Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

Originally posted by redgy
the thing is that all these buildings were crumbling and collapsing at different sections or levels before their total demise,
they did not just fall in a pristine condition, the damage of which really cannot be estimated by just looking at them from the outside.

Could you please show evidence of this statement. or did you just decide to make those facts up. of all the video i have seen of WTC 7 it shows a perfect demolition. no crumbling of sections just a building sinking into nothingness. almost as if someone has slipped a magical black hole underneath it. thats what it looks like on the news footage anyway.

the damage caused by the planes for a start, fire damage, building damage, structural damage and so on.

everyone talks about all these explosions they heard, how about the damage from them. if there was so many explosions did they not cause damage.

reports from callers inside the buildings, reports from fire/rescue units inside and out. some including floors collapsed, stairwells collapsed, holes and cracks, incredible heat, fire and smoke, windows broken, elevators stuck or not usable, rubble falling, blockages to stairways.

all verifiable if you look.

reply to post by DrJay1975


"shniebster" is a deceitful a-hole.
no energy has been subtracted for communition (crushing of everything into a fine powder. this energy sink is HUGE), friction(ie. rubbing of parts on the way down), no consideration for the energy vectors in the opposite direction at each impact (ie. the billiard balls anaolgy. one billiard ball hits another and then stops, having transferred all of it's momentum, or slows having transferred some of it), energy converted to heat and vibration, and he was not aware that debris was shooting out from the insides of the buildings AHEAD of the lowest leading edge of the debris falling outside the tower (i'm not talking about "squibs", either. i'm talking about a wave of destruction). he also includes 100% of the mass as available, when it is clear from the aftermath that the vast majority of the mass was OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT, and therefore not available to crush anything.
he also ignores newton's equal/opposite law. in fact, he ignores just about everything physical. his analysis would be fine if the building was magically suspended in air, and momentum transfers only went in one direction, and energy could be applied to any random event regardless of mechanics and geometry.

i suggest anyone who wants to see QUALITY analysis of the collapses check out femr2 and achimspok on youtube. these guys are way ahead of NIST in their analysis of what happened. all the excuses and dodges of the government propaganda squads are dealt with and decimated.

the towers were blown. no amount of "well how did they get 19 million tons of explosives into the building, then?" will change the fact that they WERE wired, and they WERE exploded.

Originally posted by redgy
the damage caused by the planes for a start, fire damage, building damage, structural damage and so on.

everyone talks about all these explosions they heard, how about the damage from them. if there was so many explosions did they not cause damage.

reports from callers inside the buildings, reports from fire/rescue units inside and out. some including floors collapsed, stairwells collapsed, holes and cracks, incredible heat, fire and smoke, windows broken, elevators stuck or not usable, rubble falling, blockages to stairways.

all verifiable if you look.

no planes hit wtc 7 buddy stay on topic.......fire damage??? your saying random spot fires weakened the support structure of the building in exactly the right place for it to implode as it did??? structural damage??? from what?? do you even know what the hell your talking about???

the question is what are you doing on here if your dont have a firm grasp of the subject and the situation?

Originally posted by redgy
the damage caused by the planes for a start, fire damage, building damage, structural damage and so on.

Just curious which plane(s) you would be talking about in this thread exactly? I know, I know. Which plane(s) seems so trivial but for this thread, I just have to ask.

[edit on 3/11/10 by evil incarnate]

Can anyone, including Weedwhacker answer the following.

The fire in the towers were hot enough to melt aluminum, so we have molten aluminum comming into contact with the following materials.

1. Jet Fuel from the planes.

2. Graphite Composites from the planes.

3. Oxygen Generators from the planes.

4. Magnesium from the planes.

5. Tungsten from the planes.

6. Concrete and steel from the buildings.

So what kind of reactions will there be? Maybe something like a thermite reaction?

reply to post by REMISNE


According to the recent ABC story about 9/11 nuts - the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt steel.

I guess that means it is time to either admit that there was melted steel or more adequately, that the MSM is more than willing to lie for no good reason.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
According to the recent ABC story about 9/11 nuts - the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt steel.

Sorry but the jet fuel burned off within the first 10 minutes so the fires were not hot enough or burn long enough to melt steel.

Although there was molten steel in the debris pile but we do not know what caused that.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by evil incarnate
According to the recent ABC story about 9/11 nuts - the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt steel.

Sorry but the jet fuel burned off within the first 10 minutes so the fires were not hot enough or burn long enough to melt steel.

Although there was molten steel in the debris pile but we do not know what caused that.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]

You missed what I actually said. Regardless of whether or not the fuel burned off on impact, we all know it does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

My point is that the same people here that claim there was no melted steel, also claim the MSM is being honest with us about 9/11.

ABC just claimed the other night that it was a fallacious CT argument to claim that the jet fuel was NOT hot enough to MELT the steel. Get it? ABC says that the steel was indeed melted and that it was done by the jet fuel. Now we know that is not true. Even the OS defenders keep claiming there was no melted steel and cannot claim that jet fuel burns hot enough to do so. So...either people like WW can admit there was melted steel or that ABC is willing to lie. I am just pointing out that it is more like they lied because they claim the steel was melted by the fuel. I hope that clears things up.

Lol your just starting to realize that the msm have been lying to the public. For gods sake the garbage that passes for the 6 o clock news these days. Celebrity gossip?? On the evening news?? Are you sh!tting me?? The clues are all around you just open your eyes and you will see. That's why it's called illumination.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Lol your just starting to realize that the msm have been lying to the public. For gods sake the garbage that passes for the 6 o clock news these days. Celebrity gossip?? On the evening news?? Are you sh!tting me?? The clues are all around you just open your eyes and you will see. That's why it's called illumination.

No no no no no.

I thought my point was rather simple but it helps if you watched the ABC report.

OS supporters claim there was no melted steel.
ABC says that there was.
OS supporters claim that the MSM would report inconsistencies unless they were in on it.
So then they have to agree that either the MSM is full of crap or there was melted steel.

Then ABC also claims that the steel was melted by jet fuel.
No one seems to believe that.

So why can people like Pteridine and weedwacker admit that the MSM is worthless and mocking CTers for claiming so is no longer the least bit valid.

I know the MSM lies and you know it. How many times have you seen them claim there could not be a conspiracy because the MSM would all have to be in on it.

I propose they need not be in on it since they just proved they will just say just about anything regardless of any facts.

I hope that clears that up.

Oh my bad I didn't know people were still debating the whole melted steel topic. I was fairly sure they mentioned the melted Steel on the news.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Oh my bad I didn't know people were still debating the whole melted steel topic. I was fairly sure they mentioned the melted Steel on the news.

When it suits them. There are plenty of threads where OS supporters are still claiming it is only aluminum and there is no evidence any steel was melted. I guess they pick and choose when to claim the MSM is credible.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
So why can people like Pteridine and weedwacker admit that the MSM is worthless and mocking CTers for claiming so is no longer the least bit valid.

You have to remember some people want to live in a safe fantasy world and not let reallity ruin there safe world.

so does the lack of debunking on this issue mean that people have finally realized that the OS is a steaming pile of bovine excrement?? because i still havent seen a logical answer to how random spot fires weakened the support structure of WTC7 and brought it down in exactly the same fashion as controlled demolition. Or are they trying to spin this somehow?? time will tell i suppose..

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by MysterE

 

At that time this type of an attack was considered inconcievable, beyond belief.

Yet NORAD just happened to be running a practice drill simulating this exact type of attack on this very day? At this time I must consider these NORAD drills inconceivable, beyond belief!

Interesting that Jesse Venturas' 9/11 huffington post article was pulled.


Its likely because you can't debunk the freefall physics for an entire simultaneous collapse from random fires. Some of the best debunkers on the board have come here to this thread and carefully tip toed around it without debunking the issue at hand. You can't in this reality as it violates multiple verifyable and provable laws of physics if the OS is true. Interesting to see ATS change the rules now in relation to 9/11.

Another card is placed face down on the board I guess.