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.

 

Another Look At The Generator Trailer Damage

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Certainly you aren't suggesting that a mobile trailer engulfed in flames for hours only causing a corner of it to bend down explains why this was reduced to complete rubble in 60 minutes.



So you're saying that a column engineered to carry ~ 80% its capacity can't be weakened enough by fire to cause it to lose enough load capacity to cause a collapse, and yet a trailer enclosure, that isn't carrying anything at all, can? Physics and math prove that if it isn't carrying anything but its own weight, it would have to be heated to near liquid state, but since a diesel fire, like a jet fuel fire, don't come anywhere near those temps, it is proven to be a false assertion beyond any doubt, double and triple corroborated.

Please tell me that you're kidding. Please tell me that you are joking. Please tell me that you're just making it up as you go. Please tell me that you don't actually believe this.

This has got to be the first time this has ever happened though, if you continue to believe this. And since in truther-world, something that has never happened before can't be true, it is therefore conclusive proof that it didn't happen.

Now, since I have proven conclusively, beyond any doubt at all, double, triple, and quadruple corroborated, that this did not happen as you claim, I have proven you to be wrong.

It is undeniable. You have no evidence, math, physics, or precedence to prove your point.

Give it up until you can supply the evidence, math, physics, and precedence. You have been duadruple debunked by reality.




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


This thread isn't about the WTC and sorry but I am not aware of Gage or Jones ever arguing that fire over prolonged periods of time doesn't weaken steel in general.

But your comparison is way worse than apples to oranges and anyone with common sense will see this.

You suggest this:


Caused this:


When I am merely suggesting that this:


Caused this:


Please just stop this silliness and get back on topic if you insist on continuing to post in this thread.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Furthermore I never said the damage to the trailer was caused solely by diesel fires.

We will never know what types of incendiaries or explosives may have been used to start the fire, but since in this shot you can see through the other side of the trailer, and of course since we know the plane was on the north side and didn't hit it, we know that some type of weaponry was utilized.




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Have you considered the wind direction in the motion image example, shows to be directing the flames towards the back side of that trailer, which the smoke cloud also is moving in that direction, away from the point of view. And as anyone whould know about fire fueld by diesel or any other flamable liquid, when wind gets involved, tha intensifies the flame and heat. So in this example, the flames are towards the other side of the trailer, which would explain why that side of it shows more damage than the front side facing the camera.

At least that is how I am seeing this by the photo and motion image example.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

But your comparison is way worse than apples to oranges and anyone with common sense will see this.



I never brought up the WTC, hoss. You did when you posted a pic of the WTC columns. I just made a general statement. You ran with it.

But since you have no evidence, physics, math, or precedence where this can/has happened, that is proof that you are aware that you are spreading disinfo.

Are you a paid disinfo agent? This kind of easily debunked nonsense is exactly what the PTB would put out on the net in order to discredit the twoof movement.

You have been exposed as working for "the man".



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We will never know what types of incendiaries or explosives may have been used to start the fire,


No Craig. YOU don't know what started the fires.

The rest of the population knows for a fact what caused it. Please refrain from sticking the world population into your dying fantasy.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Is the trailor in the 4 frame gate video. you know, the video with no plane.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

No Craig. YOU don't know what started the fires.

The rest of the population knows for a fact what caused it. Please refrain from sticking the world population into your dying fantasy.


I know this is what you believe and that you are forced to abandon all logical reasoning and critical thinking principles in order to maintain this faith but the north side evidence proves you wrong Cameron.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I know this is what you believe and that you are forced to abandon all logical reasoning and critical thinking principles in order to maintain this faith but the north side evidence proves you wrong Cameron.



You know nothing about me or what i believe, I have abandoned nothing sir.

YOU, however ignore any and all evidence the shows just how wrong you are.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Wrong.

That's what YOU do.

See how that works?

Having fun yet?

Why do you insist on derailing threads with antagonistic general declarations that attack the person while avoiding the topic?

You aren't contributing to the thread in a productive manner that is conducive to civil discussion.

You entered this discussion with a hollow sarcastic personal attack and that is against the rules of this forum.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You aren't contributing to the thread in a productive manner that is conducive to civil discussion.



*Raises hand*

What about MY questions?

Can you prove, with evidence, math, physics, and precedence what you are claiming about the fire melting steel?

Can you explain WHY, in your own photos, that a raging fire can't even turn the steel still there just cherry red, which is WELL below any temp necessary to cause it to collapse from only its own weight?

Since you want to keep it OT, avoid the garbage and answer that.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


You aren't paying attention.

I never said the damage to the trailer was caused solely by diesel fires.

We hypothesize that incendiaries or explosives may have been used to start the fire.

Now since you don't think fire alone can melt steel and since the official story is limited to the right engine of the plane simply clipping the corner of the generator trailer please explain how the other side of it was completely blown out to the point that we can see through it.



Thanks.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

1-I never said the damage to the trailer was caused solely by diesel fires.

2-Now since you don't think fire alone can melt steel

3-and since the official story is limited to the right engine of the plane simply clipping the corner of the generator trailer please explain how the other side of it was completely blown out to the point that we can see through it.



1- did you or did you not say that the steel of the trailer collapsed due to heat weakening? Look at you old posts in this thread before you reply.

2- it can't. You agree right?

3- there's several other answers to that question that you haven't considered. How do you know that it wasn't torn off by the engine? Are you sure that the genset enclosure is steel? Have you looked into diesel fuel deflagrations and the effects they have on large flat surfaces?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The reason I ask about the enclosure material is cuz in your first post you had this photo:

i40.photobucket.com...

That looks like aluminum to me, which would easily be melted by fires.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, you ignored my question. What caused the trailer to get pushed TOWARDS the Pentagon? You see Craig, that little trailer disproves your fantasy of bombs and flyovers and whatnot. What it shows is that it was clipped by the engine and pushed towards the Pentagon. Any type of "high explosives" which you would need to cause the "pre-planned explosion" would have pushed the trailer away from the Pentagon. So once again, do you understand how explosives work?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

posted by amari
Has anyone thought to try to obtain satellite photos of the Pentagon on 911 or have they been classified, distroyed or made unavailable to the public? How many debunkers or disinformation agents does anyone think have been hired by the government about the 911 staged or otherwise attacks?


Since the government loyalists and disinfo agents and Bush Regime government are all on the same side, then the debunkers on this thread should have no difficulty obtaining satellite photos for 9-11-2001 proving their Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY don't you think?

What are they waiting for?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Rumsfeld said a missile hit the Pentagon. I wonder if it was shot out of the trailer.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Craig, you ignored my question. What caused the trailer to get pushed TOWARDS the Pentagon?


I ignored you because that was already addressed in in this post demonstrating how you fail to bother reading the thread or what people reply to you yet you continue to post and post and post as if nobody is saying anything but you.

Read.

There is nothing impossible about them moving this mobile trailer in advance and there is evidence that they WERE moving trailers immediately prior to the incident.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

1- did you or did you not say that the steel of the trailer collapsed due to heat weakening? Look at you old posts in this thread before you reply.




How about if we all look at what I said?

"There were likely explosives inside the trailer and the "dent" is really just the metal weakening and bending from the fire."

So if explosives or incendiaries were involved, as I said, there is no reason to think that the subsequent engulfing flames from such weaponry added to raging diesel fires wouldn't "weaken" the already pulverized steel.

Stop it with the desperate spin and micro-scrutinizing of my words out of context and address the topic direct.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


No sir, I read that, and thats a whole lotta speculation there based on............ nothing. Did ANYONE working around the Pentagon pre-9/11 notice someone just moving the trailer over on a slight angle, for no reason? You do understand that speculation and assumptions =/= proof?

Now, if there were "powerful explosives" at the site, why didn't they force the trailer to move away from the Pentagon? You know, a blast wave? The trailers are relatively light, so i am surprised that these "powerful explosives" didn't even fall over or get pushed away at the alleged moment of detonation.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join