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: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


And your proof is.....

There are NO witnesses to said flyover.
There is NO evidence of a flyover on the radar tapes.


But there IS..

Witnesses to a jet slamming into the Pentagon
Radar evidence of a jet disappearing right about where the Pentagon is
Pieces of an aircraft known to have been American Airlines Filght 77, witnessed to have taken off from Reagan National, found in the carnage at the Pentagon, along with remains of human beings known to have boarded Flight 77 and some of their personal effects.

For there to have been a flyover....

The AA employees are lying
The ATC employees at Reagan are lying
The witnesses at the Pentagon are lying
The families who put their loved ones on Flight 77 are lying
The thousands of people who were at the Pentagon, during the attack, and all through the clean up are lying




And none of them have come forward to admit it??




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizayne
Where am I wrong?


You're not.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


They don't need to be lying to repeat a lie; you're discounting the power of suggestion.

All the eyewitnesses in the world don't make the impossible possible.

edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 





Where am I wrong?


From the part... " I already countered"

People keep parroting "gravity alone" It wasn't gravity alone.

1. Big plane crashed into buildings
2. Big fire, crappy fireproofing (re Herbert Levine's quote)
3. Building design
4. Pretty good wind that day didnt help (cant wait for someone to chime in "they were designed to withstand hurricane force winds")
5. Lack of ability to fight said fires
6. Gravity


People USED to say the proof of the conspiracy was that the South Tower fell first after being hit last. No, that just confirms that since the South Tower had a heck of a lot more weight above the crash site, that its structure failed first from the damage/fire......not from any super secret explosives.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Ah yes... the mass hypnosis theory. Not to mention, you think the power of suggestion was used on the families that took their loved ones to the airport that day???

It doesnt overrule the physical evidence. Next?
edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Ah yes... the mass hypnosis theory. Not to mention, you think the power of suggestion was used on the families that took their loved ones to the airport that day???

It doesnt overrule the physical evidence. Next?
edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


If you consider the TV to be "mass hypnosis", I must say I agree.

The physical evidence clearly proves a plane couldn't have done it...are you confusing video evidence with physical evidence?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Umm, the physical evidence...proves that it was airliners that day. If someone is confused here, it is not me.
edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Umm, the physical evidence...proves that it was airliners that day. If someone is confused here, it is not me.
edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


You mean pictures of stuff like this?



Can you see what's wrong with this picture by the way?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


And your proof is.....

There are NO witnesses to said flyover.
There is NO evidence of a flyover on the radar tapes.


But there IS..

Witnesses to a jet slamming into the Pentagon
Radar evidence of a jet disappearing right about where the Pentagon is
Pieces of an aircraft known to have been American Airlines Filght 77, witnessed to have taken off from Reagan National, found in the carnage at the Pentagon, along with remains of human beings known to have boarded Flight 77 and some of their personal effects.

For there to have been a flyover....

The AA employees are lying
The ATC employees at Reagan are lying
The witnesses at the Pentagon are lying
The families who put their loved ones on Flight 77 are lying
The thousands of people who were at the Pentagon, during the attack, and all through the clean up are lying




And none of them have come forward to admit it??



www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


Che..Che...Che...Check it out...

These are the eye witnesses that DON`T get their pay check from the government...

You can always say they lie... but I will not listen to you, as I am not on your side of the fence.

Parts from a 767 ? no no no no man, try another, were is the seats, the fuselage, the tail section, the wings, the engines, the luggage, the landing gear, the passengers, DNA ??? LIE LIE LIE...

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Oh I would much rather hear your explanation. It would be a much better discussion



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You need to learn about heat transfer.

This is a better site...


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...

One hour is not long enough to transfer room temperatures to the steel. The steel could not have reached 1000F in an hour.

Even IF it did it would be a small percentage of the steel, and other undamaged steel would compensate. You also have to consider safety factors, that allow structures to hold much more weight than themselves. So some of the steel losing 50% of it's strength would not cause the whole buildings steel to fail and cause collapse.

Yes the fire would have had to effect the whole building, otherwise resistance would have arrested the collapse.
We would have seen local collapses, not complete collapse. A difference that seems lost on you.

We've been through all this so many times, why do you continually have ignorant to these facts that I know you have read before? It's not a simple as you want to believe.


edit on 12/10/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


Someone still pays attention to the CIT? As many times as they have been caught being less than truthful?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Oh I would much rather hear your explanation. It would be a much better discussion


Isn't this some of the proof you were going to offer? We all have access to the same images.

Here the police have explained the reason these firearms are encased in concrete. The concrete MELTED to 3000 degrees, and then re-solidified, encasing the guns.

NY Police Museum



This sort of physical evidence?

Have you ever tried to heat concrete?
edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I was going to badger you about what the sign actually said, because I was skeptical about it having actually melted the concrete, yet preserved the firearm. I looked at the higher resolution, and it appears that the concrete did melt, but this is from WTC 6, not the towers.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You posted a pic with part of the jets landing gear embedded in one of the steel panels and asked me what was wrong with the pic. Im still waiting for your explaination.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Okay class, what do you think; when vipertech0596 mentioned physical evidence that supports a plane, what do you suppose he meant?

Anyone?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


I was going to badger you about what the sign actually said, because I was skeptical about it having actually melted the concrete, yet preserved the firearm. I looked at the higher resolution, and it appears that the concrete did melt, but this is from WTC 6, not the towers.



Have you ever tried to heat concrete?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


According to a card in the same image, there were thousands of gallons of fuel burning under the rubble causing the hot spots that melted the concrete. This didn't happen instantly, you know. Slowly heating up with an underground fire that doesn't have the oxygen to burn up everything right off the bat means that these were cooking for weeks.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Concrete turned to lava. Slow-cooked. Weeks.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 


Concrete turned to lava. Slow-cooked. Weeks.



It didn't literally turn to lava, but yeah. That makes sense. If you continuously cook something long enough, its temperature will get hot enough to melt it. Nothing hard to understand there.




top topics



 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join