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: 23
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





How is it clear that the dust clouds are not gysum, concrete, and insulation?


It is clear to anyone capable of critical thought. The cloud is about three times the size of the part of the building that's committing hari kari:





posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 






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.


Yes, it's just like a deck of cards. How did the card...er... the fuel become "atomized" and then reconvene near the elevators?

How do you calculate how much of the fuel didn't ignite?



Really, you must get embarassed after awhile.


You're right, I'm embarrassed every time I read your stuff, not to mention a bit unclean.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 





How is it clear that the dust clouds are not gysum, concrete, and insulation?


It is clear to anyone capable of critical thought. The cloud is about three times the size of the part of the building that's committing hari kari:

Why is the top part of that cloud black?

Is it possible that it is smoke? Is it at all possible that some of that 'dust' could be smoke too?

Also, looking at the edges of that 'dust' cloud, I notice that some of the 'dust' particles seem to be kind of large. Large, as in as big as MY HOUSE large.

Giant dust particles?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by butcherguy
 






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.
I would think that you know what needs to be done to properly atomize liquid fuel for complete combustion. When you do it with an industrial burner, even if everything is okay with the burner, you have to have a clear area for combustion to occur. If any impingement occurs, the fuel collects on what it strikes and in most cases, does not burn completely. I believe that there was plenty of things for any spray to strike in that building. I say spray, because only a small percentage of the fuel was atomized, IMO.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by butcherguy
 






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.
I would think that you know what needs to be done to properly atomize liquid fuel for complete combustion. When you do it with an industrial burner, even if everything is okay with the burner, you have to have a clear area for combustion to occur. If any impingement occurs, the fuel collects on what it strikes and in most cases, does not burn completely. I believe that there was plenty of things for any spray to strike in that building. I say spray, because only a small percentage of the fuel was atomized, IMO.


You gathered all this from the video? You're just clutching for a straw that already suits your premise.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Yes, it's just like a deck of cards. How did the card...er... the fuel become "atomized" and then reconvene near the elevators?

Who said it all had to first become atomized and then reconstituted? Some atomized, some remained liquid. Its pretty simple stuff.

How do you calculate how much of the fuel didn't ignite?

I didn't. Don't have to.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 





How is it clear that the dust clouds are not gysum, concrete, and insulation?


It is clear to anyone capable of critical thought. The cloud is about three times the size of the part of the building that's committing hari kari:

Why is the top part of that cloud black?

Is it possible that it is smoke? Is it at all possible that some of that 'dust' could be smoke too?

Also, looking at the edges of that 'dust' cloud, I notice that some of the 'dust' particles seem to be kind of large. Large, as in as big as MY HOUSE large.

Giant dust particles?


Yeah, a gigantic explosion with a plume of dark smoke floating UP, and a cloud of grey dust and house-sized chunks of STEEL ejected up, out and DOWN.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



Yes, it's just like a deck of cards. How did the card...er... the fuel become "atomized" and then reconvene near the elevators?

Who said it all had to first become atomized and then reconstituted? Some atomized, some remained liquid. Its pretty simple stuff.

How do you calculate how much of the fuel didn't ignite?

I didn't. Don't have to.


'Nuf said.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 
I too have my doubts about explosives taking down those towers. the best explanation I could find was from a Dr. Judy Wood who states that the buildings were destroyed by a weapon that causes matter to turn to dust and the explosives were just there to kill any first responders. sounds really crazy I know but it does explain many things. kind of like the Hutchington effect where it causes atoms to seperate and you end up with a lot of dust. there should have been 12 stories left that day and there weren't. anyway I don't really expect people to buy this because people still think Obama is a legal citizen, but I thought I'd throw it out there for the hey of it. makes sense to me but still we may never know. only thing I know for sure is it wasn't the planes.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



house-sized chunks of STEEL ejected
Earlier, the question was asked, "where did all the steel go?"

There we have it, out and down to the ground.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
 





How is it clear that the dust clouds are not gysum, concrete, and insulation?


It is clear to anyone capable of critical thought. The cloud is about three times the size of the part of the building that's committing hari kari:


So, your conclusion is based only on the size of the cloud and the idea that you are capable of critical thought. From your statements, you would conclude that a if bag of flour made a dust cloud three times bigger than itself, it must be from something other than the flour.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by septic
 



house-sized chunks of STEEL ejected
Earlier, the question was asked, "where did all the steel go?"

There we have it, out and down to the ground.



I didn't ask that. What I asked was where did all the contents go.

















posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   


I didn't ask that.
reply to post by septic
 

I didn't say that you did.

Gravitor did, I believe.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy



I didn't ask that.
reply to post by septic
 

I didn't say that you did.

Gravitor did, I believe.


Agreed, and I never said you did either. I was just reminding the class what I asked.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by gravitor
IMHO, the so called laws of physics are a veil.
They merely conform to the here and now moment, relative to the surface area of this planet.
But You see, I am,
Gravitor


To the best of my knowledge, the laws of physics are always applicable in any observable moment. The problem I have seen is that people like to use the word physics and the word impossible and then assume they are correct. Until a physical experiment is done proving that it can't happen, then it probably did, especially since mathematicians and engineers have crunched the numbers quite a few times, and it all seems to work out. I've seen people here like to ignore math and engineers who don't agree with them. Instead, I see A&E for 9/11 Truth being toted, who last I checked still think that the dust cloud was pyroclastic, even though it didn't burn people, or paper, or anything really. It just caused lung issues and cancer because of it being thick dust and partially Asbestos.


Too bad tangible evidence was shipped out immediately as to not study, prove, or disprove said laws of physics. The laws of probability in this case is all we have to rely on. Hmmm... let's see, 2 planes, 2 towers... both a bullseye hit with inexperienced (terrorist) pilots at best! Never before in the history of man has a building collapsed caused by a plane hitting it. Oh yea don't forget about pickin up the spare (building 7) with no plane. Talk about astronomical odds.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxJohnson
Too bad tangible evidence was shipped out immediately as to not study, prove, or disprove said laws of physics. The laws of probability in this case is all we have to rely on. Hmmm... let's see, 2 planes, 2 towers... both a bullseye hit with inexperienced (terrorist) pilots at best! Never before in the history of man has a building collapsed caused by a plane hitting it. Oh yea don't forget about pickin up the spare (building 7) with no plane. Talk about astronomical odds.


I agree that the remnants of the tower were not handled in the best way they could have been, but you are still arguing from ignorance. You are saying, "We don't know, therefore the conspiracy is correct."

And for the record, building 7 was hit by debris from the North tower and was physically damaged by it, as visible in pictures and as evidenced by testimony from the firefighters who were there and observed the building as it burned, determining that it was going to collapse because it was showing all the warning signs. I understand that facts like that are too much for some people to handle, but at least think about it for a moment.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Reply to theDman


post by Wizayne
 



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?

Seriuosly? The shafts were sealed units. Or else folks could just walk in and fall down the shaft. They may have been damaged from the crash, but they were still sealed units. Not open holes in the floor.

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

Not true, look into it. I can provide diagrams but you are the one that is mistaken here.
You will learn that there was one service elevator that ran the length and thats not the one that blew up.

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

That means absolutely nothing. You haven't given us any clue how the fuel pooled right at that shaft hole and drained down 1000 ft only to ignite almost at the same time as the crash.

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

I would expect to smell jet fuel considering a jet crashed into the building. Do you think its possible that SOME of the fuel could have been denied access to the inside of the building by the exterior walls, allowing the fuel and its smell to fall to the ground and continue stinking like fuel? Or how about the possibility that some of the fuel blew right through the building and out the other side and then floated to the ground, again maintaining its smell?


Yes, folks got blowed up in the sub levels. So much so that there are hundreds of witnesses AND victims of these explosions. However, there is NO EVIDENCE that the jet fuel could have Crashed into but not out of the building, Pooling at the shaft holes, Draining the 1000 feet to ground level and then igniting creating SEVERAL hugh Blasts.

I thank you for your input and thoughts, they make sense to you and I understand that. HOWEVER, there is absolutely NO proof for your fuel absorbing open holed shaft theory. They simply dont run the length of the building the way you think AND you cant explain delivery to the ground through the shafts.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Wizayne because: of losing a leg in the gulf.

edit on 9-12-2011 by Wizayne because: of the muppet movie.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MaxJohnson
Too bad tangible evidence was shipped out immediately as to not study, prove, or disprove said laws of physics. The laws of probability in this case is all we have to rely on. Hmmm... let's see, 2 planes, 2 towers... both a bullseye hit with inexperienced (terrorist) pilots at best! Never before in the history of man has a building collapsed caused by a plane hitting it. Oh yea don't forget about pickin up the spare (building 7) with no plane. Talk about astronomical odds.


I agree that the remnants of the tower were not handled in the best way they could have been, but you are still arguing from ignorance. You are saying, "We don't know, therefore the conspiracy is correct."

And for the record, building 7 was hit by debris from the North tower and was physically damaged by it, as visible in pictures and as evidenced by testimony from the firefighters who were there and observed the building as it burned, determining that it was going to collapse because it was showing all the warning signs. I understand that facts like that are too much for some people to handle, but at least think about it for a moment.

Wrong Varemia, your ignorance has spoken. YOU are saying "we don't know, threrefore the conspiracy is correct. YOU are putting words in my mouth. You're preaching to the choir about debris hitting building 7. No one can deny that, however, for the the style in which it collapsed the debris chunks would have been of monumental size. I'm talking mammoth proportions that just as easily would have distracted eyewitnesses armed with cameras. I'm inclined to use better judgement. Notice how building 7 was totally ignored until the "conspiracy kooks" placed an emphasis on this grievous distortion of the laws of physics in which you and your clan espouse so much? This is most likely the precedent that started the informal investigation and the tireless ignored pleas to open the matter for fair and evaluative discovery. Have you EVER seen the size of the behemoth steel beams you guys refer to as being weakened in a cool suffocated fire? They are thick, like a tank's armor. In less than an hour you're trying to tell me that a FIRE is mostly responsible for the "collapse in it's own footprint" destruction? You're seriously beggin' man. We disagree, but you of all troublemaker O.S. die hards insulting my intelligence and calling me ignorant pisses me off.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxJohnson
 


I think you're exaggerating the strength of a steel beam, and entirely under-representing the heat of even a normal office fire. Fire is never "cool." If it's burning, it's hot.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, but having a lack of evidence is not supporting evidence. It is also merely your opinion that the building chunks should have been larger. You have no proof that this is what should have happened.

Overall, I think some of these arguments are rather silly.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by MaxJohnson
 


I think you're exaggerating the strength of a steel beam, and entirely under-representing the heat of even a normal office fire. Fire is never "cool." If it's burning, it's hot.


Are you serious? Did your anthropology classes teach you this lol?

Fire has different tempts depending on its condition. Just saying fire is hot so it must heat things up is nonsense.

There is this thing called thermal exchange, the science that explains how heat is transferred to objects...

Pay attention this will be on your final lol...


Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...

How did everything heat up and fail at the same time, all the way down the building?

But regardless no amount of damage, or fire, can cause a building to collapse mostly in its own footprint. I have explained this so many times that it's obvious you are are not here to learn anything but to simply support the OS.
The evidence for your claims do not exist, the evidence for controlled 'implosion' demolition are all over the net...

Here's just one....



If you don't understand why that is proof, then you never will understand no matter how much is it explained to you.


Overall, I think some of these arguments are rather silly.


Overall your understanding if physics is rather silly.



edit on 12/9/2011 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join