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.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 21
14
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by septic
 



There were no eye-witnesses to steel-slicing planes.


Probably because the steel wasn't sliced

The aircraft impact snapped off the bolts/welds which connected the column panels together

The dislodged panels were shoved out of the way


let's put this one to bed early, shall we?





posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


Research Boeing 767 Tanker Transport.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Research Boeing 767 Tanker Transport.


To what purpose?

There were none in 2001.


Role Air-to-air tanker
Manufacturer Boeing
First flight 21 May 2005



The U.S. Air Force (USAF) ran a procurement program to replace about 100 of its oldest KC-135E Stratotankers, part of the "Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft" program. Most USAF KC-135s are of the updated KC-135R variant.

On 28 March 2002, the Air Force selected Boeing's KC-767 stating they "have clearly demonstrated that only the Boeing Corp. can currently meet the requirements".


en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunately for the so-called "truth movement", each and every fantastic claim made by the many, many various "9/11 conspiracy" websites can be proven to be in error, not anywhere near factual, in usually flat-out lies.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Except the picture you show is not steel....

Its the aluminium cladding on the outside of the building


By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.


Here is picture of some of the cladding at Fresh Kills

americanhistory.si.edu...

Try to get things right....



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by dillweed
 




So maybe can enlighten us as to why people smelled jet fuel in the North Tower lobby ?


Or why so many people were badly burned in the lobby



I see no PROOF at all in your response that JET FUEL leaked down the building and blew up the lobby. From the witness remarks you provided, it sounds like they got blowed up and figured it must have been because of the the plane. They even use words like "I imagine" and "I guess". It looks like you just gave evidence of secondary explosions not caused by the plane crash. You know, the ones truthers always point to showing that there were sub street level (basement) explosions.

Now if you want people to mentally link those explosions to the planes, I suggest you start providing diagrams of the elevator shafts that reached the distance from top to bottom (1). All the time keeping in mind what would happen to a large body of liquid travelling 500 miles per hour and slamming a building, not POURED down the elevator shafts with a funnel. Also, those shafts were completely sealed shut...Do I have to keep going?

Think about what you are saying.
Sealed shafts that occupy a very SMALL percentage of the total floor space available for the fuel to land on, somehow gathered the jet fuel like a sponge and let it fall all the way to the ground igniting just in time to blow the Hell out of the basement and lobby. Oh, and it was just about instantanious with the crash of the plane.

And you laugh at us.


edit on 8-12-2011 by Wizayne because: small pox



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Yeah, the NIST describes the fuel as becoming airborne and yet only ignited 40 percent the stuff. Anyone who's ever tried to put out a fire with gasoline knows how well that works.. The rest ran for the nearest elevator shaft, and then down a 1000 foot fall until it exploded. It's one of the more ridiculous features of the OS.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by septic
 


Except the picture you show is not steel....

Try to get things right....


How am I doing now?




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 






I also can remember events from 40+ years ago. I can tell you about Sputnik, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Kennedy Assassination. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident because it really affected my life several years later and provided me with more traumatic events that I can remember but really don't care to.

Not everyone in NYC was hypnotized or part of the plot.
The buildings were populated with people who worked at offices in the buildings.
FDNY firemen died trying to save people.

Your theory is completely bankrupt. Your knowledge of physics is miniscule as is your knowledge of the capabilities and behavior of cruise missiles.
There were no eyewitnesses to, videos of, or physical evidence of any projectiles striking the WTC on 911 other than two passenger planes.


Thanks for repeating some of America's most memorable propaganda coups.
I remind you that your proclamations and circular logic only reinforce my premise. America is pure propaganda, and it's time for a good, old-fashioned apocalypse.
So you keep saying, yet you can't prove me wrong. Don't you want to point to a Bezant paper or something, or are you content with a tantrum?


So you believe that Sputnik was one of of America's most memorable propaganda coups. How this "proclamation" is circular logic and reinforces your premise is yet to be determined.

As an inside tip, it is your job to prove your theory. It is not for others to disprove. So far, you haven't done any proving, all you have done is called "speculation."



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How 'bout that sliced steel, eh? You're the one claiming a round-edged, hollow aluminum wing with an effete spar was enough to cut the steel, if I recall. Weren't you going to explain it using the physics I have such a hard time with? Still having trouble with the figures?

So which is it then, did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips push aside the panels, the spandrels, and the concrete floors behind them; or did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips slice through the steel?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Yeah, the NIST describes the fuel as becoming airborne and yet only ignited 40 percent the stuff. Anyone who's ever tried to put out a fire with gasoline knows how well that works.. The rest ran for the nearest elevator shaft, and then down a 1000 foot fall until it exploded. It's one of the more ridiculous features of the OS.
For starters, it is jet fuel.... Think kerosene, not gasoline.

I have known people that would take a mouthful of kerosene and blow it onto a torch held at arms length. Scary, huh? Don't try it with gasoline, there is a big difference.

I have played with fire. Lighting a 5 gallon bucket of kerosene full to the brim, with a match is something that can be done without any ill effects, believe it or not. It is actually not that easy to ignite, if the temperatures are too low.

What I like the most is that everyone seems to be an expert on what Should happen when a fully fueled jetliner crashes into a skyscraper, but how many cases do we have to study? B-25 and the Empire State Building? Not even close.

We saw it happen on Sept 11, 2001, try learning instead of inventing.

There are posters saying that they are in the Boiler business. I have seen more than a few boilers with oil streaming out the rear end because the Equipment designed to burn oil was not properly adjusted. But these people are surprised that all the fuel did not immediately explode when the fuel tanks were dumped into the inside of a building. Combustion isn't as simple as some minds are.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 


How 'bout that sliced steel, eh? You're the one claiming a round-edged, hollow aluminum wing with an effete spar was enough to cut the steel, if I recall. Weren't you going to explain it using the physics I have such a hard time with? Still having trouble with the figures?

So which is it then, did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips push aside the panels, the spandrels, and the concrete floors behind them; or did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips slice through the steel?


Was it sliced or was it torn? There is a very big difference.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 





For starters, it is jet fuel.... Think kerosene, not gasoline.

I have known people that would take a mouthful of kerosene and blow it onto a torch held at arms length. Scary, huh? Don't try it with gasoline, there is a big difference.



You guys are comical. It was a freaking analogy. On the one hand you want the Kerosene to be so explosive and dangerous that a couple above ground pools of the stuff can wipe out the entire WTC complex, and on the other you are knit-picking at descriptive words. Anything to avoid whatever question was really on the table.

Kerosene is extremely explosive when mixed with air, and I believe it was the NIST that stated the fuel "atomized", although they estimated only 40 percent burned up. How they estimated that percentage is anyone's guess, but they likely needed the other 60 percent to support the "exploding elevator" hogwash, and the rest for the impact "shock and awe" shot, shown repeatedly, interchanged with menacing photographs of swarthy, brown-skinned chaps. Over, and over again.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Was it sliced or was it torn? There is a very big difference.


Explain how either would be possible. Did the lightweight, round-edged, hollow aluminum wing "tear" the steel or slice it?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 





Was it sliced or was it torn? There is a very big difference.


Explain how either would be possible. Did the lightweight, round-edged, hollow aluminum wing "tear" the steel or slice it?


A tear would be from a great deal of force which is given when you figure in the mass of the wing and the speed they were going. To see it in slow motion, it would be a bending of the steel, then a snagging of some part connected to it, and a ripping apart.

It makes a really big difference since you are saying it's a slice, and apparently your missile wings can do this while an airliner can't? What the heck are your missile wings made of?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


And your problem is you keep thinking that airliner wings are these flimsy little items.

Here is an experiment for you. Take an empty beer can and throw it at your neighbor's living room window....it will bounce off. Now, take a full beer and throw it at the same window. Let us know how it turns out.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 


How 'bout that sliced steel, eh? You're the one claiming a round-edged, hollow aluminum wing with an effete spar was enough to cut the steel, if I recall. Weren't you going to explain it using the physics I have such a hard time with? Still having trouble with the figures?

So which is it then, did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips push aside the panels, the spandrels, and the concrete floors behind them; or did the round-edged hollow aluminum wing tips slice through the steel?


I see that you have no evidence to back your claims so now you must appeal to incredulity. The old "no aluminum wing can cut through steel" argument. The years you spent throwing empty aluminum beer cans at your daddy's tractor have finally come in handy for your theory. Unfortunately for you, you can't prove that any missiles were present, that the planes were holograms or faked, that the witnesses lied, or any other points of your theory.
RIP missile theory. Come back when you have something other than speculation.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I can almost hear the hope in your voice as you're describing it. When struck at 500 MPH by the more dense, sharp-edged, more massive, more stiff, 14-inch square, 1/4-inch thick STEEL and PLENTIFUL box columns, the collection of aluminum ribs and spars wrapped with a .050-inch thin aluminum skin known as a round-edged wing TORE THE STEEL?

That's your final answer?
edit on 8-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


And your problem is you keep thinking that airliner wings are these flimsy little items.

Here is an experiment for you. Take an empty beer can and throw it at your neighbor's living room window....it will bounce off. Now, take a full beer and throw it at the same window. Let us know how it turns out.


Really?

The plane's wing is the beer can, and the steel box columns are the glass window.

Jesus. What sort of freaks am I dealing with here.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yep, you're right. Since you proclaimed yourself the winner, I see your point. I guess you'll grab hold of the next helicopter skid you can find and dangle into the sunset.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 


I can almost hear the hope in your voice as you're describing it. When struck at 500 MPH by the more dense, sharp-edged, more massive, more stiff, 14-inch square, 1/4-inch thick STEEL and PLENTIFUL box columns, the collection of aluminum ribs and spars wrapped with a .050-inch thin aluminum skin known as a round-edged wing TORE THE STEEL?

That's your final answer?
edit on 8-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)


The plane was not what was struck. The plane had the forward momentum. Yes, the wing tore the steel. It was going fast enough to have enough energy to do it. I didn't say the wing survived the impact. That's impossible. It just hit hard enough to damage the steel like that.

Seriously, do some research on force and how it works.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join