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.

 

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

So NO comment on the missing evidence for your theory? Where are the fire weakened trusses?

That's actually pretty funny! I could keep trying to lead the horse to the water, but now I realise that the horse is just a confused donkey and not half as thirsty for the truth as I am. Cherry? No Whip? Yes!



The trusses were in the rubble pile. Now, they could be anywhere. The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy. The collapse was a result of aircraft impact damage and fires. The details of the order of failure can be argued. Explosive demolition in the absence of any evidence is not a consideration except for those who have little knowledge of explosives and demolitions.




posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

All the debris from WTC - steel and otherwise was hauled to Fresh Kills landfill to be sorted and examined

Here is video showing steel being examined and pieces being saved for forensic analysis

www.youtube.com...

Rather long at almost 2 hours, but gives you sense of the process engineers went through to conduct failure analysis
of WTC



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue




The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy.


Sure. Not. Bottom line is that you expect me to blindly swallow 'your' story without any evidence whatsoever. Which is precisely what truthers are accused of in this threads.

That's actually quite hillaryous. Outstanding work!



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: firerescue




The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy.


Sure. Not. Bottom line is that you expect me to blindly swallow 'your' story without any evidence whatsoever. Which is precisely what truthers are accused of in this threads.

That's actually quite hillaryous. Outstanding work!


"Not?" What clever phraseology from an original thinker.

You have swallowed the demolition conspiracy story without any evidence whatsoever. Unless you have actual evidence of demolition, there is no other option than impact and fire. Evidence does not consist of feelings, wishes, here say, and you tube video constructs.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.

I start to wonder if you guys really understood the little snipped I posted here, as Mr. Skilling seems to agree. His analysis said that the structure was designed to take all that, which is why he mentioned shaped explosives.
I agree with you that both theories need to be properly validated, but we have his structural analysis to work with. He wasn't sued for gross carelessness, thus it's save to assume that his analysis is valid and hot air doesn't change a thing. Which leaves us with option two if we're up to apply simple logic here, you did get that. Right?
edit on 10-1-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.



What "pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition" are you referring to?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The structure did its job it survived the impact BUT the thought was an aircraft impact would be ACCIDENTAL at a far lower speed with less fuel.

ANYONE that thinks thousands of tons of falling material impacting the floor below could be resisted by the bolts and truss seats is really needing their head looked at.

If that scenario could be recreated I would love to fil the building with truthers who claim the collapse would stop I bet NONE of you would risk it.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

And here you go again, claiming Skilling and his str. eng. colleagues are just insane. You know why the whole pizzagate witch-hunt encountered some issues, right? It's unvetted allegations like the ones you keep spitting, just saying.

Kids, this is precisely the reason why nobody with a brain will take this thread serious. I'd love to debate Skillings work but you zealots have obviously other things in mind. Burn some books maybe?



If that scenario could be recreated I would love to fil the building with truthers who claim the collapse would stop I bet NONE of you would risk it.


Guess why the simulation of the WTC7 collapse is a matter of national security? No. Better shy away from an answer, again.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You avoid answering anything it has been noted



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join