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.

 

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 24
87
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
to bring the building straight down in less than 7 seconds (please spare me the penthouse technicality crap)


Yeah because of course stuff that flatly contradicts one's argument is just a 'technicality'.

The building didn't fall in the time you want it to, so you're just pretending that it did. Can you see that this is hardly a mature approach to evidence?




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
to bring the building straight down in less than 7 seconds (please spare me the penthouse technicality crap)


Yeah because of course stuff that flatly contradicts one's argument is just a 'technicality'.

The building didn't fall in the time you want it to, so you're just pretending that it did. Can you see that this is hardly a mature approach to evidence?


Just couldn't resist, could ya?


We've been through this before. Round and round in circles we go.

Look at any CD of a major structure and see the methods applied. Buildings are taken down by a specific sequence. No 47-story steel building had ever been taken down before, except for the two massive towers earlier in the day which obviously utilized technology never before applied.

But building 7 being significantly smaller required only the standard technology.

So after an assessment by the CD company, it was determined that the construction of the building required the Penthouse and inner walls to be weakened first, taking about 6 seconds. The outer walls were then taken out, which brought the structure down in an additional 6.9 seconds, top to bottom.

You can keep trying to polish this turd all you want, only imbeciles will believe this was the result of office fires.


edit on 2-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

except for the two massive towers earlier in the day which obviously utilized technology never before applied.



This is true, Boeing 767's have never been used to demolish skyscrapers prior to September 11 2001.





edit on 2-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 


"You can see smoke coming from the places with holes". Boy, is that science. And you really expect me to believe that the 'debris' from 1 and 2 knocked the fireproofing off 7? Why are you here? What are you trying to prove? You actually have the nerve to call others, liars? Where does that leave you? You are here for one purpose, and that is to delay, distort and obstruct. In other words, an accomplice.


Just Tower 1. Yes, I expect you to believe that it knocked off the fireproofing from the impact areas. This truther belief that every column failed simultaneously is demonstrably wrong, but you'll never listen to facts. Fireproofing comes off VERY easily. It has been proven many times, did you miss it?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So, by your own admission there, you admit that the columns did not fail simultaneously. If part of the building fails before the rest, it's not simultaneous! This is not rocket science. You cannot argue that two opposing ideas equal the same conclusion, which you propose is intentional demolition by cutter charge (none of which were heard on cameras, by the way. This is somehow a non-issue to your beliefs.).



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The "mystery substance" would not be such a mystery at all since it's all been heavily discussed already.
Industrial Thermite. Which will keep reacting with metal untill there's no metal left to react with.

And i never attacked your person, i just checked where you post the most and that's something anyone can do.
Im not allowed to point out truth?


Where did you get the idea that thermite can burn for 5 weeks? On the contrary, thermite reacts very fast. That is why it gets so hot. Short but very hot reaction. Besides, do you have any idea of the amount of thermite that is required in order to achieve the amount of heat energy that was present at ground zero? I am pretty sure you don't. Here is a hint: Thermite has about 10 times lower energy density than carbon fuel sources.

Thermite is a much worse explanation that regular oxygen fueled fires. Its not even close.

By the way, I didn't say you attacked me. Of course you are allowed to put your time in investigating my person and then discussing it, though I find it a bit freaky. Everyone his own hobby. I just don't think such discussion belongs in this thread or forum.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Unlike many truthers, I indeed do understand that different metals and alloys have different melting points. That is why the argument "but there were pools of molten metal" is completely useless without knowing the kind of metal. You should be explaining this to your fellow truthers who think their argument is relevant, not to me, mr physics.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So, by your own admission there, you admit that the columns did not fail simultaneously. If part of the building fails before the rest, it's not simultaneous! This is not rocket science. You cannot argue that two opposing ideas equal the same conclusion, which you propose is intentional demolition by cutter charge (none of which were heard on cameras, by the way. This is somehow a non-issue to your beliefs.).


You're right, it's not rocket science. The inner columns fell simultaneously causing the penthouse to cave in, and six seconds later, the outer columns fell simultaneously. Some buildings have to be taken down in sections because of their sheer size.....

www.youtube.com...

... and the other main consideration is the proximity of nearby buildings. That makes the CD of WTC7 that much more impressive.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
What are the properties of Industrial thermite that make it different from regular thermite?


There are many different forms of thermite....

www.amazingrust.com...


When I said nano-thermite was made up; what I meant was in the ATM paper the authors found paint didn't match the characteristics of thermite so what they found had to be nano-thermite or some other super secret military building destroying material.


Nano-thermite is just when the particles are extremely fine. The smaller the particles the more oxygen is used in the combustion so it burns at a higher temperature.


Mythbusters used thermite to cut a car in half. It took lots and lots of thermite and it took awhile for it to work. I don't think thermite works fast enough to have participated in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 or 7.


They probably used inferior thermite.

Sorry but this is really ignorant, therrmite is a well know substance. It produced molten metal as a by product...


A thermite reaction (sometimes called a "Goldschmidt reaction") refers to a very exothermic process occurring between a metal Oxide and a more active pure metal. The more reactive metal reduces the metal Oxide, Oxidizing itself and releasing a substantial amount of energy during the reaction.

Generally, thermite is made by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures (a few thousand degrees). The reaction releases so much energy, molten Iron metal is produced as one of the products.


www.amazingrust.com...

Just because you've never heard of it. Thermite has been used since WWII by the military for disabling artillery, it burns through the gun barrels.

This guy shows thermate cutting steel. Notice how quite it is. These are your hushabooms OSers....




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Unlike many truthers, I indeed do understand that different metals and alloys have different melting points. That is why the argument "but there were pools of molten metal" is completely useless without knowing the kind of metal. You should be explaining this to your fellow truthers who think their argument is relevant, not to me, mr physics.


So what could the pools of molten metal have been? To be honest I've not even payed much attention to that.

I don't believe that was the point of the discussion though. I thought we were discussing what could have caused the collapses?

You always want to direct the discussion to irrelevant points, instead of focusing on the actual physics of the collapses . You're just pissed because I know physics better than you do Mr. "Electrical Engineer".

When are you going to explain, or better yet demonstrate, how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns? Can you start by explaining what happens when steel is heated?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Nano-thermite is just when the particles are extremely fine. The smaller the particles the more oxygen is used in the combustion so it burns at a higher temperature.


First trying to make it appear that you know a lot about thermite and then you come with this bullocks. This is completely wrong. Smaller particles make the reaction faster. But no more "oxygen is used". That a very clumsy way of putting it to start with as its not a reaction with oxygen. It is ironoxide that reacts. Sure it contains oxygen but it is like saying you are going to fill your car with carbon.

But where you are blundering even more (no surprise there) is that nano-thermite has lower energy density than regular thermite because the aluminum has a much larger surface area relative to regular thermite, resulting in higher oxidation from the atmosphere, which means less "fuel" left in the thermite reaction.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
Unlike many truthers, I indeed do understand that different metals and alloys have different melting points. That is why the argument "but there were pools of molten metal" is completely useless without knowing the kind of metal. You should be explaining this to your fellow truthers who think their argument is relevant, not to me, mr physics.


So what could the pools of molten metal have been? To be honest I've not even payed much attention to that.

I don't believe that was the point of the discussion though. I thought we were discussing what could have caused the collapses?

You always want to direct the discussion to irrelevant points, instead of focusing on the actual physics of the collapses . You're just pissed because I know physics better than you do Mr. "Electrical Engineer".

When are you going to explain, or better yet demonstrate, how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns? Can you start by explaining what happens when steel is heated?


Try to explain to your fellow truthers how their points are irrelevant. I just react to them and point out how they are, as you agree, irrelevant.

As for you knowing physics better, so that is why you run away in every discussion that involved physics. You are just better at it. I didn't realize.

As for me explaining simple concepts in physics, like how sagging trusses can exert a pull-in force, its impossible to explain any physics to you, sorry. You just don't seem to have the required mental capacity. Believe me I tried. I even showed you irrefutable experimental data. Denial and ignoring. Your best skills.
edit on 2-7-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

-snip--------- Besides, do you have any idea of the amount of thermite that is required in order to achieve the amount of heat energy that was present at ground zero? I am pretty sure you don't. Here is a hint: Thermite has about 10 times lower energy density than carbon fuel sources.-------

.


In a recent debate, Box Boy - Richard Gage regarding thermite said that it would take:


"Several Tons of Thermite---- It's a big job."



www.wmnf.org...


edit on 2-7-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You're right, it's not rocket science. The inner columns fell simultaneously causing the penthouse to cave in, and six seconds later, the outer columns fell simultaneously. Some buildings have to be taken down in sections because of their sheer size.....

www.youtube.com...

... and the other main consideration is the proximity of nearby buildings. That makes the CD of WTC7 that much more impressive.


Now let's just stop right here. You're saying... the interior columns failed simultaneously, making a quarter of the building collapse inside (you can see the rest of the roof still standing, and no windows are revealing floor damage outside the penthouse part, except as the floors collapse, meaning it was progressively across the building).

Then, you say the exterior columns all failed simultaneously, excluding the possibility that the building crumpled and bent over at the 10 floor chunk that was damaged by Tower 1. Do I have this right?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You're right, it's not rocket science. The inner columns fell simultaneously causing the penthouse to cave in, and six seconds later, the outer columns fell simultaneously. Some buildings have to be taken down in sections because of their sheer size.....

www.youtube.com...

... and the other main consideration is the proximity of nearby buildings. That makes the CD of WTC7 that much more impressive.


Now let's just stop right here. You're saying... the interior columns failed simultaneously, making a quarter of the building collapse inside (you can see the rest of the roof still standing, and no windows are revealing floor damage outside the penthouse part, except as the floors collapse, meaning it was progressively across the building).

Then, you say the exterior columns all failed simultaneously, excluding the possibility that the building crumpled and bent over at the 10 floor chunk that was damaged by Tower 1. Do I have this right?
This illustrates very clearly your mission here, which is waste time and space. Do you believe you're fooling anyone? You, along with the others should be made to face prosecution for obstruction of justice. I consider you no different than the people who blew up the towers. Because I have no other options at this time, my mission will be to ridicule every nonsensical post you make. (which is most of them) Go ahead and complain about me, there's plenty more just like me coming. And, if they make me go away, I'm confident that others will be here to call you out. Liars always get caught.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
You, along with the others should be made to face prosecution for obstruction of justice.


Shouldn't the proper charges be called obstruction of witch hunt ?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 
No, because witch hunts were carried out by superstitious, ignorant people, who could not justify their fears. What we're calling for is justice for the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people killed because the crime of 9/11. And for those of you who work hard here every day trying to impede us from finding the truth, I want you held accountable for your actions.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by waypastvne
 
because witch hunts were carried out by superstitious, ignorant people, who could not justify their fears.



My point.Exactly.
edit on 2-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


You people want the Math as to whether Thermite could have been used and how much , here it is . http://]www.physics911.net/thermite

The steel cutting charges are focused charges of Plastic explosives that blows a jet of copper through the steel plates that make up a column . Thermite does not burn at a fast rate . Gunpowder burns a lot faster than thermite even in a flash pan . Aluminum powder doesn't flash like an explosive .




top topics



 
87
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join