Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

911GATE: Impossible Collapse Mega Proof

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


actually the jetfuel only burned for about 10 minutes and it was all gone. jetfuel comes nowhere close to melting steel, even if it is completely uninsulated.

in this photo you can clearly see a woman standing in the hole where the jet crashed. such a raging inferno



these two are stills from a video of molten steel pouring out the side of the towers. next to the picture is a temperature with corresponding color of metal (its almost exactly the same for all metals, so even if it is aluminum running out, it shows the energy to melt steel is still present)

now what does this mean? it means that there is a problem for OSers. that metal running out is MUCH HOTTER than jet fuel can even burn in the best conditions, and inside a building there would be a lack of oxygen, which would cause the temperature to be lower. so, where did the heat come from? it doesn't matter how much jet fuel you have, because it doesn't reach that high a temperature. more jetfuel would mean more thermal energy, but not a higher energy level than a quart would burn at.

nothing in the OS can account for those temperatures. it's what made me realize that i was on the wrong side of the argument, and that the government DID take out those buildings.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I'd like to point out that it wasn't "naked" steel beams in the towers, they were encased in concrete. When has fire penetrated concrete to get to the steel beams to melt them?
Direct torch style flames on a naked steel beam, sure it will definitely bend after it gets hot enough.

Towers came down with little resistance, I doubt the 70+ floors below were affected by the strikes, and not enough to just give out all within 15 seconds. Those buildings were solid.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


very true. also consider that the standard cutting gas, acetylene, when combined with oxygen, burns at around 6000F. jet fuel doesn't get anywhere near that.

within a few weeks, almost all the steel was carted away without being examined.

it's a pity that people don't see the obvious. all the evidence is there. most of the people i've shown it to say "there's no way the government would do that". they reject the evidence without even examining it. even if you show them operation northwoods that has been declassified, where the government considered attacking U.S. military targets and civilians to rile up america against castro.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


most of the people i've shown it to say "there's no way the government would do that".


When I hear that I tell them, "No, YOU wouldn't do that, THEY have been doing similar acts of terror for a long time."

Aren't we at about 90% of the US believe the gov't whacked or had Kennedy whacked? That's fine because it was so long ago, not a fresh wound anymore, but I don't understand how people can continue believing a gov't they don't trust! Sounds absurd, happens to be the truth.

And 3000 people on 9/11 lost, how horrible, but the 1 million plus killed after 9/11 in Iraq, no biggie, they're brown people and we love bombing brown people.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


exactly. with a close friend, i had a conversation. it went something like this:

"jet fuel cannot melt steel"

"yes it can"

*pulls up jet fuel burning temperature and steel melting temperature on the computer*

"well one of the engines must have survived and kept burning inside the building acting as a blowtorch"

that is literally what he suggested. he isn't stupid mind you, his father is a mechanic and he knows alot about engines and is well grounded. i find that people will believe anything but the horrible truth.

even if muslims blew the towers up, most americans would turn a blind eye to the civilians that are murdered. who cares if they're innocent farmers, i mean f*** those guys, right? damn towel-heads. /sarcasm.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
So much misinformation in this thread, it's hard to pick out a place to start.

As for the OP, the data has been available for months now at 911datasets.org... but I guess it has taken WAC a couple of months to cherrypick what they needed.

As for the WTC collapse, the steel didn't melt. The jet fuel acted as accellerant to some massive office fires, which only needed to heat the steel to a few hundred degrees before they lost their strength. Something that wasn't hindered by the fireproofing not being up to standard: www.securitymanagement.com...

As for the buildings being able to withstand being hit by airliners, well, they did. What hadn't been taken into consideration was the impact's effect on fireproofing, the structural damage, and the ensuing fires.

Edit: Oh yes, Edna Cintron, absolutely despicable hearing people proclaim that her standing where she was must have meant the fires weren't all too bad. I shall put my reply in picture form. Consider yourself warned.

Hm, no fire? But that's an awfully tightly cropped image. Let's zoom out a bit, shall we?

Oh, what's that, a flickering flame? Let's zoom out a bit further, eh?

Oh dear, I wonder what Edna Cintron thought of her situation after all?

edit on 12-9-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


A full size passenger plane made this hole?




Strange shaped plane in my opinion. Even the tips of the wings sliced through the concrete and steel beams underneath. Too bad the wings couldn't puncture through the Pentagon's concrete and window frames... they just folded back when they hit the building, right?


How did the wood walls, carpets, and office furniture that burned affect the 70+ floors' steel beams encased in cement below?

A neighbor of mine think the planes knocked out the power and electrocuted the steel beams to the point they melted and buckled. At least that theory was making an "open minded effort" and not just trying to defend his own beliefs.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


maybe she fell on accident? she either climbed down to that point, or climbed up to it. she couldn't have survived on those floors when the plane hit.

and as for all that fire... beijing hotel fire that lasted 6 hours engulfing almost the whole building, and it didn't collapse. the flames from the twin towers were match flames compared to what some sky scrapers have survived through.



or howabout this fire? burned almost 100% of the building for 4 hours, and didn't collapse at all.


and i like how you didn't address the temperature problem. you know, temperatures HOTTER than jet fuel can burn? it's a bit of a problem.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by roboe
 


A full size passenger plane made this hole?




Strange shaped plane in my opinion. Even the tips of the wings sliced through the concrete and steel beams underneath. Too bad the wings couldn't puncture through the Pentagon's concrete and window frames... they just folded back when they hit the building, right?

Look up how the exterior of the WTC building was constructed, that should give you an inkling of a clue as to why the hole appears as it does.

As for the Pentagon, this image would suggest that yes indeed, the wings did in fact puncture the walls:
i.imgur.com...


How did the wood walls, carpets, and office furniture that burned affect the 70+ floors' steel beams encased in cement below?

Look up how the WTC towers were constructed in the first place.


A neighbor of mine think the planes knocked out the power and electrocuted the steel beams to the point they melted and buckled. At least that theory was making an "open minded effort" and not just trying to defend his own beliefs.

One should be careful with having too open a mind, lest their brain decides to take advantage and jump ship. I prefer living in the world where evidence and facts rule, rather than whatever outlandish theory someone can think up.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by roboe
 


maybe she fell on accident? she either climbed down to that point, or climbed up to it. she couldn't have survived on those floors when the plane hit.

and as for all that fire... beijing hotel fire that lasted 6 hours engulfing almost the whole building, and it didn't collapse. the flames from the twin towers were match flames compared to what some sky scrapers have survived through.


reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

Let's see.

World Trade Center towers: Tube within a tube design, fully furnished and occupied, heavy fires that raged for a long period without being fought.

CCTV building: Hollow building (see www.eikongraphia.com...), still under construction so only debris was lit, fire that was fought and extinguished in three hours by 600 firefighters. Oh, and it had been constructed with the lessons learned from the WTC collapses.

Yes, entirely the same thing


The only reason the CCTV building fire looks as spectacular as it does, is because it was filmed at night. Any fire looks much more impressive in the dark.


or howabout this fire? burned almost 100% of the building for 4 hours, and didn't collapse at all.

Again, what was the circumstances (construction design, building materials, firefighting efforts, etc) compared to that of the WTC towers?


and i like how you didn't address the temperature problem. you know, temperatures HOTTER than jet fuel can burn? it's a bit of a problem.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

As I already stated, the jet fuel acted as an accellerant to a good old office fire, which can get quite hot. Here's an FDNY chief citing temperatures of 1500-1700 degrees F in an apartment building fire:

Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   



As for the Pentagon, this image would suggest that yes indeed, the wings did in fact puncture the walls:
i.imgur.com...



Umm, where? I don't even see the main hole in this pic, just see fire damage.
So which is the truth, the wings at the Pentagon folded back like the eye witnesses said.... or did they puncture through the walls like you claim?



There is only one hole at the Pentagon, the engines didn't even make holes, the window frames and glass were intact in some spots, unburned open books still laying on desks.... but bodies and most of the "plane" were disintegrated? Seriously, are people that hypnotized into seeing what they want to see?
edit on 12-9-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Let's see...

You can take more than a casual look at the image and clearly see the outline of the aircraft - including where the engines, which are amongst the most solid pieces on an airplane, punched through.

And Mike Walters sounds like he's trying to explain why there weren't a "cartoon"-type outline of a Boeing 757 in the side of the Pentagon. The wings may well have folded back, but it would have to be the parts of the wing outboard of the engines.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



You can take more than a casual look at the image and clearly see the outline of the aircraft - including where the engines, which are amongst the most solid pieces on an airplane, punched through.


I must be missing something.
Can anyone else see what roboe is referring to in the picture? I see maybe one hole near the ground, but nothing else except fire damage. Windows are "clearly" still intact. Whatever you're seeing is the opposite of "clearly".

Mike states that it's absurd for wings to puncture through concrete like that, but the 2 planes went through the towers like a hot knife through butter. Why no wing sheering at both locations? One plane's wings folded back, the other 2 slice through steel encased in cement, sure whatever you say.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Let's see...

You can take more than a casual look at the image and clearly see the outline of the aircraft - including where the engines, which are amongst the most solid pieces on an airplane, punched through.

And Mike Walters sounds like he's trying to explain why there weren't a "cartoon"-type outline of a Boeing 757 in the side of the Pentagon. The wings may well have folded back, but it would have to be the parts of the wing outboard of the engines.


Hope your not talking about the pentagon, there was no wing marks, stabilizer, tail section, engines...
That you want to see them tells a much different story tho, but hey, ignorance is bliss as they say.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Did you not see the OSrs coming slow, then that poor ignorant tries to shove his fantasy story of raging jet fuel fires... The fuel fires were gone by the time the fireball faded, all what was left was office furniture, you OSrs talk crap about us, then you make up things like that, you can apply a 700º c flame to a steel member FOREVER, and it will never bend or plastically deform, thats just the way materials work, hey dont trust me, go make some experiments, or try reading a book, highly doubt they are capable of that but...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I can't make it more obvious than this: i.imgur.com...

The windows had been blast proofed as part of the ongoing renovations.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Saltarello
 

I've made it quite clear that the jet fuel only acted as an accellerant to the office fire. And yes, you can indeed put a 700 degree C flame to a steel bar, and yes it won't melt. But it will have lost more than half its structural strength. Which was what caused the collapse.

Fairly amusing seeing someone suggest I can't read a book, when they themselves are apparently incapable of reading what I've been writing. Oh well...
edit on 12-9-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
The fires burned around an hour in one tower, and less in the second tower, not nearly enough to gain high enough temperature to melt the steel, and create the river of melted iron,

Likewise, the smoke was black, which means temperatures again were nowhere near the required to melt steel, in addition to it being near impossible for an open air fire to again reach said temperatures,

whilst i may not be an expert, my grandfather has been a firemen practically all his life, he knows quite an extensive amount of knowledge on fires

The Planes didn't have full tanks of fuel, on impact the Fire-burst consumed most of the fuel anyway, and again i shall reiterate the impossibility of jet fuel burning at such high temperatures

let us pretend it was fires that made the towers disintegrate,

in order for the towers to collapse as they did, the inner core had to have been destroyed, if fires weekend the structure, why the straight collapse? why did the debris explode outwards? why was the structure disintegrated? consumed by fire alone?

again let us pretend it was a 'Pancake Affect'

the inner core would have remained, as the way the towers were built, the floors around would have 'Pancaked' yet the inner core would have remained,


edit on 12-9-2011 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-9-2011 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Saltarello
 

I've made it quite clear that the jet fuel only acted as an accellerant to the office fire.


You mentioned raging office fires. Will give you a clue, do you know what black smoke means coming off a fire right? Just in case I will spill the beans for you: means oxigen starved fire, wich means low temperature fire, wich, in any case, would have not melted structural steel. We dont use blast furnaces to make steel just for the kicks, its the only way to melt or bend structural steel, kerosene (jet fuel) just does not burn hot enough, and most of it was blown away in every direction on impact. But as said, enjoy your "bliss".



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
The fires burned around an hour in one tower, and less in the second tower, not nearly enough to gain high enough temperature to melt the steel, and create the river of melted iron,

Likewise, the smoke was black, which means temperature again where no where near the required to melt steel, in addition to it being near impossible for an open air fire to again reach said temperatures,

whilst i may not be an expert, my grandfather has been a firemen practically all his life, he knows quite an extensive amount of knowledge on fires

The Planes didn't have full tanks of fuel, on impact the Fire-burst consumed most of the fuel anyway, and again i shall reiterate the impossibility of jet fuel burning at such high temperatures

let us pretend it was fires that made the towers disintegrate,

in order for the towers to collapse as they did, the inner core had to have been destroyed, if fires weekend the structure, why the straight collapse? why did the debris explode outwards? why was the structure disintegrated? consumed by fire alone?

again let us pretend it was a 'Pancake Affect'

the inner core would have remained, as the way the towers were built, the floors around would have 'Pancaked' yet the inner core would have remained,




Wow slow down 'bro, you making sense and this wont fly for the OSrs.
Star for 'ya.






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join