Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Don't you find it weird that in your video there is a constant stream of explosions just before the building falls.
Yet we hear nothing from any of the videos in NYC?


I thought the reason for that is they used silent explosives, or muffled the noise with water....




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


When the so called "truthers" finally discovered that explosives are not quiet in our atmosphere, they shifted to thermite so they had a way of explaining the lack of explosions. Jones went looking and thought red paint was thermite. This was touted by many and Jones was elevated to the status of Larry, Moe, and Curley.

I have explained why thermite cannot be used for demolitions in many threads including this one.

When they can't answer, they deflect by changing the subject, hence the shift from WTC 1 and 2 to WTC 7. Does this mean that 1 and 2 fell due to the planes and the only demolition was 7? Are the truthers circling the wagons?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Are the truthers circling the wagons?


They're circling something though I don't believe it's the wagons.

Fitz
edit on 26-3-2013 by Fitzgibbon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Lol! Okay Dave, be a chum and walk me through this.. How did you get this



So in other words you're now ADMITTING Gage does in fact tamper with the evidence he puts out. If you had come out and acknowledged that from the beginning we could have saved ourselves a lot of unnecessary grief.


from this



I know, I've seen the documentary (for free I might add.....) , but apparently, according to some people, if he doesn't show the full sequence in every video he's ever made, then he's somehow swindling people out of their hard earned savings......go figure...


Seeing as how he did show the full sequence in the documentry........



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I have explained why thermite cannot be used for demolitions in many threads including this one.


Obviously not because thermite is used for demolition. Here is one example...



You haven't debunked anything unless you can explain how three steel buildings, for the first time in history, all globally collapsed from fire, and asymmetrical damage. If you can do that while explaining the laws of motion and conservation of momentum you might have something, but in over ten years I have yet to see it.

Explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint. Explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to. Also explain why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first. Just the things that you ignore and fail to answer, constantly.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint.


How about you explain why you keep posting that lie - oh, the reason is that is all you have is lies!



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
Their plan did not go as planned that's why.
The plane that they say hit pentagon was supposed to hit building7
building 7 was prepared with the same kind of explosions as twin towers
They had to go along with the destruction of building 7 because it was rigged with explosions to hide their tracks


If it was meant to hit building 7 then why was it NOT over NY ?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
If it was meant to hit building 7 then why was it NOT over NY ?


This is a silly truther conspiracy theory, what has logic got to do with it?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by Spacespider
Their plan did not go as planned that's why.
The plane that they say hit pentagon was supposed to hit building7
building 7 was prepared with the same kind of explosions as twin towers
They had to go along with the destruction of building 7 because it was rigged with explosions to hide their tracks


If it was meant to hit building 7 then why was it NOT over NY ?


Some truthers have put forward the idea that UA 93 was intended to strike WTC 7. Because those same truthers maintain that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition they have found this necessary because the idea that perps would just blow it up as it stands is pretty incredible.

There are problems though with supposing UA 93 was destined for WTC 7. Not least that from the time it turned around after hi-jacking it was on a bearing for Washington and those in control had dialed up and were following the navigation beacon for Reagan National Airport Washington. Then there is the conundrum as to why perps having set up WTC 7 as a target for UA 93 would shoot it down as is also often alleged.

Another factor which is usually ignored is that it would not be possible to hit WTC 7 with a large aircraft while the Towers 1 & 2 stood. Have a look at the site and relative building heights. As it happened UA 93 went down at 10.03 which was 25 minutes before the North Tower fell. If it had gone directly to New York it would have arrived before that Tower fell. But UA 93 was due to take off at 0800 when in fact it took off at 0842 : so if it had taken off on time it would have been destined to stooge about the New York sky for more than an hour waiting for a clear run at WTC 7.

Without even touching why WTC 7 should be a target I suggest that UA 93 being intended for it just doesn't hold water at any level.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thermite cannot be used in timed demolitions. If it could be used, there wouldn't be all those noisy videos that people like to watch of old buildings and stadiums being demolished. All that could have been done was to use thermite to start the collapses as they were gravity-driven.

There has been no evidence of anything but airplanes and fires bringing down the buildings. There never was any and there still isn't. Case closed. No demolitions.

Thanks for playing, Anok. Better luck with your next conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




Another factor which is usually ignored is that it would not be possible to hit WTC 7 with a large aircraft while the Towers 1 & 2 stood. Have a look at the site and relative building heights. As it happened UA 93 went down at 10.03 which was 25 minutes before the North Tower fell. If it had gone directly to New York it would have arrived before that Tower fell. But UA 93 was due to take off at 0800 when in fact it took off at 0842 : so if it had taken off on time it would have been destined to stooge about the New York sky for more than an hour waiting for a clear run at WTC 7.

Excellant! Bravo!
The crowd errupts in cheers!



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
I have explained why thermite cannot be used for demolitions in many threads including this one.


Obviously not because thermite is used for demolition. Here is one example...



You haven't debunked anything unless you can explain how three steel buildings, for the first time in history, all globally collapsed from fire, and asymmetrical damage. If you can do that while explaining the laws of motion and conservation of momentum you might have something, but in over ten years I have yet to see it.

Explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint. Explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to. Also explain why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first. Just the things that you ignore and fail to answer, constantly.


But the building didn't tilt over and fall sideways like the tower demo you linked to.
Shouldn't the towers fall sideways if it was thermite?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
e]

Obviously not because thermite is used for demolition. Here is one example...






So they used thermite on the example above at what position on the structure


Apples with apples ANOK

Not the same construction as the buildings

I will say it again it's all in the detail something you seem to ignore


Why no thermite at the base of the towers then to match your example



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Technology Marketing Summary

The Linear Thermite Charge (LTC) is designed to rapidly cut through concrete and steel structural components by using extremely high temperature thermite reactions jetted through a linear nozzle.
Description

Broadly, the invention provides for the thermite charges to make linear or curvilinear cuts into materials such as building structures, pavements, transport equipment such as ships, planes, and the like. As used herein, the term linear includes linear and curvilinear shapes. Typically, the term linear includes elongated jet shapes and is not limited by whether the elongated jet opening is linear, curvilinear, or has bends.
Benefits

Can cut both concrete and steel at one time making rebar/concrete structural elements faster to demolish
Can be designed to produce a linear cut by the use of a linear fixed-nozzle or a moving circular nozzle
Cuts with the speed of explosive shaped charges but without the fragmentation and logistical problems of explosives

Applications and Industries

Infrastructure (building/bridge) demolition
Roadway cutting for demolition or access holes for utility service
Pipeline cutting for offshore environments


Linear Thermite Charge

BTW I am not claiming it was Thermite, but your argument that thermite can not be used is ridiculous. All I can say for sure is fire and asymmetrical damage can not cause a building to globally land in its footprint, so it is only logical that another energy was acting on the buildings.

When is one of you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns and why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? Anyone?. Chirp chirp chirp, anyone? Bueller?

edit on 4/1/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




When is one of you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns and why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? Anyone?. Chirp chirp chirp, anyone? Bueller?

Easy:
As the fire rages the trusses expand and warp. The fire (in that area) burns through its fuel and then cools. The trusses cool down and contract.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 




When is one of you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns and why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? Anyone?. Chirp chirp chirp, anyone? Bueller?

Easy:
As the fire rages the trusses expand and warp. The fire (in that area) burns through its fuel and then cools. The trusses cool down and contract.


You might want to ask how his thread about the same thing over on JREF is doing. It doesn't seem to be going well for his assertion and II notice an absence on his part of 2 weeks+ since he bothered to reply. Can't understand why!


Fitz



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

When is one of you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns and why the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? Anyone?. Chirp chirp chirp, anyone? Bueller?

edit on 4/1/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Fill your boots

www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk...

Have a read.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
From wmd's link.




Fire scenario C, which is perhaps the most realistic one, does not show failure for any single floor
scenario, however it shows collapse to occur at a very low temperatures (400C) when two or more
floors are involved. At such low temperatures, there is negligible loss of steel strength and the cause
of failure is entirely because of instability created by geometric changes in the structure as a result of
the thermal expansion. As these geometric structural stability phenomena are of the greatest interest
here, we will attempt to explain this in considerable detail in discussing a few individual analyses.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It's really a good read.




The chief conclusions are:
1. The analysis presented points to a compelling fire induced collapse mechanism rather unique
to the type of structure that the WTC Twin-Towers represented
2. This analysis also shows that the collapse is initiated principally by a stability mechanism as a
result of geometry changes in the structure caused by thermal expansion effects
3. Furthermore it is quite possible that the geometric changes required to precipitate collapse could
result from very low temperatures not high enough to induce significant reduction in the material
properties
4. It can therefore be provisionally concluded that these buildings could have collapsed as a result
of a major fire event. This is of course assuming that any of the active fire suppression systems
would either fail or be unable to control the development of the fire. This is a normal assumption
when designing fire protection for buildings



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The same old lame arguments again and again that prove nothing, and offer nothing to the discussion.


If steel had weakened from fire the collapses would still not have been instant and global.

Sorry but you are taking a possible occurrence, and trying to make it fit with what happened, you're trying to force the square peg though the round hole.

IF the steel weakened from the fire there would have been an obvious sign of deformation first. Steel does not suddenly fail once it loses it's strength.

You are also not considering the factor of safety. The steel could weaken considerably, and still be strong enough to hold the load, as they are designed to hold the load many times over, it's called redundancy.

You are still ignoring the FACT that WTC 7 landed in its own footprint, impossible from a fire induced collapse. A complete pancake collapse of a 110 story building also impossible due to the know laws of physics. Anyone telling you the opposite is deceiving you. Anyone with basic physics knowledge can tell you this, assuming they are also not trying to deceive you.

edit on 4/4/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join