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.

 

One Smart Chic

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



Wrong.

Yes you are.

Building 7 fell in it`s footprint.

No it didn't. The footprint of building equals the foundation limit lines. The remains of building #7 fell in and outside of those limits. Thats just a fact. You can't change it by repeating the opposite.

The floors on the Twin towers blew out .

Whatever that means.

How many floors up were those guys who cut the steel ?

Huh?

What percentage of steel was left intact after those Towers fell ?

I have no idea what you mean. What would qualify as not intact? As far as I know none of the steel was missing, however I don't think there was an official accounting of every scrap of steel.




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

No it didn't. The footprint of building equals the foundation limit lines. The remains of building #7 fell in and outside of those limits. Thats just a fact. You can't change it by repeating the opposite.


Yes it did you are ignoring the one piece of evidence that proves it did...



All four outer walls can be seen on top of the collapsed building, that is the definition of 'in its own footprint'.
The whole concept of implosion demolition is to get the outer walls to fall inwards and land on top of the collapse inner building.

Some debris falling outside of the footprint is normal, if you think it isn't then you know nothing about implosion demolitions. It's not a black and white concept where it's either in or out of the footprint based on your definition of the term. The idea of implosion demolition is to get as much of the debris in the footprint as possible, and looking at WTC7 how could they have done any better of a job?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Yes it did you are ignoring the one piece of evidence that proves it did...

All four outer walls can be seen on top of the collapsed building, that is the definition of 'in its own footprint'.
The whole concept of implosion demolition is to get the outer walls to fall inwards and land on top of the collapse inner building.
Some debris falling outside of the footprint is normal, if you think it isn't then you know nothing about implosion demolitions. It's not a black and white concept where it's either in or out of the footprint based on your definition of the term. The idea of implosion demolition is to get as much of the debris in the footprint as possible, and looking at WTC7 how could they have done any better of a job?

So basically footprint means anything that you want it to mean if it supports your conspiracy fantasy. While the rest of us are burdened with only the actual meaning of words. That's a pretty neat trick.

Just for clarification, there real is no such thing as "implosion" demolition. Thats just a term that is used for public consumption. All demolition explosives exploded outward. Sometimes the purpose is to get the building to come straight down, sometimes it is not. The goal is to get the building to fall the way you want, not to fulfill some amateur fantasy about what constitutes standard demolition.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by lambros56
 


less than 12 seconds ?


Well at least the "Truth Movement "has stopped saying free fall speed.


There is no such thing as free fall speed. I never used that term. I don't see understand how it got used so much without it being spread around that it showed they were being really idiotic.

psik



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Approximately 25% of the deaths in Vietnam were men from families in the upper THIRD income wise. Do some better research.


Comprehend what he wrote.
You wont look so foolish.
Let me explain it to you.

He said that the top 400 families own the majority of the wealth in this country.
Everyone else (regardless of wealth) would be in the lower class. That is over 300 million people.
Of those 400, none went to war in Vietnam.
Of those 300+ million...everyone who went to war in Vietnam was from this group.
What did the 300+ million people get for all the casualties and wounded?
NADA



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by turbofan
 



Remind me to never get on one of your "aircrafts"


Yes I will remind you. Please please please please stay out of my aircraft.

By the way did you ever take any more flying lessons? Got your licence yet.


You can't seriously be a design engineer and screwed up the answer to my question twice.

Further to that you quoted terminal velocity which has nothing to do with the answer.

This is the problem with most people, they are uneducated and cannot see past the obvious.

WTC7 fell like a controlled demo, because it WAS a contorlled demo.

Your theory and nonsense for excuses cannot even begin to duplicate such a destruction of tower 7.

I rest my case.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



Of those 400, none went to war in Vietnam.


For the sake of argument lets accept the ridiculous proposition that 400 families own most of the wealth of the nation, over 3,300,000 American men and women served in the military during the Vietnam War period. Can you prove none of them served?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DIDtm
 



Of those 400, none went to war in Vietnam.


For the sake of argument lets accept the ridiculous proposition that 400 families own most of the wealth of the nation, over 3,300,000 American men and women served in the military during the Vietnam War period. Can you prove none of them served?


First off, this is not my claim.
I was only correcting a comprehension problem one of your dis-info cohorts had.

Furthermore, I am willing to wager that of the wealthiest 400 people (again, basing this off someone elses claim...the number) that none of them went to war.

Can you prove that any of them, in fact, did go to war?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
And for the sake of argument let's entertain the supposition that you give a rat's behind about that which you expound, to further your goal of derailing your opposition. You guys must be getting bored singing the same song over and over and...



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



I found this article based last month. Not sure how factual it is, but it seems like it could be.
ARTICLE

It states that of the 400 wealthiest Americans (todays wealthiest...not from 55 - 75)...17 of them served in a war. Whether it be WW2, Korean or Vietnam. It also claims that all 17 made their fortunes AFTER serving. (With the sole possible exception of Moncrief. The article does not state the amount of wealth his father had while he was serving.)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
No where in the OS does anyone claim the temperature reached 2500 degrees.


Yet steel was melted just as she describes in the video.

No, the OS doesn't say steel reached that temperature. FEMA appendix C actually says steel was melted at a lower temperature than it normally would melt at, because of the presence of other compounds that ate into the steel and caused a eutectic reaction.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I love it when an intellligent person, highly knowledgable, from a relevant field, that is able to speak out in support of the OS being impossible and so obviously full of holes and contradictions as to be laughable, comes along.

It always brings out the spooks.

Hi boys!!




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I find it interesting that when a self-appointed expert says anything that a truther wants to hear the thuther cheers, yet when an expert who actually did a study published in a peer reviewed journal the truther calls him a liar. Apparently hollow rhetoric is worth more than actual science.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
yet when an expert who actually did a study published in a peer reviewed journal the truther calls him a liar.


Let me guess. You're talking about Bazant, who made so many erroneous assumptions that you don't even want to actually talk about his papers?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I am talking about any study published, including the one by Bazant. There is a huge difference between not understanding something and something being erroneous. You lack the qualifications to make any sensible judgment, you are parroting some conspiracy site. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of psikeyhackr model?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
my oh my, there are still believers of the official story. HOW is that possible?

Please, get to your senses.

If airplanes can do this. Well. Lets fire the demolition teams, we dont need them no longer!



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
my oh my, there are still believers of the official story. HOW is that possible?

Please, get to your senses.

If airplanes can do this. Well. Lets fire the demolition teams, we dont need them no longer!


Yeah, because it would be so much cheaper and easier to employ suicidal pilots fly aeroplanes into buildings when you wanted to demolish them.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


sir, I am being ironic. Have you forgotten about humor?



But I mean it. Anyone who still buys that official crap needs some serious treatment. It is impossible,



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by dadgad
my oh my, there are still believers of the official story. HOW is that possible?

Please, get to your senses.

If airplanes can do this. Well. Lets fire the demolition teams, we dont need them no longer!


Yeah, because it would be so much cheaper and easier to employ suicidal pilots fly aeroplanes into buildings when you wanted to demolish them.
No plane hit wtc 7



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Yeah, because it would be so much cheaper and easier to employ suicidal pilots fly aeroplanes into buildings when you wanted to demolish them.


Well according to the OS all you have to do is set fire to them and wait, you then end up with a building falling in its footprint for easy clean-up (WTC7), and minimum damage to surrounding buildings that were not part of the WTC complex.

See how close it fell to other buildings it didn't damage...





Notice the outer walls folded in on top of the rest of the collapsed building? Only one way that can happen, controlled implosion demolition.

This is WTC 5 after it was completely engulfed in fire...



This is what it looked like from above...



And yet it did not collapse into its footprint.


edit on 6/9/2011 by ANOK because: img tags



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join