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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 34
172
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Are you American by any chance? In the UK we do have this slight prejudice that Americans really don't get irony...


Originally posted by exponent
Oh and rich23, are you really going to use the "well why don't controlled demolition companies just fly a plane into the building" argument? It is perhaps the single poorest argument ever produced by the truth movement.


See, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're not getting the fact that I was taking the mickey.


Here is a small list why not
  • Planes cost millions of dollars
  • Flying a plane into a building will kill the pilot
  • The location of the plane's impact cannot be sufficiently accurate
  • The collapse of the building would be uncontrolled


Can you name a single reason that a controlled demolition company would use a plane over precisely placed explosives?


Because it worked perfectly twice in a row to bring two hugely tall buildings down into their own footprint.

This, by the way, is a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum. That's Latin for taking the ****.

You also didn't read the original post where I suggested this. It's a long way back in the thread, so, to recap:

I suggested using surplus KC-130s. They're relatively cheap. That deals with point one, above.

I said you'd have to fit Global Hawk remote control. That deals with point two.

Points three and four poke holes in the official conspiracy theory.

Thank you for an entertaining post.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by rich23]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by rich23]




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by samhouston1886
 

Well it is certainly strange but that proves nothing. But thanks for the info.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


What do surplus airplanes have to do with Jones' paper? Does the fact that you do not understand the paper or technical subjects force you to derail the thread and discuss old tanker aircraft? Do you think the surplus aircraft were loaded with red chips of thermitic material?
Airplane, missile, and death ray threads are abundant on ATS. Perhaps your expertise will come to light in one of those threads.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


rich23 I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to put the brakes on right here.

You see, this claim of "fell perfectly into its own footprint" = CD, goes against the other claim which usually follows or precedes this claim in the same sentence of "there were numerous columns ejected 500ft away from the tower by 'big powerful explosions'" and this = a CD too.

Now do you see the predicament? You cannot claim two opposites and come to the same conclusion. I'm not singling you out personally rich23, I am just clarifying this observation in general. How can a group claim that the Towers all fell into their footprints, if in the same breath they say columns were ejected and scattered all around the WTCs and that somehow BOTH mean explosive CD? And as a side note for WTC7, it fell across the street in front of it, and damaged three buildings that were on all three sides of it, (its not something I'd call 'in its footprint'.) You cannot say that both are evidence of CD. Its either ONE or the OTHER. However I think I know why this is always used:
Its a great way to jump from one claim to the next and muddying the waters. When someone shoots down the idea of the "ejected columns 500ft" = CD, then they can fall back on "fell into its own footprint". But when that is also shot down, then they can jump back to the first, and on and on. Its a good way to shake off any real discussions or arguments that pose some hard questions which take apart the conspiracy. Or its a great way to bounce from one to the other so that when the heat gets too great they can interchange the argument.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Watch 100 CD's and then re-evaluate. While its called 'into its own footprint' its not 100% directly falling only onto its exact footprint with zero debris anywhere else. Other CD's have a larger "debris footprint".

Same goes for the "symetrical collapse" logical fallacy. "Oh it wasnt 100% symetrical". Again watch 100 cd's. The collapse of all 3 towers are more symetrical than most cd's even tho thay aren't 100% symetrical.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Ah but how is a building suppose to collapse when it has a catastrophic structural failure due to non-CD reasons?

Sure I've watched plenty of real CDs on TV and YT. But I've also watch structural failures and by golly, they look very similar. Remember the bridge collapse in MN a few years ago?

Also lacking in all three WTC collapses are the signature explosion sounds that would have been heard literally all over lower Manhattan PRIOR to the collapses. The lack of a series of detonations is a big problem for the CD idea. And no, accounts of hearing "explosions" randomly in the WTCs during the fires or impact are not evidence of actual demolition charges. There will always be "explosions" heard in fires around the world. That is nothing new. But trying to tie them to or claim THEY are demolition charges is misleading and dishonest.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Watch 100 CD's and then re-evaluate. While its called 'into its own footprint' its not 100% directly falling only onto its exact footprint with zero debris anywhere else. Other CD's have a larger "debris footprint".

Same goes for the "symetrical collapse" logical fallacy. "Oh it wasnt 100% symetrical". Again watch 100 cd's. The collapse of all 3 towers are more symetrical than most cd's even tho thay aren't 100% symetrical.


I know this won't register but the critical issue in the 3 collapses was their unusual structural design. These were not conventional buildings in terms of engineered distribution of support. Unrealized when they were built, there were circumstances in which a series of failures at critical points would cause the entire buildings to lose their structural integrity and collapse.
And that's what happened.

Comparisons to collapses of conventional surrounding support designs can be misleading. These buildings did not have conventional skeletons, you might say.

This has been explained in many places, official and otherwise. Check out the architectural and engineering analyses found online and from many countries.

This Wikipedia entry explaining the collapses is a good starting point.


en.wikipedia.org...


the commonly accepted process is that the damaged portion of the buildings failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the remaining structure below. Both buildings collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction.

Owing to differences in the initial impacts, the collapses of the two towers were found to differ in some respects, but in both cases, the same sequence of events applies. After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of each building played a significant role in this redistribution of the loads in the structure.

The impacts also dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, increasing its exposure to the heat of the fires. In the 102 minutes before the collapse of 1 WTC, the fires reached temperatures that – although well below the melting point – were high enough to weaken the core columns so that they underwent plastic deformation and creep from the weight of higher floors. The NIST report provides a model of the situation.
“ At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. (p. 29) ”

The situation was similar in 2 WTC. In both towers, perimeter columns and floors were also weakened by the heat of the fires, causing the floors to sag and exerting an inward force on exterior walls of the building.

At 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, the sagging floors finally caused the eastern face of 2 WTC to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse; the section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. At 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after the impact, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled, with similar consequences. After collapse ensued, the total collapse of the towers was inevitable due to the enormous weight of the towers above the impact areas.

A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter), the speed of the plane was lower (so there was less impact damage), and the affected floors had received partially upgraded fire proofing.



M





[edit on 11-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Also lacking in all three WTC collapses are the signature explosion sounds that would have been heard literally all over lower Manhattan PRIOR to the collapses.


The weren't missing in the universe I'm from.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Here is what a real demolition sounds like:







Here is the WTCs

From inside:


Just under the WTC:


nearby:




Now you cannot expect me to believe that "high power" explosives or "magic high powered explosive nano-thermite charges" weren't picked up on any audio recording device less than block away from the WTCs, and yet all the other real demolitions, you can hear them from much much farther away on home cameras.

sorry but that alone puts another big hole in the CD idea. All "high power" explosives make a very large kaboom. and a whole series of kabooms is very unmistakable.
As Marvin the Martian said: "Where's the kaboom? There was suppose to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!"

EDIT: Fix link

[edit on 7/11/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

sorry but that alone puts another big hole in the CD idea. All "high power" explosives make a very large kaboom. and a whole series of kabooms is very unmistakable.
As Marvin the Martian said: "Where's the kaboom? There was suppose to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!"


I'm not playing find the kaboom anymore. If you can't find it you're not looking. It's been addressed as recently as this week in this forum.

For one example the "kabooms" were reported on MSNBC's live broadcast. They had a terrorism expert on the show at the time (of collapse) that claimed it was CD, and pointed out the similarities.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
the "kabooms" were reported on MSNBC's live broadcast. They had a terrorism expert on the show at the time (of collapse) that claimed it was CD, and pointed out the similarities.


This is what I like best about conspiracy investigation. You can always find someone somewhere who says something that fits into your agenda.

If 6 people near the pentagon say they saw a missile, and the other 400 saw a plane, and there's a ton of evidence to support that - go with the 6 people who saw a missile.

Just like the janitor in the WTC sub-basement who heard a prior explosion is a demolitions expert we now have a purported terrorism expert who moonlights as a demolitions expert. And on the dreaded MSM MSNBC. Isn't everything they broadcast a lie?

Everyone is an expert on everything. The professionals who have studied these things for years and analyzed hundreds of explosions are government shills, so ignore their opinions.

Mike



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Yes, experts citing years of work fits my agenda.

This is why I don't make posts like:

OMFG 911 was an inside job sheeple!

Thats why I read the NIST report. Thats why I asked professionals in physics their opinions. Thats why I've asked ex NSA agents what they know.

Thats why when I'm watching the news on the internet on September 11th 2001 and there are multiple reports of explosions, CD, and bombs, and the story simply omits these things the next day I get suspicious and start to question.

Thats why when the investigation that I paid for comes up inconclusive I expect a new investigation. Because I don't have an agenda on any level you infer or assume.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You are not understanding what I am getting at.

If it was a "CD" then where are the series of detonations, key word there: SERIES, that should be heard PRIOR to any vertical movements of the building? Also, why did the exterior columns sag inwards prior to collapse? Sure sure any "expert" can say it looks like CD when the whole tower is collapsing, but why arent there any visible signs of it prior to collapse? Buildings slated for CD dont start collapsing first on their own, and THEN the explosives go off. They explosives go off first, THEN the building collapses.

At the WTC I wholeheartedly agree, there WERE explosions taking place in the WTC during the fires. A freaking 767 just plowed into a building, why wouldnt there be explosions taking place inside the building during the fires? Gases igniting, steel buckling, the pressurized oxygen tanks on the 767 exploding, electrical conduits, the whole structure is shifting after the impact as well, knock loose facades, walls, columns, etc. There are SO many sources of things sounding like an explosion that are NOT bombs, its kind of dishonest to assume, "Oh I heard an explosion, therefore that was a bomb." Tornado has been likened to a freight train sound when it passes over, or they've been describe as sounding like an explosion when a tornado rips apart a house. Are bombs and freight trains responsible for those sounds as well?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Ok. Yes, there were massive chunks ejected. BUT, the towers didn't fall OVER, they didn't tumble SIDEWAYS (even though the top of one tower was visibly canting over until it inexplicably exploded in mid-air): That happened twice in a row, with the core columns mysteriously not remaining standing like they do in that popular CG animation that purports to show how the trusses failed.

"Falling into their footprint" is close enough. Damage to surrounding buildings was (quite literally) unbelievably light if you think it wasn't CD.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rich23
 

What do surplus airplanes have to do with Jones' paper?


How about you either a) read the thread in context and see that I was replying to someone who'd said something asinine or b) accept that it was part of a discussion you've ignored?


Does the fact that you do not understand the paper or technical subjects force you to derail the thread and discuss old tanker aircraft?


Just love it when people confuse the words "fact" and "opinion".


Do you think the surplus aircraft were loaded with red chips of thermitic material?


Do you have to purposely misconstrue other people's arguments to make your point? If so, it's not a point worth making.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Have a look at Core of Corruption, available now on Google Video. Towards the end there is a whole section consisting of that day's TV coverage in which the preparatory explosions are plainly audible. There's also eyewitness testimony from a guy who heard WTC7 go down, and he uses the word "ka-boom!" to describe the sound. A few minutes later you get that very sound on audio as WTC7 goes. It's unmistakable.

The evidence is there but I'm sure you won't look.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I did read the thread in context. I was pointing out that surplus aircraft have nothing to do with Jones paper. Quirky smile and lip playing aside, the Jones paper is about purported thermitic material and is, amazingly, the topic of this thread.
"Are you British by any chance? In the US we do have this slight prejudice that Brits really don't get irony oxide..."



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Are you American by any chance? In the UK we do have this slight prejudice that Americans really don't get irony...

Nope, I am a Brit.


See, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're not getting the fact that I was taking the mickey.
...
Thank you for an entertaining post.


So you say you were taking the piss (that's not irony mate, sorry) but then you go on to try and defend your statement?

Which one is it? Are you being serious or not?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rich23
 


I did read the thread in context. I was pointing out that surplus aircraft have nothing to do with Jones paper.


It was a comment in an earlier post that others, including yourself, have misinterpreted, perhaps wilfully. Now you're dragging it out again.

And quoting the wikipedia entry about the official nonsense has nothing to do with Jones' paper, either. You don't see me complaining about that. Nor had the slanders about Jones and cold fusion. Have I whined about any of that stuff? No. I let turbo deal with the scientific end, which he was doing very well, and I dealt with the nonsense about Jones being a disinfo agent, which I've been looking into lately. No sense in duplicating efforts or going through stuff that's been dealt with already in this thread.

Complainers, I don't know.

And that was a terrible pun about irony oxide. It was germane, but... eww.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I'm glad you enjoyed the "irony oxide" comment. Turbo has not been too successful at addressing the technical details of Jones' paper and his technical assistants have abandoned him. The paper is scientifically bankrupt and has many flaws which I have pointed out on more than one thread. Further, Jones is not disinterested in the subject matter and started with a bias. Because the paper was published in a vanity journal and not peer reviewed, the substantial flaws were allowed to remain and are glossed over by the technically uneducated.
There is absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition of any of the WTC structures on 9/11. The entire theory is based on feelings that the towers shouldn't have collapsed the way they did. These feelings have no real basis and are extrapolations of the conspiracy folk watching videos of controlled demolitions of smaller structures and disaster movies. Of course, feelings trump logic and reason in the minds of many, so arguments based on fact will never convince the true believers. They communally feed off of the something-for-truth websites and reinforce their own hollow arguments in a closed, mutual admiration society that fully believes that they, and they alone, have inside knowledge. What they have is a nice fantasy in an alternate reality that makes them feel important.




top topics



 
172
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join