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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 27
34
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikeyhackr

YOU dont know if the fuel explosion caused no damage to the steelwork or floors, you assume that, we cant know! but what
about damage to the fire protection and sheetrock.

Drawings on the net work out the info yourself re mass!

Anok

Again you look at the events the way YOU want , the Cardington test show that the temperatures in an office fire
can get high enough to cause real problems. Some parts got to 700+c in 23 mins!

But you seem to ignore the fact that the test did not simulate the collapse of the floors above the Cardington
steelwork was not sujected to a massive shock(dynamic) load from above was it!!!!!

You also seem to forget the 700-800 tons of concrete per floor were held onto the core and perimeter steel
with a couple of bolts through a piece of steel angle, did that itself cause problems on the day!

TheIsraelite777
Yes the explosions what could they have been were they actual explosions could things in the building
exploded due to the heat? and could it have been structural items failing can you imagine the noise of
say part of a floor that has 700-800 tons of concrete collapsing. You have to remember these people were
under extreme stress at the time.


Like I said, Eyewitnesses said the explosion came from UNDERNEATH them. So unless there was third plane crash, and it somehow managed to blow up in the basement, I don't think we have any other options here. It was a carried out controlled demolition.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
ok, I haven't read the entire thread. (sorry it's 26 pages long) So I'm not sure if anyone has said this. Before I do this is not to detract anything from the point that you guys have made.

Skyscrapers are built to sway. Obviously not this much as what they are doing here as I'm sure it's beyond "safe parameters" Yet still they are built to withstand it.

Just as the WTC towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The damage to the building is not consistent with the OS. The gashes are outside-in slices, not inside-out as the OS requires.





Not to mention everything in both buildings were completely destroyed.. kind of like it had all been blown up. All the office equipment was blown to pieces. The biggest thing they found was half a telephone pad. It was a controlled demolition. Experts have concluded that it was a controlled demolition. That's the only logical choice in this matter.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


Or most of the contents pre demolished like they do with regular building demolitions. There would be acres of carpet, plumbing fixtures, break room refrigerators, vending machines and the like all over Manhattan but we saw dust and reams of paper. And a passport with an Arabic dude's name on it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


Other demolition experts have said it WASN'T and how many people has architects for the truth managed to muster to the cause 1200+ in all that time, how may tens of thousands of engineers worldwide DON'T agree with them.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well Yankee451 wasted 10 mins of my life finding your links for Tina etc they wasted another 30mins having a look at some of the flawed reasoning regarding their pictures and some others on the net.

Going to work now will be back on later pointing out the flawed assumptions re the photographs, when it comes to photography/video the truthers as as bad as the moon hoax believers when looking at pictures and video



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sliick
 



Just as the WTC towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.


Only problem it was a 767 that hit the WTC......



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Sliick
 



Just as the WTC towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.


Only problem it was a 767 that hit the WTC......



If you want to get really specific they were the model, Boeing 767-222.

They are larger, have a larger load of fuel, and thus can cause more damage and more fire than a 707.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Originally posted by Varemia,
"If you want to get really specific they were the model, Boeing 767-222.
They are larger, have a larger load of fuel, and thus can cause more damage and more fire than a 707."

-- Varemia, you still here? Funny how you ignore my response to your silly theory on all that liquid jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts. I want to know if you seriously believe that or if you just get a kick out of driving us crazy?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 


Apologies for not responding quickly. I follow a number of threads, and after a couple days of doing other things, I often come back to be overwhelmed with posts which I do not always have the time to read through meticulously.

As to your post, yes, I do think that's what happened. Certainly not exactly as I imagine it, as that was no more than an amateur guess with no actual evidential support to back it up, but something "along those lines" had to have happened. Otherwise the blown out lobbies and basement would make no sense whatsoever, and there would be no apparent reason to do it with bombs since we have video and firefighters talking about the blown out areas. Why the heck would it be covered up if jet fuel can easily explain it? And yes, perhaps it didn't 'outrun' the combustion. As I said, I'm not an expert, but the fuel certainly made it down there. Unless you can tell me why explosives would be set to go off at the same time as the plane impacts in areas where there was no impact and severed no known supports, I can't see why it would be anything other than the plane's explosion that would cause it.

So, please, enlighten me if you have information that would help me understand this. And no using rhetoric to act as if it is self evident. I will not accept the words "it's obvious," "anyone can see," or "there's no way" when referring to the official story. You have to actually use reasons and logic to explain them, or else I will not be able to acknowledge it as reasonable and meaningful in my understanding. Thanks, and I await your response.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


If you want to get really specific they were the model, Boeing 767-222.

They are larger, have a larger load of fuel, and thus can cause more damage and more fire than a 707.


Describe how the Boeing 767-222 can cause the gash on the corner please. Try to be really specific.



Explain how the left wing tip can slice through steel and leave a left-to-right damage pattern. Please be really specific.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Varemia states:
"As to your post, yes, I do think that's what happened. Certainly not exactly as I imagine it, as that was no more than an amateur guess with no actual evidential support to back it up, but something "along those lines" had to have happened. Otherwise the blown out lobbies and basement would make no sense whatsoever, and there would be no apparent reason to do it with bombs since we have video and firefighters talking about the blown out areas."
-- Thank you for clarifying that. I now have full confidence that your posts are to be ignored. Not out of ignorance, but rather to deny your ignorance. You have proven without a doubt that your mind will support any fantasy necessary to make it fit with the OS.

Varemia states:
"Why the heck would it be covered up if jet fuel can easily explain it? And yes, perhaps it didn't 'outrun' the combustion. As I said, I'm not an expert, but the fuel certainly made it down there."
-- No it didn't. Here is a test. Ask the other trusters on this site if they agree with you.

Whats that sound?

Crickets.

Varemia states:
"Unless you can tell me why explosives would be set to go off at the same time as the plane impacts in areas where there was no impact and severed no known supports, I can't see why it would be anything other than the plane's explosion that would cause it."
-- I get that you can't see why explosives would be set to go off simultaneously. No, in fact you could see, if you'd only look. But like I stated above, you are ignorant and therefore, denied. Your posts are now filtered for being irrelevant.

Varemia states:
"So, please, enlighten me if you have information that would help me understand this. And no using rhetoric to act as if it is self evident. I will not accept the words "it's obvious," "anyone can see," or "there's no way" when referring to the official story. You have to actually use reasons and logic to explain them, or else I will not be able to acknowledge it as reasonable and meaningful in my understanding. Thanks, and I await your response."

-- Well then listen up son, cause here is that "reason" and "logic" you crave so much. With one's own eyes you can see the majority of the "jet fuel" is ignited on impact into the towers. The speed at which fuel ignites is very fast. Faster than the speed of that same fuel traveling through the air. Therefore it would be impossible for unburned jet fuel to beat the explosive fireball and pour down the elevator shafts as you described and believe.
Secondly, there is not enough fuel in those tanks to cascade all the way down the multiple elevator shafts in any meaningful amount even if the fuel remained liquid and did not ignite on impact. Did that help?

As a matter of fact though, I don't really care if it did. I honestly believe you are not mature enough to comprehend this level of thinking. So with all due respect, I look forward to talking with you in the future, until then "May the Truth be with you."



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 


You do realize that you are supposed to deny your own ignorance, not ignore others and "deny" everything they say, 'claiming' that they are ignorant, right?

Please, if you can, show me an example of jet fuel being ignited in mid-air (in a mostly closed off environment with a tube going down, if possible) and let me know if every single drop combusts instantly. Then, see if they can measure the pressure exerted at the bottom of the tube by the explosion. It would be interesting to know, and would be a lot more convincing than your "believe it" stance.

I'm not ignorant, I just take some convincing before I believe in theories that don't make much sense at first. That's called wary, more so than ignorant. Though, really, maybe I am ignorant, since that means that I simply do not know the information that y'all are privy to. I'd like to deny my ignorance by learning the facts, but you keep telling me that I should stay ignorant because "you're right and I'm wrong," with practically nothing to actually back yourself up. Just words and annoying insults.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the first part



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You do realize that you are supposed to deny your own ignorance, not ignore others and "deny" everything they say, 'claiming' that they are ignorant, right?


do tell



Please, if you can, show me an example of jet fuel being ignited in mid-air (in a mostly closed off environment with a tube going down, if possible) and let me know if every single drop combusts instantly. Then, see if they can measure the pressure exerted at the bottom of the tube by the explosion. It would be interesting to know, and would be a lot more convincing than your "believe it" stance.


Oh my goodness. Are we clutching at some straws here or what? How about you provide a shred of evidence to support YOUR hypothesis that jet fuel wouldn't have ignited on impact. It's your claim junior, you show us how the fuel ran downstairs before the explosion can get it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove it or stop this nonsense.




I'm not ignorant, I just take some convincing before I believe in theories that don't make much sense at first.


You mean like jet fuel running down a 100 floors before it ignites, even though the pictures show it igniting on impact? If you're not ignorant you're expecting us to be.



That's called wary, more so than ignorant. Though, really, maybe I am ignorant, since that means that I simply do not know the information that y'all are privy to. I'd like to deny my ignorance by learning the facts, but you keep telling me that I should stay ignorant because "you're right and I'm wrong," with practically nothing to actually back yourself up. Just words and annoying insults.


I'm inviting you to show me where the OS is supported by the facts. I URGE you to do some research. I urge anyone reading this to do so. If you want to be taken seriously then seriously discuss the issues. If you claim fuel did this, please explain how, don't give us this hogwash and hypocrisy...prove it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Oh my goodness. Are we clutching at some straws here or what? How about you provide a shred of evidence to support YOUR hypothesis that jet fuel wouldn't have ignited on impact. It's your claim junior, you show us how the fuel ran downstairs before the explosion can get it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove it or stop this nonsense.


What the f***, straws? I proposed a test which would prove something. I was wondering if he could find any. I don't KNOW exactly what would happen. Yet, you, you f--- ugh! You have the AUDACITY to act like YOU HAVE EMPIRICAL PROOF! You don't have anything! You have less than what I have!

*sorry for the explosion, but I'm tired of being polite betty about this. This is just stupid*



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Yankee451
Oh my goodness. Are we clutching at some straws here or what? How about you provide a shred of evidence to support YOUR hypothesis that jet fuel wouldn't have ignited on impact. It's your claim junior, you show us how the fuel ran downstairs before the explosion can get it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove it or stop this nonsense.


What the f***, straws? I proposed a test which would prove something. I was wondering if he could find any. I don't KNOW exactly what would happen. Yet, you, you f--- ugh! You have the AUDACITY to act like YOU HAVE EMPIRICAL PROOF! You don't have anything! You have less than what I have!

*sorry for the explosion, but I'm tired of being polite betty about this. This is just stupid*




If you don't like my interpretation of the evidence then respond to it; don't change the subject. Explain how the official story better fits into the damage shown in the photos if my interpretations are so AUDACIOUS.

Answer a stinking question instead of providing weak, blanket denials while you accuse me of doing the same; and if you're claiming fuel rolled down a stinking elevator, prove that while you're at it.


edit on 22-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Fuel's a liquid. Do the math?


Liquid fuels

Combustion of a liquid fuel in an oxidizing atmosphere actually happens in the gas phase. It is the vapour that burns, not the liquid. Therefore, a liquid will normally catch fire only above a certain temperature: its flash point. The flash point of a liquid fuel is the lowest temperature at which it can form an ignitable mix with air. It is also the minimum temperature at which there is enough evaporated fuel in the air to start combustion.

en.wikipedia.org...

books.google.com... IPSOY0UNm7tGaDDFc&hl=en&ei=TDuJTY-bBsOV0QGL9aHiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mechanics%20of%20liquid%20fuel%20 combustion%20in%20air&f=false

Unless every bit of the fuel was dispensed into a small enough form to completely combust, there was fuel which would have stayed in its liquid form without being burned away instantly, meaning that it would be able to flow, going places such as the elevator shafts, with the air subsequently combusting from the vapor of the fuel.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Is that you not changing the subject or is that you proving fuel from multiple fuel tanks all flowed down the same elevator before blowing up a hundred floors down, after those fuel tanks were shredded against the exterior steel?

The AUDACITY.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


Is that you not changing the subject or is that you proving fuel from multiple fuel tanks all flowed down the same elevator before blowing up a hundred floors down, after those fuel tanks were shredded against the exterior steel?

The AUDACITY.


What the hell? Where did I say anything about fuel tanks or single elevators? There is one elevator that runs the length of the towers and would allow fuel to reach the basement, and there are multiple others which begin at various lobbies. Fuel obviously went into various elevators due to the various blow-outs, though a couple elevators were serviceable by firefighters.

There are reports in which they encounter elevators that they cannot operate due to them being destroyed/damaged, and eventually they decided to just use the stairs because the elevators couldn't reach the damaged portion of the towers. Then, the firefighters couldn't make it through to the impacted floors.

I wasn't changing the subject as far as I know. You're just being weird now.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

What the hell? Where did I say anything about fuel tanks or single elevators? There is one elevator that runs the length of the towers and would allow fuel to reach the basement, and there are multiple others which begin at various lobbies. Fuel obviously went into various elevators due to the various blow-outs, though a couple elevators were serviceable by firefighters.

There are reports in which they encounter elevators that they cannot operate due to them being destroyed/damaged, and eventually they decided to just use the stairs because the elevators couldn't reach the damaged portion of the towers. Then, the firefighters couldn't make it through to the impacted floors.

I wasn't changing the subject as far as I know. You're just being weird now.


Think of what you're saying before you go calling someone weird.

Show me on a floor plan how this can happen; you've got access to the same pictures I do. Where are the elevators and how likely do you really think it is that fuel would flow like that if it was encased in tanks that are in the process of being shredded by steel columns?

This isn't a thirty foot above ground pool that suddenly dumped out in the lobby, there are cubicles, chairs, carpet, dividers, walls, etc. to contend with after the shredding and the fuel made it's way to the elevator. Remember before the fuel tanks can penetrate the building, they are punctured and aflame.

Why would you think this is likely, and if it is, what caused the fireball on impact then? How much fuel was left after that baby to run to the elevator shaft?




top topics



 
34
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join