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.

 

Where's a 9/11 Mythbusters when you need one?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I never said to chose my point of view, but you deny others points of view by saying their debunked before they speak.

Exactly why there is nothing to discuss.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
Personally, when I've read about the thermite theory, it's been proposed that shaped cutter charges were used. The standard picture they like to show is this one. Which does appear to show a column with a highly angled cut and re-solidified metal drippings at the bottom.


Any cutter charge that would produce an effect like that would have stood out like a sore thumb to all the engineers, inspectors, custodians, contractors, etc etc etc whose job it was to keep the building in good shape. Particularly whn there'd have to be thousands of the things all over the place. You know that and so do I.


Again, poor delivery system. Mythbusters likes big, shiny explosions and things. Their motivation was to put on an impressive show, not acheive a result as efficiently as possible. If you had bothered to watch either of the videos I linked, you'd see that much smaller quantites needed to get much more efficient results.


Your videos no such thing. You can't compare cutting a 1 inch rebar with cutting a two foot by three foot box column some four inches thick, any more than you can compare a firecracker to what they driopped on the Nazis during WWII. You should know that.


It'd be ridiculous to suggest that they'd need to be sneaky about it when they could simply have acquired a security pass by pretending to be repair crews.


You do know the NYPA had its own full time staff of electricians, mechanics, inspectors, security, and other support personnel who worked there for years, so there never would have been any "people sneaking in pretending to be repair crews". In the cases where outside technicians I.E. elevator repairmen would come in, they'd only be working in one area and wouldn't be wandering all over the building.


...wait a second...are you suggesting that conventional explosives were used to demolish the towers, or are you simply throwing random stuff out there to try to create a smokescreen?


No, I'm saying outright that any alternative scenario needs to explain all the facts, not those one or two they're cherry picking which happens to support the conspiracy stories they're submitting.


So shall we dismiss the official story because of that? Shall we dismiss the official story because of the reports of explosions, or because of the molten steel?


The "official story" as you put it doesn't contradict that there were explosions. That rubbish is coming solely from the conspiracy people making false accusations. The building was chock full of pressurized pipes, electrical transformers, fire extinguishers, and other objects that would naturally explode while on fire.

By now it should be dawning on you that these damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all this rubbish from are only giving you those few and select facts that happen to support what they want you to think. There's a whole other side of the story they're not telling you.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I never said to chose my point of view, but you deny others points of view by saying their debunked before they speak.

Exactly why there is nothing to discuss.


Seeing that you're so vehemently arguing against my position that there wasn't any thermite, this tells me right away what your position is, regardless of wheiher you specifically state it or not.

Or, am I wrong?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




By now it should be dawning on you that


No. It's only dawning on me that conversation with you is unproductive.

Have a nice day.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
No. It's only dawning on me that conversation with you is unproductive.

Have a nice day.


As you please. Bear in mind, though, that the truth never needs to run and hide from falsehoods; it's falsehoods that always need to run and hide from the truth.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Reading through the threads, people arguing back and forth about the pentagon footage, and thought you know what would make a great 9/11 Mythbusters that would clear up one gigantic argument...

Take the same two cameras that the security gate was using on 9/11 and get some pilot to fly a 757 with a AA paint scheme on the same flight path (distance from camera, altitude, and speed) as f77 on a bright sunny day and see what the videos look like. Maybe attach a smoke streamer for even more accuracy and see if it all matches the original 9/11 security gate videos.

What do you think? Would we get the big myth BUSTED or myth CONFIRMED?



I think that there have already been enough investigations into the WTC collapses. Doing 2983579328579328759 more will not stop truthers from being truthers and debunkers from being debunkers.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


" The standard picture they like to show is this one. Which does appear to show a column with a highly angled cut and re-solidified metal drippings at the bottom."


One more time , here goes , is everyone listening ?

That photo does NOT prove the use of thermite !



That photo shows the column has been severed by a CUTTING TORCH .

The angled cut is a common technique used by every welder/torch operator who is worth his salt . There is NOTHING unusual about an angled cut .

Think about this for a moment , and try to let it sink in ... The column was cut on an angle as a means to control the direction in which it would fall during clean-up operations .

Any and every welder will tell you this is a standard and SAFE way to sever any vertical beams/columns , etc.

You don't make a horizontal cut on a beam that you are trying to bring down. If you tried to cut that column horizontally , you would have the problem of the weight of the column constantly being forced down into your cut .

However, if you start your cut at the 'high' side , as the fellow did who cut this column , then the weight of the column is constantly moving away from your cutting area.

Once the high side has been cut and both of the 'angled' cuts have been made , the column leans and falls in the direction you want it to .

Once it has fallen , you make your final cut , on the bottom end of the 'angled' cuts . Which is exactly what this guy did .

And , that is NOT re-solidified metal that you see on the column's cut area . That is called 'slag' which forms each and every time you make a cut with a torch .

If you will notice , the slag is on the inside of the column where the 'angled' cuts were made and where the initial cut was made on the 'high' side . Why ? Because these cuts had to be made from the outside of the column .

Now , notice that the slag is on the outside of the column in the final cut at the bottom . Why ? Because the column is no longer standing , the guy cuts it from the space of where the column once stood , thereby blowing the slag in a downward direction to the outside of the column .

There is nothing unusual about this photo. Aren't there any welders on here who can verify what I am saying ?

If this were a therm*te cut , why would the direction of the burn change from one side of the column to the next ? It wouldn't .

If one is to believe that these columns were severed by therm*te angled cuts , then it would stand to reason that the whole friggin tower would have either slid and dropped down in the direction of the angles , or the whole friggin tower would have simply tilted towards the direction of the angle and FALLEN OVER .

This whole little conspiracy about these cuts is utter nonsense . There were even parts of the facade that remained standing after the collapses .



[edit on 17-5-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
i just signed up acctually to respond on this because i was curious as to why mythbusters wont touch 911.

im am not a truther or debunker i hate labels like that. I am a person of science. there are many scientific problems of the events of 911 most notably building 7. and correct me if im wrong.... i dont think it was thermite that was used. didnt a professor from texas demonstrate a substance called therMATE?

anyhow...

anyone who doesnt see all the of obvious scientific and common sence issues with 911 needs a reality check. do a google search on what ANECDOTAL evedence means with regards to people seeing an airliner at the pentagon. anecdotal evidence does not apply here. the wreckage and hole in the wall at the pentagon simply dont support a 747 jetliner ramming it. there would have been 10 times more damage jesus.

science people. not anecdotal evedence or who done it talk. just PURE SCIENCE.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by polaris666
 



i was curious as to why mythbusters wont touch 911.


Here's the official response from Adam Savage.

For comparison, listen to him explain why they won't do RFID.

There's also brief mention of the topic in the reddit interview.



i dont think it was thermite that was used. didnt a professor from texas demonstrate a substance called therMATE?


That would be Steven Jones.

Thermite is typically aluminum + iron oxide. Thermate is typically aluminum + iron oxide + sulphur.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by polaris666
i just signed up acctually to respond on this because i was curious as to why mythbusters wont touch 911.

im am not a truther or debunker i hate labels like that. I am a person of science. there are many scientific problems of the events of 911 most notably building 7. and correct me if im wrong.... i dont think it was thermite that was used. didnt a professor from texas demonstrate a substance called therMATE?

anyhow...

anyone who doesnt see all the of obvious scientific and common sence issues with 911 needs a reality check. do a google search on what ANECDOTAL evedence means with regards to people seeing an airliner at the pentagon. anecdotal evidence does not apply here. the wreckage and hole in the wall at the pentagon simply dont support a 747 jetliner ramming it. there would have been 10 times more damage jesus.

science people. not anecdotal evedence or who done it talk. just PURE SCIENCE.


Your "PURE SCIENCE" might look better if you could at least get the plane at the Pentagon right.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
If mythbusters ever did a show on 9/11 they would side with the government like they sided with the moon landings just for ratings.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Ah yes, but it's not the extra super nano-thermite paint


There was also a better related test of thermite more recently (National Geo?) where they piled thermite around a steel column to see if it could possibly sever the column which, of course, it didn't. People are too entrenched in their conspiracy ideas by now to ever change their minds regardless of the quality of testing procedures.


I dunno Jesse Ventura used to do it for a living. No one believes him tho because he beat up Hulk Hogan and that hurts people on the inside.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join