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.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 35
14
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux



I think junk science is more likely


If all you are going to do is look for excuses, that is all you will ever find.

I am looking for a path to reason.


How the hell is actually posting the picture, and citing the actual source an excuse. Hell than a lot more than you did. Then posting an example of corrosion with a “knife edge” vs photos of steel actually cut and blown out by C4. Then pointing out that steel loses 6o percent of its ability to maintain its shape around 1200F. That around 2000F steel turns to liquid and will fuse to other pieces of steel. Then posting the definition of enthalpy of vaporization. Then asking how a THIN piece of metal that shows no signs of being turn to a playable liquid and no signs of slagging got to 4000F to evaporate.



IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could
have contributed to the collapses.

www.ae911truth.org...



The article you linked to talks about melted steel. So the below picture was steel that was melted?



But then the article goes on to talk about evaporated steel on a piece that was not turned to liquid first?

So. I replied the more likely cause of going right from solid to evaporated steel was junk science implying it never happened, which would be on par for the truth movement.
edit on 1-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed




posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere




Building seven collapsed over six hours afterwards, a clear sign, something else happened.

Yea it's called uncontrolled fire.
It's a good thing we have video of it.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jesushere




Building seven collapsed over six hours afterwards, a clear sign, something else happened.

Yea it's called uncontrolled fire.
It's a good thing we have video of it.


All that heating and cooling in different areas over a period of hours can't be good for a steel frame. Someone should write some building regulations or something



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




With all the bangs you reference easily contributed to AC units, Water Heaters, or refrigeration units exploding from the fires. Or directly from floor slabs falling for example.


With ease and comfort you can state this, driven by what proof? Simultaneous explosions of "AC units, Water Heaters, or refrigeration units"


Is this really all you can come with?
edit on 1-7-2019 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2019 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

How many explosions are you claiming, with no visible shockwave, no seismic evidence they were powerful enough to cut steel columns, explosions that can be attributed to exploding AC units are you saying took out 44 core columns when flight 175 only took out about 7 core columns and registered .7 magnitude on the seismic data. An obvious event from 18 different camera angles.

Again.... the entire context of my argument.

It is hard to quantify sound and loudness.

Let’s take WTC 2 and place it in this context.

The jet hitting the tower was as subtle as an elephant in a china shop.



18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]



m.youtube.com...


The jet hit with enough force to:
-Severed about 20 exterior columns
-Severed at best estimates at lest 7 of the 44 core columns.
-jet parts and debris ejected from the tower
-the impacted had a seismic magnitude of .7
-was noticeable in 18 different camera angles.



Aircraft Impact Damage
web.mit.edu...

A Morning That Shook the World: The Seismology of 9/11
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...


From #8 video, FDR Drive, the explosion of the jet is very noticeable. Sounds like a cannon going off. No doubt an explosion happened.



18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]



m.youtube.com...


Just a reminder. There is no possible way controlled demolitions systems could have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse as captured on video from the floors hit by the jets.

Another reminder. For implosions of smaller buildings. Scores and scores of charges are used in a building with the windows removed, and traps set up to capture demolitions shrapnel. The detonations are clearly distinguishable. For implosions in an area of high rise buildings, the echos carry on
And on.

Flight 175 flying at a relatively high speed, weighing over 200,000 lbs, loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, took out about 20 exterior columns, took out about 7 core columns, sent pieces of jet and building flying out of multiple exit holes, who’s impacted registered .7 magnitude, was not subtle in anyway, and did not bring down the south tower. And that is ignoring the visibly hanging floor slabs.

What you are trying to say is less than 10 loud bangs that could be contributed to refrigeration units exploding brought down a 110 story building who’s professional implosion would have take hundreds of charges. Explosions so subtle that they created no seismic evidence, no visible shockwave, but somehow took out enough core columns to initiate a collapse where an explosion as spectacular and obvious as the flight 175 impact did not? When flight 175 may have taken out only 7 core columns.

But? Somehow your 10 or less bangs supposedly took out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate a collapse with no visible explosion before collapse initiation. Explosions that would have had to be powerful enough to over compensate for not using scores and scores of charges as a normal implosion would use. With no visible ejection of pieces of building before collapse initiation. With no evidence of shockwaves. With no indication of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns in the seismic data. With all the bangs you reference easily contributed to AC units, Water Heaters, or refrigeration units exploding from the fires. Or directly from floor slabs falling for example.

edit on 1-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Or....
Lets put it this way.



The above picture is the moment a wide area explosion took out 7 core columns in WTC 2 and registered .7 magnitude on the seismic data. Better known as the flight 175 impact. And the tower still stood after removing 7 of the 44 core columns

How many other wide area explosions are you claiming? How many core columns are you claiming each supposed wide area explosions took out? Why is there no visible shockwave, explosion, ejection of shrapnel, seismic activity that should be similar to when flight 175 took out 7 core columns?
edit on 1-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 1-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

And there is still no way controlled demolitions systems have survived the jet impacts and wide spread fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors with the impact damage as shown on video.

Sorry. There is no evidence, and no credible argument the towers were brought down by planted pyrotechnics. None.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

I don’t think you understand how dangerous a water heater explosion is.

Below is just a normal home unit exploding.



Mythbusters Water Heater Explosion
m.youtube.com...





I don’t think you have proper respects for exploding large battery room batteries, industrial AC Units, industry water heaters, electrical gear, transformers, and arc flash.



Arc Flash Test (1min:01sec)
m.youtube.com...







edit on 1-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added screenshots



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Then posting an example of corrosion with a “knife edge” vs photos of steel actually cut and blown out by C4. Then pointing out that steel loses 6o percent of its ability to maintain its shape around 1200F. That around 2000F steel turns to liquid and will fuse to other pieces of steel. Then posting the definition of enthalpy of vaporization. Then asking how a THIN piece of metal that shows no signs of being turn to a playable liquid and no signs of slagging got to 4000F to evaporate.


That was a great string of excuses there, you are really good at that. So in all that you see no evidence that the towers where exposed to an unusually high heat source. None. You do not even acknowledge a possibility. Your mind is closed and you want to keep it that way. You look scared about jumping into the deep end of the pool, not sure if you can swim and just who will save you. Not even sure if you do want to confront the darkness on the other side.

America is attacked and you want to be a part of the cover up crew. You are not the only one, ATS has had a long history of digging and fighting through the ashes here. I do like to think I at least tried to extend a hand of friendship to our Allies also suffering this terrible fate.

It is not my job to do your thinking, only you can do that. I am just trying to hold the flag so the people can see where to go. You want to ridicule me with your nonsense, I get it. The whole bloody thing is insane.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux



Then posting an example of corrosion with a “knife edge” vs photos of steel actually cut and blown out by C4. Then pointing out that steel loses 6o percent of its ability to maintain its shape around 1200F. That around 2000F steel turns to liquid and will fuse to other pieces of steel. Then posting the definition of enthalpy of vaporization. Then asking how a THIN piece of metal that shows no signs of being turn to a playable liquid and no signs of slagging got to 4000F to evaporate.


I do like to think I at least tried to extend a hand of friendship to our Allies also suffering this terrible fate.




What you've actually done is proven yourself to be a willing liar with no credibility whatsoever.

Congratulations



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

You


That was a great string of excuses there, you are really good at that. So in all that you see no evidence that the towers where exposed to an unusually high heat source. None. You do not even acknowledge a possibility


Ok? I am sorry the truth movement has to use pseudoscience fabricate a mythology.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Evidence of “high heat”? Like this big ball o concrete with unmelted rebar and unmelted sheets sticking out of it!



From the post...


originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know the exact temperature that the metal was exposed to. I do have to draw the conclusion that it was exposed to a temperature at least or above its melting point. This kind of heat in not commonly generated in building and office fires. Where did the source of heat come from?




If the metal was exposed to 4000 F, the darn thing would have been a melted ball of slag and metal




Something like this maybe?

edit on 2-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed

edit on 2-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Evidence of “high heat”? Like this big ball o concrete with unmelted rebar and unmetal sheets sticking out of it!



From the post...


originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know the exact temperature that the metal was exposed to. I do have to draw the conclusion that it was exposed to a temperature at least or above its melting point. This kind of heat in not commonly generated in building and office fires. Where did the source of heat come from?




If the metal was exposed to 4000 F, the darn thing would have been a melted ball of slag and metal




Something like this maybe?


"melted concrete" ? Oh dear


(post by kwakakev removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
post removed by staff


Oh no. Not another randomly posted video from a conspiracist, with no context, no argument built on logic, and with NO REASON TO WATCH IT from somebody that has studied both sides of the issues.
edit on Tue Jul 2 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

That's got to be one of the worst videos I've seen in years.
That's proof of only one thing. Stupidity.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: kwakakev

That's got to be one of the worst videos I've seen in years.
That's proof of only one thing. Stupidity.



Maybe it’s a mockumentary that confused the poster?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.


Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?


Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jesushere




Building seven collapsed over six hours afterwards, a clear sign, something else happened.

Yea it's called uncontrolled fire.
It's a good thing we have video of it.



We have video of controlled demolition and you guys can't see it



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.


Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?


Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.






Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join