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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 21
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You said really nothing.

And here is again, the inward buckling clip that lead to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I would say this short video and understanding what physics were at play is key to understanding why the towers collapsed. I see smoke in the video. The start of dust production after the buckling and onset of collapse. There are no sounds of charges setting off in tower collapses videos. No evidence of shrapnel being ejected from explosives. No visible flashes. No signs of thermite cutting, sparking, and creating molten metal. No heat waves and light distortion from any energy weapons.




posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
And the cry of the CD crowed has alsways been the resistance of each WTC floor had to be removed to achieve the witnessesed collapse speed. Does that mean demolition charges on each floor of each building?



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You said really nothing.

And here is again, the inward buckling clip that lead to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I would say this short video and understanding what physics were at play is key to understanding why the towers collapsed. I see smoke in the video. The start of dust production after the buckling and onset of collapse. There are no sounds of charges setting off in tower collapses videos. No evidence of shrapnel being ejected from explosives. No visible flashes. No signs of thermite cutting, sparking, and creating molten metal. No heat waves and light distortion from any energy weapons.




In other words, it is a method of controlled demolition which is NOT known, to public.

You think it cannot possibly be done as a conventional demolition, but somehow it was possible WITHOUT a controlled demolition?

Amazing logic.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

False premises. What method of CD would not be known to engineers. And there still would be physical evidence. As in light distortion and visible signs of the building and material off gassing if being hit with a energy ray in the provided clip. And the claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed for the witnessesed collapse speed to fit the CD model. You are still talking ten to twenty energy devices per floor? Chemical probably in nature.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The moment of collapse has been provided to you by the video clip. Provide or cite a explanation more credible than the vertical columns being pulled in by contacting floor trusses.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You said really nothing.

And here is again, the inward buckling clip that lead to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I would say this short video and understanding what physics were at play is key to understanding why the towers collapsed. I see smoke in the video. The start of dust production after the buckling and onset of collapse. There are no sounds of charges setting off in tower collapses videos. No evidence of shrapnel being ejected from explosives. No visible flashes. No signs of thermite cutting, sparking, and creating molten metal. No heat waves and light distortion from any energy weapons.




In other words, it is a method of controlled demolition which is NOT known, to public.

You think it cannot possibly be done as a conventional demolition, but somehow it was possible WITHOUT a controlled demolition?

Amazing logic.


In simple words, it wasn't a controlled demolition. It was an uncontrolled collapse. Your desire for a demolition overtakes any logical thought so that no matter what happened, you can claim it is an advanced super-secret stealthy demolition technique used only on the WTC.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You said really nothing.

And here is again, the inward buckling clip that lead to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I would say this short video and understanding what physics were at play is key to understanding why the towers collapsed. I see smoke in the video. The start of dust production after the buckling and onset of collapse. There are no sounds of charges setting off in tower collapses videos. No evidence of shrapnel being ejected from explosives. No visible flashes. No signs of thermite cutting, sparking, and creating molten metal. No heat waves and light distortion from any energy weapons.




In other words, it is a method of controlled demolition which is NOT known, to public.

You think it cannot possibly be done as a conventional demolition, but somehow it was possible WITHOUT a controlled demolition?

Amazing logic.


It is not logic. At best, it is tortured logic.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Would you like to cite a more credible theory than the vertical columns buckeled by contracting floor trusses with cited evidence. That is the argument. Not truth movement misquotes, quotes out of context, or false logic.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You said really nothing.

And here is again, the inward buckling clip that lead to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I would say this short video and understanding what physics were at play is key to understanding why the towers collapsed. I see smoke in the video. The start of dust production after the buckling and onset of collapse. There are no sounds of charges setting off in tower collapses videos. No evidence of shrapnel being ejected from explosives. No visible flashes. No signs of thermite cutting, sparking, and creating molten metal. No heat waves and light distortion from any energy weapons.




In other words, it is a method of controlled demolition which is NOT known, to public.

.



This is nothing more than an appeal to magic.

This is where your disbelief in anything gubmint has led you to believe.

A clear thinker would realize that there may be a problem with their thought processes. The delusional would not.

I'm predicting you will defend your statement



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Would YOU like to offer proof that the NIST explanation satisfies and complies with the reality of what was observed that day?

Would you like to cite proof that office fires burning on several upper floors of a building in compliance with NYC building code caused the damage observed?

You're welcome.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430


It is only magic that can have one believe that burning office furniture on upper floors can lead to 90 days worth of molten iron at the seen. It is only magic that can lead one to believe that burning office furnishings could propel large pieces of structural steel hundreds of feet laterally.

Do you believe in Magic?



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


It is only magic that can have one believe that burning office furniture on upper floors can lead to 90 days worth of molten iron at the seen. It is only magic that can lead one to believe that burning office furnishings could propel large pieces of structural steel hundreds of feet laterally.

Do you believe in Magic?


90 days of molten iron at the seen/scene? Where did this come from? What do you think would result in "90 days of molten iron?"



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

You guess first



Many if not all of the local news stations covered the steam rising from "hot spots" in WTC. For most of the reporters, one month after the authorities cooled it off, they forgot all about it. but it did happen, there was a reason for it, and it did not originate on office fires on the 80th floor.
edit on 20-8-2017 by Salander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Do you understand the term hot spot in firefighting refers to spots that will restart a combustion process. That is why house fires sometimes reignite.

If radiation was keeping steel molten, it would be a process similar to fukushima. You wouldn't be talking cancer. You would be seeing people dropping dead from the radiation with in an hour of being at the WTC.
edit on 20-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

You guess first



Many if not all of the local news stations covered the steam rising from "hot spots" in WTC. For most of the reporters, one month after the authorities cooled it off, they forgot all about it. but it did happen, there was a reason for it, and it did not originate on office fires on the 80th floor.


I guess underground fires fueled by the combustible contents of the WTC. What else would account for the heat?



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


It is only magic that can have one believe that burning office furniture on upper floors can lead to 90 days worth of molten iron at the seen.


No, it's a delusion to believe that there was molten - that is, liquid and flowing freely - iron at the scene.

It's a delusion to believe that the well documented underground fires COULDN'T result in molten - that is, red hot and NOT flowing - steel at the scene.

It's a major delusion to believe that some sort of mini nuke was the cause of these reports.


It is only magic that can lead one to believe that burning office furnishings could propel large pieces of structural steel hundreds of feet laterally.

Do you believe in Magic?


No but you must to believe that steel was propelled without a giant explosion and without researching other explanations. That's also delusional.

But somehow you believe, without evidence, of mini nukes being used.

Again, delusional.
edit on 20-8-2017 by MrBig2430 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430


No MisterBig, it's not delusional. Though some of it, who knows, maybe all of it, may have been taken down from the internet, at the time it was happening many of the local TV stations covered it. It was so hot that Pyrocool failed to work.

The DELTA Group and Mr. Cahill were requested to take air samples, NOT by the head of the EPA Ms. Wittman (who had assured any and all that the air was just fine), but by perhaps the only conscientious member of the federal government, Robert Leifer with DOE Environmental Measurement Laboratory in NYC.

They found the air as toxic as what might emanate from an industrial incinerator. This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's books. Are you going to call Bollyn a dirty name, and disregard the substance? I hope not.

You may be suffering from cognitive dissonance in dealing with those facts, but that is your problem and not mine.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


No friend, the radiation was not keeping it molten, some source of heat was keeping it molten, as in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




some source of heat was keeping it molten, as in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

You will believe anything to keep your 911 fantasy alive.

From wiki


After the attack, fire and subsequent collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, the colossal pile of debris left on the site smouldered for more than five months.[9] It resisted attempts by fire fighters to extinguish it until most of the rubble was removed. The effects of the gaseous and aerosolized products of smouldering on the health of the emergency workers were significant but the details are still a matter of debate.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


No friend, the radiation was not keeping it molten, some source of heat was keeping it molten, as in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.


A nuclear reaction that would also produce dangerous and detectable radiation like at three mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

You said like? So you admit there should have been radiation levels that would have killed everyone that worked the WTC like if there was any truth to you theories.

How in the the hell would the worlds smallest nuke ever have enough material to produce enough nuclear reactions to keep steel molten for hours, much less 90 days. The small amount of fissionable material would have been used up in the nuclear blast. The remaining heat would be from decay heat by fission products.

In your false narrative, how in the hell did it not create a molten lump that would have burnt and melted straight down and out of the WTC basements?




edit on 21-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording to fit reality



new topics




 
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join