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.

 

Crazy crackpots melting steel/rock with an energy beam (VIDEO)

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I notice that despite all the know-it-alls insisting on contolled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, hologram planes, or whatever, Judy Wood and her "lasers fron outer space" bunch were the only ones with enough conviction in their research to actually file a lawsuit claiming there was a coverup.

I'd like to know how the conspiracy people explain that.

Why do you care?


Becuase despite all the know it all attitude prevalent among the conspiracy theorists bordering on outright arrogance, the only ones who actually care to do anythign about it are those you don't believe have any credibility.

My point has aleays been this- the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is NOT based upon the pursuit of truth or wanting to make sure it never happens again, but entirely upon the abject paranoia being shovelled out by the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Their goal is NOT to solve any problems, but to keep people perpetually paranoid in order to sell their knicknacks. It's the antiestablishment groupie's version of Seator McCarty stirring up paranoia over the Red menace. Seriously, WTF did Alex Jones ever actually do all these horrid conspiracies he's supposedly discovering other than sell his T-shirts?

Then Judy Woods comes along, explains her entire case for lasers from outer space on her web site for free, and to date, is the only one who filed a lawsuit on the grounds there was a conspiracy. Plus, I notice she isn't selling baseball caps like Dylan Avery does. You don't see anything odd about any of this?




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You just keep on clinging to that damned fool NIST report.

It does not take a conspiracy site to tell you that if no tests for explosive and accelerants are done in the face of a supposed TERRORIST ATTACK something is off.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



to explain how the WTC fell while all the concrete turned to dust before the WTC hit the ground.


There you go again , lying . Why do you keep doing that ? Do you actually think that no one will call you on it ?

"All" of the concrete did not "turn to dust" , and you damn well know it , so stop lying about it .



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


If a commercial airliner crashed into your house , and you saw it happen , would you insist on calling the bomb squad , or anyone else , to test for traces of bomb residue ?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Cassius666
 


If a commercial airliner crashed into your house , and you saw it happen , would you insist on calling the bomb squad , or anyone else , to test for traces of bomb residue ?


If my house was a 110 story steel framed building that globally collapsed an hour later then yes I would.

Especially if my neighbors house two blocks away also globally collapsed into its footprint, yet all the other houses didn't.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
"All" of the concrete did not "turn to dust" , and you damn well know it , so stop lying about it .


Before you go calling people liars can you show me ONE piece of the concrete floors, OR the steel pans that held them?

Also can you explain how concrete melted in WTC 6?

whatreallyhappened.com...

www.patentstorm.us...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Cassius666
 


If a commercial airliner crashed into your house , and you saw it happen , would you insist on calling the bomb squad , or anyone else , to test for traces of bomb residue ?


Just keep trying to talk it away that no proper investigation took place after what supposedly was a TERRORIST ATTACK !!!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Before you go calling people liars can you show me ONE piece of the concrete floors


Yes I can , I am going through my files right now . As soon as I find what I am looking for , I will post it , as I've posted it before , for the liars who say all of the concrete was turned to dust .



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have not seen anything to confirm that damned fool NIST report.


By the same token, I have yet to see anyone refute eyewitness accounts like those of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden saying out of control fires were causing large scale bulging in the side of WTC 7


Irrelevant. "Out of control fires" does not automatically equate to what happened to WTC7, in any realm outside of twisted fantasy. You still have absolutely zero proof.


or anyone showing how controled demolitions or lasers could have destroyed WTC 7 from the inside out as every video of the collapse has shown.


Inside out? You think WTC7 would have to be demolished from the outside in?




So if you're going to be trashing everyone else for having no proof, where's the proof from that damned fool NIST report "Dave"?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I've pretty much already given up on saying anything further to you, Impressme, as it's blatantly obvious you've become so outer space fringe in your crackpot conspiracy claims you've taken to making stuff up off the top of your . and even your fellow conspiracy theorists (I.E. Bonez) are hoping that you'd go away.


Yet you cannot stop responding? No it is “not blatantly obvious” that I am a “space fringe in your crackpot”. Perhaps calling people names make you feel better because, you know your Truth doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and simple science.

I do not have to tell lies in order to defend the Truth, or make up garbage off the top of my .. “Fact,” people who desperately defend the proven lies of the OS are the one’s who make up nonsense off the top of their . in defending the OS lies as we see a few debunkers demonstrating it in this thread.

Dave your childish games of pitting Truther against Truthers such as Bone’s and I in your game of divide and conquer will never work. Truthers regardless of our opinions mostly respect one another. Some of us don’t always agree with everything as you know many debunkers do not agree with everything with 911. I find it very hard to believe Bones would have anything to do with the likes of you, and your on going smear campaign against every Truther who dares to confront you on the garbage you spew in these 911 threads.


I can't even ask a simple question like why despite Judy Wood's low credibility she's the only one with enough conviction to file federal lawsuits without having to play childish mental chess games with you.


What question? You haven’t asked a question here?


You have all the credibility of a snake oil peddler so it's pontless to waste any more time on you.


If that was true then why do you continue to “try” and debunk me? The fact is you never been able to prove any of my credible sources false. In fact when science is presented to you, proven your OS is a fraud, you run. Yet, you have the audacity to repeatedly make claims that all I ever do is spew lies on these 911 threads and you haven’t ever proven it, this alone speaks volumes about you. You can’t debunk the given topic so in your frustration you call me “snake oil peddler,” I love it.



I still gotta ask, though- are you officially signing onto the "lasers from otuer space" claim now? Or are you going to weasel out of answering that question too?


No, I do not support the laser theory, however it dose not disprove laser could have been used. We certainly don’t have any evidence to support this claim as we still don’t have all the evidence to what was all used to bring down the WTC. Fact is it was not office fires and jet fuel, which was proven a long time ago. Was that “weasel” enough for you?
You have no proof of anything to substantiate you allegations against all Truthers and your nonsense against me. These are you opinions and sadly enough you are truly ignorant, of most verifiable facts, which prove the OS is mostly hogwash.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



to explain how the WTC fell while all the concrete turned to dust before the WTC hit the ground.

There you go again , lying . Why do you keep doing that ? Do you actually think that no one will call you on it ?

"All" of the concrete did not "turn to dust" , and you damn well know it , so stop lying about it .


Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

911research.wtc7.net...

Before you start calling me and other people a liar, you might want to do a little research on peoples claims. Since I made the claim and you are calling me out on this, I felt the need to present you a source. If you care to dispute this fact, I will be happy to read your sources that should prove otherwise.
edit on 30-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


911.yweb.sk...

Oh look , I wonder who planted those chunks of concrete in this photo ? Since all of the concrete turned to dust , in mid-air , then we must assume that those firemen planted chunks of concrete throughout the pile , right ?

Once again , you are lying when you say all the concrete turned to dust .

I will post more photos , as I find them , to prove you are lying .

p.s. blow the photo up and take a good look at the chunk of concrete in the upper-right corner of the photo , and you will see that it is still attached to part of the floor-pan . If you look directly above the yellow hardhat , you will also see a piece of a corrugated floor-pan .

Wow , some more of that pesky concrete that didn't turn to dust : www.wiprud.com...

Further analysis and photos that prove your claim that all the concrete turned to dust , is nothing but a lie that is being foisted upon those who aren't aware that you are lying :


Any way you slice it, there was just not that much dust.


www.uwgb.edu...
edit on 31-1-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Those are steel beams.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Irrelevant. "Out of control fires" does not automatically equate to what happened to WTC7, in any realm outside of twisted fantasy. You still have absolutely zero proof.


It is an irrefutable fact that a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure is an anomaly, and a dangerous one since it necessarily means support columns meant to only be positioned straight up and down were now semicircular. It is also an irrefutable fact that the out of control fires were in the same location as the three story tall bulge which necessarily means there was a corelation between the two, and it is an irrefutable fact that eyewitnesses in the vicinity knew from the poor condition of the building that it was going to collapse.

The tell tale evidence showing who is credible and who is not isn't any of this, however. The telltale evidence is that the conspiracy mongers intentionally sweep these facts under a rug and pretend they don't exist in order to sucker people into believing their own claims. I'm sorry, but "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it's certainly isn't going to work on me.


Inside out? You think WTC7 would have to be demolished from the outside in?


I am stating WTC 7 needs to be demolished from the inside out specifically becuase that's exactly how it fell. The penthouse collapsed down into the interior some six seconds before the exterior did, and from the pattern of broken windows we can see the penthouse din't just collapse- it collapsed and kept on going down into the building. This is proven by every video of the WTC 7 collapse and it cannot be refuted, so if your controlled demolitions (or lasers from outer space or nukes in the basement or whatever) is unable to account for this pattern of damage then it cannot be counted upon as being the reason for it.


So if you're going to be trashing everyone else for having no proof, where's the proof from that damned fool NIST report "Dave"?


The NIST report never says their scenario was the definitive reason why WTC 7 collapsed, and in fact they openly state the report was an estimate. Namely, this is because they know some evidence may pop up at a later date showing the irregular thermal expansion scenario was wrong and some as-yet unknown reason may be the case. I personally subscribe to it because the eyewitness accounts show there was in fact thermal expansion from the fires going on, which gives the NIST account at least some credibility.

One thing is certain, though- it WASN'T due to any controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, shape shifting alien lizards, or whatever crackpot claim those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out. Just because you hope the is some secret sinister conspiracy going on it does not mean there really is some secrect sinister conspiracy going on.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Those are steel beams.


What ?


You actually think I don't know what a steel beam looks like , and don't know the difference between a steel beam and concrete ?

What are you saying , you can't see the concrete chunks in those photos ? Look again .



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides,
hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive,
interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as
gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when
heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the
hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly
lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory;
they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of
concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending
on their mineral composition.

So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose
rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it
cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.

Richard Barrans
Argonne National Laboratory


www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Those photos show articles that were encapsulated in DECOMPOSED concrete , not molten concrete .
edit on 31-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Okay fine, not all of the concrete got pulverized then, just 99% of it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Nope , wrong again . Do you even read links that are posted for you and others ? I get the feeling that you don't.

You're just deadset on denying anything that contradicts your adamant belief in some sinister conspiracy by the USG .

Go back and READ the link this time around .

www.uwgb.edu...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I do not think a space based laser was used on 9/11.
But just because lasers didn't exist when you were born doesn't mean they don't now.
Both lasers and masers have been in used for a while now and both the US airforce and Navy used high power chemical lasers as weapons now. I guess no one has herd of surgical cutting lasers either.
Also, if some one was shot in the . with a laser the wound would be cauterized so profuse bleeding would rule that out



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Those photos show articles that were encapsulated in DECOMPOSED concrete , not molten concrete .


Whatever you want to call it, how did it happen?

Your little quote doesn't explain how it 'decomposed' around objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL those are huge chunks of concrete in your pic?

Do you know how large the floors were? Typical of debunkers, you find the 1% that didn't turn to dust.

And please tell me how you know that is from the floors, as I asked, and you didn't show pics of the steel floor pans either. You didn't show me what I asked for that you claimed you had, sorry.

What happened to the mechanical floors...


On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking. 1

911research.wtc7.net...

They had solid steel beams, not light weight trusses.

More of your 'decomposed' concrete...


edit on 1/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join