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.

 

NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11

page: 20
114
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by pteridine removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Thank-you. You just gave a realistic break down for rigging the towers with Thermite. Unbeknownst to you. The only thing you cling to in your rebutle is the thermite would need to be "replenished". Except you fail to acknowledge the amount of oxygen required to keep 130,000 ton debris pile a conventional fire. How much oxygen per m3 would a conventional fire need? Got an answer? I think not. How much oxygen would thermite need? None.




Because the core columns are what is called "vertical," you would have to build structures around them to contain the molten iron while they melted/weakened.


Doable. Who had access? Ace elevator




How much you would need to use would depend on where you placed the charges, because the columns get less massive as height above ground increases.


So tons and tons wouldn't be needed as you get higher



The time required to build a containment of refractory brick around a support column would likely be days at ground level but would require structural additions above ground level


Again, your scenario is doable. My only argument is it wouldn't be so quick




You would need at least one person that could place or connect the ignitors at the last moment [it is not good to place initiation devices too early as they have ways of going bad or setting themselves off].


More than one, but this is all conjecture. Including your last statement. Firework displays are set up days in advance with all the charges in place. A professional job doesn't result in fireworks going off prematurely.




Assume two tons per column times the number of columns you wish to melt and decide how many people over what time would be necessary.


This assumption (flubbing again I see) is an epic failure of understanding the facts. Where the hell do you get 2 tons per column? Ridiculous claim. The "thermitic box cutter" test uses 1.5 lbs (1/100th) of what NIST says is needed to cut through a steel beam.




Demolitions involve knocking supports sideways and letting gravity take over. There is no force applied that would take them off-center


Right, a gravitational collapse. Except, WTC does this AND explodes laterally.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo



Right, a gravitational collapse. Except, WTC does this AND explodes laterally.


That was from structural members bouncing off one another during the collapse. Please explain why a huge bomb failed to throw these steel columns anywhere? In fact, you will notice the steel structure of WTC1 sitting within the huge bomb crater.

Photo: Steel Columns Sitting in a Bomb Crater



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo



Right, a gravitational collapse. Except, WTC does this AND explodes laterally.


Let's take a look at this video where a demolition process, which doesn't use explosives, throws debris laterally.

.

Seems that you were not aware of how things work in the real world of demolitions.


edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: FlySolo



Right, a gravitational collapse. Except, WTC does this AND explodes laterally.


That was from structural members bouncing off one another during the collapse. Please explain why a huge bomb failed to throw these steel columns anywhere? In fact, you will notice the steel structure of WTC1 sitting within the huge bomb crater.

Photo: Steel Columns Sitting in a Bomb Crater


Structural "members" bouncing off one another absorbs most of the kinetic energy required to eject 400 tons of steel 600 ft away. Your answer is completely "made up"



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo



Structural "members" bouncing off one another absorbs most of the kinetic energy required to eject 400 tons of steel 600 ft away. Your answer is completely "made up"


That is false and to prove my point, I had challenged you to explain why those steel columns of WTC 1 are standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing, but it seems that you backed down from my challenge. Now, explain why that huge bomb failed to affect those steel columns nor threw those steel columns anywhere.


edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: FlySolo



Right, a gravitational collapse. Except, WTC does this AND explodes laterally.


Let's take a look at this video where a demolition process, which doesn't use explosives, throws debris laterally.

.

Seems that you were not aware of how things work in the real world of demolitions.

More obfuscation from you. Those are concrete buildings, not steel frame ones. There is no major lateral ejections in your clips, just little ones provided by the pressure of air and g-force. And the irony of you showing a "controlled" demolition to refute a "controlled" demolition argument is so mind boggling I don't know what to say. Seems you're not aware of anything.


edit on 16-9-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

blah blah blah. I challenge you to drop a ball.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo



blah blah blah. challenge you to drop a ball.


Still waiting for you to accept my challenge. So once again, explain to us why the steel columns of WTC1 are still standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing. They were not thrown an inch by that huge explosion.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Because you're moving goal posts as per usual. The 1993 bombing was a truck bomb, and because I don't respond to all your childish questions, doesn't mean you have a point. It means your questions aren't worthy of a response. I can't count how many times you've avoided my questions.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
##Attention Please##

May I remind you that ad-homs in 9/11 earn instant bans?

Argue respectfully or risk finding your account banned. No more chances.

Thank you.

(don't reply to this PSA)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo
Explain why, if the "Mossad art students" rigged the elevator shafts, the core column remained standing for seconds after the collapse of the outer shell. This is the fact that you have been avoiding because it shows Gage for what he is; an incompetent con man who ignores reality. There are videos of this and it completely eliminates the possibility of core demolition. www.youtube.com...

Please explain the core standing after the perimeter collapsed.








edit on 9/16/2015 by pteridine because: Added link to video



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: FlySolo
Explain why, if the "Mossad art students" rigged the elevator shafts, the core column remained standing for seconds after the collapse of the outer shell. This is the fact that you have been avoiding because it shows Gage for what he is; an incompetent con man who ignores reality. There are videos of this and it completely eliminates the possibility of core demolition.

You are in a losing position on this and can't weasel out of it.



You mean this little sliver of structure 1/4 of the height? Where the hell is the rest of it?


You're really grasping at this point.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: FlySolo
Explain why, if the "Mossad art students" rigged the elevator shafts, the core column remained standing for seconds after the collapse of the outer shell. This is the fact that you have been avoiding because it shows Gage for what he is; an incompetent con man who ignores reality. There are videos of this and it completely eliminates the possibility of core demolition.

You are in a losing position on this and can't weasel out of it.



You mean this little sliver of structure 1/4 of the height? Where the hell is the rest of it?


You're really grasping at this point.


If the collapse started with core demolition why did the perimeter fall and leave the core structure? You are really weaseling at this point.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

According to the News man watching this video that you just posted, it was not the core column, but the side of the WTC.

So where did you get the idea that was the core column?






edit on 16-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

According to the News man watching this video that you just posted, it was not the core column, but the side of the WTC.

So where did you get the idea that was the core column?





It may have been the title on the video. Look carefully at the first part of the video. The core is visible and is marked in the video.
No core demolition. You'll have to think of something else.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


It may have been the title on the video. Look carefully at the first part of the video. The core is visible and is marked in the video.
No core demolition. You'll have to think of something else.


No you are wrong, the News man made it very clear that was the side of the WTC. Liston to the News man in the video again.

You can pretend that's the core column, if that makes you happy.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent Plus it's simply disrespectful.


oh please. want to know what IS disrespectful? a government participating in a blatant false-flag attack in order to get it's grubby hands on what is otherwise unavailable to it, at the cost of thousands of IT'S OWN citizens, then questioning (to the point of accusation of terrorism) those that might see through their phoney baloney house of cards scenario. disrespectful? the nerve. any and ALL family members of 9/11 victims should APPLAUD those who question the pathetic stack of lies that is the OS. and decry those that support it, beyond all reason, logic and physical possibility. i know what disrespectful means. so do you.
edit on R2015th2015-09-16T15:04:59-05:0020150pm2584 by RoScoLaz4 because: (no reason given)

edit on R2015th2015-09-16T15:07:52-05:0020150pm2584 by RoScoLaz4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   




top topics



 
114
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join