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: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: StookieWilliams
The jet fuel argument refers to THE MOLTEN STEEL. Not the actual collapse


What molten steel?




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: kyleplatinum



Angular momentum of the tipping top vanished.


To prove this for your self: Take a broom balance it upright on your hand. Allow it to start tipping. Remove your hand from underneath it. The rotation will stop and the broom will fall to the ground at the same angle it was when you released it.


Lol.. exactly.

The excersise you just described shows zero resistance, which is why the broom fell that way.

This is why the tower fell the way it did. The resistance was gone.

Should have toppled.



The building's design was more like a pop can then a solid broom or tree.

There really wasn't any "angular momentum".



The building's design is nothing like a pop can. Yes, the buildings had alot of open space, but pop cans do not have floors, trusses and a center core.

There was angular momentum, about 15-20 degrees of it when the top portion started tilting.

How could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the destruction wasn’t symmetrical when it started?

The top portion of the tower started to fall apart/dissinagrate as soon as it started to fall. You can even see the curves in the edges of the top portion walls above the zone of collapse.

The collapse was way too fast for a gravitational collapse with the mass amounts of undamaged floor resistance below.

The entire WTC complex was planned to fail on 9/11, and it did.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
[

How could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the destruction wasn’t symmetrical when it started?





They didn't.

If the columns failed uniformly the top would not of tilted.

Are you going to explain to us how explosives stopped the rotation and kept the top from toppling over ?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam


You don't need to even reach a temperature even close to that to bend a steel beam.
You can bend a 100,000 foot steel beam with only 500 degrees in a two inch portion of it.

Yes. You don't even have to heat steel to bend it, given enough force.


What do you have to do to make it turn to ashes and alot of it never hit the ground?

What makes all various types of the steel, iron..aluminum and other stuff leave smoke trails and turn into clouds of dust as it falls through the air?

Some serious lack of foresight if you believe those buildings sagged and fell...

Every pic..every bit of evidence shows NOTHING of the officials stories claims...NONE.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO


What makes all various types of the steel, iron..aluminum and other stuff leave smoke trails and turn into clouds of dust as it falls through the air?


Fireproofing.

The steel is covered with spray on fireproofing.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag

originally posted by: butcherguy
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.
Almost all the kerosene fuel was consumed in the initial fireball outside the building. There is a picture of a woman standing ih the hole the plane made looks like the fire is out there,Paper carpet and desks don't melt or weaken steel-was a low temp black smoke fire firefighters said they could put out. How do you turn 32 acres of 4in thick concrete into dust? surely not with kerosene.

Thousands of gallons of fuel went down elevator shafts and burned on lower floors.
After the kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel argument fails, we find out that the kerosene burned outside of the structure anyway?
It doesn't matter anyway.
If you search the internet, you can find a lot of photos of twisted and deformed steel beams that remained after structure fires fueled by little more than painted wood.


And yet none of them look anything like the tiny amount of beams that were not vaporized.

All of the official story supportive arguments are weak and thin.

Supported by terrified minds afraid to look at the entire picture...especially the pictures and videos of the building exploding into dust.

Only 10 of the beams found out of thousands were even intact...and 8 of those were ejected 600 feet away like javelins...not touched by fire and yet looked 500 years old...noone to this day can explain the insane rust effects observed.

How do non rusted beams twist and rust in 3 days like steel left in the rain for years?

All of what you say is possible theoretically i suppose but the visuals show that no collapse ever occurred...the floors were exploding before anything contacted them.

Amazingly detailed videos all over...show that the thing is pulverized into dust.

NO COLLAPSE PULVERIZES 90% of solid steel into dust.

DROPPING A MOUNTAIN on them would not result in that sort of damage.

FFS.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

NO COLLAPSE PULVERIZES 90% of solid steel into dust.



This personifies the truth movement,



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
1. Look how thin that piece of steel was, the I beams were much much thicker

2. How long did he have that steel in the furnace for? The buildings only had paper/furniture fire for x minutes before collapse

3. The jet fuel burnt out in the first explosion, it didnt stay inside heating up slowly like a furnace would

4. The buildings always held up the weight .. there was no reason for the entire bottom to pancake

5. How hot is that furnace compared to furniure fire

6. He admist the heat is 300 degree hotter.. thats not a variable

edit on 18/9/17 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/9/17 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

1. Look how thin that piece of steel was, the I beams were much much thicker



The floors had Trusses not I beams. Same steel same size.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: xdriver14

Why did the central columns come down then, if what you say is true the floors would have collapsed but the columns would have remained straight and tall.


The floors are what held the columns straight and tall. Without the floors the columns buckle and fall.


What a complete load of horse you know what.

What columns buckled and failed exactly? Where are all these columns...most of them vanished entirely and left the pile 5 feet high with basements clear of debris.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

a reply to: opethPA

a reply to: introvert

a reply to: FyreByrd


Actually, that guy is not the bomb and he nullifies his own strawman argument.

First he says that jet fuel burns at 1500 F, which is a maximum. It can also burn at 800 F.

Then goes on to say that hes exposed his steel to 300 degrees higher at 1800 F...

Not only is he exposing his sample to a much higher temperature, hes also exposing the metal to a CONSTANT 1800 F...

In an uncontrolled environment, jet fuel burns off very quickly.


However, the biggest strawman in all of this is the fact that vaporized steel beams, molten steel, beams that were partially melted were witnessed (and photographed) by firefighters, demolition crews, structural engineers and others at the scene.

So we know that the jet fuel wasnt hot enough to melt the steel, even the clown in the video admits this.

So we HAVE to conclude that there was another source of incredibly intense heat which was responsible for melting the steel.


edit on 18-9-2017 by gladtobehere because: typo



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

True or false, steel losses 50 percent of its ability to resist strain at 1000 degrees Celsius?



www.purdue.edu...

Building fires may reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, said Amit Varma, a Purdue associate professor "
At that temperature, exposed steel would take about 25 minutes to lose about 60 percent of its strength and stiffness," he said. "As you keep increasing the temperature of the steel, it becomes softer and weaker."



True or False.

Weakened steel vaporizes to dust and 80-90% of it disappears into thin air because it became soft.

True or False.

Buildings explode like Nuclear Mushroom clouds because of soft steel.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: ParasuvO

NO COLLAPSE PULVERIZES 90% of solid steel into dust.



This personifies the truth movement,


Doesn't it just, 16 years and they're still ranting about rubbish like this. Completely ignoring the real world



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

and the 3 sides of the building that were not impacted and suffered no damage to the insulation of the I beams heated up at the same rate as the I beams that were impacted and stripped of their insulation, how did that happen?

remember that the building pancaked which means that all 4 sides of the building had to have been heated at an equal rate in order for the steel I beams on all 4 sides to give way at the exact same time.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Did anyone see all the 'smoke' all over New York that day??????
That was not smoke - it was pulverised concrete and steel - did you see it on the ground where everyone was running?

How high do you think the rubble of two buildings of that size would leave behind? Where was the rubble - can someone show me a picture of the pile of rubble?



edit on 18-9-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




How high do you think the rubble of two buildings of that size would leave behind? Where was the rubble - can someone show me a picture of the pile of rubble?



95 % of a room is empty air space . The rest was pulverized by the collapse into pieces no bigger than a foot

Below the WTC was a 7 story deep parking garage/basement

The compacted debris filled up the basement then piled up above ground where it was visible



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Itisnowagain




How high do you think the rubble of two buildings of that size would leave behind? Where was the rubble - can someone show me a picture of the pile of rubble?



95 % of a room is empty air space . The rest was pulverized by the collapse into pieces no bigger than a foot

Below the WTC was a 7 story deep parking garage/basement

The compacted debris filled up the basement then piled up above ground where it was visible


Thirteen stories of debris is pretty hard to miss. It's almost as if Itisnowagain hadn't bothered looking.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Wow, 'vaporized' steel, huh? And everything turned to dust!

POOF!

I thought we were talking about 9/11 - I watched the buildings collapse, not get 'vaporized'.

Do you guys think that if you keep saying stuff like this, it becomes true? It's like the 'no wreckage at the Pentagon' claim, you just keep saying it and the repetition alone changes reality?


edit on 18-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It's kind of unfortunate, because if the steel 'vaporized', then you can't claim it was quickly shipped to China.

Discuss amongst yourselves, let's settle on a story, please. 16 years is enough time, I think.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


Being pedantic but, in the video, he claims that the steel is 300 degrees hotter than the jet fuel claim.
How can a jet fuel fire heat steel as hot as this?
Also, the steel has been heated locally in a blast furnace, can this happen in a building and we get hotter
temperatures?

Also, I'd ask if there is any evidence of those beams being melted and deformed due to softening of steel?
Also, were all the beams throughout the building melred?

Limbo
EDIT :
www.youtube.com...
edit on 18-9-2017 by Limbo because: EDIT : i see video



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join