Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesse Ventura'a Conspiracy Theory: Death Ray Episode

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
They don't deny they have these weapons.

I lol'd when Bearden didn't even open the door...Smart...


It depends what you think they're not denying.

Lasers, sure, got beaucoup different types. Gas dynamic, solid state, chemical, you name it. Lots of different test platforms with various lasers, trying for different effects. Plasma bloomers, reverse bremsstrahlung impact lasers, deflagrators, plasma bloom RF mixers, ones intended to drill holes in a target, others for damaging solar panels on sats.

HPM, got that too. AESA is probably the best one out there, but we've got them. CARMs and FELs on planes now, belting out a ton of microwaves. That's DEW as well.

Heck, we even played around with sonic bullets like the Russians did, and dropped it, like the Russians did.

What you can't really do and stay with reality based conjectures is the old keywords confer reality thing. If Rumsfeld says we've got/are working on DEW, then yep, we are. But that keyword "DEW" doesn't then confer reality on any whack conjecture, like Judy Woods'.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
Both towers were built to withstand being hit by airplanes upon their completion. Any one saying that the planes weakened the structural supports enough to drop them is only speculating - no solid evidence of that whatsoever.

I have to refute one other thing in the last post. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. This has been proven. It would not matter if the fire from the jet fuel had been burning for 2 days, it would not have the necessary heat to melt or drastically in any form, buckle the steel used in the World Trade Centers. It most certainly could not have achieved a high enough temperature to melt or weaken the steel in the time it took the towers to fall either.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)


No solid evidence whatsoever? Did you even bother to read the link I posted?

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions









Regarding initial damage from the impact, from the NTSB report...









Regarding the structural steel, from the NTSB report...







I believe this is more than proof that your information is flawed.

The initial damage from the impact was substantial and the fires got more than hot enough to compromise the steel.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Wrong. Structural steel melts at 2750 degrees F. The fires burning caused by the jet fuel burned at the highest temperature of 825 degrees C, or 1517 degrees F. That is 1200 degrees below melt temperature for structural steel. These are known facts.

Whereas some of that calculations are very much correct, the idea that steel could melt at less than it's own melting temperature is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
Wrong. Structural steel melts at 2750 degrees F.


Except it doesn't have to melt to lose most of its strength. All you've got to do is get it hot enough to weaken below the load it's carrying. When you read "melts at 2750F", they mean become liquid, like water.

It gets bendy long before that without flowing.

edit to add: look at the yield strength chart posted above this post. Really. Look at it. What's the fraction of yield strength for that metal at 900F? 0.1? It's lost 90% of its strength. That's what I mean about getting bendy.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
Wrong. Structural steel melts at 2750 degrees F. The fires burning caused by the jet fuel burned at the highest temperature of 825 degrees C, or 1517 degrees F. That is 1200 degrees below melt temperature for structural steel. These are known facts.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)


Who said it had to melt? At 800 C the steel only has 10% of its cold strength...







It looks to me like the fires burned hot enough to compromise both the strength and elasticity of the steel.

The information in the NTSB is from the World Steel Association.

Edit.. Bedlam beat me to it. As he asked, really look at the chart.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I work in metal fabrication, as I have for 11 years. I have worked in a foundry as well as a machine shop within the same company. I know a lot more about steel than the average layman. Structural steel will not "bend" or "warp" at 1200 degrees below its own melt point. It does not do this until you hit the neighborhood of around 2300 degrees F. And the jet fuel burning in the short amount of time that it did before the towers fell, could not not have in any way, reached near that temperature. It's impossible.

Do not forget that the twin towers were designed for plane impact strength integrity as well as fire resistant integrity within certain temperature ranges when they were designed and then built. Meaning that these factors were taken into account upon being built in the first place. They knew when they were built what temperature jet fuel burns at and what it's flash point is - and took these factors into account upon completion of the towers.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
I work in metal fabrication, as I have for 11 years. I have worked in a foundry as well as a machine shop within the same company. I know a lot more about steel than the average layman.


As an engineer, and an occasional blacksmith, I can tell you that if I heat up metal, it'll bend a lot more easily than if it's cold.

You know that is true, if you've done foundry work. But even if not, just look at strength/temp curves for i-beams.

edit to add - if you google for strain, temperature, structural steel you'll get all sorts of non-911 books and reference material that shows a loss of 50-90% in tensile strength for common structural steels at 900F or so. If a metal you're counting on to be rigid becomes ductile and stretches, then all bets are off for structural integrity. It doesn't need to melt, just fail. Like this...

edit on 16-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
I work in metal fabrication, as I have for 11 years. I have worked in a foundry as well as a machine shop within the same company. I know a lot more about steel than the average layman. Structural steel will not "bend" or "warp" at 1200 degrees below its own melt point. It does not do this until you hit the neighborhood of around 2300 degrees F. And the jet fuel burning in the short amount of time that it did before the towers fell, could not not have in any way, reached near that temperature. It's impossible.


I have worked in the trades supervising large construction for 25 years and studied engineering in school, your appeal to authority doesn't carry any weight here.

I have bent lots of steel with a torch as well.

As much as I despise using Youtube video's as proof of anything, Nat Geo is a reasonable source.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Rubicant13
I work in metal fabrication, as I have for 11 years. I have worked in a foundry as well as a machine shop within the same company. I know a lot more about steel than the average layman.


As an engineer, and an occasional blacksmith, I can tell you that if I heat up metal, it'll bend a lot more easily than if it's cold.

You know that is true, if you've done foundry work. But even if not, just look at strength/temp curves for i-beams.


Strength temp curves in structural steel are calculated at a rate of heat over a certain time. I know that it takes a lot longer a time for the structural integrity to have been weakened enough to have bent or warped in the time it took for the towers to fall after being hit by the planes. And the temps to create these integrity failures would have to have been higher and burned over a far longer period.

You do know that the structural steel of the towers was removed and quarantined before anyone could study the steel itself right? No one actually was able to study it at all - which is odd when you think about it, seeing if what you are saying were true, they would not have taken it away before any conclusive studies could be undertaken. The findings would have proved what these "experts" are putting out there as the truth. The real truth is that the average American does not know these things, and it's easy to pull the wool over their eyes as to what a true and credible explanation is. They took the "compromised" steel away before anyone could truly study the findings of it's integrity and damage...Odd indeed.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Rubicant13
I work in metal fabrication, as I have for 11 years. I have worked in a foundry as well as a machine shop within the same company. I know a lot more about steel than the average layman. Structural steel will not "bend" or "warp" at 1200 degrees below its own melt point. It does not do this until you hit the neighborhood of around 2300 degrees F. And the jet fuel burning in the short amount of time that it did before the towers fell, could not not have in any way, reached near that temperature. It's impossible.


I have worked in the trades supervising large construction for 25 years and studied engineering in school, your appeal to authority doesn't carry any weight here.

I have bent lots of steel with a torch as well.

As much as I despise using Youtube video's as proof of anything, Nat Geo is a reasonable source.



I'm sure you have bent steel with a torch as have I. But not super reinforced structural steel with iron as a component. That would be an incredible feat to observe. It could not be done by any standard torch. Torches burn with concentrated and high temp intensity - as a fuel fire burns at a non concentrated fixed rate, and is not even or focused in its intensity. The torch would do more in an hour than the fuel fire burning ever would in the same rate of time.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13

Strength temp curves in structural steel are calculated at a rate of heat over a certain time. I know that it takes a lot longer a time for the structural integrity to have been weakened enough to have bent or warped in the time it took for the towers to fall after being hit by the planes. And the temps to create these integrity failures would have to have been higher and burned over a far longer period.


True to a point - but how much damage to the structure was done by the impact? It's not just heat, not just impact.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Rubicant13

Strength temp curves in structural steel are calculated at a rate of heat over a certain time. I know that it takes a lot longer a time for the structural integrity to have been weakened enough to have bent or warped in the time it took for the towers to fall after being hit by the planes. And the temps to create these integrity failures would have to have been higher and burned over a far longer period.


True to a point - but how much damage to the structure was done by the impact? It's not just heat, not just impact.


The only answer I have to that, is I do not know. No one really does. But considering that the buildings themselves were designed to withstand being hit by planes due to their locations to airports at the time in the vicinity,as well as the being designed to withstand the fires from the burning fuel of said planes, I would venture to say not enough. These two factors were taken into account when they were built.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
These two factors were taken into account when they were built.


Separately. But not together, and IIRC, the building didn't have the insulation on the beams that was supposed to be there, or they changed the type to something less effective. The point of the insulation is to protect against weakening by fire. If it doesn't happen, why do they do insulate them?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Rubicant13
These two factors were taken into account when they were built.


Separately. But not together, and IIRC, the building didn't have the insulation on the beams that was supposed to be there, or they changed the type to something less effective. The point of the insulation is to protect against weakening by fire. If it doesn't happen, why do they do insulate them?


The only known reason that I know for them insulating the I-beams is for added fire resistance or to be used as a sort of buffer between the steel an other flooring components put in place around it. Are you saying that this insulation was missing prior to the attacks?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Neither of you have addressed the issue of where the building debris go....there was not enough rubble and the parking garage below...still intact......no building made of steel has ever collapsed from fire period.....much less 2 at the very same time....and then lets not forget...that other building.....there is no way this happened without outside assistance....death ray or not



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


yo explain why tower 7collapsed for me. And did the fires from the plane's crashing reach the bottom of the twin buildings? i always saw the buildings collapse completely to the bottom columns



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizTheWiz
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


yo explain why tower 7collapsed for me. And did the fires from the plane's crashing reach the bottom of the twin buildings? i always saw the buildings collapse completely to the bottom columns


No one is actually sure how or why building 7 fell. It was completely untouched during 9/11. The directed energy weapon explanation could possibly explain this building falling as well though.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubicant13
 


What the OSers conveniently forget is the core column would have acted as giant heat sinks dissipating any heat generated by the fires making the temperature of the steel near the fires far lower than they estimate,
Then there is the little problem of where the core columns went that were still standing after the collapse. They shouldn't have fallen straight down but should have toppled over or swayed and broken in to sections.
Yet somehow after the rest of buildings were destroyed they seem to start sliding straight down (how and to where?) before turning in to dust?
edit on 16-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   


Neither of you have addressed the issue of where the building debris go....there was not enough rubble and the parking garage below...still intact......no building made of steel has ever collapsed from fire period.....much less 2 at the very same time....and then lets not forget...that other building.....there is no way this happened without outside assistance....death ray or not



Originally posted by Rubicant13
No, they show a lot of evidence in this episode and not all eyewitness testimony. As far as Alex Jones is concerned, he was in the first episode of the season, but not in this episode at all. For some reason, Jesse likes Alex and I have no idea why. I am not a big fan of Alex Jones myself.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)


I watched the entire sensationalized episode....the only relevant information I got out of it was the death of Bell...they never talked about motive...all 3 buildings had more than one coincidence....money(greed) & coverup of investigations that were going on into SEC filings along with all the stock put options that were profited off of from different companies stocks tanking because of the destruction....and the pentagon...how com that was not talked about.........Donald Rumsfeld...wasn't he the one who was asked about the 80 trillion dollars that was unaccounted for in the defense budget records?....not sure I am correct about that...in any case...the death ray scenario and how it plays...the space shuttle's? ....really? and that one guy out in the woods that is still alive...if they want to get him so badly...how come he is still alive...to further the conspiracy for the hell of it...the wacky dude and his hippy wife...they had a lot of gadgets that DHS would be very interested in....why is he allowed to have a death ray on his mobile home?....lmao.....why is he allowed to live?...seems to me he would be one of the first to go.....and these people did nothing to disguise their identities?.....the weapon may exist and it may be in the form of a "star wars" technology to bad Reagan isn't around to ask him....could this have caused the Japan quake and the Haiti quake I wonder...they had motive for those to happen, also greed....anyway...Judy is correct in her assessments of the buildings, still no proof of how they were brought down...any demolition would not have pulverized the steel...the plane fuel DID NOT cause those buildings #7 and the Pentagon to have mysterious circumstances surrounding them........what about the Pennsylvania plane that crashed?....why not blame all the plane crashes since.... why just the one they did claim....maybe they brought down much more.....the Oklahoma fed...The koresh compound...seems they could have added a bunch more than just a bus bombing...well that is all I am going to contribute to this thread...you get a star and flag for bringing the episode to the ATS conspiracists


Ascension211




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubicant13
 





But not super reinforced structural steel with iron as a component. That would be an incredible feat to observe. It could not be done by any standard torch.

Don't you think the crews cutting up the debris would have noticed difference in steel?
And yet no one talked?





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join