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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 40
17
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Though i can't work out that straight edge?




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX
NIST said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse, and that fire is what caused the collapse.
From what i've seen it did not look like a massive amount of damage.


Stop trying to distract from reality. I don't give two craps what NIST said. The eyewitnesses say there was damage to the building, and the few post-impact pictures of the South side help back it up.

What we're talking about here are the facts. There was damage to the building, a great deal. That is a FACT. Understand FACTS? You are saying that you want me to believe that pre-planted demolition wiring was completely unharmed by the impact of chunks of the North Tower, and that the 7 HOURS of fire did nothing? You want me to believe that the firefighters were lying about recognizing the danger that Building 7 was in, and that they were lying about being pulled away for safety?

Why do you only believe your internal delusions?



Calm down, and stop getting nasty, otherwise do one!
Let's try have a civil discussion without being offensive please!



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 



3. The explosives made no sound at all.

Who here is reaching, honestly?


Witnesses did hear explosions. Some, have sadly, 'passed away'.
edit on 30-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


Witnesses heard booms and rumbling specifically DURING the collapse. Maybe this is hard for you to grasp, but tons of falling granite, concrete, and steel makes a little bit of noise when it hits stuff. Nobody heard anything prior to the collapse, and the videos back that up.

Didn't you know we have video with sound of the towers and Building 7?



What like this?




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
And what does the fireman say? Something about explosives?……...



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX
NIST said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse, and that fire is what caused the collapse.
From what i've seen it did not look like a massive amount of damage.


I don't give two craps what NIST said.



Only when it suits.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 


That video is a well-known hoax that has been debunked dozens of times on ATS in the past. Every time it's posted, the poster thinks it's the most genuine thing on the planet, and every time he gets proven wrong. I think at some point someone even extrapolated the time of day based on the shadows and the sun's position, and other people have worked out that the fireman behind him is trying to tell them that they need to get out of there. This was probably around the time that they were clearing a collapse zone for Building 7. With that being the case, what would be the purpose of even blowing up a loud explosive hours before the collapse? It makes no sense.

That, and the explosion is in stereo while the voices are in mono, at least in the original version of that upload, as well as the decibel of the explosion being very different than the voices. You notice that they are killing the microphone, yet the explosion is perfectly clear?

Please stop bringing up long debunked hoaxes.

Edit: If you need further evidence to prove that video is fake, think about the way sound travels. An explosion like that in a city would bounce off buildings and echo. It just fades out as if the sound is unhindered. Think about it.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


This fake too?


edit on 31-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
All liars?
Or, are they too dum to know what they are really hearing?




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


So sad. We've already covered all this, many times.

It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.

Not hearing explosives does not change the final outcome of the collapse, what happened during the collapse is not as important as how the collapse finished up. Post collapse pics do not lie, they show the final outcome of the collapse is not compatible with a natural collapse.

Sorry but again you refuse to address the points I make. Do you actually follow the debate?

When are you going to explain how a building can fall mostly in its own footprint from fire? You need to explain how the outer walls can be on top of the rest of the collapsed building if it didn't collapse straight down. You should be able to do that using simple physics if what you claim is true. Where is it?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.


When you say explained, you mean asserted.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Post collapse pics do not lie, they show the final outcome of the collapse is not compatible with a natural collapse.


More unsupported assertions.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


You really don't understand newtons 3rd law and conservation of momentum do you? You know, the potential energy was pushing up, and at that time to top part didn't even have any potential energy. Also, sagging trusses can't even pull something in. The OS is completely debunked !!



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


You really don't understand newtons 3rd law and conservation of momentum do you? You know, the potential energy was pushing up, and at that time to top part didn't even have any potential energy. Also, sagging trusses can't even pull something in. The OS is completely debunked !!


Where is your sarcasm tag?

Also you left out the bit that it is not possible since the distribution of concrete and steel is unknown or something or other...
.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOK
Post collapse pics do not lie, they show the final outcome of the collapse is not compatible with a natural collapse.


More unsupported assertions.


And again you fail to address my points. 'More unsupported assertions' is not addressing my point.

Why do you even bother replying? Because you can't explain why I'm wrong, you have no idea how to even address my points do you?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Also, sagging trusses can't even pull something in.


Yeah and you can't explain how they can.

When are you going to explain how 5/8", and 1", bolts were stronger than box columns with 4" thick steel?

When are you going to explain how a truss heated up can both sag, and still pull on columns?

Remember steel expands when it heats up, and the sagging is simply expanded steel that has nowhere else to go. It could not push the columns out, so it sags. If it sags because it can't push out, it is not going to able to pull in.

Stop wasting everyone's time with stupid sarcasm, and go take a physics class or two, or three.

And you claimed to be an electrical engineer.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 


Great job at managing to avoid every single counter I've made to your posts. You are the master of diversion. Go ahead and avoid talking about the things I am proving, just keep looking at the smoke you're throwing up.

I can keep wasting time explaining every little detail to you as if you were five, but sometimes I get tired of the crap.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Varemia because: clarified



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah and you can't explain how they can.


I never said I did. Your massive blunder however has been that you never understood that sagging trussed can exert a pull in force at all. Your understanding of physics is so miserable that you just did not grasp the basic mechanics of the concept.


When are you going to explain how 5/8", and 1", bolts were stronger than box columns with 4" thick steel?


Why should I explain it? I never claimed NIST was correct with their theory. I have no idea if the bolts are strong enough. I just don't know this. Unlike you I am not going to make assumptions out of the blue, without anything to back it up, that the bolts are strong enough or not.

Of course you are again showing a massive failure in understanding of basic physics here. When you pull on columns from a perpendicular angle, the device you are pulling with does not need to be as strong as the columns. The columns can even buckle under their own weight, the pull only being the initiator. You can even try this at home with some simple experiment (for example spaghetti).

To determine what was the case with the WTC towers is absolutely not trivial. Of course you have some natural talent to know stuff like this, without knowing or being able to show any of the physics
. It is one of the traits of truthers.


When are you going to explain how a truss heated up can both sag, and still pull on columns?



Doh... I thought you finally grasped this simple concept, after I pointed you to dozens of publications about it. Actual physical experiments included. I am not responsible to educate you basic physics. You have show you are unwilling to learn.


Remember steel expands when it heats up, and the sagging is simply expanded steel that has nowhere else to go. It could not push the columns out, so it sags. If it sags because it can't push out, it is not going to able to pull in.


Sigh, how many times have we been over this? How many times has it been explain to you that what you describe is only the first phase? How many times has it been explained that when the steel heats even more that it becomes too soft to keep its structural strength to support itself and the weight it carries and begins to hang? How many publications have I shown you that shows exactly this, including experimental data. Man you are not only embracing ignorance, you are also, well fill in the blank yourself.


Stop wasting everyone's time with stupid sarcasm, and go take a physics class or two, or three.

And you claimed to be an electrical engineer.


Ouch, the irony meter is overloading again. I have taken real physics classes, I am not interested in truther physics. Until now you have never been able to prove me wrong at anything. Just to have another laugh at you, I have a simple physics question for you:

Once the supports failed and the top section begins to move, what happens to the momentum of the top section? Does it increase? Does is stay the same? Does it decrease? Keep in mind the conservation of momentum. Prediction: You have no clue, or you will ignore the question.
edit on 31-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You might be interested to see this. Explains how it was deduced that ReconX's notorious firefighter clip was shot 10.20 to 10.50 am. Some 7 hours before collapse of WTC 7.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Cant take up the big facts so they pick on the little ones. Sad and stupid thread.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
All liars?
Or, are they too dum to know what they are really hearing?



You spelled dumb wrong.

Just saying.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join