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.

 

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 15
62
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




And don't forget the magic passport, that survived the explosion and the same intense fire that melted the support steel.

You can't be serious?
There were bodies and body parts thrown clear too.
Are you suggesting that someone went around planting a leg here and a foot there?

What about the paper floating down from the broken windows?
Are you suggesting that people in fire suits were tossing paper from the windows?

Have you seen the pictures from the Germanwings crash?

You are in serious denial if you feel that everything should have burned up.




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
and the same intense fire that melted the support steel.


Again you show your total ignorance of 9/11.... what fire that melted the support steel are you babbling about? What silly conspiracy site did you get that nonsense from?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Surely you have reached the point of desperation if you equate an airplane crashing on open ground to one that flies into a closed building, explodes into a "massive", contained fireball and then stays in there and burns for, what was it an hour or thereabouts, and then the whole structure of the huge building collapses into its own footprint on top of it. And try not to respond with such angst, for it only indicates that even you do not believe the BS yourself.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




if you equate an airplane crashing on open ground to one that flies into a closed building, explodes into a "massive", contained fireball and then stays in there and burns

And just what is coming out of the other side of the building in this video?

Plane parts and some contents from inside the plane.
Remember Newton's law of motion.
'An object in motion tend to remain in motion'

So please tell us what was in the 'stuff' flying out of the building?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




if you equate an airplane crashing on open ground to one that flies into a closed building, explodes into a "massive", contained fireball and then stays in there and burns

And just what is coming out of the other side of the building in this video?

Plane parts and some contents from inside the plane.
Remember Newton's law of motion.
'An object in motion tend to remain in motion'

So please tell us what was in the 'stuff' flying out of the building?


Typical. Moving the goal posts yet again. It's never enough for truthers. Sigh. . .



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


And really, the steel issue has been addressed over and over and over and over again. Steel does not need to melt to lose the majority of its integrity. As to it melting, my grandmother's barn burnt down when I was ten or so. EVEN THE ALUMINUM IN IT MELTED. Do you know what the melting point of aluminum is?! No way that aluminum should have melted. BUT IT DID. We picked it up in big melted piles and took it to the recycling plant for a profit. And as a result, do I go around claiming that the government burned down my grandmother's barn because the temperature should not have been high enough to melt aluminum? Of course not. Sometimes situations are unique and unique things happen. the Towers were a unique situation and unique things happened.
edit on Fri May 15 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Sure enough the Towers were a special condition all right, the only 3 cases in history still where steel reinforced concrete high rises ever collapsed due to fire. Yup, real special. Just ask the firemen who were there, (because I work with a retired one with COPD), they will tell you what happened. Of course that wouldn't be "Proof", at least not for you guys, and they are probably just angry because they were lied to about it being safe to remove their Scott Packs so they could work harder and longer and are now dying young. Yes I would be eager to believe lying politician scum but you really can't blame them because after all, it is the smart move to eliminate the witnesses who can do the most damage to your fabrication.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: jaffo
steel reinforced concrete high rises



Right away you are wrong


WTC was constructed mostly with steel, efforts were taken to minimize concrete

Concrete is heavy and expensive , to save weight everything was done to eliminate concrete and replace with steel

What concrete was there, in floor decks, was special lightweight mix using fly ash instead of gravel as aggregate

Which is why used sheet rock to line stairwell and elevator shafts - new Freedom Tower uses high strength concrete
in stairwells and elevators to prevent penetration and destruction of these facilities which doomed WTC



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
where steel reinforced concrete high rises ever collapsed due to fire.


Again you show you know nothing about 9/11, exactly what "steel reinforced concrete" are you on about this time?

You really should do some proper research before posting such silly stories here., Remember proper research is NOT just visiting truther sites, as you can clearly see how wrong they are!



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Hello Bruce! Why are you so angry? Proper research does not include personal interviews with those who were there three hours after the no-concrete towers fell and spent the next two weeks sorting through the debris eh? Wow you must be a heck of a dancer. Tango much?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
and the same intense fire that melted the support steel.


Again you show your total ignorance of 9/11.... what fire that melted the support steel are you babbling about? What silly conspiracy site did you get that nonsense from?


And really, the steel issue has been addressed over and over and over and over again. Steel does not need to melt to lose the majority of its integrity.


And those that spit that nonesense get told over and over and over and over that the entire structure below the impact - you know, the part of the building that collapsed suddenly - was a perfectly sound and cool structure. No impacts and no heat, but still offered next to zero resistance.

But hey, great story about grandma. I understand now why you don't have bloody clue.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
was a perfectly sound and cool structure. No impacts and no heat, but still offered next to zero resistance.


What resistance do you expect one floor at a time to offer to thousands of tonnes of falling building?

Or are you one of the people that expected it to stop the thousands of tonnes and topple it off to the side?
edit on 14-5-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

One floor, ha! Tango on my dear tango on! There were 80 floors below, I know I had my wedding reception at the Windows of the World on 1981! No or little concrete of course!



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




One floor, ha! Tango on my dear tango on! There were 80 floors below

If you bothered to do any research on the building construction you would have learned that each floor used identical trusses.
That means if the weight of debris was too large for one floor, causing it to fail, the floor below would also fail.
And so on to the bottom.

You seem to have a childish attitude in words, toward those that are trying to educate you.
Plus you follow the exact same routine as other conspiracy minded people.
When someone points out the flaw in your belief, you throw out an attitude and jump to a totally different point.
You don't seem to be able to support your points with any proof.
If you firmly believe WTC's should not have collapsed you should have proof to back up all your points.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
Hello Bruce! Why are you so angry?


Actually you are the one that is angry here, every silly conspiracy theory you bring up about 9/11 gets shot down as you have proven to know nothing at all about it! But remember, every time your silly conspiracy theory is shown to be false you have a opportunity to learn something about 9/11!
edit on 14-5-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I am actually very calm my dear, very calm indeed. I know that you will never change your tune and I applaud you for it. You are a person of conviction and there is not enough of that these days to go around. If you are one of those that needs to have the last word on a thread then by all means come out and ask for it and I shall grant it to you. Until then, I know what I know and accept that you choose differently. That is all......



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
62
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join