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: 30
16
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb





posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

It's all right there it the report of the RJ Lee Group and look what you'd posted.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: loveguy



we already know concrete needs a 'miraculous act of god' to happen for it to fail-to change it's face...why build with it then if it just crumbles to dust at the mere site of aeroplanes!!!


The floors were of concrete supported by steel structures that failed when fire weakened those structures.


...will a simple brick dustify like the concrete that fell the same distance (13 to 15 vertical feet) as any one of the floors in any of the 3 buildings that fell to the ground that day?


With that much mass slamming against one another during the collapse of the WTC builikdngs, it would have been expected for concrete to have been pulverized.



Debunked as well..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

The law of physics say that you are incorrect.

If you had read the report, you would have found that in regards to "high temperaturers," the RJ Lee Group was referring to high temperatures generated by petroleum fuels.
edit on 22-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It's all right there it the report of the RJ Lee Group and look what you'd posted.


Reading between the lines they have a different story to tell..

Maybe you should look here, it can help you..





posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

The law of physics say that you are incorrect.

If you had read the report, you would have found that in regards to "high temperaturers," the RJ Lee Group was referring to high temperatures generated by petroleum fuels.


Time to give it up sky, seek help, deal with reality..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That video has been debunked as well. No sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, no demolition explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area and no evidence of explosives found in dust samples and no evidence of explosive hardware found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

In other words, you have no case for explosives.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I am just warming up. Now, where's those video time lines I have been asking for? Failure to provide those video time lines will underline my point there were no explosives involved in 9/11.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

The law of physics say that you are incorrect.

The law of physics also says the path of least resistance will always be followed. This didn't happen on 9/11.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That is not true at all. After all, I have the backing of architects, structural and civil engineers, firefighters, and demolition experts and even the operators of those seismic monitors who have stated for the record their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions at ground zero.

To sum it up, you have no case for explosives at ground zero.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That video has been debunked as well. No sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, no demolition explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area and no evidence of explosives found in dust samples and no evidence of explosive hardware found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

In other words, you have no case for explosives.


Everything is debunked with you, fact of the matter is it all points to CD, the evidence is in the science, no need to debate that.. you have not a leg to stand on..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The experts do not support your case because they have stated that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

You have no case.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That is not true at all. After all, I have the backing of architects, structural and civil engineers, firefighters, and demolition experts and even the operators of those seismic monitors who have stated for the record their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions at ground zero.

To sum it up, you have no case for explosives at ground zero.


So do I, my sources don't work for the gov,, get it.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Everything is debunked with you,...


Just using facts, evidence, the laws of physics and statements from the experts. You continue to post debunked references and videos.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

The experts do not support your case because they have stated that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

You have no case.


Which "experts" would you like to quote? I can quote several qualified "experts" to the exact opposite of what you claim.

YOU have no case.
I have physics.
edit on 22-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

The experts do not support your case because they have stated that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

You have no case.



You make my case for me,, you silly man..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Which "experts" would you like to quote? I can quote several qualified "experts" to the exact opposite of what you claim.


So can I, see how that works..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

If you say so. The fact no building ever has collapsed in such a manner tells otherwise.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That won't fly and as proof, you continue to stall at posting those video time lines



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join