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.

 

WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

In regards to my signature
Really ?

Both planes didn't weight 392 tons?

Both planes weren't made from aluminum?

Those 3 towers didn't have a combined weight of 1,200,000 tons ?

Those 3 towers weren't made from mild steel and reinforced concrete?

Those are all facts babe


Good try though






So what is the tipping point ? How heavy and strong does something have to be, to destroy the towers ?



It would have to be a steel dense object(not aluminum), charges (explosives) or nuclear. If you have time and money build a steel high rise and try any of the three or send a 767 (again) and see what happens.

In regards to weight , it depends how quickly you want to pulverize it. If its a demo wrecking ball(lol) you'll need some massive balls. If Its explosive(nuclear or charges or whatever) you'll accomplish the demo in one quick swoop. If its a plane(s) , it would need to impact the lower floors... TIMBER!


Get it?


Your question is a gotcha question. Pointless and irrelevant; Unless your planning on doing a sound study. Oh ,, I forgot ,NIST did that already.


Honestly ,try debunking my signature without desperately derailing it. Meaning don't answer with a question.

Carry on




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I think one of the more interesting truths about the matter is that the fire supposedly raged so hot as to be able to melt massive steel columns and beams, yet it didn't melt the glass. Any glass worker will tell you that fires hot enough to melt glass are not necessarily hot enough to melt steel, therefore, fire that can melt steel, MUST be hot enough to melt glass. To get a furnace hot enough to melt glass, you need to keep it insulated for over 24 hours as it is constantly fueled. What the NIST report is suggesting is that a fire that was ignited with jet fuel but was burning on office supplies managed to melt steel, meanwhile sparing the glass? get real!



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by theMat
I think one of the more interesting truths about the matter is that the fire supposedly raged so hot as to be able to melt massive steel columns and beams, yet it didn't melt the glass. Any glass worker will tell you that fires hot enough to melt glass are not necessarily hot enough to melt steel, therefore, fire that can melt steel, MUST be hot enough to melt glass. To get a furnace hot enough to melt glass, you need to keep it insulated for over 24 hours as it is constantly fueled. What the NIST report is suggesting is that a fire that was ignited with jet fuel but was burning on office supplies managed to melt steel, meanwhile sparing the glass? get real!


What's really fascinating is that it was also hot enough to eat glass, vehicle frames and engine blocks up to a half mile away from the actual fires....




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMat
What the NIST report is suggesting is that a fire that was ignited with jet fuel but was burning on office supplies managed to melt steel, meanwhile sparing the glass? get real!

The NIST report doesn't suggest this, and you do not need to insulate a furnace over 24 hours to melt glass. In order to get glass completely liquid then sure it's going to take some time, but to make glass soft and malleable is doable with a bonfire:



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMat
I think one of the more interesting truths about the matter is that the fire supposedly raged so hot as to be able to melt massive steel columns and beams, yet it didn't melt the glass. Any glass worker will tell you that fires hot enough to melt glass are not necessarily hot enough to melt steel, therefore, fire that can melt steel, MUST be hot enough to melt glass. To get a furnace hot enough to melt glass, you need to keep it insulated for over 24 hours as it is constantly fueled. What the NIST report is suggesting is that a fire that was ignited with jet fuel but was burning on office supplies managed to melt steel, meanwhile sparing the glass? get real!


Stop repeating this lie! The fire never melted steel! That's not how the towers collapsed!

Seriously, does this have to be in flashing bold letters above every thread? It's a lie, and it's been a lie since the conspiracy videos started.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Stop repeating this lie! The fire never melted steel! That's not how the towers collapsed!


Then what melted the cars?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Varemia

Stop repeating this lie! The fire never melted steel! That's not how the towers collapsed!


Then what melted the cars?


Fire. Debris that was on fire set the cars on fire. The cars themselves didn't melt. Only the aluminum door handles, some connectors for the engines, and the wheels melted. It happens in every car fire. The reason some are missing their engines is because many pictures of burned cars were taken after the cars were moved away from ground zero.

It's that mind-numbingly simple.

Edit: In reference to that firetruck picture, even someone who was mentally retarded can see that the building collapsed onto the firetruck, damaging it. The paint was damaged by a subsequent car fire.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Have you had a look at the Cardington Fire Test data if not I suggest you do!



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


yes ignore the fact it continued to gain speed at free fall rate, as if the lower floors were not there, energy meeting resistance looses energy duh, so it should of taken alot longer to fall and even possibly stop due to the age old rule of path of least resistance
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)


Except they DIDN'T fall at free fall or wall panels falling could not overtake them as you see on video



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


What is fascinating is that you can post idiotic crap like this......

1/2 mile...? The fire truck from Squad 18 (whose 7 men all died ) is from looks of it parked near remains
of Marriott Hotel

The truck is not "melted" - can see the impact damage which ripped the side panels open

Burning debris then burned off the paint and set the interior on fire

Did you biother to look at the picture ....?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
In reference to that firetruck picture, even someone who was mentally retarded can see that the building collapsed onto the firetruck, damaging it. The paint was damaged by a subsequent car fire.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


I don't see anywhere near enough debris immediately around the vehicle to cause that kind of damage. The ENGINE BLOCK IS MISSING. Where did it go?

How old are you? 11?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by exponent
 


and I just cant buy that. The perimeter wall held half the load? I dobt buy that either.


The towers were designed as framed tube structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans, uninterrupted by columns or walls.

This was accomplished using numerous closely spaced perimeter columns to provide much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the core columns. -wiki

Make sense now?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Engine block missing ? Need to get eyes checked - engine is still there. Bumper there on ground

Also why is Ladder truck in background still there, damaged but still intact

Didnt answer point about lie that was 1/2 mile away



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I think that the main thing that needs to be explained is WTC 7. Forget the other towers for now. And remember the fact that on the news it was announced that the building had already collapsed. Maybe a mistake I suppose, but nothing hit that building...And a fire that far up building 7 would not have made the whole thing collapse. I don't think fire is a good explanation for any of the collapses, but definitely not this particular building. Too many things seem shady regarding the events of this day, and the fact that the towers collapsed are not the most damning in my opinion. Look at everything leading up to, and after the events themselves...Look at what drills were going on that day...Just doesn't add up.


This is what disturbs be about the truther movement; they base their "sinister secret plot to take over the world" claims on outrageously false information like this. WTC 7 was hit by enormous amounts of wreckage from the collapse of the north tower an all one needs to do is look at the aerial photos taken by NOAA to see the damage caused to the other buildings (I.E. the house sized crater in the roof of WTC 5). It would be one thing if they disagreed the falling wreckage could cause a chain reaction which led to the subsequent collapse, but to claim the building wasn't damaged *at all* is just being uninformed and ignorant.

To be fair, however, I can't blame the poster for claiming this, as it's patently clear they're just quoting the outright lies that con artist Richard Gage is spreading, as according to his disinformation, the buildings didn't even have any fires burning in them. This poster certainly isn't stupid; they're simply the victim in Gage's con. This illustrates the importance of providing correct information (such as the videos in the OP) to shows what those damned fool conspiracy websites are deliberately leaving out.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by djv1985
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I always hate when people claim that they have found something to debunk the conspiracy theory. firstly you claim that one of the most important arguments is that there were no fires, this isn't really what i believe is being said. the fact is that the government and investigators claimed that the fires were so bad that they brought down the tower by bending or melting the structure but how is this possible when a woman is standing in the impact hole?


I never said I'm debunking the conspiracy theory. I said I'm exposing the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy movement. The truthers HAVE said the fires were largely burning out, and they HAVE claimed the towers fell in a symmetrical collapse, both of which are completley disproven in these videos.

As for why is the woman standing in the impact hole, you should know this person eventually jumped to escape the heat of the fires. It's the whole reason she's poking her head out of a gaping hole in a building ninety stories up to begin with. Without realizing it you just proved everything I said.


Why was the buildings debris sent to China (Yes not all but almost all of it was taken away and recycled.) if this was a terrorist attack surely they would want to keep it somewhere where it could be done with all that CSI style stuff.


You already know why- because the problem wasn't with any sabotage. The problem was with the unique design of the buiding. They kept critical samples that showed the typical damage suffered during the collapse as that gave evidence of how it fell but the remainder didn;t offer any additional information. When we see gigantic core columns bent like a candy cane, it's irrefutable that the collapse had tremendous forces enough to destroy the lower sections without any need of these imaginary explosives.



secondly, how is it possible when it takes the FBI weeks sometimes months to find a serial killer that even though Bin Laden denied having any part of this and even said that he condemned the act was he named as the man being it almost straight away?


This is a question outside the scope of the OP. If you wish to believe OBL was framed for the attack, that's fine, but that is immaterial to the false accusations from the conspiracy theorists on how the building collapsed. It is not a contadiction to theorize OBL might have been framed for the attack AS WELL AS the the towers really did collpase from the impact and fire induced loss of structural integrity.



one final question, if this was so innocent that it happened to be planned by someone on the other side of the world why hasn't everything been released, by that i mean the video from the CCTV at the pentagon showing the plane, two or three stills showing something white doesn't count, the claim about not wanting to show the last moment of someone's life if incorrect as the entire world saw days of Gadaffi being killed beaten etc.


That is a fake internet rumor invented by that French guy (forgot his name) to sell a bunch of books claiming a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Security cameras aren't aimed at every garbage can and blade of grass; they're aimed at high traffic points like entrances, parking lots, and that security gate in the video they released. Nowhere has it evern been shown there is any usable video footage that shows the plane, and if you're shown video of a bunch of people standing in a parking lot looking at something off screen, how much use would this be to you?

It wasn't just one or two people who saw the plane, The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park and surrounded by highways, so a hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw a plane hitting the Pentagon. Plus, the lawn was littered with bits of wreckage and the black box was recovered. It's irrefutable to the point where the truthers need to outright lie to refute the fact a plane hit the Pentagon...but this is outside the scope of the OP as well.

I would have liked to address your other concerns, but there's a 5000 character limit and I'm pushing the limit as it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Engine block missing ? Need to get eyes checked - engine is still there. Bumper there on ground

Also why is Ladder truck in background still there, damaged but still intact

Didnt answer point about lie that was 1/2 mile away



I happen to have 20/20 vision... there's little or no engine block... sorry. We've been through this before. There were 1400 vehicles similar to this. Some of them were up to a half mile away. Now lets say some of them were towed, there was still a whole parking lot full of toasted cars across West Street several hundred feet away that were not hit by debris... only dust... that superheated dust. You cannot explain how this happened from a pancake collapse. You cannot explain the rusting. You cannot explain the shiny paint on cars that were shielded by other cars. You cannot explain the electronic equipment inside the emergency vehicles exploding them from inside out. Your story is a farce.

You really need to take a chill pill. All this negativity is going to kill you.
edit on 26-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I happen to have 20/20 vision... there's little or no engine block... sorry. We've been through this before. There were 1400 vehicles similar to this. Some of them were up to a half mile away. Now lets say some of them were towed, there was still a whole parking lot full of toasted cars across West Street several hundred feet away that were not hit by debris... only dust... that superheated dust. You cannot explain how this happened from a pancake collapse. You cannot explain the rusting. You cannot explain the shiny paint on cars that were shielded by other cars. You cannot explain the electronic equipment inside the emergency vehicles exploding them from inside out. Your story is a farce.


So are you claiming that flaming debris from the towers never made it down to the street? I mean, really?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 
I agree. These guys have to be under a tremedous amount of stress, because lying is not healthy. I think that's why they get so testy. They know that this is a battle where they can never be satisfied, because the longer they pospone the inevitable, the longer they have to endure the mental anguish of lying.
Take for instance the 'symetrical collapse' of tower 7. Even a child would look at that video and conclude that it fell 'straight down', yet they somehow try to distort this obvious visual evidence, by saying that it 'tilted' ! If you guys will quit lying, you'll feel alot less stress, and maybe reverse some of the bad Karma you're building.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
Take for instance the 'symetrical collapse' of tower 7. Even a child would look at that video and conclude that it fell 'straight down', yet they somehow try to distort this obvious visual evidence, by saying that it 'tilted' ! If you guys will quit lying, you'll feel alot less stress, and maybe reverse some of the bad Karma you're building.



You lie like a rug. I didn't say WTC 7 tilted. I specifically said it was the south tower that tilted, and you can see from the video in the OP that the upper section of the south tower did in fact tilt. If you're attempting to claim otherwise, you will be lying.

WTC 7, on the other hand, didn't collapse symmetricall either. Every video of the collapse of WTC 7 shows the Penthouse collapsed into the interior of the structure six seconds before the exterior didn, and you can see from the broken windows how far down the penthouse collapsed (which is why con artists like Richard Gage religiously snip that part out of the video). NIST theorises this was because the south face of the building folded in six seconds before the north face did, but this is neither here not there because a building falling inside out isn't symmetrical either. If you're attempting to claim otherwise, you will be lying.

If you are going to criticize others then I would appreciate it if you would at least get your criticisms right, thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
It's gettin' to ya, huh Dave? Symetrical, shemetrical, how about staight effin' down! Hanging your hat on number 7 will turn out to be your biggest mistake, because no building ever built in the world, can hold itself up for thirty years, and then fall straight down in ten seconds, unless it's helped. You know it, and I know it. Difference is, I don't lie about it.



new topics




 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join