Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boeing 767 + WTC North Tower vs "Little Boy"

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The distance of WTC 7 from the north tower was approximately 355 ft, the distance of Prefectural Industrial Promotional Hall, AKA Genbaku, or A-bomb Dome from “little boys' hypocenter was approximately 560 ft.

The North Tower was hit by a 767, collapsed and resulted in immediate and devastating destruction in the area around it which caused a reinforced concrete 47 story building to completely collapse after approximately seven hours of uncontrolled fire.














Little Boy was detonated in the air and resulted in immediate and devastating destruction in the area below and around it which caused a reinforced concrete building to be named Hiroshima Peace Memorial that was made a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1996.











Just saying...




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
so your saying that they set off a nuke in NYC?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf10
so your saying that they set off a nuke in NYC?


No I'm saying that we need to get some steel reinforced concrete from Japan.

I do not believe the nukes, lasers or fake planes/victims theories...



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



immediate and devastating destruction in the area below and around it which caused a reinforced concrete building


Just one problem with your little fantasy.......

WTC 7 was not a reinforced concrete building

Just in case dont know was steel frame structure, the facade was black marble (North Face), red granite
(South Face) panels which were hung from the steel framing

It was not masonry like the Hiroshima Peace Memorial

Sorry you lose.........



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Just saying...


Errrr….. What is it you “just saying?”

All we have is a bunch of photos; you have not really drawn any conclusion from these photos and presented it as any kind of argument for us to debate. I would assume that you are saying something along the lines of “here is a building that survived a nuclear bomb and hear is WTC7 which burned for a few hours and collapsed”. To which is would say, “And….?”

This is just a thread so far with a bunch of pictures and nothing else, it’s all dressing and no salad.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The little flaw here is that a nuke would have taken out more than the WTC complex.

A nuke wasn't used, or an alien death ray, or "nanothermite".

I do think that 911 was a dirty little charade and stinks like week old fish.

The official story is pure, steaming propaganda and it wasn't all done by a few hijackers.

We'll never know the real story.
edit on 11-11-2012 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



I would assume that you are saying something along the lines of “here is a building that survived a nuclear bomb and hear is WTC7 which burned for a few hours and collapsed”.


Precisely...



To which is would say, “And….?”


We need to get some steel reinforced concrete from Japan.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 

Errrr….. What is it you “just saying?”

All we have is a bunch of photos; you have not really drawn any conclusion from these photos and presented it as any kind of argument for us to debate. I would assume that you are saying something along the lines of “here is a building that survived a nuclear bomb and hear is WTC7 which burned for a few hours and collapsed”. To which is would say, “And….?”

This is just a thread so far with a bunch of pictures and nothing else, it’s all dressing and no salad.


Seriously dude, if you can't see what the OP is implying then give up.

There is a saying, a picture paints a thousand words. The OP has said alot. It's completely mind blowing how some people are unable to 'see' what is right infront of them.

Something else to consider, the Oklahoma City bombing, that building (a smaller building to wtc7) was on the end of a significant bomb blast, it suffered significant structural damage, yet it remained standing for over 1 month after the event.

Just saying...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by maxella1
 



immediate and devastating destruction in the area below and around it which caused a reinforced concrete building


Just one problem with your little fantasy.......

WTC 7 was not a reinforced concrete building

Just in case dont know was steel frame structure, the facade was black marble (North Face), red granite
(South Face) panels which were hung from the steel framing

It was not masonry like the Hiroshima Peace Memorial


Yes you're right about this one. It was a steel framed structure. But WTC 1 and 2 were reinforced concrete buildings. So I still say the Japanese have better reinforced concrete and we should get some from them.



Sorry you lose........


So in this imaginary game that you're playing are you both the player and a referee?

What's the score by the way?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





We need to get some steel reinforced concrete from Japan.


Do you know that it is very difficult to take any of your debates seriously when you insist on making these pointless points with implied sarcasm?

Come on,

How about you actually attempt a grown up debate on one of your threads?

Tell me the significance of this, why is this important, what does it tell us, form a argument and actually debate because If all you are capable of is sarcasm then we cant take you seriously and as such I cant take this thread seriously.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and refuse to recognise the events of 9/11 as unique. Sure Murrah building stayed standing after a bomb blast big deal, it was not a exact replica of WTC 7 that had another building essentially collapse onto it, it was not subject to the exact same forces as WTC 7.

People talk about WTC 7 all the time what about WTC 4, 5, 6 and the Marriott that all had to be demolished, heck there wasn’t much left of them to demolish. WTC 7 is treated like it’s the “smoking gun” it’s not, I mean if they demolished the other buildings within a few days/ weeks then why would it matter about WTC 7. I ask this question all the time and never get a reasonable answer. Why bother demolishing WTC 7?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Do you know that it is very difficult to take any of your debates seriously when you insist on making these pointless points with implied sarcasm?


There's no debating with you, but it makes me happy that you finally beginning to recognize sarcasm.



Tell me the significance of this, why is this important, what does it tell us, form a argument and actually debate because If all you are capable of is sarcasm then we cant take you seriously and as such I cant take this thread seriously.


It's significance is that buildings don't collapse like they did on 9/11. Even a nuclear bomb didn't make a steel reinforced concrete building to completely collapse. Get it?

If you can provide something that would make any sense as to why this thread can't be taken seriously then feel free to post links or examples or something that would explain how you come to have your opinion, but if you can't then please go away, like I said in the other thread remember?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and refuse to recognise the events of 9/11 as unique. Sure Murrah building stayed standing after a bomb blast big deal, it was not a exact replica of WTC 7 that had another building essentially collapse onto it, it was not subject to the exact same forces as WTC 7.


Actually another building collapsed and only hit the south side of WTC 7, nothing collapsed onto it. But WTC 3, WCT 4 and WTC 6 had the towers collapse onto them but they didn't collapse like seven did. Strange isn't it?




People talk about WTC 7 all the time what about WTC 4, 5, 6 and the Marriott that all had to be demolished, heck there wasn’t much left of them to demolish. WTC 7 is treated like it’s the “smoking gun” it’s not, I mean if they demolished the other buildings within a few days/ weeks then why would it matter about WTC 7. I ask this question all the time and never get a reasonable answer. Why bother demolishing WTC 7?


Yes these buildings make WTC 7 even more obvious. Check the tenants in WTC 7 and you'll see why? Well you won't but others will.
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Even a nuclear bomb didn't make a steel reinforced concrete building to completely collapse. Get it?


I understand what you are trying to say but you must recognise that such comparisons are unfair both buildings where build differently at different times and both were damaged under different circumstances as such the forces each building where subjected to where different and the end result was also different. These comparisons are not “proof” of anything all they do is serve as casually curiosities and interesting snippets of history, they do not contribute to 9/11 truth is anyway because they have nothing to do with 9/11.

The idea that WTC 7 collapsed for any other reason is just too problematic, first you need motive and nobody has yet addressed this key point. Then there is the question of well if it wasn’t fires and damage it must have been a controlled demolition, so you then have to ask how this was done how did people get all the explosives required rigged in the building without anyone noticing. Then how do you keep this a secret, then how to you trick the whole word. Furthermore this then has to fit into a wider conspiracy looking at the wider picture of 9/11, they blow up the towers, Al-CIAdu, a missile hit the pentagon, nobody on flight 93, the concept of “they” and so on. None of it ads up its just to big.

WTC 7 fell because terrorists flew planes into the buildings near by it, the damage to these buildings caused them to collapse, this collapse critically damaged WTC 7 causing fires and in the end after a few hours it collapsed.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Check the tenants in WTC 7 and you'll see why


oh you mean the DoD, CIA and IRS all shearing one single floor and the New York Office of Emergancy Management, that proves nothing.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 





Check the tenants in WTC 7 and you'll see why


oh you mean the DoD, CIA and IRS all shearing one single floor and the New York Office of Emergancy Management, that proves nothing.


It proves nothing by itself, but doesn't this make you think?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I understand what you are trying to say but you must recognise that such comparisons are unfair both buildings where build differently at different times and both were damaged under different circumstances as such the forces each building where subjected to where different and the end result was also different. These comparisons are not “proof” of anything all they do is serve as casually curiosities and interesting snippets of history, they do not contribute to 9/11 truth is anyway because they have nothing to do with 9/11.


Unfair?

A blast equal to 12-15,000 tons of TNT goes off 560 ft away from a reinforced concrete building and destroys five square miles of the city but leaves this building standing to this day.

Are you saying the destructive forces were greater on 9/11?



The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The plane dropped the bomb--known as "Little Boy"--by parachute at 8:15 in the morning, and it exploded 2,000 feet above Hiroshima in a blast equal to 12-15,000 tons of TNT, destroying five square miles of the city.
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




WTC 7 was not a reinforced concrete building


Hey Mr. Referee what happened here?



Source

Cool documentary by the way

edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



Yes you're right about this one. It was a steel framed structure. But WTC 1 and 2 were reinforced concrete buildings. So I still say the Japanese have better reinforced concrete and we should get some from them


Wrong as usual .....

WTC 1 & 2 were NOT REINFORCED CONCRETE

They were almost all steel

They were designed in a particular way to utilize steel as much as possible in their structure to ELIMINATE
concete from the building.

Was done for reason that concrete is heavy and expensive, designers wanted to get rid of as much concrete as
possible

Only concrete was in floors and that was lightweight mixture using fly ash as aggregrate rather than gravel
to lighten it

As for Hiroshima Memorial


At 8:15 on August 6, 1945, Little Boy — the first atomic bomb to be used in war — detonated almost directly above the dome. The building's vertical columns were able to resist the nearly vertical downward force of the blast, and parts of the concrete and brick outer walls remained intact. The center of the blast was displaced 490 feet (150 m) horizontally and 1,968 feet (600 m) vertically from the dome, having slightly missed the original target, the distinctive "T"-shaped Aioi Bridge.. Everyone inside the building was killed instantly


"Parts of the concrete and brick walls remained intact......."

Doesn't sound like the much of the building was left after the blast

The operative phrase "The building's vertical columns were able to resist the nearly vertical downward force of
the blast...."

One thing about concrete is that it is strong in compression so the vertical forces on the columns would be
better resisted than a lateral force

You lose again........



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




Doesn't sound like the much of the building was left after the blast


Didn't you see a picture?



One thing about concrete is that it is strong in compression so the vertical forces on the columns would be better resisted than a lateral force


What about the one in Nagasaki?





new topics




 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join