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: 25
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Its called thermal expansion steam is instantly created. Pouring water on top of the steel wouldnt have done anything other then create steam.




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dragonridr

And why would thermite, a theory based on a fraudulent peer reviewed paper and experiments that could not have results duplicated, result in pools and rivers of molten steel while the pile was being cleared?

Please walk through the logic. Specifically in terms the pile was never hot enough to promote molten steel.


Dont see how thermite is relevant to the conversation? Thermite burns at over 4000 degrees and would have been obvious if it was used.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dragonridr

How many workers were cutting how many steel columns with thermal lances during the WTC clean up? Did that create standing pools and rivers of molten steel to give credence to the thermite narrative? Why or why not?


Have you ever seen a thermal lance in use? No puddles would ever be created and as i stated thermite use is always obvious with scorching and by the way it would never turn somethiing into a liquid puddle. You seem infatuated with thermite even though no one was discussing thermite.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Then what is your theory? Or was it people not understanding the difference between glowing metal vs molten metal?



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The classic “evidence” of thermite by conspiracists is claims of molten steel. Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



I would rather have a discussion on what codes were bypassed to allow the towers to be built with minimal concrete and cost.

Not bypassed. The towers were built on private land, and they did not have to comply to building safety codes of the time.

Substandard construction was common knowledge.

The planes were allowed to hit that day.

The entire WTC complex was planned to fail that day.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Planned by who? The terrorists and Middle Eastern elites?

Sort of hard for the New York fire Department to respond to two high rise fires. Buildings compromised by jet impacts which severed fire water mains.

If there is a real conspiracy with the USA government, why does the truth movement repeat blatant lies like the steel was released with no inspection?
edit on 14-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Really?

“The towers were built on private land, and they did not have to comply to building safety codes of the time. ”

You don’t have to build a home so the structure, drinking water, and sewage are to code? I think the towers actually got wavered.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux



I would rather have a discussion on what codes were bypassed to allow the towers to be built with minimal concrete and cost.

Not bypassed. The towers were built on private land, and they did not have to comply to building safety codes of the time.

Substandard construction was common knowledge.

The planes were allowed to hit that day.

The entire WTC complex was planned to fail that day.


Werent they built in the 60s thats one slow plan dont you think?



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmm... So How Did the Jet Fuel Melt Steel on the Floors BELOW the Impact Area of the Plane , and be Seen by the Naked Eye Collapsing in Free Fall ? Nano Thermite Maybe ? Duh ?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You don’t think steam is dangerous and a safety concern. Especially if water that was liberally sprayed on the rubble found its way to trapped pockets of molten steel under the rubble?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Lots of comments re jet fuel and the fire as if thats the only thing that burned average temperature of an office/home fire can be 1000 c and no jet fuel in those cases. Truthers always use each point in isolation. The impacts caused structural damage the fire weakened the steel and the dynamic loads of the collapse destroyed the buildings.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmm... So How Did the Jet Fuel Melt Steel on the Floors BELOW the Impact Area of the Plane , and be Seen by the Naked Eye Collapsing in Free Fall ? Nano Thermite Maybe ? Duh ?


If you were just being sarcastic, I will apologize.

If you are serious.......
There was a electrical room full of batteries in the area of the material spilling out.

Again, prove it was steel. Not a mixture of aluminum, lead, melted/burning/molten plastics, metals with low melting points, and smoldering combustible material.

The claim by the truth movement is the resistance of every floor had to be removed, all you have is an isolated instance of random molten material spilling out? Just from one tower.

Like to cite the proof of thermite?

Like to show pictures from the pile of columns cut by thermite?

Even nano-thermite is to slow burning to be used in a precisely timed first every top down CD of a high rise building.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Peserc


It is funny how so many defenders of the official story start by saying something to the effect "you don't need to..."

Rather than a rational analysis of the facts, a forensic analysis, they start right off with a hypothetical.

I prefer a rational analysis of the facts, not a hypothetical fantasy about what might have been


Starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it is not scientific. What you do is take the evidence and use that to draw a conclusion. Your reversing the process and claiming your using logic. You have to look at all the factors involved like jet fuel excellarants in the building the amount of oxygen the temperatures involved and the building stress. Taking one piece and claiming that cant happen is willy,other factors were involved to allow it to happen.


Thanks for that. Your first sentence describes perfectly what NIST and the 911 Commission have done: start with a conclusion and then torture science and facts, exclude other facts and try to make it all fit the chosen 'conclusion', the Official Conspiracy Theory.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Peserc


I prefer a rational analysis of the facts, not a hypothetical fantasy about what might have been


So nukes is rational?

That’s where your rational analysis has led you?

Lmmfao


Nukes is the only rational explanation for all the facts. Lateral ejection, for which nobody can offer a rational explanation, are explained by nukes. Mysteriously burned vehicles on the streets, hundreds of them, can be explained only by nukes. 90 days worth of molten iron in the belly, observed hot spots by satellites, can be explained only by nukes, and of course the many cases of radiation sickness among the workers at GZ can be explained only by nukes.

Ignorance of these facts is not indicative of clear understanding.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Peserc


It is funny how so many defenders of the official story start by saying something to the effect "you don't need to..."

Rather than a rational analysis of the facts, a forensic analysis, they start right off with a hypothetical.

I prefer a rational analysis of the facts, not a hypothetical fantasy about what might have been


Starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it is not scientific. What you do is take the evidence and use that to draw a conclusion. Your reversing the process and claiming your using logic. You have to look at all the factors involved like jet fuel excellarants in the building the amount of oxygen the temperatures involved and the building stress. Taking one piece and claiming that cant happen is willy,other factors were involved to allow it to happen.


Thanks for that. Your first sentence describes perfectly what NIST and the 911 Commission have done: start with a conclusion and then torture science and facts, exclude other facts and try to make it all fit the chosen 'conclusion', the Official Conspiracy Theory.


Actually it's shooting truthers down in flames typical truther statements on here and the net, planes can't destroy buildings, it wasn't just the planes, fire can't bring a steel building down it wasn't just fire, yet in fires used by truthers to back their claims the STEEL always failed and CONCRETE kept the buildings up. Then of course DYNAMIC loading a topic YOU avoid like the plague



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Peserc


I prefer a rational analysis of the facts, not a hypothetical fantasy about what might have been


So nukes is rational?

That’s where your rational analysis has led you?

Lmmfao


Nukes is the only rational explanation for all the facts. Lateral ejection, for which nobody can offer a rational explanation, are explained by nukes. Mysteriously burned vehicles on the streets, hundreds of them, can be explained only by nukes. 90 days worth of molten iron in the belly, observed hot spots by satellites, can be explained only by nukes, and of course the many cases of radiation sickness among the workers at GZ can be explained only by nukes.

Ignorance of these facts is not indicative of clear understanding.


Really with no blast or heat wave and no EMP also prove the radiation sickness. Burned out vehicles many which had been moved if it were nukes the people on the streets running from the collpase would also have been burned your ignorance of that makes your claim look really stupid.
edit on 15-12-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


Those who have died from their sicknesses have proved it. One of them was Matt Tartaglia of the firemen from Perkasie PA who went to assist. He described nuclear decontamination protocols that were in place when he participated. Eventually his teeth began to fall out and he died. I think within 5 years.

The pictures of hot spots observed from out own satellites proved it. Toxic air measured by a California firm headed up by Mr. Cahill proves it. Many facts prove it, and ignorance of those facts on your part is no excuse. Your ignorance of those facts do not make them go away.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


Those who have died from their sicknesses have proved it. One of them was Matt Tartaglia of the firemen from Perkasie PA who went to assist. He described nuclear decontamination protocols that were in place when he participated. Eventually his teeth began to fall out and he died. I think within 5 years.

The pictures of hot spots observed from out own satellites proved it. Toxic air measured by a California firm headed up by Mr. Cahill proves it. Many facts prove it, and ignorance of those facts on your part is no excuse. Your ignorance of those facts do not make them go away.



Prove it was radiation sickness YOU can't do you actually know how many hazardous chemicals would have been in the Tower Collapse dust due to

a) Constuction Materials
b) Office Equipment etc.

I suggest you LOOK that up before jumping to conclusions also LIKE always you avoid the problems with your claims.

BLAST,HEAT,EMP and why if the cars were destroyed by your nukes why the public running away were not, your claim is as stupid as Dr Judy Wood or Dr Jones , no planes etc
edit on 15-12-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Peserc


I prefer a rational analysis of the facts, not a hypothetical fantasy about what might have been


So nukes is rational?

That’s where your rational analysis has led you?

Lmmfao


Nukes


Lmmfao.

Nukes are clearly irrational. So irrational, that ATS - a website that allows free discussion on just about any topic as long as it isn’t clearly an insane topic - sends threads started about nukes on 9/11 to the hoax bin.

I’m willing to bet that this doesn’t make you stop and think about your irrational belief. Instead of that, I’m quite sure that you will double down, and take the stance that since ATS sends these to the hoax bin, that they must be part of the cover up, proving to yourself that you’re onto the correct answer to the collapses.




is the only rational explanation for all the facts. Lateral ejection,


Let’s start here.

This is too vague to address in any meaningful manner.

State specifically what you mean by lateral ejection. I’ll assume this mean that anything that fell outside the footprint has been explosively ejected? Do you have anything that can be considered evidence that forms the basis of this belief?

A prime piece of evidence would be a motion capture on some specific heavy steel piece that shows a rapid lateral acceleration that could be only be explained by explosives (we can forget about whether or not nukes were the cause for now) followed by a deceleration caused by air resistance. THAT would be hard to explain.

My guess is that you don’t. My guess is that is that your declaration of lateral ejections being a “fact” is personal incredulity.

That doesn’t make it a fact.

It only means that you’re not able to understand some rational explanation.

Actually, I would ask ALL truthers to help you out here and provide evidence.

None can though cuz it doesn’t exist.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join