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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
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.


Bump for Craig.

Have you looked into this? Does anyone else think that's aluminum?

AFAIK, nearly all modern trailer enclosures are built of aluminum, and there's no reason to suspect that CAT wouldn't follow industry standard. The trailer frames are usually steel. Truck frames CAN be aluminum alloy however.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


It weighs 40,000 lbs so I doubt it.

I really don't know though.

What I do know is that the plane was nowhere near it.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
If that really is a CAT 3516B, I'm not quite sure a plane struck the portion of the trailer in this photo for the damage to have occurred.

The damage that is truly indicitive of a possible impact is actually partially cropped out of that photo. That would be the jagged edge and an estimated 4-6ft of missing trailer on the right hand side of the photo.

From the placement, the fire appears to have started at the generator fuel intake. Given the fact a campfire can weaken steel to the point where it can be bent without machinery, I'm sure diesel fuel would burn plenty hot enough to warp the housing material to the point it would collapse under it's own weight. Note that it would collapse inwards, not outwards.

The OP is misleading on its face.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


You obviously haven't a clue what you are even arguing as I am the one who suggested that the fires DID weaken it.

I swear you don't even pay attention to what you are reading and/or typing and simply choose to disagree if it's a post from me regardless of what is being discussed.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

It weighs 40,000 lbs so I doubt it.

I really don't know though.



Uhhh, the generator would be the majority of the weight, dude.

The enclosure is just a cover. They're usually aluminum.

But I guess you're not too curious about it, eh?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

It weighs 40,000 lbs so I doubt it.

I really don't know though.



Uhhh, the generator would be the majority of the weight, dude.

The enclosure is just a cover. They're usually aluminum.

But I guess you're not too curious about it, eh?



Obviously, Seymour, you believe FL. 77 hit the generator, as you have been
told it by the OS.

All those of us who are convinced a plane flew NOC because of the very strong
evidence primarily gathered by CIT, obviously would not want to speculate about
what actually did the damage to the generator, as from our perspective no one
knows apart from the perps, of course.

Merely guessing would be an act of futility, and therefore a waste of time.

Therefore Seymour, using querulousness and captiousness, as you're trying
to do here, is similar a waste of time especially if you just for a little moment
would try to see the whole thing from our point of view!



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

What I do know is that the plane was nowhere near it.



posted by Seymour Butz

Uhhh, the generator would be the majority of the weight, dude.

The enclosure is just a cover. They're usually aluminum.

But I guess you're not too curious about it, eh?


posted by djeminy
Obviously, Seymour, you believe FL. 77 hit the generator, as you have been told it by the OS.

All those of us who are convinced a plane flew NOC because of the very strong evidence primarily gathered by CIT, obviously would not want to speculate about what actually did the damage to the generator, as from our perspective no one knows apart from the perps, of course.


Obviously from the FAA point of view, the aircraft Over the Naval Annex could not possibly have hit the generator trailer. But Seymour is obsessed with the generator trailer. Has the FAA also abandoned the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY?

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive





[edit on 1/22/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

and therefore a waste of time.



Is that right?

If it's indeed aluminum, then that means that the whole side being missing, as shown in Craig's photo, is easily explained by the fires.

Isn't this a simpler explanation?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


So where was April at, in relation to the generator?

At the X that SHE put on her map, right?

How you can even bother wading into a discussion after that? Aren't you embarassed? Is that why you didn't reply in that thread after the map was posted?

Isn't this the REAL reason why you replied here? Cuz you're trying to recover some credibility??????????



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by djeminy

and therefore a waste of time.



Is that right?

If it's indeed aluminum, then that means that the whole side being missing, as shown in Craig's photo, is easily explained by the fires.

Isn't this a simpler explanation?



Please read my post again.

You obviously must have missed the part where I told you, you're wasting your time
being querulous and captious.

Why do you behave like a sophist?

Don't you know that these demented people were thrown out of old Athens around
5th-century BC, and never allowed to return!

Why on earth would you like to emulate these unfortunate creatures!!

Please do yourself a favour and try to act normal.... at least for your own sake!



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Please read my post again.

You obviously must have missed the part where I told you, you're wasting your time
being querulous and captious.

Why do you behave like a sophist?

Don't you know that these demented people were thrown out of old Athens around
5th-century BC, and never allowed to return!

Why on earth would you like to emulate these unfortunate creatures!!

Please do yourself a favour and try to act normal.... at least for your own sake!


Translation:

I don't know whether or not the trailer was aluminum, and I don't want to know.

Because if it is..... then the side being gone can be explained rather simply, and blow my religious-like belief in this particular CT.

I therefore find it much better to attack a poster that is trying to expose me the absurd complexities and physics violations of this CT, rather than debate facts.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by djeminy

Please read my post again.

You obviously must have missed the part where I told you, you're wasting your time
being querulous and captious.

Why do you behave like a sophist?

Don't you know that these demented people were thrown out of old Athens around
5th-century BC, and never allowed to return!

Why on earth would you like to emulate these unfortunate creatures!!

Please do yourself a favour and try to act normal.... at least for your own sake!


Translation:

I don't know whether or not the trailer was aluminum, and I don't want to know.

Because if it is..... then the side being gone can be explained rather simply, and blow my religious-like belief in this particular CT.

I therefore find it much better to attack a poster that is trying to expose me the absurd complexities and physics violations of this CT, rather than debate facts.


No translation needed.

The words stand as they are written. No more and no less.

Your reply actually reinforces the message therein more than anything else!



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


If it's indeed aluminum, then that means that the whole side being missing, as shown in Craig's photo, is easily explained by the fires.

Isn't this a simpler explanation?


This is all VERY interesting.

First you outright assume it's steel as a means to antagonistically point and laugh at my assertion that the explosives and/or incendiaries added with the subsequent engulfing fire caused the corner to bend.

Then I show you a very obscure image in fact probably the only image with a view of the other side of the trailer and the entire side appears to be blown out so you completely flip your argument!

So please tell us.....if you found out it was steel would you admit that there is clearly something fishy going on with the generator trailer damage?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


In this post you state:


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.

Except that we do know what caused the damage, which was the entire point of my post. It was diesel fuel and the impact of a jet engine at high velocity that caused the damage. You assert something different without evidence and only conjecture that is easily countered.

If we assume the missing 4-6ft of the trailer was due to the impact of the plane, and given there is a large, non-symmetrical object inside, it's well within the realm of possibility that whatever was inside the trailer was responsible for the outward-damage on the north face of the trailer. The plane impacted the trailer, rupturing the fuel tank and partially dragging the generator out of the trailer through the north side. This scenario is equally plausible, and unlike your "some type of weaponry" claim, infinitely more plausible.

Are you asserting that this is a possible point for planted explosives used to stage the impact of the plane?

There's absolutely nothing in the images to support such a claim.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by SPreston
 


So where was April at, in relation to the generator?

At the X that SHE put on her map, right?



You people have proven nothing about April Gallop. Since the lawsuit results are not public knowledge, we really do not know what happened with them. Nor do we know anything about her current lawsuit against the 9-11 perps which is also not public information. However we do know how corrupt the US justice system is, and how often ordinary people get railroaded daily.

What we do know is that the X which somebody drew, is way out in the middle of the lawn. It is very doubtful that April Gallop had her office out on the lawn. No she was sent illegally through security with her baby boy to her office inside the Pentagon. So maybe some enterprising journalist, working for the 9-11 perps decided that was her position when she came out on the lawn after the explosion.

It does not matter where April was in relation to the generator, because the aircraft which did NOT hit it has been proven beyond any doubt Over the Naval Annex.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn

Except that we do know what caused the damage, which was the entire point of my post. It was diesel fuel and the impact of a jet engine at high velocity that caused the damage. You assert something different without evidence and only conjecture that is easily countered.


See? This is exactly what I mean!

You don't care that your own assertions completely contradict your other arguments. You just forge ahead furiously trying to counter whatever I say no matter what by throwing in a bunch of rhetoric with confidence.

The north side evidence proves the plane did not damage the trailer and a thread that YOU link to in YOUR signature that YOU created asserts and strongly argues for an NoC impact of the building meaning you would have to ACCEPT the north side evidence as valid.

It's 100% clear to the layman that there is no way the plane flew NoC and hit the generator trailer.



A south side path is REQUIRED for the damage to the generator to be remotely explained:


You don't care about logic, reason, or evidence.

You simply take whatever side of the argument counters what I say.



If we assume the missing 4-6ft of the trailer was due to the impact of the plane, and given there is a large, non-symmetrical object inside, it's well within the realm of possibility that whatever was inside the trailer was responsible for the outward-damage on the north face of the trailer.


That's a lot of ASSuming for the basic purpose of countering what I say while contradicting yourself in the process.

There is no "missing 4-6 ft of the trailer" anyway.

You made that up and have provided no evidence for this.

The top corner is bent down and the other side has a massive gaping hole in in the TOP part.

The notion that some "non-symmetrical object" literally tore through the other side while the rest of the structure remained perfectly in tact is nothing but a fantasy that you concocted that requires you to abandon arguments that you have furiously (and desperately) made in the past and STILL link in your signature.

Besides even if that DID happen why would the TOP part of the trailer have a gaping hole? It makes no sense whatsoever and you know it.






The plane impacted the trailer, rupturing the fuel tank and partially dragging the generator out of the trailer through the north side. This scenario is equally plausible, and unlike your "some type of weaponry" claim, infinitely more plausible.


So where is the generator on the ground? Why does the TOP part of that side of the trailer have a gaping hole? This trailer was created FOR the generator and the notion that the generator is just sitting loose inside of it is ridiculous. Your assertion is nonsense with zero evidence to back it up. It is not the least bit plausible yet it requires you to completely abandon arguments that you have furiously (and desperately) made in the past and STILL link in your signature.

There is nothing coherent or consistent in anything you say.

It's clear that your only goal is to cast doubt on whatever I say.



Are you asserting that this is a possible point for planted explosives used to stage the impact of the plane?

There's absolutely nothing in the images to support such a claim.


Of course it's "possible". Particularly if a lot of the damage was pre-fabricated which is beyond "possible" in their own secure backyard.

They had all the access, all the money, all the time, and all of the most advanced military weaponry available to them in the world.

Even the government has admitted that the damage is "counter-intuitive".

That's what got people questioning the event in the first place.

But the north side evidence that YOU HAVE ACCEPTED AND ARGUED FOR IN THE PAST AND STILL LINK IN YOUR SIGNATURE proves 100% that the plane did not cause the damage to the trailer.

You do not care that you fatally contradict yourself with these ridiculous unsupported claims.

You have demonstrated how you will say absolutely anything you can think of with pure confidence as long as it counters whatever I am saying.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They had all the access, all the money, all the time, and all of the most advanced military weaponry available to them in the world.


This has become the stock, standard, boilerplate answer for any fantastic or incredible or practically impossible claim of CIT or P4T.

Doesn't matter is the damage to the generator trailer doesn't fit Craig's fantasies - the military had "advanced military weaponry", so of course they could do it!

Just another laugh-track to this sitcom.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

So please tell us.....if you found out it was steel would you admit that there is clearly something fishy going on with the generator trailer damage?



What does it matter what I think? This thread is about your theory.

If it is aluminum, would you admit that there's nothing fishy? And that the side being missing is explained by simple melting aluminum?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Translation: It doesn't matter to pinch that the generator damage is irreconcilable to what 13 independent witnesses in this critical area unanimously report.



It's really amazing how you will repeat like a robot over and over that what these witnesses all say is CIT's "fantasy".

Why won't you tell the witnesses to their faces that they all "fantasized" the plane on 9/11?





posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Your reply actually reinforces the message therein more than anything else!



And exclamation points make you more reasonable and/or correct? I don't think so.

Actually, your disinterest in finding out whether or not the sides are aluminum, and so is explained simply, with no CT theory needed.... is very telling.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join