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: 34
16
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon

Is the outer part of the pentagon built more solid than an entire building and the concrete below it?


after a quick search the pentagon had walls about 5 inches thick.. the WTC was about 3/4inches thick.. or are you trying to suggest that the inside of the WTC was solid like the pentagon walls?

I'm suggesting the ENTIRE building was more solid than the wall of the pentagon. The engine flew through the building and down on to the concrete and didn't disintegrate. Explain that.


is the inside of the WTC solid?? or is there room to be deflected around? if the engine can pierce through 5 inches of reinforced concrete you may have a point, but 3/4 inches of steel doesnt act like 5 inches of reinforced concrete.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.



that isnt solid is it??

what do you think is easier?
a karate chop to break 5 wooden planks each 1cm thick
or a karate chop to break a 5cm thick block of wood?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.



that isnt solid is it??

what do you think is easier?
a karate chop to break 5 wooden planks each 1cm thick
or a karate chop to break a 5cm thick block of wood?

Bad comparison, more like 150 1cm planks to a 5cm plank.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.



that isnt solid is it??

what do you think is easier?
a karate chop to break 5 wooden planks each 1cm thick
or a karate chop to break a 5cm thick block of wood?

Bad comparison, more like 150 1cm planks to a 5cm plank.


so the engine deliberately sliced through every single steel beam within the tower on its way through instead of being deflected by the ones along its path?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

It came out the other side, so you tell me.

Lets also mention the planes disintegrated in the towers, but the engines survived. In the pentagon situation, the plane survived and the engines disintegrated.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

It came out the other side, so you tell me.

Lets also mention the planes disintegrated in the towers, but the engines survived. In the pentagon situation, the plane survived and the engines disintegrated.


oh so it came out the other side MUST mean that the engine sliced right through 150 steel beams..

so like if 150 steel beams had been sliced right through by the engine how many would be left to support the building?

are you sure the plane disintegrated in the tower?? were you inside before the collapse?

what do you mean the plane survived in the pentagon situation?? i thought people were saying there was no plane?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

I like how you twist and manipulate words, but it's not clever. I never said the engine sliced through 150 beams of steel, and you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.

I suppose you will never answer that though.

I would also challenge you to look up velocity and resistance. Things very pertinent to the subject that you don't seem to be familiar with.
edit on 23-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

I like how you twist and manipulate words, but it's not clever. I never said the engine sliced through 150 beams of steel, and you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.

I suppose you will never answer that though.


you were suggesting that it did slice through 150 beams.. so then i ask you how many beams did the engine slice through??

and i did give you my opinion on how the fuselage was able to penetrate the pentagon walls and not the wings. i guess you werent paying attention so again..

which has more penetrating power the blade part of a knife or the knife point?

if you slammed the fuselage sideways into 5 inches of reinforced concrete, there would probably be no hole. longitudinal impact is the difference. you are concentrating the entire mass of the aircraft in one relatively small area.

the wings and engine in comparision is lighter in mass and spread over a larger surface area.. its force distribution.
edit on 23-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

I like how you twist and manipulate words, but it's not clever. I never said the engine sliced through 150 beams of steel, and you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.

I suppose you will never answer that though.


you were suggesting that it did slice through 150 beams.. so then i ask you how many beams did the engine slice through??

and i did give you my opinion on how the fuselage was able to penetrate the pentagon walls and not the wings. i guess you werent paying attention so again..

which has more penetrating power the blade part of a knife or the knife point?

if you slammed the fuselage sideways into 5 inches of reinforced concrete, there would be no hole. longitudinal impact is the difference. you are concentrating the entire mass of the aircraft in one relatively small area.

the wings and engine in comparision is lighter in mass and spread over a larger surface area.. its force distribution.

The aircraft crashing into the pentagon was the equivalent of an aluminum can being crushed, not a knife being thrown. THAT is where you are completely wrong.

Take an empty aluminum can, put it on the ground, put 2 rocks on either side, now stomp on the can in an angle where you will also stomp both rocks. What gave more resistance the can or the rocks?
edit on 23-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



And if you do your homework you will find many NIST believers believe a missile hit the pentagon,...


No one reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon, but many people described an airliner in the colors of American Airlines strike the Pentagon and add to the fact that I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

In that respect, you have no case.



... flight 93 landed in Canada,...


That would have been impossible because United 93 was tracked on radar to its crash site near Shanksville.


... and the planes hitting the towers were elaborate holograms like the one used to make Michael Jackson seem alive again.


That would have been impossible because there was no background in place to generate a hologram.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99



And if you do your homework you will find many NIST believers believe a missile hit the pentagon,...


No one reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon, but many people described an airliner in the colors of American Airlines strike the Pentagon and add to the fact that I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

In that respect, you have no case.



... flight 93 landed in Canada,...


That would have been impossible because United 93 was tracked on radar to its crash site near Shanksville.


... and the planes hitting the towers were elaborate holograms like the one used to make Michael Jackson seem alive again.


That would have been impossible because there was no background in place to generate a hologram.


You took that post seriously? In that case hell man, Elvis told me he was behind 9/11. FIRST HAND WITNESS.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



The aircraft crashing into the pentagon was the equivalent of an aluminum can being crushed, not a knife being thrown. THAT is where you are completely wrong.


Look what the smaller, lighter, and slower B-25 aluminum fuselage did to the Empire State Building. Check out the size of the impact hole.

Photo: B-25 Impact Hole On Empire State Building Wall
edit on 23-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That won't fly. You lost the case because even American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Guess what building is still standing.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



FIRST HAND WITNESS


FIRST HAND WITNESSES have proven you wrong.
edit on 23-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

That won't fly. You lost the case because even American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.


Holy crap it was on the news then the internet, it must be true.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

it was reported way back in 2001. I noticed that you didn't bother to review the video.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99



FIRST HAND WITNESS


FIRST HAND WITNESSES have proven you wrong.

ok I'm going to stop now, a mod will stop me if I don't.

Good night.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.


Review that photo of that B-25 crash and then review this photo.

Photo: Jet Slams Into Building




top topics



 
16
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join