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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Proof is in the footage. You just see it differently.

The relocation of the oem command center for the 9/12 simulated terrorist attack operation.

The original location of the oem center on the 23rd floor of #7, and the just in time completion of the 13 million dollar addition to #7 prior to 9/11.

The acquisition of the entire WTC by Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11.

First time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first time it had ever come under private control.

Only 56 minutes to fall.

Timeline.

Insurance.

They knew it was coming, and gave it a helping hand.

They've been at it ever since.



Exactly none of those things prove what you had proposed, nor do they refute the basic physics explanation that is already supported by the available evidence.

You are connecting dots that don't have a connection - which is how adherence to popular conspiracy theories works. Form a conclusion, then start trying to find ways to support it, instead of the other way around. Loads of non-sequiturs delivered in an "isn't that suspicious" format designed to get the listener to make great leaps in logic to get to the desired conclusion.

We still need evidence of:

The team of people you allege
The 'explosives system' you allege they were using

Neither the acquisition of the buildings, nor when they were acquired, does anything to support your claims.
The acquisition of insurance (which is a necessity per the shareholders) does nothing to support your claims.
The time it took to fall is explained by physics and where the impact point on the building was, so it does nothing to support your claims.

Please stick to the claims, instead of throwing out the usual scattershot 'factoids' that are not evidence of the actual claims being made. At best, they're non-sequitur 'whataboutisms'.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85




the beams that were used in the towers would've been very VERY thick and held together with other beams

Your assumptions are incorrect.
That's been the problem with the conspiracy side. They assume it was beam to beam construction on wtc.

It was not beam on beam.
It was inner core and exterior lattice BRACED with cheap floor trusses.
The trusses used 1 inch steel rod between the upper and lower mounts.
Take out enough floor trusses and the exterior becomes flexible.

Look at your local Walmart roof trusses.
That is essentially the exact type and size floor trusses used in wtc.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Nope, completely incorrect.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
in order for the building to pancake like it did the jet fuel would have had to heat the steel on all 4 sides of the building at an equal rate , so how do the beams on the opposite side of the building, that were undamaged by the impact, heat at the same rate as the beams next to the point of impact?

also, how does jet fuel remain in a liquid form long enough,in a blazing inferno, to flow all 4 sides of the building before igniting?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
lololololol

I cant believe those guys. couldve been a kitchen fire that brought it down too, right guys?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

It doesn't.

The Planes would not have had that much fuel left after their journeys thus far then ending at the towers. The fuel would have burned immediately and would have been done. Office furniture would not have done anything to the structure. As well, Planes do not cut steel columns or go through entire buildings.

9/11 was an inside job. I really do pray for peoples souls that believe otherwise.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

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.


So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.


I think another member mentioned that the structure was not held together through welded joints. It was bolted together. Given enough force from the impact, the fires and the collapse, those bolts were nothing more than sheer pins that broke easily.

In other words, the pancake effect.


So the tower's construction and massive weight was trusted by bolts since day one?


The core (47) columns were mostly welded, but only to maybe 1/2 depth and only on 2 sides. But the top ..... 15-20 were bolted.

The exterior columns were mostly bolted except for the bottom few floors.


Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.


1- it started small and grew, unlike on 9/11 when several floors were set alight in an instant

2- firefighters put water on the fires. They were fought. Unlike on 9/11 where no fires were fought.

3- those columns still had the asbestos fire proofing. An effective but nasty material. Unlike on 9/11 where the fire floors had an environmentally acceptable by inferior product

4- as others have noted, lower floors have heavier thicker steel. Heavier thicker steel heats slower the the plane impact floors

You're welcome
edit on 15-9-2017 by MrBig2430 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Tardacus

Office furniture would not have done anything to the structure.


Nice bare assertion.

My rebuttal that proves this false is that engineers that make it their life's work - that is, determining whether or not an office fire poses a threat to the structure- have collectively decided that you are wrong. The proof for that is the requirement for steel being insulated in building codes.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I believe the impact and fires from the jet planes could drop the WTC towers without "bombs".

History proves this, 2 out of 2 hits.

It's not that complicated, and distracts from the underlying story and all the LIHOP vs MIHOP, which is the only discussion that matters.

Remember, you can have a MIHOP scenario without "bombs". So, lacking direct evidence, you have to let it go and move along to tangible issues...of which there are many.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430
The proof for that is the requirement for steel being insulated in building codes.


You see, right there is a typical assertion from the "melting steel" crowd, which completely ignores the damage from impact of the jets.

At THIS point in time, it's not a matter of being under informed, it's willfully ignorant.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ujjvala

7 had bunch of debris rain down on it and was allowed to burn uncontrolled for hours. In a lot of 9/11 videos you run across on YouTube the uploaders always edit out the clips were you can see the core of the 7 fail. There is a small she'd like structure on the roof of 7. In unedited videos you can see it collapse into the core of 7 way before 7 itself collapsed. By the time 7 falls all the building is is basically just a shell. The core collapsed long before. You can also see the whole side of 7 start to sag when the core collapsed.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

What is thermite made of? Aluminum and oxidized iron. What was the plane made out of, aluminium. What is the steel made of, iron. A plane that heavy impacting that fast easily could of created thermite on impact or during the collapse. He'll the friction of such a massive building collapsing from top to bottom could also have melted metal.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
Having worked with metal most of my life, I can tell you don't need to melt steel to make it plastic. That is the magic of working with ferrous alloys, the plasticity vary with the temperature.

All you need is to reach annealing temperature to change mechanical properties. For steel it is between 760 °C and 900 °C.

Adiabatic combustion temperature of Jet Fuel seem to reach 980 °C and possibly higher.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Video below sounds plausible or people are still being let into the conspiracy of a demolition collapse? and producing videos and studies etc to hide this fact. Also just because people believe the buildings could have collapsed without explosives,it doesn't mean other aspects of 911 conspiracies are totally false. WTC 7 is a huge question mark, gonna research and see if there are studies or videos explaining just that aspect. Everything gets convoluted when its all thrown together. As mentioned here on this thread that means the whole WTC 7 was wired for demolition when? at construction seems the most logical, if done after occupation it would take an extraordinary effort,with a lot people to be sworn to silence, not saying it isn't possible but its certainly not the most probable explanation. Its 16 years later so much chaff has been out there from all camps finding the whole truth might be impossible. It's so complex and hell this nation still doesn't know the truth behind JFK or if was just LHO the majority don't believe it.





posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

It wasn't just about war. It was about insurance, gold, missing 3 trillion, documents, getting the public scared, easier to "pull" the buildings than letting them stand. And potentially having to pay out of pocket for the resulting costs.

Building 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. If it wasn't for building 7 I'm guessing a lot of people would be easier to convince.
edit on 15-9-2017 by Crumbles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Crumbles




missing 3 trillion,

There was no missing 3 trillion.

Besides what bank do you deposit 3 trillion?
How do you divi up 3 trillion?

Lets see:
Papa Bush gives me 100 million to secretly wire up wtc.
Now how do I carry it home?
What bank would accept 100 mil in cash for deposit with no questions asked?

You accept stupid claims with out even thinking about the problems that go with it.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum



So the tower's construction and massive weight was trusted by bolts since day one?


Among other things, yes.



Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.


That is not comparable. There was no initial impact or jet fuel to fuel the fire in your case.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Obviously this is purely hypothetical , and wasn't the 3 trillion supposedly found out later as an accounting error as the highest magnitude( still skeptical about that bit thats is one story I read . But the 3 trillion wouldn't missing at once if it did happen it could have been siphoned off over a period of time, that said its also getting off topic. Which is extremely difficult not to do when discussing 911.

I don't know what caused the total collapse but there is more than just pseudo science theories backing up WTC 7 collapse due to damage and uncontrolled fires out there. Like this one below....again I'm not convinced either way but it seems theoretically possible. And again it doesn't mean if true that there wasn't some other BS going on. Have no doubt people probably knew ahead of time and used the knowledge to their advantage to manipulate and even for financial gain.




posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag




Almost all the kerosene fuel was consumed in the initial fireball outside the building.


Well done!

That is the biggy in this argument. The jet fuel exploded into massive fireballs External to the building

Watch one of the videos with the fireball. Freeze frame. Measure the fireball. You will be amazed at how huge it was.

P



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

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.


So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.


I think another member mentioned that the structure was not held together through welded joints. It was bolted together. Given enough force from the impact, the fires and the collapse, those bolts were nothing more than sheer pins that broke easily.

In other words, the pancake effect.


So the tower's construction and massive weight was trusted by bolts since day one?


The core (47) columns were mostly welded, but only to maybe 1/2 depth and only on 2 sides. But the top ..... 15-20 were bolted.

The exterior columns were mostly bolted except for the bottom few floors.


Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.


4- as others have noted, lower floors have heavier thicker steel. Heavier thicker steel heats slower the the plane impact floors

You're welcome


Save the "your welcome" stuff for someone else.

None of the buildings should not have fell the way they did. "Lower floors have heavier thicker steel"... exactly. Heavier and thicker steel that wasn't compromised by heat, but oh i forgot, the bolts sheared easily.

You guys say we repeat the same points, well...ditto.




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join