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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 





see those columns fall straight down


Example: flag pole

Suppose we have a video of the top one third of a flag pole falling vertically down. The question is: what happened to the unseen bottom two thirds that had been supporting the top?




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

leostokes

_BoneZ_
reply to post by leostokes
 


Leo, I'm not sure why people are still trying to peddle that hoax. Anyone who watches the video can clearly see those columns fall straight down and leave the dust that was on them hanging in the air. Dust is lighter than steel columns. Dust takes longer to fall down than the columns do.







Anyone who watches the video can clearly see those columns evaporate and leave dust hanging in the air.

I have already discounted your reply.

I acknowledge that your vision and judgement are sound. Others with sound vision and judgement see steel turning to dust. Do you acknowledge this?


The quote below was taken from a post by Morgan Reynolds.

Also at the link below is a video where Peter Jennings poses the question. No reasonable answers are forth comming for PJ.




...airliner crashes and subsequent jet fuel fires caused massive twin towers to collapse.  For one thing, if that had happened, there would have been one million tons of debris to clean up.  Yet observers marveled at how little debris was left.
Striking confirmation occurred at 12:44 pm on September 12, 2001, when ABC anchor, Peter Jennings, asked ABC reporter George Stephanopoulos on the street at the WTC: “Jackie Judd and several other people keep asking us, when you look at where the towers used to stand, there is surprisingly so little rubble.  Where did all the rubble go?”
Stephanopoulos: “That’s a very good question Peter…one volunteer, Robert Grelinsky, explained to me the reason there is so little rubble is that all of it simply fell down, into the ground and was pulverized, evaporated.”
Stephanopoulos’ explanation is nonsense, although understandable because it was a mystery yet he needed to come up with something.  Solids from a pulverized building do not somehow change into vapors, a gaseous state.
What happened?  Short answer: each quarter-mile high tower turned to dust in mid-air.  An unprecedented event but a fact nonetheless.  Remember how dust blocked out the sun for 10 minutes?  And dust an inch deep covered downtown?  And fine dust wafted into the upper atmosphere?  Those were the towers!  Videos, eyewitnesses, seismic data, an undamaged “bathtub” (slurry wall) keeping the waters of the Hudson river back, and all other forensic evidence confirm the towers turned to dust rather than crashing to the earth.
What turned so much steel to dust?  Only an exotic, “black” technology could do it.


Where did the rubble go?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


There wasn't a million tons to start with!!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
 


There wasn't a million tons to start with!!!!


Please tell us how many tons there were?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The buildings were demolished professionally. This is self evident imho. 45 minutes of localised fires CANNOT cause a total building collapse striaght down. It defies physics and common sense.


What defies physics and common sense is that someone thinks these buildings should not collapse "straight down" - how else does a building collapse??




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   

leostokes
Please tell us how many tons there were?


How about you back the claim you posted that there was a million tons of material in the buildings....

it appears you are unable to!
edit on 3-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

hellobruce

leostokes
Please tell us how many tons there were?


How about you back the claim you posted that there was a million tons of material in the buildings....


I will not reply to your posts.
edit on 3-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
What defies physics and common sense is that someone thinks these buildings should not collapse "straight down" - how else does a building collapse??



It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
A company called Turner Construction (tenant) had apparently worked on the floors of trade center before the event.
The vehicles in surrounding area apparently rusted pretty quickly.
The way the buildings collapsed seem so controlled it almost insults the intelligence of many.
There are other ways to reduce things to dust and one of which is frequencies and vibrations.
So,.
What was above the trade centers at the time was the ISS above or another satellite capable of such a thing
Or
Is it possible for a pulse to be directed THROUGH our planet? Whats on the opposite side of the planet as if going straight through?
Frequencies and energy travel through our core particularly following a solar disturbance big enough to cause geomagnetic storms.
Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


If its any consolation - the OP shouldn't feel in the least bit slighted by the removal of his thread to the censorship bin. Because when you really think about the gigantic HOAX that 9/11 really was/is you will realize that this (the HOAX bin) is the appropriate place for your excellent thread.

I see that I wasn't allowed to post in the 9/11 Forum. So for me - I'm actually glad to see that it was moved to here. All that remains now is whether or not I really want to participate in such a 'regulated' website.


edit on 3-12-2013 by Orgonz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Orgonz
 


No. The HOAX is the utter stupidity of convincing people of outrageous lunacy on the basis of the lowest quality video material available without even the slightest effort to ever seek out copies of the original.

Why people rely on crap multi-generational heavily-compressed videos from a time when digital video started out low-quality and poorly compressed (2001), is the absolute pinnacle of mad idiocy.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


In none of the videos have I been able to tell that it came from the fuselage, and not closer to the nose. It's hard to tell in that shot, just as it was hard to tell on the day it happened.

The crew oxygen cylinder for the 767 is located in the nose, outboard of the nose wheel, in the equipment bay. Normal pressure of the bottle is 1850 psi, but it can go as high as 2000 psi. If that bottle were to have failed, the damage would have been further forward, in the nose, under the cockpit, and it would have done a lot of damage to the plane.

The only logical explanation is a static charge.


If there is no motion blur, the footage is fabricated. If the footage is
fabricated then you are analysing animations designed and produced
by men (deceivers) as if truth of the 'real' situation can be gleaned
from it (them).
To be sure they inserted 'titbits' such as the explosion you are discussing
and planes laughably dissolving into steel and concrete into the 'movie'
purposefully. All to keep your wheels spinning in cloudcuckoo/wylie coyote land.


How are they doing with that, I wonder?

Can you comment on the motion blur issue raised here?


If this 'iconic' video is faked, how many others? And more importantly,
why the need to fake video at all?

SeptemberClues, CluesForum and LetsRollForums have plenty to say on this
and many, many other 9/11 matters.

How's that for logic?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Might want to read: 'The Commission - the Uncensored History of the 9/11 investigation' Philip Shenon
He purdy much explains Zelikow as the cut and censor and throw out guy - in other words if 'Z' didn't want it included it was not included - building 7 not with standing - collapsed but no mention.
and...
why in the world would Sandy Berger - former national security adviser - smuggle confidential doc's out of the National Archive -as in document 217 - on pg 250. and he was chain drinking coffee - whilst he had to hold his hands down to keep from shaking - not sure how he could drink coffee ...

THANK YOU JERSEY GIRLS - pages 9-15 were instrumental in Kissinger's resignation from the Commission.

As for the plane not being in public air - I would imagine like test cars they must have future 'beta test' airplanes.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

jibajaba
As for the plane not being in public air - I would imagine like test cars they must have future 'beta test' airplanes.


They have prototypes, after someone shows interest and orders them. They don't build prototypes for no reason, because it costs them hundreds of millions to develop a new type of plane. You don't spend that type of money for no return.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

OneFreeMan
Can you comment on the motion blur issue raised here?

Sure.

How is it possible that the "Clues Forum" people have the absolute certainty that the video was captured with a 60 FPS video camera in 2001 when such technology was very expensive and incredibly rare? In fact, back then, consumer video devices recorded primarily to miniDV tape.

A little simple research goes a long way: Canon Camera Museum

Even if we go to the best-available consumer camcorder of 2004: OPTURA500/400, it's still recording to miniDV tape… which is a variable frame-rate and quality depending on the user's SP or LP settings.

But then it gets even more complex for the ClueLess Clues Forum people as they forget that, back at that time, camcorders had no "digital out" that allowed for direct access to the raw digital video. It needed to be digitized to the computer… and anything short of the most-powerful Mac or custom PC set up could only handle 30 frames per second. Most lesser consumer hardware/software combinations defaulted to 15 frames per second because the average RAM on computers at that time was measured in Megabytes, and hard drives over 50 gigabytes were rare and expensive.

Get your facts straight.




So what was the question?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Noam Chomsky: "There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that."




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
 


Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.


Didn't see much of any of that from the rubble photographs
or subsequent testimonies. Where did it all go?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

SkepticOverlord
reply to post by Orgonz
 


No. The HOAX is the utter stupidity of convincing people of outrageous lunacy on the basis of the lowest quality video material available without even the slightest effort to ever seek out copies of the original.

Why people rely on crap multi-generational heavily-compressed videos from a time when digital video started out low-quality and poorly compressed (2001), is the absolute pinnacle of mad idiocy.


Your language leaves a lot to be desired. It is funny that how, as the years went
by, better quality 9/11 footage started emerging from the woodwork.
Better quality software allowed for upgraded graphics.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

OneFreeMan
Your language leaves a lot to be desired. It is funny that how, as the years went
by, better quality 9/11 footage started emerging from the woodwork.
Better quality software allowed for upgraded graphics.

Where?

It's all based on poor quality originals. Contemporary graphics cannot make up for variable frame rate poorly compressed originals.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join