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: 25
29
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I believe the government used planes as a distraction. Had the criminals not used airplanes to hit the towers, then the government would have to create more lies to explain the demolition of the WTC. The real criminals in Washington believe it would be easier to claim airplane fuel brought down the WTC.

That is how stupid and arrogant the criminals in Washington thinks We The People are. They really believe that we couldn't see though their lies.

Airplanes fuel burns at 1800 degrees
WTC support beams tested to withstand over 2200 degree for many hours, yet the WTC fell with in an hour after the planes hit the WTC, doesn't make sense.

The only thing that can explain this is demolition, nothing else scientifically can stand up to the OS. However many of the debunkers believe their "opinions" are science.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Airplanes fuel burns at 1800 degrees



At that temperature steel retains 10 % of original strength

Steel does not need to melt to fail - just heated up enough where becomes soft & malleable

How else do you think blacksmiths been forging iron for 3000 years ???

They heat it until iron becomes malleable where can be bent and shaped

Heat up the support columns and will become plastic and start to twist out of shapes



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue


At that temperature steel retains 10 % of original strength


Who says, you. This is your "opinion".


Steel does not need to melt to fail - just heated up enough where becomes soft & malleable


Not in one hour. Again you are giving your "opinion" Where is your proof?


Heat up the support columns and will become plastic and start to twist out of shapes


Airplane fuel can not get hot enough to melt the WTC steel further more the steel had to be heated to over 2200 and still would have taken hours before weaken would have started. The WTC came down in an hour after impact, care to explain that?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I believe the government used planes as a distraction.


That is impossible. Only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built and accounted for. In addition, American Airlines and United Airlines confirmed the loss of American 11, American 77, United 93 and United 175. FAA records have now deregistered those aircraft.

Remains of passenger and crew have been recovered and identified and the airliners were tracked from takeoff to the crash sites despite what Truthers have said about the tampering of transponders, which I might add, does nor render an aircraft invisible to radar. That is one of the many pieces of disinformation that I have warned people about. A simple way to look at it, is that the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

My Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck and from photos, I have identified the wreckage of a B-757. There is no way the government could acquire those aircraft and not leave behind a paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C. and across the Atlantic Ocean, and there was no way to switch the aircraft without drawing a lot of attention because I can uncover a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes and use certain information to track down anyone involved with that aircraft, so it would have been ridicules for the government to even think about using the B-767 and the B-757 in a False Flag operation.

I can not only trace the airframe of each aircraft, but trace the history of each engine and APU for each of those aircraft. To sum it up, there was no way the government could have used such aircraft and not get caught, but it was evident from many warnings flowing in from countries around the world just prior to the 9/11 attack that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would use aircraft to attack America, why do 9/11 Truthers continue to think that the U.S. government somehow used the aircraft in the 9/11 attack?

After the attack, Osama bin Laden declared responsiblity for the 9/11 attack and threaten more attacks. In addition, al-Qaeda released the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers. In other words, dismantling the claim that 9/11 was a U.S. government False Flag operation.


Had the criminals not used airplanes to hit the towers, then the government would have to create more lies to explain the demolition of the WTC. The real criminals in Washington believe it would be easier to claim airplane fuel brought down the WTC.[/quote

All it took were simple office fires to bring down the WTC buildings.

[quoteAirplanes fuel burns at 1800 degrees WTC support beams tested to withstand over 2200 degree for many hours, yet the WTC fell with in an hour after the planes hit the WTC, doesn't make sense.


Let's take a look at what ordinary fires can do to structural steel.

Fire Weakens Steel Photo

Fire Distorts Strutural Steel

Fire Weakened Steel Collapsed Overpass



The only thing that can explain this is demolition,...


Impossible. First of all, there are no demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed and no explosions were detected on seismic monitors and add to the fact that no demolition hardware was ever found at ground zero. Let's take a look at the French Verinage demolition operation that does not require the use of explosives to bring down a building.

Verinage demolition method does not use explosives - Video



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Please don't say "no demolition hardware was found". That is a blatant, slap in the face lie and distraction. First off.. it is a known FACT that the debris was removed as quickly as possible, which was illegal as it disrupted a crime scene investigation.

And explosive elements WERE detected in the dust of the WTC collapses. Also, there has been ZERO and I do mean ZE-RO proof given that office fires could melt steel enough to collapse the WTC. And I'm talking the damaged section. Let's ignore the physics destroying collapse of the 70+ floors below the impact zone. Let's forget that the collapse completely goes against the laws of conservation and Newtons 3rd Law.

Argh.... 14 years of banging my head against a brick wall.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

Not in one hour. Again you are giving your "opinion" Where is your proof?



3 minuets 50 seconds.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

LOL, The steel in the WTC where much bigger than what your video show. Not to mention the fuel was not burning in one location as the video shows it was spread out meaning the fuel burned up much faster, in fact it has already been proven that some of the firer fighters made it to the impact hole and the firemen said there were only pockets of small fires burning. These firemen went on record with this information. Your video proves nothing.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Really, I am not interested in the OS thank you. I am pass all that nonsense.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekJR321



Please don't say "no demolition hardware was found". That is a blatant, slap in the face lie and distraction. First off.. it is a known FACT that the debris was removed as quickly as possible, which was illegal as it disrupted a crime scene investigation.


Thousands of feet of detonation cords and other hardware cannot be quickly removed from such a site and would have been clearly evident to recovery crews and investigators for months afterward.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
These firemen went on record with this information.



No. Those firemen died.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


No. Those firemen died.


Yes, many have , the fact is many went on record before they died. So you are wrong, they left us a written record of their eyewitness testimonies for the world to see.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



LOL, The steel in the WTC where much bigger than what your video show.


we can take a look here to see what fire did to the steel of the WTC buildings.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3


Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength. Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

www.engineeri...gth-d..._1353.html



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Your link doesn't work!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
The interesting part in all this, is that the 'Deniers' have also at some point in their lives no doubt, prayed to the Invisible sky Gods.

Just Saying ...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
One of the best investigation documentaries into 9/11 is 'Zero - An investigation into 9/11'.

Other documentaries have said similar things and to be honest it looks so obvious as to what 9/11 was. A False Flag. I questioned 9/11 before seeing these Docs and they have just confirmed what I was asking. There were so many physical impossibilities in the Official Story and so many inconsistencies in the evidence it defied belief how anyone with half a brain would believe the OS. Then you look at what they have achieved before and since 9/11 and that paints an obvious picture into the resource and land grabbing War On Terror BS.



Way too obvious!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Nova937
Yeah. One of the best. Doesn't say a lot.

Silly, however, is certainly what the 9/11 theories are. To recap: this movie, like an earlier essay called Loose Change, promotes the belief not merely that 9/11 was a bogus pretext for war, but that it was a bogus event itself, faked, stage-managed and orchestrated by the powers that be. The twin towers were not brought down by kamikaze terrorists, but demolished by covert military-grade explosives, smuggled into the building, of which molten metal in the ashy ruins is the residual evidence. The crashing planes were a diversionary stunt. The so-called terrorists were CIA-mujahideen stooges, who may or may not have been on board, but in any case were ordered to establish their existence on dozens of security cameras to establish an alibi. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon must have been a missile, because the hole isn't big enough for anything else.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
through all the evidence people have provided saying it really happened or it was the government i can honestly say i am on the fence as something like this has never happened on the same sort of scale to compare it to.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




At that temperature steel retains 10 % of original strength

Who says, you. This is your "opinion".


My "opinion" comes from a NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) reference book ........

May be should do some research instead of offering wrong opinions .........



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013


Let's see what you wrote:



The core of that building - just as in every other building ever constructed - is placed to work together with the rest of the supporting structure. While there are obviously going to be safeguards put in place where possible, in case of foreseeable incidents and accidents, that doesn't mean a structure can be designed to defy the laws of physics.


Obviously just another story with no regards to the reality. The buildings actually withstood the impacts and did not collapse instantly. After ignoring the hardness evaluation you mentioned the planes and suggested, their impact resulted in structural failure. Wrong again.
Not one of your points is valid and you constantly shift your goals within our little discussion.



If you're going to try to claim that you're responding adequately to our debunking, at least try to do it with more credibility.


Let me conclude that you didn't respond adequately and lost any credibility while doing so.



Obey a nice day!



new topics




 
29
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join