It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 22
14
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:18 PM

No, I'm pointing out that your lack of understanding about airliner construction is quite evident. An airliner wing, is quite solid and able to inflict a lot of damage, even to steel sections that are welded/bolted together.

Well, actually, I was hoping you would chuck a beer at your neighbors window........

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:26 PM

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.

Good lord, what are they teaching children these days. How can the plane strike without being struck with an equal and opposite force?

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by septic
Good lord, what are they teaching children these days. How can the plane strike without being struck with an equal and opposite force?

Yes, equal but opposite force, but the force is directional and the greater energy was held by the plane, carried forward by momentum. You seem to think that the steel should have absorbed all of the energy and then had enough storage left to repel the plane and shatter it away. What are you smoking?

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by vipertech0596

No, I'm pointing out that your lack of understanding about airliner construction is quite evident. An airliner wing, is quite solid and able to inflict a lot of damage, even to steel sections that are welded/bolted together.

Well, actually, I was hoping you would chuck a beer at your neighbors window........

You know nothing about construction, as evidenced by your "this beer is the plane, and this pane of glass is the steel columns of the WTC" analogy. Try chucking it against your barbecue grill for a better analogy. What, are you guys all children?

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:49 PM

Yes, equal but opposite force, but the force is directional and the greater energy was held by the plane, carried forward by momentum. You seem to think that the steel should have absorbed all of the energy and then had enough storage left to repel the plane and shatter it away. What are you smoking?

Splain it to me please. Explain how the energy of the wingtips cut the steel. Remember, even MIT gave up on that. Come on, use your "new" physics to explain it. Tell me how the round-edged, soft aluminum wing tips sliced the steel.

Don't mistake my tendency to use layman's terms as not understanding physics. Don't forget MIT couldn't prove the wings could do what the TeeVee showed.

I keep requesting one of you plane huggers to use the physics you like to brandish like a sword, but you guys can't even lift it can you?

The fact remains, the wings could not have cut the steel because the impact would be distributed equally between the two impacting bodies, relative their mass and density of material. It's the spear analogy again...you know, the really simple example of what you're trying to ignore.

Throw a spear at a tree and it'll impale the tree. Throw it so it strikes the tree sideways, and it won't. Same mass, same velocity, but the mass isn't focused on the point of impact. This is EXACTLY why your wings are impossible, and why MIT and Bezant gave up trying to explain the interaction between the sharp, steel box columns, and the soft round-edged, thin, aluminum of the wing. Even they couldn't lie their way out of it, so they threw in the towel.

You and your wing theory are flapping in the breeze.

Didja ever wonder how they calculated the "severed" columns as shown above? Did they have an engineer run up to investigate?
edit on 9-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:09 AM

In contrast, can you explain to me why a missile will behave any different? You can pretend that it's oh-so-much harder all you want, but you've yet to prove it to me with your magical missile physics. Everything I've read shows that missiles are designed to be weaker all over except at the warhead, because they need to be as light as possible in order to go as fast as possible. Plus, I've never heard of a missile that shoots upward at an angle, and I've never ever heard of multiple missiles being used to make an outline of a plane. If you're to suggest that charges were set to make it look like a plane, then why didn't the material shoot out? It went inward with the plane.

Oh wait, that's right. You think every single video of the plane is fake. So, you can make up whatever facts you want and it won't be contestable by anyone. Yup, that's logical.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:35 AM

Unlike you, I bring corroborating evidence to the table. There is no need to be ashamed that you don't know anything about missiles, jets, physics, explosives or buildings, but the least you can do is try to learn.

I say a 12x60 inch, 900 lb warhead, designed for penetrating hard targets did it, as evidenced by the damage. I have explained it repeatedly here.

You say a lightweight jet wing did it, with its mass spread out over the width of the wing, which is either evidence of profound ignorance of the way things work in the real world, or a deliberate attempt to deceive. You waved your MIT paper in my face as if it was proof that the wings could do what they say, and you continue to accuse me of ignorance.

Once again for the readers, missiles penetrate hardened targets because they focus their energy and their mass at a small point of impact. This is why missiles are long and tubular and their warheads are made of very hard, dense metals, tipped with titanium; and this is why they are NOT wide, hollow aluminum wings. It is the same simple concept behind bullets, spears and arrows.

It seems the lot of you OS types never back down and you haven't changed your minds based on new information for ten years. This speaks volumes.

Say, did you ever find any of these huge generators, or their control panels in any of the shots of the rubble?

Also, while I have you, have you ever considered what might have caused the huge dust clouds, I mean, now that it's clear it's not the Gypsum and the spray on insulation.

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

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:17 AM

Now why am I not surprised you didn't understand it. I never once said the window was the WTC.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by septic

Unlike you, I bring corroborating evidence to the table. There is no need to be ashamed that you don't know anything about missiles, jets, physics, explosives or buildings, but the least you can do is try to learn.

I say a 12x60 inch, 900 lb warhead, designed for penetrating hard targets did it, as evidenced by the damage. I have explained it repeatedly here.

You say a lightweight jet wing did it, with its mass spread out over the width of the wing, which is either evidence of profound ignorance of the way things work in the real world, or a deliberate attempt to deceive. You waved your MIT paper in my face as if it was proof that the wings could do what they say, and you continue to accuse me of ignorance.

Once again for the readers, missiles penetrate hardened targets because they focus their energy and their mass at a small point of impact. This is why missiles are long and tubular and their warheads are made of very hard, dense metals, tipped with titanium; and this is why they are NOT wide, hollow aluminum wings. It is the same simple concept behind bullets, spears and arrows.

Also, while I have you, have you ever considered what might have caused the huge dust clouds, I mean, now that it's clear it's not the Gypsum and the spray on insulation.

You have no evidence for missiles. It could have been the DEW or guys with cutting torches and sledge hammers.
"There is no need to be ashamed that you don't know anything about missiles, jets, physics, explosives or buildings, but the least you can do is try to learn."

How is it clear that the dust clouds are not gysum, concrete, and insulation? Are you dustifying things again? I have never traced that concept back to its origin but would like to know who came up with it. It is always good for a laugh and reduces that chance that any of this will be taken seriously. Keep pushing dustification, invisible missiles, no planes, lying witnesses and all the other stuff so that the government agents can make sure this never goes anywhere. I can imagine the statement by the prosecutor "and seven [7] invisible missiles did strike the WTC instead of commercial aircraft. Witnesses septic and yankee will provide irrefutable evidence based on deep personal feelings and missile groove analysis, a well known technique used in forensic science."

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:26 AM
"Demonlition".... ha ha ha ha. Thats was so funny

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:26 AM
There is only 1 question to be asked.

When are we going to start putting people on trial?

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:44 AM

The moment anyone comes with evidence that has any value in a court (in other words, probably never).

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:07 AM

I guess the charge might be......

Premeditated Dustification?

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by septic

What people on the ground? Thousands of them, right? Its too bad none of them had any cameras nearby. A few tight, closeup telephoto shots of the tower damage would be a big help. How do you know all those pesky people were there? Were you one of them, or are you just repeating what the TV told you?

"No" cameras is quite a stretch given that there are lots of photos extant. And anyway how would you go about taking a closeup of the tower? I've asked you this before and you've avoided it.

You seem to be saying that you find it unsuspicious that lower Manhattan was empty of people, and suspicious that nobody could fly up to the side of the tower.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:01 AM

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?

Sealed shut ? Where?

There were several freight and passenger elevators which ran entire lenght of the building

Also elevator shafts were lined not with concrete, but with sheet rock. An error which has been corrected in
the new building where some 2 1/2 ft of concrete line the elevator shafts

Here is complete link to witnesses reporting smelling Kerosene (aka jet fuel), seeing fire shoot from elevators
and burn victims in the lobby from the fire coming out

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

The moment anyone comes with evidence that has any value in a court (in other words, probably never).

Which court would that be? The one that gave Bush the presidency?

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:07 AM

Originally posted by thedman

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?

Sealed shut ? Where?

There were several freight and passenger elevators which ran entire lenght of the building

Also elevator shafts were lined not with concrete, but with sheet rock. An error which has been corrected in
the new building where some 2 1/2 ft of concrete line the elevator shafts

Here is complete link to witnesses reporting smelling Kerosene (aka jet fuel), seeing fire shoot from elevators
and burn victims in the lobby from the fire coming out

You mean it is possible for a commercial jetliner to break through sheet rock?

It is possible for thousands of gallons of jet fuel to run down a wide open hole in a floor?

In most people's world it is.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by septic

What people on the ground? Thousands of them, right? Its too bad none of them had any cameras nearby. A few tight, closeup telephoto shots of the tower damage would be a big help. How do you know all those pesky people were there? Were you one of them, or are you just repeating what the TV told you?

"No" cameras is quite a stretch given that there are lots of photos extant. And anyway how would you go about taking a closeup of the tower? I've asked you this before and you've avoided it.

You seem to be saying that you find it unsuspicious that lower Manhattan was empty of people, and suspicious that nobody could fly up to the side of the tower.

Have you never heard of a telephoto lens (it's in the post you replied to)?

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:24 AM

It is possible for thousands of gallons of jet fuel to run down a wide open hole in a floor?

In most people's world it is.

Lets see...so the fuel goes from being in the fuel tanks to becoming airborne and atomized, and then it runs straight for an elevator and falls 1000 feet before igniting.

In the cartoon world most Americans live in, this is what passes as reality.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Lets see...so the fuel goes from being in the fuel tanks to becoming airborne and atomized, and then it runs straight for an elevator and falls 1000 feet before igniting.

Or, some of the fuel is consumed in the explosion and some is not. Just like some cards end face up when you drop them and some end face down. The unconsumed fuel remains in its liquid state, falls through the elevator shaft as liquids are want to do and is ignited.

Really, you must get embarassed after awhile.

new topics

top topics

14