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.
originally posted by Hoth
What about the molten metal spewing from the side of the Towers and found at Ground Zero. This could not have been caused by Jet fuel.
Originally posted by teebigins
[Billybob Quote
evidence proves the towers were blown. however, this particular truth can be easily ignored by the massive cognitive dissonance which it creates
What evidence? The evidence is ignored because it's isolated and weak (ametuer youtube video anylsis, shoddy liberal art professor testimony, lack of true expert testimony). If, for example, you have 10 pieces of evidence 8 pointing one way and only 2 point the other then of course your going to pick the theory with more evidence and ignore the others. Thats not called coverup its called common sense.
Flahes of light could be anything, perhaps you can give me a min/sec to goto.
Originally posted by Boone 870
Henry62 posted a link to his blog on page 5 of this thread. His explanation seems a lot better than most theories thrown around.
Attribution. You must attribute authorship of the work to "Boone 870; a member of AboveTopSecret.com", and include the title of the message thread, WTC2 Dripping Thermite?; and this full link URL to the post: www.abovetopsecret.com... (Unless otherwise noted, photography and other artwork linked within member posts are subject to the usage rights of the individual owners of the linked artwork.)
Originally posted by Boone 870
I will answer your question for you Griff. No!
Originally posted by teebigins
I finally found what I needed to prove my point. This is almost exactly what i have been trying to say the whole time but stated by an engineer.
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800◦ C.
Originally posted by HothSnake1
She has more PhDs than you do, and according to the establishment, that is all that matters. I love how debunkers never try to win on the merits of their theories, but instead rely almost exclusively on lawyers tricks of sophistry, like ad hominem attacks........
Originally posted by Lannock
1. We have two 110-storey (I think) buildings which are both relatively wide. One would expect the supporting struts to weigh a few tonnes, eh? The buildings are designed to take a hit from a heavier aircraft, so those struts should be pretty sturdy. How much fuel did those aircraft tanks contain and would there be enough to soften the entire frame of each building?
Originally posted by Lannock
2. I've seen a few controlled demolitions on TV and the little I know about it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want the building to come straight down so you put explosives around the supporting struts (right?) and I presume they have to go off in sequence (up or down? I dunno). Those planes hit pretty high up and the buildings went straight down in 10 seconds (I believe). Two massively reinforced buildings go down like controlled demolitions in record time.......
Originally posted by Lannock3. The planes pretty much exploded on impact. Wouldn't that consume most of the fuel, i.e. very little left to flow down approximately 100 floors of support struts?
Hoth, is it lawyer tricks to check the credibility of a person? No way. Kevin Ryan of UL was always praised by those "truthers" for what he did in contacting NIST. Everyone was all excited that he stood up!! When the truth came out, it was learned he was a water tester. That was his profession. So instead of a #1 whistleblower, he was fired from his job, and lost all court cases he brought up against UL. (Appeals were dismissed with prejudice.)
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by teebigins
I finally found what I needed to prove my point. This is almost exactly what i have been trying to say the whole time but stated by an engineer.
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800◦ C.
I'm sorry, but the NIST report states that the column temps did not exceed 650 F and that they were not exposed to the elevated temperatures for the entire duration of time between impact and collapse. So - the writing you reference does not agree with the data provided by NIST.
Originally posted by HothSnake1
Yes, infact, it is... The merits of any case do not depend upon the personal facts of the person(s) presenting the case. The case should be won or lost based on the evidence and the facts, and not based on your personal likes or dislikes or emotions concerining the matter at hand.
"I spread circumstantial evidence"
Trying to smear someone's character is typical of politics and not of truth finding-- it is indicative of a weak case.
its really really obvious that it was an inside job....but bush didnt do it he isnt that smart(but I am)....the same people that killed kenedy did it(i figured it out!!)......i cant believe that people actually believe this puppet government is real......i dont blame them because they have been eating all this propaganda and mind control the government shoots through the speakers(gov cov ups/media brainwashing).....when u tell someone about somthing like this they think ur a loonatic (for good reason)especially the ones that rock flags on their cars, shrits ,and homes(bitter about something?).....the illumin...Blah blah blah
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by teebigins
He never assumes no resistance, you assume he assumes no resistance.
Show me where he includes the resistance of the buckling columns.
What he actually says is that the columns lose their load carrying capacity.Doesn't mean no resistance.
No it doesn't. But then he goes on to assume a freefall speed (which means no resistance). Again, show me in his calculations where he includes resistance from buckling columns.
Originally posted by Griff
Thanks for proving my point. Columns fail plastically. Not inelasticly. The temperatures were found to not exceed 650 C.
Why do you use a study from 9/13/01 to prove your case when we have found that it is erroneous? And you have the gall to say bad things about "truthers"?