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.

 

Melting steel?

page: 20
16
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




You are correct and add to the fact there is absolutely no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. I have challenged wildb to provide time lines in the WTC videos where explosions are heard, but he has failed to measure up.


Your lying, I did so several times and others have as well, MODS Is lying about other members acceptable here on ATS ?




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




there is no resistance. you can hear the floors collapsing on each other. there you can see your precious pillars of smoke. the sheer amount of weight eliminates most of the resistance.


You clearly don't understand physics..





edit on 20-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

the resistance is so small it's almost undetectable because the weight is so magnificent. seems like you dont understand weight

rewatch the videos that were taken right next to the towers coming down, you can hear the floors collapsing on each other. there is so much weight, coming down so fast, there can be no noticeable resistance. these arent buildings made of paper.
edit on 20-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)


you still have no proof of explosives being planted
edit on 20-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
you think anything ever built by man can withstand 38,000 tons of falling weight? the lower part of the wtc had no chance when the upper part started to come down

same goes for wtc7 the hail mary of "truthers"

you think the incredible weight of a building is irrelevant
edit on 20-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
you think anything ever built by man can withstand 38,000 tons of falling weight? the lower part of the wtc had no chance when the upper part started to come down

same goes for wtc7 the hail mary of "truthers"

you think the incredible weight of a building is irrelevant


38,000 tons is nothing and I would bet it was much more that that. Again you don't understand physics, the amount of weight is irrelevant. Look at the last video I posted and you will learn why..



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

HAHAHAHA a few floors should be able to stop all that weight moving downwards at that speed

just stop man

this is embarrassing for you

the video is bad science
edit on 20-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

38,000 tons is nothing? not one of those floors is made to withstand that much weight at that speed

momentum is a hard concept
edit on 20-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: wildb

HAHAHAHA a few floors was able to stop all that weight moving downwards at that speed

just stop man

this is embarrassing for you

the video is bad science


Am I dealing with a teenager here? there is no bad science, the law of physics were not suspended on that day. Physics dictate for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You should have learned that in high school, maybe your not in high school yet, however your statements are making you look foolish, embarrassing for you not me..



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: wildb

38,000 tons is nothing? not one of those floors is made to withstand that much weight at that speed

momentum is a hard concept



Ok not only do you not understand physics you also do not understand building construction, floors don't support the weight of the building.. furthermore the floors were very light and did not hold much energy at all.
edit on 20-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

yep you are correct you win. 911 was an inside job. believe what you want.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That video is not a video of demolition explosions and here's another reason why. Where are the time lines where explosions are heard? No sound of explosions and there is no case for explosives at ground zero.

Your video is also easily debunked because the WTC Towers were not solid objects and it was the dynamic collapse of the pancaking floors that you are looking at and explosives had nothing to do with it.
edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Ok not only do you not understand physics you also do not understand building construction, floors don't support the weight of the building.. furthermore the floors were very light and did not hold much energy at all.


Just to let you know that the steel structure of the WTC buildings were supporting 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. In other words, the floors were not considered light weight.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Am I dealing with a teenager here? there is no bad science, the law of physics were not suspended on that day. Physics dictate for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


How do you explain demolition explosions that do not make a sound? After all, you have yet to provide the video time lines where explosions are heard in the WTC videos.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113



38,000 tons is nothing? not one of those floors is made to withstand that much weight at that speed


That is correct and it is all very simple to understand. Momentum dynamics of falling floors vs. the lower static floors.Simple laws of physics can be be easily explained at to what happens to a pedestrian who is standing motionless (static) in the middle of a street who is struck by a speeding (dynamic) vehicle.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



38,000 tons is nothing and I would bet it was much more that that. Again you don't understand physics, the amount of weight is irrelevant.


That is false. Once the floors were in motion, there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse except terra-firma. Simple laws of physics, you understand.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Your lying, I did so several times and others have as well, MODS Is lying about other members acceptable here on ATS ?


You've never provided a single time line where explosions are heard in the WTC videos and as proof, you cannot provide those time lines now and I will even provide the videos so you can point out those time lines and here they are.



Apparently, there were no demolition explosions in the video as WTC 1 collapsed, so where are your time lines? Now, let's take a look at WTC 2.



No sound of demolition explosions as WTC 2 collapsed. Now, where are the sound of explosions as WTC 7 collapse in this video?





Add to the fact that demolition explosions were not detected by seismic monitors in the area as show in this data.

WTC Seismic Data Chart Does Not Depict Demolition Explosions

And of course, you can take a look here.



Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


In other words, there were no sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed and I can take it even further.



The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut.


Since you are unaware of what demolition explosions sound like, just review this video and notice that what you hear in the following video is not what you hear as the WTC buildings collapsed.



To sum it up, you have no case and that explains why you are unable to post the WTC video time lines where you claim, explosions are heard. Instead, you post conspiracy videos that have been debunked with facts, evidence and the laws of physics.


.

edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This thread is titled "melting steel". Since that's been proven through eyewitnesses and steel/concrete meteors and since this thread has been successfully derailed by sky and others, please answer this. If there was no explosives used, then how did building 7 receive so much structural damage that the fire fighters "knew" it was coming down and established a "collapse zone". Sky and many other "debunkers" have stated this is what caused WTC7 to be weakened enough that it collapsed into its own foot print. Please no deflections, I want to know the OS believers excuse for this contradiction. Should be a fair bit of gobbledygook.


Your going to tell me debri flew over WTC 6 and the street with only the force of gravity?!?!?! do ya realize how absurd that sounds? Can't wait for a response..... looking at you sky.
edit on 20-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: spelling



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



This thread is titled "melting steel". Since that's been proven through eyewitnesses and steel/concrete meteors...


That is false because the so-called "meteors" were actually compacted floors not concrete, and if you take a closer look at some photos, you can still see carpets that were not burned and even paper, some of which is not burned either. The fact that embedded rebar show no signs they were ever in a molten state was another clue the so-called "meteor" was never in a molten state at ground zero and that was another clue that was ignored by 9/11 conspiracy theorist.



If there was no explosives used, then how did building 7 receive so much structural damage that the fire fighters "knew" it was coming down and established a "collapse zone".


Simple, WTC 7 was seriously damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 which basically gutted the south wall of WTC 7 and you can read all about it in the reports.
edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

Just so you folks don't get mislead by sky guy's dis/mis info let me quote NIST.. like sky says read the report, here it is..

WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from WTC 1, it wasn't just the fires that made it collapse.

Although NIST considered this hypothesis , it eventually ruled it out stating, "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7..

So There you have it, even NIST said it was not a factor..



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




If there was no explosives used, then how did building 7 receive so much structural damage that the fire fighters "knew" it was coming down and established a "collapse zone".

They knew because they had no water to fight the fires.
Most of their equipment had been destroyed by the other collapses.
You can't 'truck' in enough water even if you called for equipment from other departments.

Look at the reports found from sources outside ATS.
They placed a transit watching the building lean as the day went on.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join