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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: blackaspirin

I don't know.......

The argument the falling mass decreased because of dust creation seems legit...... Not




posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: blackaspirin

I don't know.......

The argument the falling mass decreased because of dust creation seems legit...... Not


I dunno, read the argument while listening to some spooky music. I think that's the key.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This has probably been posted before - I've no idea what to search for - and it deserves to be posted again.

I'm a solid 911 questioner, finding few satisfying answers, but here is a video that provides one answer to one question and in a truly delightful way:



This guy is the bomb.

Happy Friday


"Just 300 degrees more than jet fuel" ???

That was the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel that didnt release black smoke, I assume.

That is probably one of the dumbest videos I have ever seen on the internet, "and that says a lot

I guess we shouldn't expect much in the way of intelligence from someone that sniffs burning metal for a hobby. Watching the OS cheerleaders flick around it is ammusig though.
edit on pSat, 16 Sep 2017 20:57:05 -05002017 105Sat, 16 Sep 2017 20:57:05 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoSaturday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.



I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.


The thread is not about molten steel.

It is about the integrity of structural steel. Specifically that such steel doesn't have to be hot enought to melt to lose it's structural integrity.

Isn't reading comprehension taught in schools any longer ...


Yes it is. And it is also taught that correlation does not imply causation.

Just because jet fuel can weaken steel does not mean that jet fuel was the cause of collapse. It would take a proper investigation to conclude any causation. The 911 commission and NIST report were not proper investigations. NIST was paid a small, finite amount of money to produce a report for a government that already went to war based on the what that report was going to show.

Could you imagine if we were already a year into Afghanistan and kicking off Iraq, then NIST came back and said that these buildings could not have collapsed by the force of heat from jet fuel and office furniture.

Meh, it's not like anyone that reported the findings on 9/11 that resulted in the murder of over a million Afghan and Iraqi citizens, were even under oath.

Oops.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
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."



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:25 PM
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."



That's great!!

Still doesn't prove or even give credence to the notion that weakened steel would result in the collapse that we all witnessed.

Maybe you can help me and everyone rap our minds around yours and the government's theory. Is there is visual computer simulation to show how weakened steel could collapse those 2 buildings in identical fashion?

CGI is really good at making things that are impossible to produce in real life look real, so maybe someone has tried to make the scientific explaination come to life in a CGI presentation?

Could you post one? I am sure everyone would live to see it.
edit on pSat, 16 Sep 2017 21:27:23 -05002017 123Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:27:23 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoSaturday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Double poat
edit on pSat, 16 Sep 2017 21:26:47 -05002017 147Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:26:47 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoSaturday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.



I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.


The thread is not about molten steel.

It is about the integrity of structural steel. Specifically that such steel doesn't have to be hot enought to melt to lose it's structural integrity.

Isn't reading comprehension taught in schools any longer ...


Yes it is. And it is also taught that correlation does not imply causation.

Just because jet fuel can weaken steel does not mean that jet fuel was the cause of collapse.


You should probably tell the people who keep saying, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", who are the people the video was addressing.



originally posted by: [post=22672655]MALBOSIA[[/post]]It would take a proper investigation to conclude any causation. The 911 commission and NIST report were not proper investigations. NIST was paid a small, finite amount of money to produce a report for a government that already went to war based on the what that report was going to show.

Could you imagine if we were already a year into Afghanistan and kicking off Iraq, then NIST came back and said that these buildings could not have collapsed by the force of heat from jet fuel and office furniture.

Meh, it's not like anyone that reported the findings on 9/11 that resulted in the murder of over a million Afghan and Iraqi citizens, were even under oath.

Oops.


Whataboutism, the topic is steel.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It is not just the fires that caused the collapse.

I have repeatedly asked people to post unedited photos of the impact sites on the buildings. Nobody ever does.

Why is that?

Nobody takes the time to actually look at the amount of damage that the exoskeleton of the buildings received.

The amount of structural damage is staggering and if anyone would take the time to actually learn anything about building construction, they too would realize that the structure suffered damage that was way outside of what the design specifications could handle.

It is a wonder that the towers stood as long as they did.

But nobody wants to look at the actual damage and actually pull up the design specifications, such as I have done, to do their own research.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.



I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.


The thread is not about molten steel.

It is about the integrity of structural steel. Specifically that such steel doesn't have to be hot enought to melt to lose it's structural integrity.

Isn't reading comprehension taught in schools any longer ...


Yes it is. And it is also taught that correlation does not imply causation.

Just because jet fuel can weaken steel does not mean that jet fuel was the cause of collapse.


You should probably tell the people who keep saying, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", who are the people the video was addressing.



originally posted by: [post=22672655]MALBOSIA[[/post]]It would take a proper investigation to conclude any causation. The 911 commission and NIST report were not proper investigations. NIST was paid a small, finite amount of money to produce a report for a government that already went to war based on the what that report was going to show.

Could you imagine if we were already a year into Afghanistan and kicking off Iraq, then NIST came back and said that these buildings could not have collapsed by the force of heat from jet fuel and office furniture.

Meh, it's not like anyone that reported the findings on 9/11 that resulted in the murder of over a million Afghan and Iraqi citizens, were even under oath.

Oops.


Whataboutism, the topic is steel.


You should probably tell the people that know jet fuel can weaken steel, that doesn't prove the OS



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

For the thousandth time.....

The conspiracy is probably the deviations from the best practices of using concrete cores and deviations from building codes.

It was documented the WTC fire insulation was substandard and needed up graded before 9/11. The insulation knocked down by the jet impacts did not help.

The towers had long floor trusses with no mid supports along their spand.

The jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts, causing the spread of fire at a rate and intensity the towers were not designed for.

The jet impacts took out or damaged outer columns and core columns causing the load to shifted to the vertical columns that still had structural integrity.

The jet impacts cut vital services, elevator cables, and fire water. How would a complex detention system survive.m?

The fire heated up the steel. The steel of the floor trusses weekend and tried to expand in length. The expanding floor trusses that were boxed in by good columns could not expand in length, so they droopped down. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contracted. Thus causing inward bowing leading to buckling of vertical columns in areas corresponding to the fires and jet impacts.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Once buckled, the falling upper stories of the towers overloaded and sheared the floor connections to vertical columns. Floors that could only withstand the dynamic load of six falling floors or less.

The floor system totally collapsed. But large lengths of core columns were left standing on end for whole seconds after the complete collapse of of the floor system.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It is not just the fires that caused the collapse.

I have repeatedly asked people to post unedited photos of the impact sites on the buildings. Nobody ever does.

Why is that?

Nobody takes the time to actually look at the amount of damage that the exoskeleton of the buildings received.

The amount of structural damage is staggering and if anyone would take the time to actually learn anything about building construction, they too would realize that the structure suffered damage that was way outside of what the design specifications could handle.

It is a wonder that the towers stood as long as they did.

But nobody wants to look at the actual damage and actually pull up the design specifications, such as I have done, to do their own research.


I know what you mean. Nobody responds to me with anything but "I don't see what you see" when I post the following pictures







The building on the right... what do you see is happening there?



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It is not just the fires that caused the collapse.

I have repeatedly asked people to post unedited photos of the impact sites on the buildings. Nobody ever does.

Why is that?

Nobody takes the time to actually look at the amount of damage that the exoskeleton of the buildings received.

The amount of structural damage is staggering and if anyone would take the time to actually learn anything about building construction, they too would realize that the structure suffered damage that was way outside of what the design specifications could handle.

It is a wonder that the towers stood as long as they did.

But nobody wants to look at the actual damage and actually pull up the design specifications, such as I have done, to do their own research.


Question? For all your own research and critical thinking, have you ever been called a sheep because you don't blindly follow AE 9/11 Truth?

Then they want to shift to pentagon financial records or cell phone calls? Or there was too much dust. Or point to "melted" cars?

Sad the irony is lost on conspiracists?


edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed

edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Changed wording



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I see a structurally damaged building that is beginning to collapse.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
There's a curious back-and-forth that goes on with this:

OS: The collapses were a result of the combination of structural damage and ensuing fires, which weakened the steel sufficiently to cause failure, and a global collapse


Conspiracy angle: "Fire can't melt steel, and no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire."
Reminder: "You left out the part about the plane impacts and the structural damage they did."
Conspiracy angle: "Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of a plane."
Reminder: "You left out the part about the ensuing fires and weakening of the steel."


FOR 16 YEARS
edit on 16-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: bolding!



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Funny conspiracists don't want to acknowledge there where reports of the towers leaning before collapse? What is your point?

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning
m.youtube.com...


9/11: Absolute Proof NO DEMOLITION at WTC Twin Towers -- "THE TOWER IS LEANING"
m.youtube.com...

WTC 7 leans south as it collapsed
m.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, I have been called worse.

A shill and many other names.

I have personally done many hours of research on the towers. I have even went as far as to attempt to calculate the weight of each floor on my own. I have put countless hours in identifying the bolts size and shear strength that connect the trusses to the supporting beams amongst many other aspects of the buildings structure. I have also had numerous talks with my welding instructor while attending a two year welding technologies course.

I actually tend to get tired of the same old arguments and name calling antics that I usually end up giving the subject a rest for a while.

It is nice to see posters such as yourself using logic and looking beyond the ignorance that so many posters like to adhere to.

Keep up the intellectual fight.

edit on 16-9-2017 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: xdriver14

The steel and anything of mass will try to fall stright down. Baring collisions like a Newton's cradle. That is what gravity does, it exerts a force that tries to pull objects straight to the center of the earth.

It's doesn't matter on the tower where the 29 floors fell. The connections for the first floor below was only rated for the weight equivalent to 12 tower floors.


^^^EXACTLY.

He doesn't realize that when it fails, it is all of the upper floors crashing down on the next floor - which is not built to sustain the DYNAMIC LOAD (not static load) of all the upper floors.

The combined weight of all the upper floors, and the force that they accumulate when they drop through the impact zone onto the next lower floor - is ENORMOUS. Far too enormous for the next floor in succession to even remotely slow them down.

So if you start with 31 floors, crashing down on the next floor - they crush it, and now you have the dynamic load of 32 floors crashing down on the next one. That one gets crushed, and you have the dynamic load of 33 floors crashing down on the next one, and the process continues all the way down.

If the very first floor to be hit with the dynamic load of all the upper floors cannot sustain that force, then it's game over. The next floor in line will do no better, and so on. The force keeps accumulating, and there is nothing strong enough to withstand it.

But I'm not a YouTube video with spooky music and sinister overtones, so screw what I have to say!


LOL I'm reading it and lol and I have been starring your comments and others all along the way. Im just looking into this in depth since Ive had surgery and been laid up a little while. Back when it happened I was skeptical of all the accusations,but admittedly was very busy in family, work and life and didn't research it much, and of course over the years,one side tended to be more vocal than the other. Thanks for your insight...



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
There's a curious back-and-forth that goes on with this:

OS: The collapses were a result of the combination of structural damage and ensuing fires, which weakened the steel sufficiently to cause failure, and a global collapse


Might be believable if they didn't fall so fast, or if there was inconsistencies in both towers falling.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

I don't understand how people that try to portray themselves as rooting out the con artists of the government, debate conspiracy skeptics on every fact, but give a pass and will not call out the absurd falsehoods of the truth movement.

Conspiracists will try to act like stating the known fact individual floors of building have designed load capacity, and exceeding the load limits will cause floor connection failures as a ridiculous belief. ( it's like they believe you could but a whole other WTC tower on the top floor of one tower with no resulting damage.)

But they will ignore:

The towers were built to self destruct.
The towers were built with rebar coated in C-4.

Nukes.
Towers brought down by fire extinguisher bombs.

Lasers and holograms.
Missiles and holograms.
Fizzle no flash explosives.
Energy weapon Dustification.

Hypocrites that enable the fraud of the truth movement......
edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join