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: 21
23
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I misquoted Plato.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy in life is when men are afraid of the light.




posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Say it's not so. Somebody from the truth movement trying to create a false argument by the use of misquotes. The irony....... and not cite a source for the referenced quote....



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: opethPA
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.


Regardless, steel reinforced columns do not collapse at free-fall speed. If the building tipped over it would be believable.

It's doesn't matter anyway. Israel got exactly what it wanted.

google "9/11 purim children"


Free fall want to explain how falling debris from the top overtakes the collapse wave below PLEASE answer that.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.


Except the floors were supported on steel angle cleats so the floors could fall internally within the structure, office fires can reach temperatures of a 1000 c at at 600c steel has lost 60% of its strength.

Also you don't understand dynamic loads that 1000 ton floor slabs would generate.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   

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.


Really look here another famous New York plane impact read what happened and how similar events were to 9/11.

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts

So black smoke means no fire low temps does it
Average office fire can reach a 1000 c.




posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




So black smoke means no fire low temps does it Average office fire can reach a 1000 c.

All they have to do is heat a needle with a paper match to see it glow orange.
But that would bust their myth of simple office fires not burning hot enough.



posted on Sep, 30 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Citing Plato is not good enough for you?

LOL, it's so blatantly obvious that your only goal here is to stir the pot in defense of the official fairy tale.



posted on Sep, 30 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Citing Plato is not good enough for you?

LOL, it's so blatantly obvious that your only goal here is to stir the pot in defense of the official fairy tale.


Then state a clear conspiracy theory? CD of the WTC, no large jet impacts? Then provide supporting evidence and science. Or would you rather rant, dodge questions, and push innuendo. You are the one here making none-credibility arguments for the sake of keeping false narratives on life support.


You are the one not taking a clear stance and proving evidence. Who is covering for what level of government? Civilians? Local coroner's? The persons that conducted DNA analysis? Local first responders? New York cops and New York fire fighters? First responders? Air port staff and air traffic controllers? Family members that received remains from flight 77 and 93 for burial?
edit on 30-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 30 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Salander has misappropriated a single quote from a famous philosopher. I am sorry to break it to you that your arguments are therefore inoperative.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


Whether or not Plato had ever lived, or Occam, his specious arguments are still inoperative.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't even have an argument of any kind at all!



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

People are actually citing video, witnesses, physics, and data that shows a large commercial jet you claim was a military aircraft hit the pentagon. Or you back to no jet impact at the pentagon. A commercial jet crashed at shanksville. And jet impacts at the towers that caused structural damage, knocked off fire insulation, fire is known to weaken structural steel as shown at the Madrid Windsor and Tehran high rise collapse, lead to the collapse of the towers.

All the evidence supports fire and impact damage lead to collapse at the towers. If you cannot produce a single theory, and provide supporting science and evidence for that theory to supersede impact damage and fire, the the likely cause was fire and jet impacts.

What is your counter argument?

The government lied. False argument. Again? Civilians? Local cops? Firefighters? State police? Engineers? Air traffic controllers? Airport staff? First responders? Family members? Coroner’s?

Or you going to try the false argument people that don’t support your faith totally buy into the official narrative.

So, now you are down to misquoting dead philosophers? Ironic they didn’t know much about modern physics either.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: Salander

That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't even have an argument of any kind at all!


This is a typical response from someone who never asks questions of government officials.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Yet again, you don't know what you are talking about. If you ever got something right, it would be by accident.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


If you were certain that I don't know what I'm talking about, you would not be wasting your time replying.

In reality, what I say here, the simple truth that the OCT cannot possibly be true, confronts your dissonance and denial.

In fact, the truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it, and I suspect you and I both know that little fact.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
If you were certain that I don't know what I'm talking about, you would not be wasting your time replying.


There you go again. I am indeed certain that you don't know what you are talking about, and I am in fact replying.

Your mistake is to think you understand basic things, and then treat your consequent deductions on those subjects as fact.

But what you actually do is misunderstand things without realising it, and so every deduction you make on that subject just leads you deeper and deeper into folly.

"All elephants are pink; Nelly is an elephant; therefore Nelly is pink" is a rational deduction, but it's total rubbish because elephants aren't pink. This is what you do, over and over again.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, what happen to the steel structure in the Madrid Windsor tower.

If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, why are millions spent on steel fire insulation research, development, instillation, insulation inspections, insulation repairs, and insulation upgrades?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


If it is possible for fire to cause the collapse of modern steel high rise buildings, why are you unable to prove it?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I have clearly stated how the WTC was poorly insulated against fire, the WTC minimized the use of concrete beyond normal engineering best practices, concrete columns and cores have saved other buildings, jet impacts reduced the number of columns holding the upper portion of the building, fire reduces the ability of steel to resist strain, drooping floor trusses contracted, causing inward bowing and buckling as referenced in numerous collapse videos.

Quote where you have refuted inward bowing and collapse.

Quote where have outlined a theory to supersede inward bowing and buckling and the leading cause of buckling.

Now answer...

If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, what happen to the steel structure in the Madrid Windsor tower.

If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, why are millions spent on steel fire insulation research, development, instillation, insulation inspections, insulation repairs, and insulation upgrades?




top topics



 
23
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join