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: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It doesn't take explosives to cause side ejections when 1,000 ton chuncks of building collides with 20 ton chuncks of building.

Take a Newton's cradle. Not only do the colliding balls cause a side ejection of equally weighted balls, but the last ball even swings up to a greater height than its rest hieght.

Newton's Cradle - Incredible Science
m.youtube.com...

Or take billiards. When one ball stops after causing another ball to accelerate.

The towers collapsed converted potential energy to kinetic energy to release the equivalent of 200 tons of high energy explosives setting off.


edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Made more specific

edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Just FYI, a 1000 ton chunk of steel is only .5% of the 200,000 tons of steel used in a tower. 20 tons is .01%



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: blackaspirin




Normal given the structural damage done by the planes, and the ensuing fires, yes.

The structural damage done by the planes were very minimal to the size of the towers, only about 10-13 percent of the towers' perimeter columns, and only on a few floors. The south tower was damaged lees than the north tower.

What about the rest of the undamaged building, like 90% of it??

Office fires, no infernos.



Point out how each floor is 'blown out' at the PRECISE MOMENT the collapse point reaches them, in perfect succession, all the way down the building.

It is clearly seen in almost every video.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Salander



Nobody has EVER calculated how much fuel was onboard whatever aircraft they were that struck the towers.



Estimates on fuel load remaining in American 11/United 175 are 9,000 to 9500 gal - Often rounded to 10,000 gal

at 6.3 lb/gal have some 60,000 lbs of fuel on board at impact


10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity (less than half), and that most of the jet fuel burned off in minutes. Thus, the jet fuel primarily served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Limbo


Can you explain how the beams unexposed to the jet fuel could deform also?

The "bird cage" was actually quite rigid and it was possibly the fatal design flaw. It was bolted at each spandrels, each separated by ~2.37m tall column.

2.37m length of steel heated to a delta of 500degC will expand by about 15mm. Not good if the column right next to it is cooled by dripping fuel or water or still shielded from heat. Add to this an increased and no longer uniform stress on the structure and you begin to do bolts shearing.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: blackaspirin




The structural damage done by the planes were very minimal to the size of the towers, only about 10-13 percent of the towers' perimeter columns, and only on a few floors. The south tower was damaged lees than the north tower.

What about the rest of the undamaged building, like 90% of it??


This has already been explained to you, multiple times. When the impact zone fails, the upper floors fall right through it and crashes down on the lower floors. If the first floor they hit cannot stop the fall, then it is game over, because the force doesn't decrease.

Point out how each floor is 'blown out' at the PRECISE MOMENT the collapse point reaches them, in perfect succession, all the way down the building.


originally posted by: kyleplatinum
It is clearly seen in almost every video.


Point it out. I've seen the videos, and know the difference between air being forced out of windows, and explosions that are severing columns and removing all support.

You really can't have it both ways - explosions that are 'blowing out' floors, with no sounds of explosions. No appeal to secret technology will take care of this.
edit on 18-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: fixing quotes

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



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Also, the exterior of the bird cage can ONLY support its huge load if it is NOT allowed to deflect inward or outward. That is the job of the floor structure to keep the cage straight. No need to have huge beam in the floor, the weight on the floor transfer into tension to pull the wall inward and keep integrity of the structure.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: blackaspirin




with no sounds of explosions


Let's think about this for a sec.... When we hear the explosions while watching standard building demo videos, it is very different in many ways...

1. A large area around the building is evacuated, virtually nobody around (a quiet environment) which gives the explosions sound much louder. NY was flooded with noise, the city was very loud.

2. The buildings are completely gutted so the explosions give a louder effect (nothing to baffle), some charges are even placed outside the frame which makes them louder.

3. Ever heard a gun shot outside standing some what near, but then when somebody records you shooting and when you play the video back, the gun shot sound is not so dramatic. This is what may account for the numerous people who were live on the streets on 9/11 hearing many explosion type sounds and why it may harder to make out in videos.

4. Just watch some legitimate building demos online (there are many), in a lot of the demos, the explosion sounds are barely noticeable.

5. Now, if there was explosives used on 9/11, they definitely would have been tucked deep in the fully furnished buildings or the underground foundations and depending on what type was used (traditional may not have been the case), the sounds may have been very hard to make out with all the chaos going on.

These are just points and what ifs, but just wanted to point this out, because thinking inside the box doesn't cut it sometimes.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The point is they have had 16 years to prove the collapse was not caused by plane and fire.
They have not done so.
Even the self proclaimed leader Gage has refused to say what actually caused the collapse.
There Alaska study has refused to say what they believed caused the collapse.

The truther movement is nothing more than a mobius strip.
It's getting old.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I appreciate the attempt to chase the demolitions conclusion and fill in the story with 'well, maybes', trying to find any excuse for the lack of explosions. Incidentally, this is how the thermite theory was invented - people claiming it was a demolition, then being stuck with the fact that there was the lack of a sequence of extremely loud, powerful charges going off. If they wanted to chase a demolition theory, they had to come up with an excuse (thermite doesn't make any sense either, but for different reasons).

Have you ever listened to the audio of Kevin Cosgrove? The 911 call he was on, when he was trapped above the impact zone in the South Tower? It's a horrific call, so I'll point that out right now. I haven't listened to it in a long time, because it's awful - but if you want to chase the explosions hypothesis, then listen to the call, which lasts right up until the building collapses.

Notice there aren't explosions going off to set up a collapse. That's because what I've been telling you is true - the building failed at the impact point, and all of it came crashing down.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: blackaspirin

It's not only the lack of audible cues.

There is no indication of anything being expelled while the inward bowing and buckling occurred.

The was no demolitions shrapnel sprayed out to the streets below, no demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured, no demolitions shrapnel recovered with human remains.

There is no indications of pressure waves or shockwaves that were strong enough to cut steel.

There is no evidence the steel was worked on by demolitions. Metallurgical analysis found evidence of being overloaded. Not being attacked by explosives.

It's a lie the steel was sent straight to china. Individuals worked to recover remains, evidence, and personal effects at the pile. The steel and ruble were hauled to lay down yards. The steel inspected with pieces of interest saved for analysis. Ruble was ran through conveyer belts to recover remains, personal items, and evidence by hand. 19,000 human remains recovered. 6,000 thousand that fit inside test tubes. No evidence of blasting cap fragments, fragments from demolitions, no demolitions shrapnel, and no remains of detonation systems in the rubble.

Remember, the truth movement claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed. 7 charges per floor, for 770 charges per tower?

How would a floor by floor CD system survive fires and impacts that cut elevator cables and fire water mains.

The truth movement is a lie.

The core columns fell at 40 percent the rate of free fall speed.

Gage claimed the towers had to collapse through the path of greatest resistance. Lie, the columns were momentarily left standing after the complete collapse of the floor system.

It's a lie the steel was sent straight to china.

It's a lie there was no effort to investigate and recover evidence.

The truth movement is based on lies and innuendo.

There has never been a CD of a high rise building by thermite.

There never has been a top down demolitions CD of a high rise building.


edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It is fun to play the innuendo game. Debunk the collapse of the towers was not induced by UFO forced shields pushing in to the vertical columns and a vibration ray to make dust. The truth movement is the covert arm of the government to prevent disclosure of the space alien attack.
edit on 18-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

All very good points, I was just focusing on the audio and visual issue because that's what we were on at the moment.

Everything we're (all of us) discussing right now is premature anyway, if we're taking the over-arching assessment of everything that happened that day.

Just from a common sense perspective, the supposed Government Conspiracy that is claimed or heavily alluded to by the Truth Movement...it's the most needlessly complex, a million-things-could-go-wrong, way too many people involved, nonsense plan ever concocted.

Seriously, whatever Truthers think the end goal was, there's no way this ridiculous plan involving pre-planted explosives, faked phone calls, missile into the Pentagon and plant wreckage everywhere scheme - JUST FOR STARTERS - was even an inconvenient option, let alone a necessity.

Just imagine this plan being offered in a private meeting about how to get into a war with Iraq (or ANY motive at all) - it's the dumbest plot ever.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: neutronflux

All very good points, I was just focusing on the audio and visual issue because that's what we were on at the moment.

Everything we're (all of us) discussing right now is premature anyway, if we're taking the over-arching assessment of everything that happened that day.

Just from a common sense perspective, the supposed Government Conspiracy that is claimed or heavily alluded to by the Truth Movement...it's the most needlessly complex, a million-things-could-go-wrong, way too many people involved, nonsense plan ever concocted.

Seriously, whatever Truthers think the end goal was, there's no way this ridiculous plan involving pre-planted explosives, faked phone calls, missile into the Pentagon and plant wreckage everywhere scheme - JUST FOR STARTERS - was even an inconvenient option, let alone a necessity.

Just imagine this plan being offered in a private meeting about how to get into a war with Iraq (or ANY motive at all) - it's the dumbest plot ever.


Listen, I'm not the bad guy, unless asking questions and questioning things make me bad. I don't care how many years its been since. I haven't been rude, I have never made fun of anybody or called names except maybe calling people dramatic or emotional.
It is ok if im wrong, I'll be ok, but I will always acknowledge when it feels weird in the gut as it has since the day I watched it live.

IMO, there are so many things that happened that day seemed off. I am definitely not the only one, there are tons.

I have never believed or stuck up for the holograms, space weapons or any of that type of stuff.

There has been some talk about true or false on the thread. Ok... True or False, is it possible 9/11 was an inside job?
The true and falses can easily work from both sides.



a million-things-could-go-wrong, way too many people involved, nonsense plan ever concocted.

If it was a "plan", a lot of things probably did go wrong.
Why does alot of people need to be involved? (Never did understand that argument)
Why would it be nonsense? The motive may never be known.

Anyways, I still think things happened to quick with too many coensidenses. Just my opinion though.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: canuckster


Good questions.

Nobody has EVER calculated how much fuel was onboard whatever aircraft they were that struck the towers.


It's in the NIST Report *SNIP*.
edit on 9-19-2017 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Good damn thread, lots of information, questions and logical thoughtful answers. on both sides. Exactly why I joined ATS so many years ago. Who knows maybe it takes 16 years to get far enough away and look at the questions independently one by one.

Everybody learns at their own pace.

So what is the next independent 9/11 question that needs clarification?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Ok... True or False, is it possible 9/11 was an inside job?

Of course it's possible.

It is entirely possible that the US government conspired to help a group of terrorists drive airplanes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.

How about, instead of coming up with silly "reasons" why the tower collapses were caused by something other than airplanes flying into them, come up with evidence that the US government conspired to help a group of terrorists fly into them? Too hard?

Of course, it is also possible that, because of petty power plays, there was not enough coordination between US government intelligence agencies to anticipate what happened. Can you admit that possibility?

edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Ok... True or False, is it possible 9/11 was an inside job?

Of course it's possible.

It is entirely possible that the US government conspired to help a group of terrorists drive airplanes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.

How about, instead of coming up with silly "reasons" why the tower collapses were caused by something other than airplanes flying into them, come up with evidence that the US government conspired to help a group of terrorists fly into them? Too hard?

Of course, it is also possible that, because of petty power plays, there was not enough coordination between US government intelligence agencies to anticipate what happened. Can you admit that possibility?


I wonder if the US government controls everything argument will pop up. So 9/11 had to be a inside job. Yet kyleplatinum is left by a "murderous all controlling" government to expose the truth. So either kyleplatinum is not even close to the truth. Or just posting what the government wants posted?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

That summation wasn't an attempt to paint you as a 'bad guy' - I don't know you personally.

I am simply pointing out that we get so caught up debating the particulars of some facet of the supposed Government Conspiracy, and there are a multitude of common-sense reasons why we shouldn't even get there.

If you're the Government, and you have a desired outcome, like you want to go to war in Iraq, or whatever - you DON'T CHOOSE A PLAN that requires so many steps, with so many possible ways for it to not only go wrong - like flying airplanes into buildings that were pre-wired with explosives, then setting them all off and hoping nobody finds out, or finds any evidence of it.

Let alone flying a missile into the Pentagon and calling it a plane, right after planes were used to fly into the Twin Towers. Who flew the planes? Where did the passengers go? Where did Flight 77 go, if not into the Pentagon? How did wreckage get planted on the ground while the building was still burning, and traffic was stopped right on the highway with people outside their cars, roaming around taking pictures? This is like 9:00 in the morning, right over an extremely busy highway by the Pentagon.

If you start to try to lay out a narrative about what happened, that accounts for those flights, that accounts for all the people on board, how the towers collapsed and why, etc. - you will end up with a plot that is a million times more convoluted and improbable than the thing you doubt - the things that actually happened. You will also end up with thousands of people involved, including NYC Firefighters who allowed their brothers to get killed in the plot. News crews involved. Teams of scientists involved. An aide to Cheney being told about a 'stand down order', Silverstein being given control of the decision to blow up a building? People allowed to be involved for no legitimate reason at all, on top of the thousands already necessary to pull it off.

In all of the years I've been seeing people propose that "______ didn't happen on 9/11", they tend to stay compartmentalized on each issue, but never get around to laying out any narrative for what happened that actually explains all of the events of that day. Because if they start, it will get utterly ridiculous before 1/4 of it is even accounted for.

There is only one story that makes sense of all these things.

Maybe I'll start a thread that talks about 9/11 from this perspective. Noam Chomsky has pointed it out before - that to try something like that would be absolute insanity, and implicates one of our closest allies, Saudi Arabia, when the goal was supposedly to have a war in Iraq?

If anyone here has ever tried to lay out a narrative other than the "official story", please point me to it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


Thank you. Wikipedia is often useful, but certainly not always factual.

In fact, the aircraft that hit the South Tower was a 767 like 175, but it was modified in numerous ways. In fact, the 767 that hit the South Tower was NOT UA175. Therefore, Wiki's writers do not know how much fuel was onboard, unless they happened to be in on the planning for the operation.




top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join