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: 48
172
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

the tower is not falling down because of them is it??


No one has ever answered the question what brought them down yet, only what initiated the collapse, so your question cannot be answered.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well then please explain to us how WTC7 fell then? There was no jet fuel, even though jet fuel still is not enough to make the fire hot enough to soften the steel, and just a few fires in WTC7. By your theories, any building thats made of steel that has a fire in it should be falling into its own footprint demolition style at freefall speed. If the fires from WTC 1 and 2 were hot enough to melt the steel at impact point, how were there 2 people leaned up against the metal girders? One of them was even waving? Please explain both of the phenomenoms to us please? How does the Windsor building which was COMPLETELY engulfed in much hotter flames (this has been proven due to the color of the fire itself) manage to still be standing after burning for 18 to 20 hours? but yet 2 buildings with oxygen starved flames fall in 1 hour. I don't know why I even keep arguing with you'll. It's apparent you'll want to live in a fantasy land.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

What scientific proof are you referring to?


Scientific proof is there, we`ll call it gravity and free falling rate ie lack of resistance, as the pancake theory has been scrapped, we now have to work out what managed to sever every single bolt/rivet/weld from the floor trusses tying them to the centre core and exterior frame (plus the inner core itself).

Here`s a huge clue, again we`ll work it out via science, a floor truss and we know how these were positioned, like to have a stab as to how the damage was done along the arrows marked as 1? half of the steel here has been sheared completely off, and the damage along arrows marked 2, again i`ll remind you this is a floor truss and if there was pressure on it it would not be along where the arrows are and would definately not result in how it shows, the damage around the end of this truss is 360 degrees, I think science tells us the only way force can be evenly distributed around 360 degrees and push parts out and shear parts off is an explosion, nothing more, nothing less...




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by prepare4it777
 


There is no evidence of demolition. Barring such evidence, the events of the day must be explained by other mechanisms. What you call evidence is not evidence. It is heresay, feelings, intuition, and misinterpretation and will not stand up in a court of law. If it could, there would have been a reinvestigation or indictment by now.
The truther movement has nothing now and never had anything. It seems that every time they make a claim it proves to be yet another variation on the same, tired old "stuff."
Good luck in your search for actual evidence. If the conspiracy was executed as well as is claimed, you can expect to find what you have found so far.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Obviously you do not know what conspiracy and cover up means. I'm sure you believe the lone gunman theory as well. To say that demolition is not obvious but provide no insight into WTC7 makes me disregard anything else you say. If you do not even provide an explanation into how every single floor becomes disconnected at the exact same time to fall into the floor beneath it. then you bring no explanation to the floor. The demolition makes plausible sense when watching it. So if you are not ready to provide an alternate theory, and just are here to say "no it wasn't that, but I cannot give any other explanation" then what you say is absolutely meaningless.

You still have not explained how the people were standinging at impaact point waving "where it was hottest and the steel was melting". In fact you failed to offer an explanation to any of the points I brought up. Until you can, I have no faith in you just blurting out "oh it can't happen this way (even though you can't explain any reasoning to the statement)". When you can actually give reasoning to back up statements like that, then there can be a basis for further study. Until then I as most truthers will stick to what actually makes sense.

You know to be totally honest, I believe most here just stickto the OS even with all the overwhelming evidence that has come out, just because they cannot now admit they were wrong after having debated it so long.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

I think science tells us the only way force can be evenly distributed around 360 degrees and push parts out and shear parts off is an explosion, nothing more, nothing less...


Why do you think science tells us this? Science says no such thing. Perhaps you have a reference to the science that says this. In a complex collapse, the beam could have been twisted in many different directions on the way down with the weight of the structure driving it. This is an example of "evidence" that has been manufactured, by your imagination, to fit the conclusion that you desire. One could just as easily claim that the magnetic destructor ray did it and use it as "evidence" of that. There is no physical evidence, as of yet, of demolition or a magnetic destructor ray. Not even of the ten tons of Jones' red chips is evidence because Jones has yet to prove they are anything but paint.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by prepare4it777
 


Can`t argue with science, if the collapses looked like free fall, if the collapses fell like free fall, if the collapses landed like free fall, if the collapses were timed like free fall, they were free falls
.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Why do you think science tells us this? Science says no such thing. Perhaps you have a reference to the science that says this. In a complex collapse, the beam could have been twisted in many different directions on the way down with the weight of the structure driving it. This is an example of "evidence" that has been manufactured, by your imagination, to fit the conclusion that you desire. One could just as easily claim that the magnetic destructor ray did it and use it as "evidence" of that. There is no physical evidence, as of yet, of demolition or a magnetic destructor ray. Not even of the ten tons of Jones' red chips is evidence because Jones has yet to prove they are anything but paint.


Free fall collapse time and no resistance = every single truss every single support was broken, it was not a pancake affect, what part of this have I manufactured, for that beam to look like it did something would have to grab one end and rotate it 360 and twist it, remember the no resistance bit?, can`t have it both ways, if that was the way support beams had to be broken I very much doubt the collapse time would be identical to free fall, no resistance, remember that and the end of that beam.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by pteridine
 


Obviously you do not know what conspiracy and cover up means. I'm sure you believe the lone gunman theory as well. To say that demolition is not obvious but provide no insight into WTC7 makes me disregard anything else you say. If you do not even provide an explanation into how every single floor becomes disconnected at the exact same time to fall into the floor beneath it. then you bring no explanation to the floor. The demolition makes plausible sense when watching it. So if you are not ready to provide an alternate theory, and just are here to say "no it wasn't that, but I cannot give any other explanation" then what you say is absolutely meaningless.

You know to be totally honest, I believe most here just stickto the OS even with all the overwhelming evidence that has come out, just because they cannot now admit they were wrong after having debated it so long.


Your major problem, and the problem of the truthers in general, is that they believe that they saw a demolition and now demand detailed explanations of every nuance of collapse. If it cannot be explained to their ever increasing standards, it must be a demolition....because that is what they want. The way this works, technically, is that evidence of demolitions must be present to claim demolitions. This is what is missing. Assuming that anyone would know how the buildings would collapse, how long it would take, and what would happen in the wreckage after the collapse is basing everything on gut feelings and you tube videos. This is not evidence.
When people are forced to assume high tech quiet explosives and paint on thermite, one would think that "they cannot now admit they were wrong after having debated it so long."



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

The collapses were not freefall. This is more justifcation of your predetermined conclusion and is erroneously promulgated by the truther sites that you frequent.
In any case, how would you discriminate catastrophic collapse due to explosives and that due to something else?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The difference between truthers and gl`s is thus, you have had a multi million dollar enquiry with the sole intention of proving what happened that day which it failed miserably at, hell they didn`t even mention WTC7, they disregarded 503 1st responders and did not even bother checking for explosions, even though if a pancake affect did not induce the collapses there is only one obvious explanation that did!!!!!!!.

Now i`m gonna stick my neck out here and state if truthers had a multi million dollar inquiry, and done the relevant tests we would not be here debating this now, that`s 100% for sure.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

The collapses were not freefall. This is more justifcation of your predetermined conclusion and is erroneously promulgated by the truther sites that you frequent.
In any case, how would you discriminate catastrophic collapse due to explosives and that due to something else?



Ah the pedantic approach, the collapses were a few seconds out side a free fall bar WTC7 (remember the tower they forgot to mention at the commission inquiry?).

I do not need any site what so ever to tell me anything, the videos speak for themselves, hell even the French are ripping the piss out of you guys nowadays.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Of course, you would be debating. A multimillion dollar truther study would have concluded death rays, explosives, thermite, and holographic airplanes all within the government conspiracy and would be based on the illusory evidence you think you have.
People would ask you for evidence and you would trot out the same tired interpretations that you call evidence that aren't. It would be duelling studies and the arguments would go on forever.
When will you start collecting for the study? It would be worth it as you would at least win the Nebula award for science fiction.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Ok so your official explanation to all of us truthers is that the few fires minus any jet fuel in WTC7 brought the building down is this what you are stating?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
By the way, I love your signature. It's just too bad you do not live by it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Yup fire caused this lol

If you look at this video you can see all the simultaneous blast of the detonation down the right side of the building. This video was released in 11-2008

[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

I do not need any site what so ever to tell me anything, the videos speak for themselves, hell even the French are ripping the piss out of you guys nowadays.


Of course you don't need any analyses by truther sites. You noted all of this yourself by watching and interpreting videos. This is the solid evidence that would go with your experience in demolitions and knowledge of the unique architecture of the buildings in WTC.
The French believe what they like to believe and aren't ripping much of anything because they have no evidence either. They are so emotional.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Will you answer my questions?

1) Do you believe fire was the official cause for the collapse of WTC7?

2) What are the blast of smoke down the right side of the WTC7 just preior to its complete and simultaneous collapse?

www.youtube.com... at 18 seconds?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by pteridine
 


Ok so your official explanation to all of us truthers is that the few fires minus any jet fuel in WTC7 brought the building down is this what you are stating?


I am saying that there is no evidence for demolition. No detonators, wires, unexploded charges, timers, radios, plans, orders, people, cabling, or anything else was discovered. Based on your logic, this is just as strong, if not stronger, evidence of a space based directed energy weapon. Why aren't you arguing that instead of explosives?
If there is no evidence for demolition, then the fires coupled with the damage from impact of parts of the wtc must have led to collapse....unless it was the energy weapon that did it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You competely ignored my question. For the 3rd time, are you telling everyone here that you believe fire brought down WTC7? Can you just answer the question instead of working so hard to avoid it?



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join