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.

 

Challenge to anyone

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
As far as the pentagon, where are the bodies? We have a pic of three, and no way to know who the are, that YOU used to lie about and claim were passengers in seats, and guess what? You didn't want those pics posted either, because it proved you were lying then also.


WTF are you yabbering about. I have never, ever posted any photos of victims from any of the 9/11 sites. Furthermore, I don't recall ever making any comments or claims about victims who were passengers.

PROVE that I have or admit you'll making s*** up.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 





posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


The twin towers exploded from top to bottom, to within three or four seconds of absolute freefall from the same height for any freely dropped object, in nothing but AIR.

Everything else, including the nano-thermite, highly temps, molten metal, first hand reports of explosions, seismic evidence, etc etc simply validates the only possible conclusion that can be drawn - the buildings did not "collapse" as a result of the plane impacts, and cannot have done so.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Reheat
 

the buildings did not "collapse" as a result of the plane impacts, and cannot have done so.


That's the only item in your post that's correct with the added caveat that it was fires that actually caused them to fall.

This has to do with the topic of this thread, how?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Then please explain how, when we take the case of the North Tower, and divide 94 floors by 3 seconds (the only remaining difference between absolute free fall time and the actual duration of destruction), that the progressive pancake "collapse" could have occured, without violating Newton's Three Laws of Motion.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
WTF are you yabbering about. I have never, ever posted any photos of victims from any of the 9/11 sites. Furthermore, I don't recall ever making any comments or claims about victims who were passengers.

PROVE that I have or admit you'll making s*** up.


Maybe not you personally but c'mon, you've been here long enough to know those photos from the pentagon were claimed to be passengers in seats for a long time by OS supporters (who refused to supply a link until it became widely known).

I find it hard to believe you were not on that band wagon. Seeing as those pics were found to not be identifiable as passengers in seats, I'm not surprised OSers would now deny ever saying they were.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW you didn't address the important point of my post, typical, just act offended and ignore is a common method of you OSers.

edit on 3/24/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Reheat

Jet fuels explodes in confined spaces.


That might be true but the WTC was hardly a confined space. To get jet fuel to cause an actual explosion it has to be compressed in a tight container, just like most explosives. Jet fuel is like diesel, it's very hard to ignite and won't explode at atmospheric pressure.


You mean confined spaces like fuel tanks and elevator shafts? Yes, I'm sure you did.



Originally posted by ANOK
Anyway most of the fuel fire ball was outside the building.


How do you know? Were you an escapee from either the towers or the Pentagon? There were multiple fireballs, some outside and some inside as evidenced by the damage. There's more than one fuel tank or didn't you know that?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Here we have the best example of media manipulation in it`s full affect, Reheat is asking for verification regarding explosives and their respective results, let`s see what happens when (for a very short time), probably the best witness ever regarding what exactly happened inside those towers, starts to tell it as it really was.......

www.youtube.com...

Draw your own conclusions.

P.S.

This recording proving beyond doubt that the initial explosion had not reduced all humans to particles no bigger than > - < that, and deposited them on roof tops over a mile away.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Seventh because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by Seventh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Here we have the best example of media manipulation in it`s full affect, Reheat is asking for verification regarding explosives and their respective results, let`s see what happens when (for a very short time), probably the best witness ever regarding what exactly happened inside those towers, starts to tell it as it really was.......

www.youtube.com...

Draw your own conclusions.

P.S.

This recording proving beyond doubt that the initial explosion had not reduced all humans to particles no bigger than > - < that, and deposited them on roof tops over a mile away.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Seventh because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by Seventh because: (no reason given)


That's a compelling account. If you or anyone else could answer some questions it would help to put this first hand witness account into better perspective.

How did Mr. Gartenberg determine that the "core was blown out"? He was trapped with debris all around him, so exactly how could he determine anything at all about the core? It wasn't as if it was in open display.

What were Mr. Gartenberg's qualifications to determine a "blown out" core even if he could see parts of it at his location?

What exactly does this have to do with the OP? Mr. Gartenberg makes no mention of injuries (he could have had injuries, but he makes no mention of any), so it's essentially off topic. Mr.Gartenberg makes no mention of explosive injuries either, so I fail to see how it's related. It isn't!

You are obviously attempting to imply there were explosives used to "blow out" the core. If so, why was there no sound of a large enough explosion to do this either on the many recording devices in close proximity or as reported by witnesses?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by kwakakev
 


This type of damage might be caused by the collision, also.


And monkeys might fly out my butt. MIT did a paper on it.

Er, I mean, yes, this type of damage might have been caused by a collision, also.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You mean confined spaces like fuel tanks and elevator shafts? Yes, I'm sure you did.


No, you didn't read what I said. Elevator shafts are not going to compress the fuel, however much fuel you poured down the shaft the shaft will not compress the fuel.


[How do you know? Were you an escapee from either the towers or the Pentagon? There were multiple fireballs, some outside and some inside as evidenced by the damage. There's more than one fuel tank or didn't you know that?


How do you know it wasn't all consumed? LOL you think all those fireballs were separate events, or part of the same?

How much fuel do you think went down the shafts? All of what was left, some of it?

Even so it still doesn't mean fuel was able to pour down a shaft and then explode, its nonsense, jet fuel doesn't explode at atmospheric pressure. What ignited the fuel when it got to the basement? And even if it did ignite why would it 'explode' and take out windows in the lobby? Jet fuel doesn't explode at atmospheric pressure, only in the movies. Cars really don't explode when they crash you know, and petroleum is more volatile than jet fuel (susceptible to exploding due to vaporizing at a lower temp).

Again this is the amount of fuel left after the initial 'explosion' according to the NIST report, this is how much fuel was left to pour down the elevator shafts AND fuel the fires.




edit on 3/26/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Reheat
 


Then please explain how, when we take the case of the North Tower, and divide 94 floors by 3 seconds (the only remaining difference between absolute free fall time and the actual duration of destruction), that the progressive pancake "collapse" could have occured, without violating Newton's Three Laws of Motion.


Experiment.

Try counting as fast as possible to 94, and you'll have a sense for what that 3 seconds difference in time really means, in terms of a "collapsing" building.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
"As I was turning toward the elevator banks, the fireball exploded out and caught me from behind, and literally pushed me toward the doors as I was running, and... " Another example of poor witness testimony. How did she see a "fireball" behind her?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 



"As I was turning toward the elevator banks, the fireball exploded out and caught me from behind, and literally pushed me toward the doors as I was running, and... " Another example of poor witness testimony. How did she see a "fireball" behind her?


Probably as it blew out in front of her.....

Another case of "truther" illogic



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
But, but, but...... Those folks burned by fire a fuel fire were from an exploding Zippo, don't you know. ANOK's theories are always right....... until you look at the evidence. Where were any examples of barometric injuries or fatal barometric injuries on victims? Were there really NONE? I think we have a case here of the infinitely expanding conspiracy theory!

edit on 26-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nebulous1973
reply to post by Reheat
 


You do realise that most of the victims were completely vaporized? The bodies that were found intact or close to it, were jumpers and people on the ground being hit by falling debris..Everybody that was directly affected by the direct blast cannot be found..therefore they cannot be tested..your challenge is not a challenge, guess that never dawned on you why you never heard of the types of injuries sustained because they were completely mangled burnt or destroyed completely ,challenge met and beat in one post have a nice day.

edit on 23-3-2011 by Nebulous1973 because: (no reason given)


Incorrect. Nobody was "completly vaporized" by any blasts of any kind. The only thing capable of doing that would be a nuclear weapon.

Even the people in the vacinity of a bomb blast that would not be "blown to bits" would suffer some type of baratraumatic injuries. None were reported.

None.

Oklahoma City Bombing, dozens of baratrauma injuries were reported. Olympic Park bombing, dozens.

WTC

None. Absolutely none.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
911research.wtc7.net...


nearly 2,800 victims
fewer than 300 whole bodies found
fewer than 1,600 victims identified
over 1,100 victims remain unidentified
over 800 victims identified by DNA alone
nearly 20,000 pieces of bodies found
over 6,000 pieces small enough to fit in test-tubes
over 200 pieces matched to single person
nearly 10,000 unidentified pieces frozen for future analysis


This type of damage is unique to explosions. There are a few references in the link to support this. Hope it helps track down some medical records if that is what you specifically need.


No, it most certainly is NOT unique to explosions. Not at all.

You can read here www.ok.gov... ( page 59)
how they used DNA and fingerprint analysis to identify victims. Most victims in NYC were identified through DNA.

Here is a link to a book on forensic dentistry used to identify victims. I specifically addresses the OKC bombing. Why would they be using dental records to identify a piece of a body? They use dental records to identify an entire body.

books.google.com... t6Lgf0&hl=en&ei=HayOTdShA_Oy0QGaoPG7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
***********************************************

WARNING!! DISTRUBING IMAGES IN THE ABOVE LINK!!! VIEW AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! WARNING!!!

************************************************


What method was used in NYC? Oh yeah, strictly DNA. Imagine that.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

I am also well aware that actual medical records are subject to privacy issues, as well. However, there were numerous victims who survived both at the WTC and the Pentagon and there are also lots of interviews. Any more?


There was a study done by JAMA breaking down the injuries that victims received.

archsurg.ama-assn.org...

You can read about it here.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Reheat

Jet fuels explodes in confined spaces.


That might be true but the WTC was hardly a confined space. To get jet fuel to cause an actual explosion it has to be compressed in a tight container, just like most explosives. Jet fuel is like diesel, it's very hard to ignite and won't explode at atmospheric pressure.

Anyway most of the fuel fire ball was outside the building.


Not true. take any kind of fuel, it doesn't matter what it is, it can be flour, or grain, or gasoline, or diesel, or jet fuel, it doesn't matter. Disperse that into the air in a fine mist, and once it reaches an ignition source, it most certainly will explode. It does not need to be in a confined space at all.

Grain elevators explode sometimes, and they are vented.

Imagine that. ANOK not understand fire dynamics......



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Reheat
 


Then please explain how, when we take the case of the North Tower, and divide 94 floors by 3 seconds (the only remaining difference between absolute free fall time and the actual duration of destruction), that the progressive pancake "collapse" could have occured, without violating Newton's Three Laws of Motion.


Experiment.

Try counting as fast as possible to 94, and you'll have a sense for what that 3 seconds difference in time really means, in terms of a "collapsing" building.



LOL!!! Clunkity Clunk anyone??




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join