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.

 

Chief Nigro FDNY, WTC7 Conspiracies "without merit"

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I don't know, maybe hand a policeman a pristine passport that just happens to be one of the hijackers? Just maybe?

I've already been through this (possibly in this thread!) and even if this were the case, they would not be wearing a police uniform now would they.

Lets examine the alternate case, assume that indeed this is a faked passport. We know that the person who it supposedly belonged to was on the flight, and therefore we know he had his passport with him. We also know that personal effects such as credit cards survived not only impact, fire but also the collapse of the towers (no guarantee about positions in the towers of course but this is a simple illustration).

Now imagine what would happen if this passport actually survived the impact as stated. If it were found it would almost certainly be referred up the chain of authority, and this would mean that there would very evidently be two identical passports found at Ground Zero. This is absolute clear evidence of some sort of suspicious activity going on.

Do you really think shadowy conspirators who are capable of planting (in some peoples opinions) tons of explosive in occupied office buildings would take such an extreme risk for absolutely no benefit? Considering your claim of it being a faked passport is pure incredulity, I see no reason to believe this. More delicate things have survived plane crashes, for example suicide notes written onto air sickness bags: en.wikipedia.org...

I also notice Griff that you've failed to comment on the rather disgusting claims made by Insolubrious, why is this?


Originally posted by Insolubrious
Building 7 was clearly demolished, if Nigro can't even admit it looked just a tiny bit like a demolition and that there is absolutely nothing suspicious about 7s collapse then he is clearly very ignorant or complicate. Simple as that. And yes i believe he would lie to save his job.

I have no interest in discussing this with you, there are levels of civility I am prepared to accept but someone who will wildly accuse someone who is by all rights a hero of being complicit in the murder of 3000 people based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever is not rational.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

As for ALUMINIUM sorry but it is not going through steel, especially huge closely spaced steel columns creating a cartoon cutout.



For the most part, the bolts that held the ext columns together broke.......

So even while it's a tough sell to troofers whether or not aluminum could "cut" through the steel columns, it's just another red herring question that the uneducated sheep the litter the troof movement use to obfuscate any real info that intelligent people use to determine what happened.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
For the most part, the bolts that held the ext columns together broke.......


Where's your proof of this?

There is none cause it's BS. The columns were WELDED and welds don't just come apart. It's obvious, if there were just bolts that broke then you wouldn't have a plane shaped hole unless they were bolted in that pattern.

Moving the goalposts again eh?


The exterior columns were nominally 356 mm square, hollow sections (wall thickness approximately 12 mm at the impact floors). Sets of three exterior columns were welded to plates forming spandrels

Source



[edit on 10/1/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Look it doesn't matter it was just an example, get over it.
A lead round loses it's momentum as soon as it goes through the first thin skin of the door and is trapped in the middle by the stuff they fill the door cavity with.

You are trying your hardest to dance around the physics I bought up, without actually addressing the physics.

That tells me two things, either you don't understand the physics involved, or you do and you have an agenda.

This is not opinion, it's facts, Newton has yet to be proved wrong.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It's real simple. Aluminium planes don't punch through steel girders, or 5 rings of the Pentagon for that matter. It's basic high school physics.

Plane vs concrete wall:



So if this happens, why should we expect a plane to pass through concrete floors and steel girders on 9/11, with virtually no deceleration? Wake up.




[edit on 1-10-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

There is none cause it's BS. The columns were WELDED and welds don't just come apart. It's obvious, if there were just bolts that broke then you wouldn't have a plane shaped hole unless they were bolted in that pattern.


LOLZ. We have now reached a new level of ignorance with this post. Congratulations, give yourself a cookie.

911research.wtc7.net...

As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.

And a nice little pic during construction: 911research.wtc7.net...

And take another look at your own photo. The ext columns are broken at the bolted joints.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You are trying your hardest to dance around the physics I bought up, without actually addressing the physics.

That tells me two things, either you don't understand the physics involved, or you do and you have an agenda.

This is not opinion, it's facts, Newton has yet to be proved wrong.

You did not bring up any physics, you claimed that Newtons laws mean the plane could not penetrate. You did not support this with any calculations nor figures nor any evidence of any kind.

This cannot be disproven as there are no figures that I can show are incorrect. I have informed you you are wrong and you have conceded that in fact density, deformation characteristics, kinetic energy etc all play a part in the behaviour of items upon impact. This is contrary to your previous post where you claim only the hardness matters.

How would you like me to disprove this?


Originally posted by Insolubrious
It's real simple. Aluminium planes don't punch through steel girders, or 5 rings of the Pentagon for that matter. It's basic high school physics.

So every engineer and physicist in the world knows that this is impossible but they have not said anything? You can't really be making this claim can you?

[edit on 2-10-2008 by exponent]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join