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.

 

Just Wondering...

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree And...in my first post, I pointed out the falsehoods you base your beliefs about when it comes to 9/11. If anyone should step out of the box...its you.




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Stick that jet fuel INSIDE of the building and set it on fire, I guarantee the building will fall.....even if it is not heavily damaged by an airliner flying into it.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Supposition?

Research you call it...call it George and stroke its shiny black feathers if you want. You're still wrong. An object weighing several hundred thousand pounds is not going to just break up upon contact with a building no matter how much you wish it to. It's going to shatter a goodly portion of the building as it goes through it. Oh, it's going to be thoroughly mangled in the process, gut it's going to do a whole lot of damage.

That's physics so simple even I understand it.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Regardless of whether the fuel caused the collapse, or the planes weakened the building, if you remove the planes from the equation there is no fire and the buildings are still there.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Really, that is your proof? A deer? Altitude. Do some research on the construction of the trade towers and the construction of any passenger plane. My uncle was a pilot in the military and for united for 30 years. I promise you I will believe him and his words over yours.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No it won't but keep telling yourself that.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Nope. You are just wrong.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I'll believe mine thanks. I have almost 30 years of actual experience climbing through just about every portion of just about every type of plane in the military that you can. I don't need to rely on anyone else's experience or words when I can rely on my own.

And no, a deer isn't my proof. Decades of studying aviation and first jabs l hand experience is my proof.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



Apparently you have not looked into the aviation principles of aircraft and their capabilities with regard to air speed and altitude. The planes they claim were used in this travesty would have been structurally incapable of doing anything other than falling apart


We have had large subsonic aircraft exceed the speed of sound and landed safely and that included an Air Force C-141 transport that exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely.

The first DC-8 built, exceeded the speed of sound in a test flight and landed safely.



Douglas DC-8 Test Flight

Over the testing range at Edwards Air Force Base, a four-engined Douglas DC-8 was put into a shallow dive from 52,090 feet (which incidentally was an altitude record for a passenger aircraft) at a speed of around mach 0.8 (80% of the 'local' speed of sound), followed by F-100 and F-104 chase planes to test the flight characteristics of a new wing design. By just over 41,000ft it had broken the sound barrier - the first time this had been done by a passenger aircraft.

everything2.com...





when striking a steel structure, they would have crumbled and fallen to the ground in pieces, not dissolved into the building.


Let''s take a look.

American 11 and United 175 Impacts

United 175

United 175 Wreckage

B-767 Engine

I might add that the facade of WTC 1 and WTC 2 consisted of thousands of tons of aluminum.



Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:

(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the facade of each Twin Tower.

www.911myths.com...



edit on 25-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Then prove it.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No they are not. They are demolished with the use of military grade nano-thermite. The planes you think you saw were designed to do exactly what they did. They presented a false reason for a false fire to cause a false collapse. Tell me one instance of a fire of any kind ever causing a building to fall into a pile of dust? You can't because it has never happened before or since that day.

Buildings catch on fire everyday all over the world and burn for much longer periods of time and they still do not fall into a pile of dust and molten steel with fires that burn for weeks.

But you keep on believing whatever it is you believe. Does not change the fact they lied and that you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Yes, it will. Steel structures are rated to see how long they will survive a fire. The WTC steel was rated to last three hours in a fire with intact fireproofing. Any longer than that...the steel is at risk of failure.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

So what did hit the building if they weren't planes?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



No they are not. They are demolished with the use of military grade nano-thermite.


It seems to me that you are not aware that both, Steven Jones and Richard Gage, were caught lying about thermite in the WTC buildings.



Buildings catch on fire everyday all over the world and burn for much longer periods of time and they still do not fall into a pile of dust and molten steel with fires that burn for weeks.


That is because their fire protection surrounding their steel structures remained intact and they were not struck by large jet airliners unlike the WTC Towers where the aircraft dislodged fire protection for their steel structures, which exposed them directly to the weakening effects of the fires.

Ever wondered why fire protection is applied to steel columns of large buildings in the first place?


edit on 25-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Military grade nano-thermite? LOL. Um, nope. And since none of the buildings fell into a "pile of dust" we can just chalk this up to more disinformation you believe in.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



They are demolished with the use of military grade nano-thermite.


That is false. Ever wondered why demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish buildings? Think about it.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I knew this would be a volatile subject as it always is. Easier to keep believing something than to admit you were deceived.

Enablers do this. They would rather continue to believe a lie than to admit they were lied to. No amount of evidence will support the OS as the truth. None of it.

After 14 years of living the lie, the truth is still truth.

Really, it does not matter. What really happened that day was the world changed.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   


... and they still do not fall into a pile of dust and molten steel with fires that burn for weeks.


The molten metal was aluminum, not steel. Another point, thermite does not continue to generate molten molten over hours, much less, days and weeks. Once again, you are a victim of disinformation.

It seems to me that you are also unaware that stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires. "Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air.

Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

In addition, smoldering fires is nothing new.



Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

www.timesunio...two-4250472.php...


Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

www.idahopres...e...=image&photo=1


Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

Read more: www.yumasun.c...l...


edit on 25-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

It seems to be a lot easier for some to believe in cockamamie conspiracy theories involving nano-thermite. No thanks, I will stick with reality.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



I knew this would be a volatile subject as it always is. Easier to keep believing something than to admit you were deceived.


Just to let you know, what you have been posting is the disinformation that I have been warning Truthers about for a very long time, much of which has been planted in order to discredit the Truther Movement.

I knew from personal experience that what Truthers were posting about the 9/11 aircraft was false and nothing to do with reality in the real world of aviation. I have made a career in aviation for well over 40 years and I have been amazed of how easy Truthers have been mislead on false and misleading information and deliberate disinformation for the sole purpose of discrediting the Truther Movement.

Much of what Truthers are posting is false and they have allowed themselves to be duped by disinformation, which is evident to those of us who know better by direct personal experiences.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join