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.

 

9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

page: 24
135
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Fuel from the aircraft impacts. The explosion in the north tower elevator shafts, which damaged several floors, the lobby, and basement levels, was caused by jet fuel.


Scientist say your wrong. Because jet fuel can only burn at 18 hundred degree, and not hot enough to melt or weaken steel.
Furthermore jet fuel would have burned off in a matter of a few minutes.

So something else was used to heat the steal to a melting point, what do you think it was?




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
youtu.be...

a reply to: NowWhat



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




We know that demo explosives were not responsible because there are no sounds of demo explosions in any WTC video.


So because the sound of explosions were to high up to be recorded and muffled
by falling debri in sequence of the lower floors. There were no demo explosions
no matter how it looks or what any number of witnesses say because the
explosions can't be heard thru the deafening noise of the collapse? That's
your argument?

No we do not know that.
But obviously you think you do.

Remember now that I had to correct you from saying we know something
when we do not.
edit on Rpm91415v19201500000046 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Scientist say your wrong. Because jet fuel can only burn at 18 hundred degree, and not hot enough to melt or weaken steel.


I could have told you that 1800 degrees F. was far too low to melt steel, but was more than high enough to melt alumiinum and weaken steel to the point of failure.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



So because the sound of explosions were to high up to be recorded and muffled


How do you muffle the sound of demo explosions when such explosions can be heard for miles?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

The glass was intact in the whole building except where
the planes struck. That's exactly how. Every example you've
ever used the glass is gone completely from the building.
edit on Rpm91415v28201500000001 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



The glass was intact in the whole building except where the planes struck. That's exactly how. Every example you've never used the glass is gone completely from the building.


That in no way is going to muffle demo explosions. Check it out.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




That in no way is going to muffle demo explosions. Check it out.



Oh really! I don't think you've done you're homework.
Homey
edit on Rpm91415v38201500000042 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Oh really! I don't think you've done you're homework.
Home boy!


Considering that I have heard bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from over 30 miles away, I know much more than you think.


edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
So back to the video...

Does anyone have a good analysis of or was there a good investigation into if the phone calls were faked and why they think that way and that leads to a big question of what happened to the people in the planes if they weren't in them when they hit the towers.

Not saying this is what I believe but would like to know what others think on this matter.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


I could have told you that 1800 degrees F. was far too low to melt steel, but was more than high enough to melt alumiinum and weaken steel to the point of failure.


No your wrong again.

Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to weaken the WTC steel. It has been proven that the jet fuel burn for only a few minutes, and not long enough to heat the WTC steel.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Considering that I have heard bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from over 30 miles away, I know much more than you think.


Explain the correlation please?

And lets not forget that I had to correct you once in this thread
already.
edit on Rpm91415v57201500000058 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



No your wrong again.


Sorry, but the laws of physics and not with you.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



And lets not forget that I had to correct you once in this thread
already.


Correcting me with hoaxed videos doesn't cut it.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Nor does hearing bombs from thirty miles away.
What type of glass do you think was used in the towers
single or double strength?
edit on Rpm91415v05201500000024 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to weaken the WTC steel.


This is a keeper for futre reference. Now, let's call upon the laws of physics and in the next video, fast-forward to time line 3:50.






edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Nor does hearing bombs from thirty miles away. What type of glass do you think was used in the towers single or double strength?


That is moot by the fact any demo explosions would have blown out the windows.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Sorry, but the laws of physics and not with you.


On the contrary, the laws of physic do not support your conspiracies theories which is the OS fairy tail. The hard cold fact is True science outside the US government proves your nonsense is a fallacy.

Like George Bush said, you are with us or you are against us. And I chose the truth which is against us.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


This is a keeper for futre reference. Now, let's call upon the laws of physics and in the next video, fast-forward to time line 3:50.


LOL, That video was been debunked many years ago.

Sadly your wrong again, my friend.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You had claimed that jet fuel cannot weaken steel and the video proved you wrong on all counts when that steel beam failed over a pit of jet fuel.

To sum it up, you lost the case.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join