Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 31
172
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by samkent
 




It does when you understand physics.
Exactly how does understanding physics explain how jet engines can get inside of the building without entering the building? Let's change the situation to help you understand an extremely simple concept which you somehow are unable to grasp with your understanding of physics:

I throw two oranges at a pane of glass, and they both go SPLAT and don't make it through the glass but instead just make two juicy marks on the _ If there were two orange peels on the other side of that glass, how can you explain how they got there since the oranges never made it through?


AMEN TO THAT !!! BRAVO

Can you explain what Law of Physics, what equation can explain how the orange peel made it through? Because you're the one that understands physics, right? That makes sense to you since you understand physics?




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
False - the entrance hole made by Flight 77 was 96 feet wide on the lower floor - the engines are 42 feet 6" apart ((Boeing document) - how is it that a 96 foot hole is "no hole" for engines only 42 1/2 feet apart??


No that 'hole' does not match up. If the plane made that hole the engines would have been on the ground and made marks on the lawn.

You can also see columns pushed out, not in...



What happened to the OSers argument that the marks on the wall were made by the engines impacting?


we've shown that is simply false - whay do you continue to lie about it??


Here's more ebvidence for yuo to conventiently ignore


911research.wtc7.net...


No you haven't. Please don't just post a link expecting me to wade through it looking for what you claim. Point out exactly what it is you think contradicts my claims. Lazy trolls I tell ya, you don't even bother proof-reading and fixing your typos. You in a hurry for some reason?


nothing about the planes themselves or their wreckage has anything much to do with the number or nationality of the terrorists - you are creating a staw man, ignoring evidence, and making stuff up to suport your illogical conclusions.


I never said they did, are you paying attention to the point I was trying to make? No illogical conclusions, but contradictions that you have yet to clear up.


You accuse the Government, commission, etc of being disinfo agents when you are one yourself - there's no inconsistency in your so-called challenge- except for your own mistakes (and I'm being kind calling them that!)


I have done no such thing. I have pointed out contractions between the plane at the pentagon, and the plane at the WTC. You have done nothing but dodge the contradictions and make assumptions about me. What you've pointed out does not clear up the contradictions, it just creates more questions.

Why did the plane at the pentagon not act like the plane at the WTC? How could one plane add weight to building on fire, and the other burn up to nothing from fire? Fire is fire. How could the planes nose punch through concrete, and not the engines moving at the same velocity? The engines punched through steel, and left nice plane shaped hole, one of the engines being found still in one piece after dropping to the ground. All you have of two massive turbo-fan engines, at the pentagon, is three parts? Where are the rotor shafts and the casings, the rest of the rotor hubs?

edit on 8/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK,


don't let them get to you. Debunkers have an internal struggle ripping them apart. And they will never admit it. If they admit, that everything they stood for is bullshet then there heads will explode.

Debunkers will :deny,cut and paste, twist as many fact as possible ,,, not for us or to prove it to us,,, but for themselves. There fuel is faith. Faith in there country, faith in there government branches and agencies.


Unfortunately all faiths are inherently evil. It makes people say horrific statements and do horrific acts. To me there is nothing different from a person believing in god, a person believing ET is here now on earth and a person unconditionally accepting reports from there own government. There is no difference. They use no logic just pure faith.


Don't give up



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bing0
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


well, sir, proof me wrong? Show me you question the government for 9/11



I have serious concerns about how they handled the intel and I think they proved they were ridiculously incurious and blithely unconcerned about potential threats. They were perhaps even negligent, as shown by their scramble to cover up various intelligence aspects after the fact. And if their performance before 9/11 was poor, their response afterwards was breathtakingly thoughtless. The involvement of big business and their incautious trust of the market to run large segments of military affairs was naive and possibly mendacious.

Those are the important questions for government. Not whether they had secret ninjas do a Hollywood job on the twin towers. But keep asking the wrong questions and you'll keep getting nowhere.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
False - the entrance hole made by Flight 77 was 96 feet wide on the lower floor - the engines are 42 feet 6" apart ((Boeing document) - how is it that a 96 foot hole is "no hole" for engines only 42 1/2 feet apart??


No that 'hole' does not match up. If the plane made that hole the engines would have been on the ground and made marks on the lawn.


Only if they touched it - as it is they certainly hit various other things outside the building -


Witnesses who observed the final moments of the crash stated that the plane banked left (some saying that the left wing hit the heliport) and that its low-hanging engines hit objects on the way in: the right engine hitting a generator trailer and the left engine hitting a low retaining wall. Post-crash photographs of the yard fit these accounts and show a pattern of damage consistent with the paths of the engines of a 757 based on the other data such as the light-pole path


-911research.wtc7.net...


You can also see columns pushed out, not in...




quite clearly the highlighted pylons are not where the a/c impacted at all - your picture shows part of the building that collapsed because of the damage underneath it - not part of the building that was struck by anything at all!!





What happened to the OSers argument that the marks on the wall were made by the engines impacting?


Dunno - I don't recall such comments - where were they made and can you link to them?



we've shown that is simply false - whay do you continue to lie about it??


Here's more ebvidence for yuo to conventiently ignore


911research.wtc7.net...


No you haven't. Please don't just post a link expecting me to wade through it looking for what you claim. Point out exactly what it is you think contradicts my claims. Lazy trolls I tell ya, you don't even bother proof-reading and fixing your typos. You in a hurry for some reason?


I have posted specific contradictions to your claims already.

but thank you for confirming that you are not actually interested in reading anything that contradicts your false world-view.

It is not trolling to post links to information - it is trolling to have your false story corrected, and then to completely ignore the evidence and continue with your false story.



nothing about the planes themselves or their wreckage has anything much to do with the number or nationality of the terrorists - you are creating a staw man, ignoring evidence, and making stuff up to suport your illogical conclusions.


I never said they did, are you paying attention to the point I was trying to make? No illogical conclusions, but contradictions that you have yet to clear up.


Here you go - www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by vipertech0596


Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.


No that is not what the physical evidence shows. [



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
9/11 is so huge that it really needs to be compartmentalized to grasp it.

1. Who Benefited?
2. Political Climate
3. Who Financed 9/11
4. Who were the winners in the stock market / SEC
5. Physics
6. Who had access to the World Trade Center Complex?
7. The Patsies
8. Air Traffic Control, Parallel Military Operations and Command
9. Why was this act committed
10. Laying out the timelines and undeniable fact gathering.
11. Israels Foreknowledge

Dr. Alan Sabrosky is not your run of the mill nut. Very credible. Highly Credentialed. More Later-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Office furniture and supplies and a ton of other stuff + jet fuel + extremely high wind = blast furnace.

Research the chimney effect or stack effect. Heat in the "chimney" increases this effect.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by craig732
 



Office furniture and supplies and a ton of other stuff + jet fuel + extremely high wind = blast furnace
Subtract jet fuel from that equation:

The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.
--Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


And so what?

sorry for the 1 liner - but the fact that the jet fuel burned out doesn't stop the fire!!



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

sorry for the 1 liner - but the fact that the jet fuel burned out doesn't stop the fire!!
.....Right, but the jet fuel is no longer feeding the fire after a few minutes meaning that the temperature would be dramatically lower than it would be if it was.

But if you want to talk about office fires that don't stop:
And for the grand finale:
None of those collapsed, but they burned for much longer.
edit on 8-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
And how were they constructed, how much damage did they have to their structure?

It is a myth that they weer teh 1st, or the only steel framed buildings to collapse - tehre are several other examples given here - www.debunking911.com...

The slightly lower temperature after the combustion of the jet fuel was probably unimportant since the temperature was not actually the major problem - ther was some loss of strength from the heating, which compounded other problems, but was probably not enough to cause hte collapse. the problem was mainly temperature differences - because the fire was relatively isolated parts of the structure were much hotter than others.

this created internal stresses - when you heat steel up it tries to expand - if it is constrained at each end buy somethign that does not allow it to expand tehn the internal stresses can be enough to cause failure - 150 degrees C difference is about enough to make this happen.

You can find a more technical description of the process in the NIST report on the WTC at wtc.nist.gov... - see chapter 2 at the top of page 10.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And how were they constructed, how much damage did they have to their structure?
I don't care, those are just some examples of skyscraper fires that didn't bring buildings down.


It is a myth that they weer teh 1st, or the only steel framed buildings to collapse - tehre are several other examples given here - www.debunking911.com...
Can you point out to me which one of those buildings cited by debunking911 was a steel framed skyscraper that collapsed completely?


The slightly lower temperature after the combustion of the jet fuel was probably unimportant since the temperature was not actually the major problem - ther was some loss of strength from the heating, which compounded other problems, but was probably not enough to cause hte collapse. the problem was mainly temperature differences - because the fire was relatively isolated parts of the structure were much hotter than others.

this created internal stresses - when you heat steel up it tries to expand - if it is constrained at each end buy somethign that does not allow it to expand tehn the internal stresses can be enough to cause failure - 150 degrees C difference is about enough to make this happen.

You can find a more technical description of the process in the NIST report on the WTC at wtc.nist.gov... - see chapter 2 at the top of page 10.
A link to the NIST report, I'm saved!
In theory that sounds just peachy, but it doesn't play out in reality as NISTs own experiments found. You can find a more technical description of the epic fail on page 141 of the NIST report on the WTC at wtc.nist.gov...


All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately [color=limegreen]2 hours
without collapsing....Nonetheless, [color=limegreen]the results established that this type of assembly was capable
of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the
duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And how were they constructed, how much damage did they have to their structure?
I don't care, those are just some examples of skyscraper fires that didn't bring buildings down.


so you dont' care whether they are similar to the WTC at all??

so how do you consider they are relevant in that cae?

I can show you examples of wooden buildings that burn and didnt' collapse - does that mean tha all wooden buyildings that collapse from fire are demolished??





It is a myth that they weer teh 1st, or the only steel framed buildings to collapse - tehre are several other examples given here - www.debunking911.com...
Can you point out to me which one of those buildings cited by debunking911 was a steel framed skyscraper that collapsed completely?


did you read the examples on that page??



A link to the NIST report, I'm saved!
In theory that sounds just peachy, but it doesn't play out in reality as NISTs own experiments found. You can find a more technical description of the epic fail on page 141 of the NIST report on the WTC at wtc.nist.gov...


All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately [color=limegreen]2 hours
without collapsing....Nonetheless, [color=limegreen]the results established that this type of assembly was capable
of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the
duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.


Congratulations on repeating one of the usual misunderstandings commonly repeated across 9/11 hoax sites.

the 4 samples were fine - with their intact fire insulation and taking no account of their effects on the members they were restrained by at each end.

Had you bothered to read the section I quoted in the post you replied to you might have gained some small inkling as to why the thermal stresses affected the remaining structure.

Also of course the draft report on page 145 notes that it required damaged insulation for the fires to have the effect they did - you will recall that the 4 test specimens had intact insulation of course - so all they do is confirm that an undamaged building might have had quite different behaviour - but we will likely never know exactly what.

It is typical that you have selected somethgni that looks superficially attractive to eh conspiracy hoax, taken it out of context, and simply not understood what it says



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Can you point out to me which one of those buildings cited by debunking911 was a steel framed skyscraper that collapsed completely?




Why does it matter if the structure is a skyscraper or not?

Does fire and gravity behave differently in larger structures?

I thought the laws of physics didn't care....



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



so you dont' care whether they are similar to the WTC at all??
They are skyscrapers. The World Trade Centers were skyscrapers. They were on fire. The World Trade Centers were on fire.


so how do you consider they are relevant in that cae?
Because they are skyscrapers that had raging fires yet did not collapse. Here are some examples of airplanes hitting buildings, causing fires, and not causing the buildings to collapse:

B-25 Bomber struck the Empire State Building.

C-130 hits apartment building

Plane hits Milan skyscraper

But of course you won't find those to be relevant either, because it's not the exact same building and the exact same airplane, so really the only example we can look at that will satisfy you is the Twin Towers themselves.

I could pull the same card when it comes to those examples you posted of fire damaging steel and say "dose eggzamples u used of firez aren't da same billding".


I can show you examples of wooden buildings that burn and didnt' collapse - does that mean tha all wooden buyildings that collapse from fire are demolished??
Not at all, but if you did some research and found that not a single wooden building had completely collapsed from fire damage in history, yet on one day three wooden buildings collapsed that would be very odd and would suggest a demolition.

And it's not such a straight line of thinking as you made it out to be: "No skyscraper has completely collapsed due to fire damage, yet these three did, therefore they were all demolitions". No, there are many more factors backing up a controlled demolition than that simple aspect.


did you read the examples on that page??
I asked you to point out which one of those buildings cited by debunking911 was a skyscraper that collapsed completely.


the 4 samples were fine - with their intact fire insulation and taking no account of their effects on the members they were restrained by at each end.

Had you bothered to read the section I quoted in the post you replied to you might have gained some small inkling as to why the thermal stresses affected the remaining structure.

Also of course the draft report on page 145 notes that it required damaged insulation for the fires to have the effect they did - you will recall that the 4 test specimens had intact insulation of course - so all they do is confirm that an undamaged building might have had quite different behaviour - but we will likely never know exactly what.

It is typical that you have selected somethgni that looks superficially attractive to eh conspiracy hoax, taken it out of context, and simply not understood what it says
I understood exactly what it said, it was an experiment to test the trusses when exposed to fires similar to those found in the WTCs, and all four survived the conditions for 2 hours. If you're upset by those results, be mad at NIST for doing a s***** experiment when they knew very well what they should have done to accurately replicate the conditions.

A full scale model of fire damage did not produce the results that supposedly caused the collapse of the twin towers. So even though their experiment proved their explanation to be false, I should believe it because the experiment was inaccurate....? When they get around to actually performing adequate experiments, then I'll start to believe their theory of the collapse.

Until then, it's an organization that had a tiny amount of funding, didn't explore the structural behavior of the Twin Towers during the collapse, didn't even mention WTC 7, didn't mention the molten steel in the basements of the three buildings, didn't mention the dozens of witness testimonies of explosions, had an experiment that contradicts their explanation, but want us to believe what they say. NO WAY.
edit on 9-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Why does it matter if the structure is a skyscraper or not?
It matters because fire has never caused a skyscraper to completely collapse, yet on 9/11 it happened 3 times.

Examples of one story schoolhouses collapsing from fire, interstates collapsing, and other buildings partially collapsing don't prove that fire can cause a skyscraper to completely collapse.

Now the Madrid partial collapse is definitely a good start. A skyscraper partially collapsed due to fire damage alone, that can't be overlooked. Whether it was due to the structure of the building or how badly the fire damaged the part that collapsed, it didn't initiate a total collapse.

With the twin towers on the other hand, we have a partial collapse initiated resulting in a total collapse which is where it gets fishy. And this fishy part was not addressed by NIST, making the fishiness even fishier.
edit on 9-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Nobody has ever answered why they would go through all the trouble to stage 9/11 and at such great risk to exposure when something far simpler would have achieved the same results.

Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act when a simple plan would have acheived the exact same results with a far less risk of something going wrong?

A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.

If the government asked you to create something that would mobilize the American people is 9/11 what you would come up with? There are 1000 different things that have to go perfectly right for this to be pulled off. The amount of people with knowledge is far too large for comfort.

Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.

Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers.

Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown

Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?

Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.


Why? Several simple but VERY IMPORTANT reasons... 1.) to cover up the loss of TRILLIONS of dollars lost through the pentagon. Records were destroyed at both WTC7 and the Pentagon that day. 2.) to galvanize national support to invade Iraq as Saddam had just launched his oil bourse to begin trading oil in denominations other than the USD. 3.) to restore hundreds of billions in defense spending that Clinton had eliminated under his balanced budget initiative. 4.) To spook Americans into accepting the Nazi-styled Department of Homeland Security and unwittingly trading their freedom for security. We all know how that always works out. 5.) as a smokescreen to admit China into the WTO with little public resistance. 6.) and MANY, many more...

The point is, when you want to implement BIG plans, you need a BIG distraction. Mission accomplished, eh Bush?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
~ Adolf Hitler on "The Big Lie"



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 



1.) to cover up the loss of TRILLIONS of dollars lost through the pentagon. Records were destroyed at both WTC7 and the Pentagon that day.

Unless the records you speak of were actually carved into the walls and floors of the buildings nothing of any consequence was permanently destroyed. Besides, one of the problem with the "missing trillions" was a lack of records. What do you think was destroyed, some reciept for $1,000,000,000,0000 payable to the "bad guys"?

2.) to galvanize national support to invade Iraq as Saddam had just launched his oil bourse to begin trading oil in denominations other than the USD.

Then why not blame Saddam for 9/11 directly? Hell, they went out their way a few times to say Saddam wasn't associated with 9/11.

3.) to restore hundreds of billions in defense spending that Clinton had eliminated under his balanced budget initiative.

Which in turn was spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Net gain - $0.

4.) To spook Americans into accepting the Nazi-styled Department of Homeland Security and unwittingly trading their freedom for security. We all know how that always works out.

Nazi-style? Better read your history, there is a wee difference between the Gestapo and the Department of Homeland Security.

5.) as a smokescreen to admit China into the WTO with little public resistance.

There are cheaper, easier and less deadly ways of erecting a sufficient political smokescreen to enact a foreign trade policy.

In the end there is not one reason that the US gov't would try something as stupid as proposed.





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join