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.

 

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 34
60
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal





How do you account for believing that Atta was in the pilot's seat when no credible evidence has been put forth that he was even on an airplane?

plane manifests and tickets



You're basing your conclusion on a couple of audio recordings that any audio novice could have easily created?


I see, ALL audio novices have access to air traffic control.




I have not seen any photographic evidence of a guy called Atta boarding an airplane at Boston's Logan Airport. I believe there is a photo of some guy in a blue shirt boarding at the Portland, ME Airport, but what exactly does this prove?


Again, the plane manifest and tickets.

So you have us to believe that American Airlines were also part of this conspiracy? Every ticket agent was part of this?




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   


The manifest of American Airlines with the terrorists on board.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Exactly and for the people who say the U.S did it it's not like they hid any evidence afterwards.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


you're completely ignoring my argument. it's ok, all OS'ers do.

you say "steel didn't melt". i showed how the color of metal = temperature, and the temperature we see based on that is well over 1300 C. that is hotter than jet fuel can burn by a long shot, and even the source you linked to says temperatures in the tower were around 750C.

see that piece of rebar sticking up that is orange? if that were aluminum, it would be a puddle of liquid, as would the steel that is being picked up. granted, you can see steel dripping off, but aluminum at that temperature is completely melted.

and howabout this picture? where would you say it falls on

because the topmost orange on that picture is 1371C.
www.blksmth.com...

there is simply no denying that temperatures above and beyond what the OS says occurred. i've had enough dishonesty from the OS'ers



edit on 14-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


As has been stated repeatedly by multiple experts, the colour is meaningless.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

care to give me a link to "experts". because i can drown you in a bunch of links that have nothing to do with 9/11 which state metal color to temperature, including physics and chemistry websites.


Doesn’t really matter what the emitter is…stainless steel, cast iron, tungsten in your light bulb, the temps are about the same for a given color.

www.hearth.com...


Every material glows the same color at the same temperature. Whether it be steel, glass, ceramic or horse whiskers. This is just a fact of quantum physics.

www.navaching.com...


Incandescence is the emission of light by a solid that has been heated until it glows, or radiates light. When an iron bar is heated to a very high temperature, it initially glows red, and then as its temperature rises it glows white.

www.webexhibits.org...


Steel exhibits different colors depending on temperature. Temperatures above 800°F (427°C) produce incandescent colors; the atoms in the steel are so energized by heat that they give off photons.

www.threeplanes.net...

none of the sites above have anything to do with 9/11 they're primarily blacksmithing/physics sites. the color something glows is due to the amount of energy it contains, not what material it is made of, so it is constant.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


That photo has been debunked. Go read all of this carefully.

www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

I'm a debunker of 9/1, but that website looks obvious that they're trying to fabricate nformation to fit the reasoning. I'm sure there are better evidence that proves planes can bring down steel buildings.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


i'm sorry, but that article is also crap and has already been debunked by my previous quotes and pictures. that piece of steel that is being picked up? it can't be aluminum because it would be complete liquid, and it can't be contaminated (even though contamination shouldn't effect the quanta of light emitted) because IT IS STILL SOLID.

you've had an account less than 1 month, and i think it's obvious who you are. you are pretty obvious, despite your name.



edit on 14-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

www.hearth.com...

www.navaching.com...

www.webexhibits.org...

www.threeplanes.net...




It's good to see you have read some articles about heat and steel. What can you tell us about annealing ?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious


1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:

- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way

2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:

- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions

- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.


sigh...okay I'll start;

1. You're incorrect. The empire state building was struck by a 10-ton B-25 Bomber in 1945. Building obviously stands today.

2. Watch ANY video of someone within earshot of buildings, IE Emergency responders, firefighters, cops, victims, etc, they all explain it as "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom "



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


i'm not trying to be sarcastic/disrespectful, but i don't understand the point you are trying to make. annealing is a kind of reset. if you get a piece of steel orange hot, and quench it in oil or water, it will become hard, but brittle. the atoms align in a crystalline structure. annealing is when you heat metal (or glass) up past the temperature it was quenched at and let it air cool. it removes the hardness that the metal got when it was quenched (i don't remember if it removes all or just some, it probably depends on what color you bring the metal to before you let it cool).

when i was growing up, my dad liked to have exotic projects, and metallurgy was an ongoing one. he built his own blast furnace and would melt different metals and pour moulds. he also did some forging and lost wax casting. being naturally curious, i joined him doing different things. later i became a welder with a passion for physics, and currently i'm pursuing a degree in it.

i don't know everything about metallurgy, but i have some knowledge about it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Iconic
 


actually there is video evidence of timed explosions going all the way down. another ats'er posted it in a different thread, lemme find it.

ahhh yes. credit goes to jibbyjedi for originally posting it. you can hear the explosions start at 2:10 and continue as the building falls. leading up to it are witness testimony describing the same explosions. boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


That is not even vaguely close to being proof of the amount of timed explosions necessary to be a demo...

Demos for buildings that size would take HUNDREDS of VISIBLE and AUDIBLE explosions. That video doesn't come close to illustrating that.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Iconic
 


Boom boom boom isn't a demo... a demo is HUNDREDS of TIMED explosions which are visible and audible.

A large part of the supporting structure, in other words a large part of the load bearing of the towers was done by the skins of the building. If you wanna believe in explosive demos those skins would have to be visiblly destroyed with charges. They weren't.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Iconic
 


Oh and hey the TTs were the ONLY skyscrapers ever built the way they built. The Empire was a steel frame building, the Towers weren't.

Apples and oranges.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


first, NIST claimed that there were no explosions, second, it doesn't take hundreds of explosions as seen here:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

and before you start with the "ohh, but those aren't the same type of construction" it doesn't matter. there isn't some magical construction technique that makes a building immune to strategically placed explosives. a similarly structured and similarly illogical argument would be "this rope can't be cut by knives because it is a different weave".

to top it all off, your argument is based on a logical fallacy, and you still haven't rectified the temperature conundrum i gave earlier. i'd like you to start with that, because as you said "it's been explained hundreds of times". well...it's been several pages.

edit on 14-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Oh and hey the TTs were the ONLY skyscrapers ever built the way they built.

No they were not. I already corrected you on this false statement back on page 30, which you still have yet to respond to. Must've been too much fact and truth for you. Please stop peddling easily-verifiable false information and get researched.



Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
The Empire was a steel frame building, the Towers weren't.

The towers were steel tube-framed. Also pointed out in my response back on page 30. Looks like you've got some real reading and research to do before continuing to spread falsities.







edit on 14-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
...I already corrected you on this false statement back on page 30...


As did I on page 10...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And we are the ones accused of lying, deceiving, and ignoring facts...



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join