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.

 

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
This has probably been posted before - I've no idea what to search for - and it deserves to be posted again.

I'm a solid 911 questioner, finding few satisfying answers, but here is a video that provides one answer to one question and in a truly delightful way:



This guy is the bomb.

Happy Friday




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I've seen something like this before.

While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.

Good video.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
I can melt steel with a paper match.

I don't see why 10,000 gallons of jet fuel couldn't heat steel to the temperature where it would deform and lose its structural integrity in an office building with elevator shafts providing a passable chimney.


+16 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well explain building 7 which fell the same way. Explain the videos and testiomonies of firefighters and employees that witnessed bombs throughout the building and basements. i.e. William Rodriguez



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It seems like common sense to me but Conspiracy Theorists get stuck on the "jet fuel cant melt steel" idea.
For a collapse to occur it doesn't need to melt steel, it only needs to weaken it enough to make a collapse possible.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Ujjvala

Building 7 did NOT fall the same way.

The Twin Towers collapsed from the top-down, starting at the impact points of the planes.

WTC7 did NOT collapse from the top-down.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: blackaspirin

Yes it did


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Even though it only had to weaken the steel in the WTC, kerosene (jet fuel) is capable of producing temperatures of 3,800 degrees F when burned.
The melting point of carbon steel is 2,800 degrees F.
adiabatic flame temperatures
engineering toolbox



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ujjvala
Well explain building 7 which fell the same way. Explain the videos and testiomonies of firefighters and employees that witnessed bombs throughout the building and basements. i.e. William Rodriguez


I haven't seen a single testimony of bombs on building seven.

For me it remains unexplained. For you? No explanation for building seven equals everything about 9/11 is a lie.

Steel losing it's structural integrity is also known as losing its TEMPER. Steel is hardened by heating with very fast cooling immediately after heating. Taking the hardening out of steel is the exact opposite heating the steel, then allowing it to cool SLOWLY. Which is exactly what jet fuel would do when it burns out.

Apparently ignorance induces lame labels like moronic. ( I'm being kinder than normal here. Take the hint...
)
edit on 15-9-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Here would be my question. How much man power does it take to control demolish a sky scrapper?

Far more easy to just persuade a bunch of radicals to hijack four jets and fly them into buildings.

That's all it would take to start the war you where looking for. No need to over complicate things by ALSO demolishing the buildings through explosive. No need for the extra planing, the extra loss lips, and cost of the property damage.

Controlled demolition just doesn't pass the logic test.

Show me a video of the team of people laying the explosives; till then the jets took down the buildings.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here would be my question. How much man power does it take to control demolish a sky scrapper?

Far more easy to just persuade a bunch of radicals to hijack four jets and fly them into buildings.

That's all it would take to start the war you where looking for. No need to over complicate things by ALSO demolishing the buildings through explosive. No need for the extra planing, the extra loss lips, and cost of the property damage.

Controlled demolition just doesn't pass the logic test.

Show me a video of the team of people laying the explosives; till then the jets took down the buildings.


One could also surmise that the deliberate demolition of building seven had as it's purpose misdirecting the original terrorist attack towards a false flag label thereby protecting the real terrorists namely the Saudis......



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I get what he is trying to do but you can't take the size, length and thickness of the piece of steel that he uses on it's own and compare it to a building the size of the twin towers. It would be like me taking a lolly stick (Eating the lolly first of course lol) and snapping it and saying now why can't I do this to a full size tree. It is thicker, it is attached to other pieces of steel, covered by fire proofing etc. I'm not saying they didn't bend or become weak or anything like that I'm just saying comparing the two doesn't fit.

If he were to say go to a condemned building that has similar steel frame as it did in the Towers and do the same thing then I'll tick off that question (about steel bending or whether the temperature was high enough etc) but a single thin piece of steel doesn't do it for me.

Plus his attitude kind of annoys me.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ujjvala
Well explain building 7 which fell the same way. Explain the videos and testiomonies of firefighters and employees that witnessed bombs throughout the building and basements. i.e. William Rodriguez


Only one question answered - the others are not part of this thread. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

That's your rebuttal? OK.

No, it didn't.

Your turn!


In seriousness, with the collapse of the Twin Towers, you can watch the collapse start at the impact points of the planes, and keep your eyes focused on the floors below. They don't move until they get crushed.

With WTC7, all of the floors that are visible above the building that obscures the bottom are already collapsing along with the mass above. Unless you're trying to say that since the Penthouse of WTC7 collapsed several seconds before the entire building did (the part that is always missing from Conspiracy Videos, it gets cut out) - that makes it "top-down".



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Ujjvala

Building 7 did NOT fall the same way.

The Twin Towers collapsed from the top-down, starting at the impact points of the planes.

WTC7 did NOT collapse from the top-down.



One question - not all questions - in this thread please.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.


One question answered - not others - please stay on topic.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I actually agree with you. I think you've put it a lot better and in less rambling sentences than I will but I do agree. I think that terrorists did take the planes, they did fly into the buildings and that played a role in the building coming down (the lack of burning paper and the apparent passports being found always confused me when there was apparently this roaring fire that weakened steel) but I think the conspiracy lies (for me) in what the government knew, when they knew it, what they did, why the didn't do anything, why the order for the jet fighters to stand down was given (I think it was done at the time) how comes it fits perfectly with Operations Northwood and why (this is a biggie for me) did the US government get almost all of Bin Ladins family out of the country quicker than you can say "Quick" and still have refused to release real footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon when they claim they know who did it, when they did it etc.

See ramblings of a mad man lol.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here would be my question. How much man power does it take to control demolish a sky scrapper?

Far more easy to just persuade a bunch of radicals to hijack four jets and fly them into buildings.

That's all it would take to start the war you where looking for. No need to over complicate things by ALSO demolishing the buildings through explosive. No need for the extra planing, the extra loss lips, and cost of the property damage.

Controlled demolition just doesn't pass the logic test.

Show me a video of the team of people laying the explosives; till then the jets took down the buildings.


Please stay on topic or, better yet, start a new topic on your question.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

He uses his pinky to demonstrate how little force it takes to bend the 'plasticized' steel, now imagine the weight of ten acre floors of building pushing down on it.

Initiation of top down pancake collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join