust cloud NOT STEEL.





Look at all the sheetrock (gyproc) , sprayed on fire protection, paint ,THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of each dust in uncleaned areas of the building, concrete from the floor slabs,glass that's the dust cloud. The dust continued for days.

Here are spectacular images of WTC "dust". See the aerial view. Look at the dust.

(To the Moderators: That is twice now wmd_2008 has denigrated my posts by calling them BS.)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


I have to ague your guys' position for you... What he was meaning (or it is your hypothesis?) was that the mushroom cloud of descending debris was almost all dust of one kind or another, but no steel, which he purports, once must assume, remained within the perimeter of the building, and just kept stacking up in some sort of accordian-like, pancake "collapse". Of course the actual phenomenon and occurence of the destruction is altogether different, revealing that when over half way down there was an appreciable loss of building material, yet no loss of momentum, even acceleration to the point of near free fall (at or to within seconds), which absent the use of explosives, as observed, would be utterly impossible within the allotted timeframe, and in accordance with the first and third law of motion.


edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Allow me to bring this next piece of evident to your attention

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...

How do you explain that?


it is patently and proveably wrong.
Here's one of their fundamental conclusions from eth abstract:


The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the
WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office
materials in the WTC buildings.


Actually you can make such molten spheres with a match or cigarette lighter and steel wool - the steel will itself ignite at a low temperature and burn, melt, and make spheres!

you can do this over your kitchen sink!!

There are dozens of YT videos of burning steel wool

There was plenty of steel dust, particles, rust, etc in the building as it collapsed - and many ignition sources.

Yet these snake-oil salesmen managed to completely ignore that steel can itself ignite and burn plenty hot enough to melt itself!!

It is one of the best pieces of evidence that the "truther" movement deals in ignorance and deception!
edit on 4-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I think SO can speak for himself.. and please, try to refrain from any derogatory labels or name-calling offered up with seething contempt. It's very unbecoming, and unnecessary in a civilized debate.

So you're saying I guess that the spherules in the dust would be from around the impact area where the office fires were, from household items like steel wool or rust or whatever? Okaaayy..

You guys always seem to be grasping, and angry. You call "truthers" snale-oil salesmen, as if we really enjoy this work of trying to educate the public about the worst atrocity in modern history, as if we want to lead people astray and SELL a totally wicked and horrific alternate version of history, for fun - you have no idea how utterly insulting that is and how out of touch it is with the truth of the matter.



edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


That's the trouble when people with NO experience or real KNOWLEDGE of a subject listen to internet & youtube idiots.

There was VAST amounts of dust produced by the TOWERS because of the materials used to build them and the shear size.

Your KINGDOME reference is not like for like did it have 110 floors of concrete each approx one acre in area.

sq feet in an acre = 43560 Twin Tower floor 208x208 feet = 43260

Did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of sheet rock , did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of sprayed on fire
protection, did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of paint, did it have 110 floors of glass.

ALL of the above will produce DUST and that's not even including dust trapped over the years in areas that would never be cleaned.

That's why I call the claims re the dust BS

Your dome had a clear span of 660ft the roof was 25,000 tons this is what was said about the energy the roof dropping would produce.


The free-fall felling of the 25,000 ton concrete dome alone would have created over 9 billion foot-pounds of energy


25,000 US short tons is 25,000 x 2000 pounds = 50000000 so 50 million pounds dropping look at the energy it would produced above

IT was dropping 135 feet the MASS DROPPING in the towers was GREATER and dropping many times the height.

Now digest that!!



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Accepting the facts as explained by your goodself, does that mean there were No Steel Girders that helped support the final structure ? I know how today's architchts do minimise and do quite often rely upon the main suppoort being a centralised , Solid - steel re-inforced- Concrete, they use a mild - yet supposedly modern type of steel as an edge support and the use sheets of Glass etc. Going by the op's original blue-print display. There is a suggestion of true steel girders, can you simply explain the whole construction and therefore explain what happened.
The above ie en.wikipedia ref; explains how the Empire State Building was hit - in 1946- by a B52 plane. It then explains how at a later date a Beechcraft, twin engine plane hit a wall street building etc.etc. Old constructions stood the pace, today such fail to do so. Or so we are told.
And please reply minus abrupt style sarci's
Thank you



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So you're saying I guess that the spherules in the dust would be from around the impact area where the office fires were, from household items like steel wool or rust or whatever? Okaaayy..


I am saying there are multiple possible KNOWN sources for iron rich spherules - including for example any rust flakes or iron filings made by the grinding of the steelwork as it all fell.


You guys always seem to be grasping, and angry.


Frustrated by continual basic mistakes and yes, dishonesty, from the "truthers" - yeah - that creates some anger.


You call "truthers" snale-oil salesmen,


I called THOSE truthers snake oil salesmen - because they claimed validity from qualifications and from a fancy looking presentation, but they concealed or didn't know something completely basic that made their conclusions look stupid.

I think that is a fair summation of them.

If you want to continue pushing that item or any of the other known false truther nonsense then I guess you have decided you want to be one too - that is your choice.


...as if we really enjoy this work of trying to educate the public about the worst atrocity in modern history, as if we want to lead people astray and SELL a totally wicked and horrific alternate version of history, for fun - you have no idea how utterly insulting that is and how out of touch it is with the truth of the matter.


well if you persist in pushing rubbish like that article and the general contents of this thread, and pretty much every other "truther" theory then yes, I can imagine that it sucks to be wrong all the time!!

But hey - that's your choice - you are free to make it and you suffer the consequences such as others getting persisted off at eth continual parade of nonsense and responding in a manner you find insulting.

that's life in a free society - you are free to hold stupid beliefs against all the credible evidence, and I am free to point that out.


edit on 4-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: tags still



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
 


That's the trouble when people with NO experience or real KNOWLEDGE of a subject listen to internet & youtube idiots.

There was VAST amounts of dust produced by the TOWERS because of the materials used to build them and the shear size.

Your KINGDOME reference is not like for like did it have 110 floors of concrete each approx one acre in area.

sq feet in an acre = 43560 Twin Tower floor 208x208 feet = 43260

Did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of sheet rock , did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of sprayed on fire
protection, did it have THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of paint, did it have 110 floors of glass.

ALL of the above will produce DUST and that's not even including dust trapped over the years in areas that would never be cleaned.

That's why I call the claims re the dust BS

Your dome had a clear span of 660ft the roof was 25,000 tons this is what was said about the energy the roof dropping would produce.


The free-fall felling of the 25,000 ton concrete dome alone would have created over 9 billion foot-pounds of energy


25,000 US short tons is 25,000 x 2000 pounds = 50000000 so 50 million pounds dropping look at the energy it would produced above

IT was dropping 135 feet the MASS DROPPING in the towers was GREATER and dropping many times the height.

Now digest that!!



When you call a post BS would you not expect others to reply in kind?
I will not stoop to that low level. I will no longer reply to your posts.

Here is my closing rebuttal.

You comparison says that there was more dust because of the much greater mass dropping. I would expect the seismic data would confirm that. It does not. The small mass dropping of the Kingdome produced a 2.3 scale earthquake. The large mass dropping of the WTC did not produce an earth-quake-like seismic event. It produced a simple surface wave. If you want to check this data for yourself, read my previous posts in this thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Can you help reconcile these two images? The exact same moment in time
and the exact same direction.



Impossible, I say! One or both must be faked. And I say both.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


I am the one who selected those two images, from hundreds looking for two separate examples of the same phenomenon and I just got lucky. Same direction, two separate positions, two separate cameras, same moment in time. It's called a coincidence, and in my books a kind of synchronistic one at that, but it's nothing more and not an indication of any "fakery". Please, enough with that stuff, but I can't control what you do.

Just because this has been relegated to the hoax bin doesn't mean that we can't be reasonable, and rational. This is really a prime example of the reason you might be needing to reevaluate your whole premise regarding the NRPT or no real plane theory (I presume that's what it stands for).

No offense, just don't want the thread to drift right off the rails. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes
 


I have to ague your guys' position for you... What he was meaning (or it is your hypothesis?) was that the mushroom cloud of descending debris was almost all dust of one kind or another, but no steel, which he purports, once must assume, remained within the perimeter of the building, and just kept stacking up in some sort of accordian-like, pancake "collapse". Of course the actual phenomenon and occurence of the destruction is altogether different, revealing that when over half way down there was an appreciable loss of building material, yet no loss of momentum, even acceleration to the point of near free fall (at or to within seconds), which absent the use of explosives, as observed, would be utterly impossible within the allotted timeframe, and in accordance with the first and third law of motion.


edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


Thanks for your reply.

You are phrasing your reply in terms of conventional technology. The evidence of the WTC event indicates the use of a new technology.
Let me make a suggestion. Look at a video with one of the "wheat check" girder assemblies falling alone out away from the building. You will see that it trails "dust". There is no dust below it where it is falling. It trails a tail of dust all its own. Where does this dust come from?

Regards,

Here is a still showing steel trailing dust.


edit on 4-12-2013 by leostokes because: add image



edit on 4-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


I am the one who selected those two images, from hundreds looking for two separate examples of the same phenomenon and I just got lucky. Same direction, two separate positions, two separate cameras, same moment in time. It's called a coincidence, and in my books a kind of synchronistic one at that, but it's nothing more and not an indication of any "fakery". Please, enough with that stuff, but I can't control what you do.

Just because this has been relegated to the hoax bin doesn't mean that we can't be reasonable, and rational. This is really a prime example of the reason you might be needing to reevaluate your whole premise regarding the NRPT or no real plane theory (I presume that's what it stands for).

No offense, just don't want the thread to drift right off the rails. Thanks.



You are missing the point. How can one, taken from ground level, offer up the exact same perspective and moment in time as the other, which was taken from a height? Please use your brain and re-examine the images from this point of view.

I say it can't. One or both must be faked.

And can you please source these images.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





And I know that makes me think you are not actually interested in the evidence.


Gual this isn't my first rodeo K? The fact is that there is no evidence that can
prove what I'm saying is wrong. Because what I'm saying isn't wrong. No matter
how horrible the truth it leads to is.

Why is this so scary that anyone would fight tooth and nail to deny the obvious?
I don't understand that.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Ah so you're a Judy Wood DEW (directed energy weapon) Theorist.

I don't see why conventional explosives, albeit probably military grade nano-thermite aka super-thermite, which could actually be painted on in some applications, although in other places direct cutting charges would need to be strategically placed in "bands" around critical core columns, would not be sufficient. In every demolition, in this case a unique, top-down CD, there is always plenty of dust. In fact, the ejecting debris wave including massive quantities of cement dust (and everything else) was actually employed as part of the simulated gravity collapse ruse, in the sense that they tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to hide the explosive ejections in a rapid sequencing all around and down the building, behind the descending debris wave (which is comprised of lots and lots of pulverized cement) as seen in the video.


edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


NewAgeMan, I think OneFreeMan has asked you a reasonable question. Can you please provide a source for those 2 images?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join