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.

 

If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



I'm not arguing with someone who thinks because their some
structural plane technician over and over over again.


Of course you can't because experts will back me up as well. BTW, I see that you posted Kevin Barrett again, who is the same person who is caught lying in that video.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RomanMaroni

That pretty well sums up the whole issue, doesn't it? But, there are people on either side of the discussion who do have the necessary expertise to say with confidence that their view of the events is correct. So both sides of the aisle have indeed had qualified experts backing their beliefs up to some extent. As far as the fire/demolition debate goes. Now, if someone claims to be an expert in 'micro-nukes' and says that there's absolutely no other explanation for the collapses, I'd still tend to look suspiciously at the idea. Simply because I have enough of a background with radioactive materials and radiation survey to be awfully hard to convince given the available evidence.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I no longer have an active link to that second photo.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Listen to what it says here at around 6m 30s forward
about the dust.



This could account for the explosions the melting of steel and the
massive amount of dust that was left behind all three.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Wrong again. No explosions were heard nor seen as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, nor during the WTC 5 internal collapse, which simply means that no explosives of any kind were used. Explosions make a lot of noise and the blast waves can be felt as well.

BTW, did you know that molten aluminum coming in contact with water can blow up a building?
edit on 17-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing exactly how this relates. But cool video.
Could you elaborate a bit, please?



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

It looks like another possibility to me. The dynamics
of the explosive being used for explosion welding
being down to an exact science. The dust.


a reply to: skyeagle409

Can you stop with the heckling?
You're like some incessant child running around a candy store.
edit on Rpm81715v50201500000024 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

The lack of sound of explosions is very simple; no explosives were responsible for the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

I asked you to provide the time lines where explosions can be heard in the WTC 7 videos and you are afraid to do so, for obvious reasons, because there are no sounds of explosions.
edit on 17-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

What you ask isn'tb worth any consideration.
I'm speaking to some adults right now.
edit on Rpm81715v58201500000017 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Just go ahead and admit you have no such evidence for explosives.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Ah. Well, I do suppose that if that is what occurred there would be large amounts of dust present afterwards. Though I am not sure that the explosive itself was the sole cause of the dust which was discussed in the video. The detonation took place in an underground blast chamber. I have no way of knowing exactly how the tunneling was performed or what the nature of the reinforcement is, but I don't imagine that the amount of ventilation inside of it would fit anyone's definition of overwhelming. Otherwise the dust-filled air could have been dealt with. Perhaps it is a result of natural accumulation of particles fine enough to become airborne via the pressure wave of the blast, and not necessarily a direct byproduct of it.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Just quit being disruptive please!
edit on Rpm81715v07201500000020 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Sadly, I just found myself posting in another Fukushima discussion...
What was that Einstein said about insanity?Lol



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

That's just horrible! haha!
I would like it if somone with a science background would
look into the explosives used in explosion welding to see
how the composition of the dust particles line up? Or not
for that matter. I gave it a whirl myself but, I don't know
the right places to look really.
edit on Rpm81715v00201500000043 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




to see
how the coposition of the dust particles line up?

Are we seriously talking about dust particles to try to prove the 911 conspiracy?
There is no evidence of explosives!
If there were Richard Gage would be holding the proof above his head in times square.

Without explosives the 911 conspiracy falls apart.
That's why truthers try so hard to come up with some mystical explosives theory.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Mystical explosives?
Do you have any evidence of such a thing?

a reply to: pfishy

See what I'm work'n with here?

edit on Rpm81715v24201500000048 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You were asked if you had any evidence of explosives.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I am certainly no expert on micro-nukes, but I must say that after 11 years of study, the only theory that accounts for ALL the damage observed is the nuclear theory.

For me, one of the biggest mysteries has been the damage done to hundreds of cars and trucks parked on the streets. What could possibly have caused such strange looking damage?

And, what could provide the energy to propel large pieces of structural steel hundreds of feet sideways? Certainly office fires could not do that, thermite could not do that, C4 might do that, and nuclear explosions could also do that.

Coupled with the epidemiology regarding rare cancers that are the subject of the Zadroga Bill, and it seems nuclear is the only choice.

I understand that the nuclear detonations of 1950 through the Cold War were too big, but it seems as much progress has been made in nuclear science as has been made in other areas.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then show us the two pieces of proof absolutely missing from that day. The electronics in the immediate area frying from the EMP and then the horrible deaths from radiation poisoning in the immediate aftermath. There aren't any.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Well, yes, nuclear weapons design has certainly become more efficient since then. But the underlying reason that I simply cannot give credence to the nuclear theory is that there is a lower limit on the amount of fissionable material required to initiate the required chain reaction for a nuclear detonation. Anything less than that would just be a dirty bomb. Even for boosted weapons (H-bomb, etc.), the amount needed would be large enough that if it had been nuclear, it would have been completely impossible to believe it was anything else but a nuclear detonation. Look up shot name Grable (sp?. As in the film star Betty Grable). It was a test of a nuclear artillery round, and as far as I know, the smallest actual nuclear package ever detonated. It was just above the practical limit for its design as far as nuclear mass goes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join