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.

 

"Controlled Demolition at WTC 100% Impossible" Article by Jonathan Moseley

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Skeptic...The construction manager of the WTC towers stated the buildings were designed to be able to take multiple plane crashes,



The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING yet something as simple as solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too because it wasn't supposed to happen? Give me a break from that stupid logic lol

And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plane) and the fuel load (which was the main source of damage to the towers) WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN. The towers actually held up much BETTER than expected. Nice try though...
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


You do realize comparing the Titanic to a modern building structure is, well, pretty retarded right? nice try.
By the way, the 707 is NOT a "much smaller plane". whatreallyhappened.com...

You seem to have an agenda and you REEK of disinformation (not to mention weak arguments that completely cling onto the governments side). This thread should end up in the dumps where it belongs.
edit on 20-6-2011 by MareBellator because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 

Yes yes of course I am sorry. I try to keep it simple for some.

This just demonstrates that thermite/thermate can be used to cut through a steel beem. Having military grade just makes it that much worse imo. Need to open some eyes and they cankt handle too much info at once or else its brain overload and back to debunking911.com lol



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
...
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 
The NIST personnel were so disingenuous, that it took forever to get them to finally admit that the building 7 at Collapse Onset, accelerated at "free fall speed";

But they (NIST) did finally admit that that was the reality of the situation.

The term is Freefall Acceleration

The bottom 4-8 floors MUST be removed Completely for this to occur...

and that most certainly DID NOT happen in the NIST model,

but it did happen in REALITY because they used all best tools of the demolition industry (and military) to bring 'er down.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Skeptic...The construction manager of the WTC towers stated the buildings were designed to be able to take multiple plane crashes,



The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?

And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN. The towers actually held up much BETTER than expected. Nice try though.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Are you really comparing the design on the Titanic to the WTC towers??? Do you think architects and engineers didnt learn anything about design over the 60-70 years from when the Titanic was constructed?



So your saying that just because we have the ability to make things better than we did before, that means we should expect NOTHING LESS THAN PERFECT from everything!!!? You're a classic nutty truther. Read a book and quit making yourself look stupid. Maybe someday you'll wake up and realize that ONLY WEAK minds believe conspiracy theories, there was actually a scientific study on it. But truthers don't care about logic or science so why even mention it? ahhaha

And like I said the towers were only built to withstand a small 707 WITHOUT fuel considered. And because fuel was the NUMBER ONE SOURCE of damage, it makes the whole "what the building was supposed to take" argument USELESS! Why can everyone else see this but truthers?


edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Well golly gosh Skeptic, if only "weak minds" believe in conspiracy theories, why are you on this site? Oh and, the burning fuel from the 767 wouldn't have reached the high temperatures that would've been enough to melt steel, thus comes in the thermite theory. I'm no longer fueling this thread.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Since you have all the answers, then please explain to me why there were pools of molten steel under buildings 1, 2 and 7.... Let me guess...It was jet fuel.....I'm dying to here your explanation, you're obviously a genius so this should be good....



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildernesswino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 
The NIST personnel were so disingenuous, that it took forever to get them to finally admit that the building 7 at Collapse Onset, accelerated at "free fall speed";

But they (NIST) did finally admit that that was the reality of the situation.

The term is Freefall Acceleration

The bottom 4-8 floors MUST be removed Completely for this to occur...

and that most certainly DID NOT happen in the NIST model,

but it did happen in REALITY because they used all best tools of the demolition industry (and military) to bring 'er down.



Building 7 only had about 3 seconds of free fall dude, the rest of the time it was collapsing CONSTANTLY (showing resistance) which does not support the claim of free fall because free fall speeds are ACCELERATED due to gravity, not constant.

And Show me a where NIST says the WHOLE collapse time was free fall? You wont because because only a couple of seconds actually were.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   


The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?

How do you know what brought down the Titanic? Were you on it? Judging by the cobwebs on your brain, I guess you were.



Was the government in on that too?

I honestly don't know, because unlike you, I wasn't around back then.



And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN.

They didn't consider the fuel load on a Boeing 707 jet airliner? I didn't know a 707 was a glider that did not use any fuel to fly. How about that? You learn something new everyday on this site.


Regardless of how the Towers collapsed, 911 was a total scam. Carry on with your little controlled demo/non-controlled demo fetish. This argument is just a distraction to the bigger puzzle. Hey, whatever floats your Titanic.

Ask Luck Larry - you know, the 4.6 billion dollar man with the skin condition. He'll gladly tell you it was a scam, since he has no fear of incriminating himself. You see, the same people responsible for prosecuting this crime, were the same ones who covered it up.

Anchors away!



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?

How do you know what brought down the Titanic? Were you on it? Judging by the cobwebs on your brain, I guess you were.



Was the government in on that too?

I honestly don't know, because unlike you, I wasn't around back then.



And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN.

They didn't consider the fuel load on a Boeing 707 jet airliner? I didn't know a 707 was a glider that did not use any fuel to fly. How about that?




The feul load that a 707 would have carried would have been NOTHING compared to the fuel load that hit the towers, they had NO reason to assume that the biggest problem of a collapse would be Jet Fuel therefore not needing to test fuel loads.

But you are right we learn new stuff all the time and 911 taught us ALOT we didn't know, so just because we didn't know these things BEFORE 911 doesn't mean there is a conspiracy being covered up after the fact LMFAO what a joke.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Since you have all the answers, then please explain to me why there were pools of molten steel under buildings 1, 2 and 7....



How many times does it need to be said.....ALMOST EVERY QUESTION RAISED BY TRUTHERS CAN BE EXPLAINED EASILY , EVERY ONE! You can raise questions for hours they have ALL been answered but truthers are dumb so they keep digging and digging lol






EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!




edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


So you can't answer it??? You decide to send me to a youtube video to find answers becasue you obviously dont know what you are talking about..... If its on youtube it must be true, THANKS BUDDY.... I dont even care to look at that clip, I asked you a question and you didnt answer...Score ME-1 YOU-0



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!


By who? the gullible msm who takes the governments every word and report it as fact?
Sorry but I had to reply.

Also you still didn't answer my question as to what you're true purpose on this site is, which becomes more evident by every post you make.
edit on 20-6-2011 by MareBellator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Since you have all the answers, then please explain to me why there were pools of molten steel under buildings 1, 2 and 7....



How many times does it need to be said.....ALMOST EVERY QUESTION RAISED BY TRUTHERS CAN BE EXPLAINED EASILY , EVERY ONE! You can raise questions for hours they have ALL been answered but truthers are dumb so they keep digging and digging lol






EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!




edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


So you can't answer it??? You decide to send me to a youtube video to find answers becasue you obviously dont know what you are talking about..... If its on youtube it must be true, THANKS BUDDY.... I dont even care to look at that clip, I asked you a question and you didnt answer...Score ME-1 YOU-0



If you cared about the truth you would have looked at the video PROVING there was NO molten steel, you just proved that truthers care NOTHING about the truth because the truth is in that video. And thats just ONE video, I can post countless reports LAUGHING at Jone's theory of molten steel, and scientists agrey at Jones for giving scientists a bad rep. But being the truther you are, you don't care about the truth. just your WEAK FALSE conspiracy theory.

I'll say it again


EVERY 911 myth was debunked in 2007. its' 2011, WAKE UP!
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 

You are one persistent disinfo agent aren't you now?

yes, it fell at freefall acceleration for about 3 seconds (thank you) but that first three seconds of "freefall" proves that the bottom 4-8 floors had to be missing for it to INITIALLY reach that acceleration rate!

And that there, DUDE does NOT fit in with the NIST conclusions!

I would like to thank you for at least admitting that Bldg. 7 DID FREEFALL for the first three-seconds, that statement has a lot of implication now doesn't it?

And don't ever call a professional guide "dude," unless your a really good looking gal…then "we" kind of like it!

Are you a really good looking gal?

Didn't think so….

Back to the Ghost Dance



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
And I thought the OS was BS! This is the worst, most biased, biggest piece of dis-info I have EVER read in my life!!!!!!!!

BTW...no disrespect to the OP...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
why don' the truthers give up this silly theory and go with a pearl harbor theory ? the CD/misslile/shot down theory just makes you look......well.......like a tin foil head nut job



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 
2007?? I thought you said 2004? Are you looking for a job? With you averaging 1 post every 8.5 minutes, you probably are un-employed. Am I right Skeptic?




now your arguing over dates? thanks for letting me know you have no real legs to stand on! And i can have 390230 posts or 1, doesn't change the fact that there was NO thermite OR Molten steel. LIES LIES LIES.




top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join