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.

 

Biblical Contradictions In Nat Geo Documentary

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I've been dwelling on these for a bit and thought I'd make a post highlighting what I see as some ridiculous contradictions on the scale of "peace is war".

1. Jet Fuel Reaches 2000 °F In 2 Minutes In A Vaporized Fireball

They showed that in a vaporized fireball like the plane impact, atomized fuel temperatures peak at 2K at around 2 minutes of burn time - but here's the contradiction:

If they peak in 2 minutes, doesn't that mean that they cool off back down to normal burn temperatures rapidly? The laws of thermodynamics say this must be the case.

Of course, if you atomize fuel and explosively ignite it, it will create a raging fireball inferno. But that explosive release of energy is extremely short lived, which they proved. So how is it possible that, if temperatures peak in 2 minutes, the fires were hot enough to effect the steel several hours later? If temperatures peaked in the towers just 2 minutes into the impact, shouldn't we expect the towers to have collapsed rather rapidly after impact when the steel was subjected to the highest temperatures?

If it takes a long time for the thick structural steel to heat up, doesn't that mean that the steel was relatively cold while the temperatures were at their highest point?


2. Thermite

We all saw the bags of commercial thermite stuck around the beam of steel and its failure to cut through it (which is ridiculous, I've seen videos of thermite blow a hole through an engine block and weld train tracks together) - but here's the ridiculous contradiction:

Supposedly jet fuel melted the steel causing the catastrophic failure of the towers.

If thermite (which burns at 4500 °F, about half as hot as the surface of the sun) is not capable of melting steel, how could an open air jet fuel fire (which burns at ~600 °F) cause the steel to weaken enough to cause a total collapse?

It stands to reason that if jet fuel can do it, then so could thermite.

Of course, the reports show commercial thermite was NOT used in the towers, highly explosive and a thousand times more energetic nano-thermite was used. Nano-thermetics are used as explosive matches. They explode like C4, they don't "burn".


3. Rigging The Building Takes 100s of Men And Must Be Precise

They said it takes 100s of men thousands of hours to rig a building for a precise demolition - but here's the contradiction:

How is it possible that a structural failure caused by fire could cause a total collapse that is nearly symmetric in all three towers if it takes so many people so much time to collapse a building using massive amounts of well placed explosives?

Think about that for a minute. If one of those blasting charges is off, it can cause the building to tip over, fall outside of its foot print and not fully demolish itself. The rigging must be precise and well placed in order for the building to be destroyed. It does take time and skill to pull off a demo correctly, Nat Geo actually proved that. Here's footage of a demolition going wrong, where a charge does not go off as planed and the building stops its collapse right in the middle of the demolition.

Watch that demo video and think of WTC7 at the same time. You'll laff.

The video also makes a mockery of the "pancake" theory. The bottom of this building is blown out and the entire structure is acting as a pile driver. It stops it's collapse completely at the point where the explosives failed.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Sorry but I'm not seeing the part referred to in the title as "biblical contradictions"



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.


You must have missed this video:



I forget, did they highlight this in the Nat Geo documentary?

I bet not.

This one wasn't hit by a plane.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.


Empire state building ?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


The ESB is not a valid comparison. Different construction, different aircraft, different speed. Actually, were someone to crash a 767 into the ESB, I wouldnt be surprised for it to remain standing due to its construction.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by zerbot565
 


The ESB is not a valid comparison. Different construction, different aircraft, different speed. Actually, were someone to crash a 767 into the ESB, I wouldnt be surprised for it to remain standing due to its construction.


WTC was built ten times stronger than the ESB.

It was a solid mesh of steel webbing designed the take multiple jet liner impacts.

The load was distributed across a huge web of steel, with the primary core supporting 60% IIRC. You could literally rip half the building out and it would have remained standing.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.


You must have missed this video:



I forget, did they highlight this in the Nat Geo documentary?

I bet not.

This one wasn't hit by a plane.


funny how keeper of kheb has conveniently disappeared from the thread.

so predictable these OCS defenders are.

Nothing more than an extension of the perps.




top topics



 
2

log in

join