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.
Originally posted by esdad71
The incoherant rant was sarcasm. This has descended into a pissing contest that no one is winning. This thread was about the video, archived video, that brings to light many of the original rumors associated with 9/11. It has been derailed and by one person who screams in caps, and another simply trying to make a point.
Originally posted by Connected
This is why you are going on ignore. Even after I show you photo evidence, you claim you can't see it, and you want to see another picture.
Good bye.
Originally posted by whiterabbit
Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me your calculations on this one. If it used, say, 100x finer particles, show me the math that indicates to you that it'd take "about the same amount" of powder to accomplish the same mechanical work via heat. Namely, moving through the steel.
Don't have any. But I'll explain why I think that below.
To survive being burned by the thermite itself, you'd need a big heavy device to force it sideways.
Each of those small amounts, if they were burning at all when they got knocked off, would be surrounded by a burn zone where they set fire to debris. They'd stand out like like pockets of unexplainable fire damage. You'd be able to see the black spots as they were digging it out.
Well then only give me enough to counter my list 1:1.
I don't even know that I could enough statements to match that. So, go ahead and draw whatever from that.
I think the fact that most civil engineers and scientists in the world aren't speaking out in support of the conspiracy theory (which could, if true, get them fame and fortune) is a testament to it not being true, though.
Originally posted by piacenza
Hey Coven once you write and speak 6 languages please come back to me and start criticizing my English.
Its kind of obvious why you stand on your position, I would do the same if I were on you.
There are obvious conflict of interest and you are doing what is best for you and the people like you.
As usual no one really answers any of the most obvious discrepancies of 911.
They are impossible to be answered:
Please give us an explanation of the Meteor found at the basement.
PLease give us a scientific explanation of why WTC7 felt. Or at least give us a credible source.
So do you agree that flight 93 was brought down?
Thats a first.
Please explain me the 5 Israelis jumping and having a blast on 911.
Did you as well made a party that night?
They were there simply documenting the event.
I repeat I do not care at all if 911 truth comes out it might actually be better to let the events unfold and just keep watching.
What I cant stand is that people like you that know very well the truth try to push their own agenda for political interest.
So just move on. Nothing you can prove in here. NOTHING.
This goes as well for your little friends with the same motive as yours.
By way of deception, thou shalt do war
[edit on 15-3-2007 by piacenza]
[edit on 15-3-2007 by piacenza]
Originally posted by coven
Don't EVER QUESTION MY LOVE OF MY COUNTRY...
.............
~a True patriot loves his country, but fears his government~
Originally posted by bsbray11
If it takes 10 pounds of coarse thermite to produce enough heat to "cut" a column, a much finer reaction that produces 100x the heat per some standard amount of thermite would only require 1/10th of a pound of thermite. I would venture that the particle size is also directly proportional to the amount of heat put off by the heat given off by a standard amount of thermite undergoing a thermite reaction. Does that not make sense to you?
No you wouldn't. What do you think contains molten iron/steel when its being produced? There's insulation that will take the heat and not deteriorate. I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but I think it's something to do with carbon.
Unexplainable fire damage? You mean like the tons of vehicles blocks away from the towers that caught on fire?
Don't even pretend you knew what the column ends looked like, because most of that was already hauled out before anyone got to examine anything as part of an investigation.
Originally posted by piacenza
You guys are super funny the rules should be enforced for spreading known false informations.
You do that in purpose.
Plus how can you be at work at make all those posting.
I am very positive you must be a minor otherwise I have no clue how you can write what you do.
Originally posted by Damocles
Originally posted by coven
Don't EVER QUESTION MY LOVE OF MY COUNTRY...
.............
~a True patriot loves his country, but fears his government~
cant say i disagree with you anywhere but your last sentance and thats where all of our problems lie (i mean the population of the us)
its the govt that should fear us. they are our servants not the other way around. somewhere along the line both the govt and the citizens forgot that.
Originally posted by Smack
Use the Ignore feature. It really does help to filter out the noise.
I don't know how you all can stand to even read (insert italian sounding twits name)
[edit on 16-3-2007 by Smack]
Originally posted by whiterabbit
Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I don't listen to all these people trying to counter claim what the other guy says
You should, man. There is no merit to the controlled demolition stuff. None whatsoever.
and see that two buildings came down at freefall speed
And that's because a single floor of the WTC isn't strong enough offer almost any resistance to the mass and inertia of 20 stories of building falling onto it all at once. They gave out instantly. It's like the entire floor got hit by a falling building all at once. Buildings' floors are strong, but they aren't that strong.
two of which are the only two in history to do so due to the cause.
They're also the only two in history to have their load-bearing columns sheared by a crashing aircraft. They're also the only two in history to have the fire-proofing ripped off the columns by an aircraft and left to burn.
Two buildings came down in a perfect demolition pattern, without collapsing all those around them, and building 7 came down, not being hit by a plane at all.
The collapse started 3/4 of the way up the building. Why would you expect it to fall anything but straight down considering that?
Originally posted by DOcean
And the freefall speed point...as you said, do you honestly think that one floor will support the weight when twenty floors above it just collapsed on top of it? And remember, as each floor collapses more and more weight is placed on the floor beneath that. So it may have started off as a slower collapse, but gained momentum as more and more weight was added...