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.

 

ATS: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize Relating to WTC Collapse

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Yes, the fires were burning for several weeks after the collapse. The collapse of the building liberated tons of potential energy and heat. There was also, literally tons of fuel, paper, jet fuel, etc. still trapped in the wreckage. Like an underground coal fire, this smoldered happily for weeks, in a nice insulated environment.


Paper? Boy you would make up any excuse.


Thank you, my point exactly. The quantity of burning material on the floors was high. You have office materials, airplane materials, residual fuel and a number of floors and walls that were broken, allowing the fire to spread and grow.


Office materials, and walls. Why don't you throw in some thermite explosives to justify how it could have melted the steel, and vaporized the concrete, humansl. Which reminds me, you have not explained how the terrorists passport survived






From a number of sources. here are two

wtc.nist.gov...
www.pentoncmg.com...

both of these reports estimate the quantity of fuel on board the aircraft at impact from 31,000 to 38,000 liters (about 8,000 to 10,000 gallons.

the estimate of the fuel consumed in the fireball is around 3,000 gallons, or less then half of the total fuel consumed.

I do not agree with both of the reports on one issue. Both of these reports estimate the consumption rate of the remaining fuel on the floors based on fire pool data. While this may work in estimating how quickly a tanker spill will burn up, I do not agree with the underling assumption that the remaining fuel spread out in an even pool across the floor. Neither of these reports takes into account that significant areas of the floor slabs in the impact zone were destroyed, uplifted or otherwise distorted, this would have allowed deeper pools to form then estimated.


One is an official government site, and the other is parroting the government explanation. Did you forget that they are suppose to be complicit in this "conspiracy theory"


sure it does. you asked me earlier about the difference between a single candle and 1,000. Well what is the difference between a fire in a single wastebasket that spreads slowly across an office floor to one that engulfs the entire floor simultaneously? Even if the majority of the jet fuel did burn up in the first few minutes, it succeeded in igniting several floors at once.


I am going to cover this in my next post.


Which do you think would be worse a knife stab in the stomach, or a slicing cut across the abdomen?


Does that even matter, we have already established that the impact is not a factor. However, what you evaded here, is that the fuel dispersed and was consumed in a fireball outside of the building.


[edit on 18-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Paper? Boy you would make up any excuse.

Paper, plastic, etc. Due to computers workstations, cubilcle designes, etc. The fire load of modern offices is actually higher now then it was when the WTC towers were designed.



Office materials, and walls. Why don't you throw in some thermite explosives to justify how it could have melted the steel, and vaporized the concrete, humansl. Which reminds me, you have not explained how the terrorists passport survived.


The collapse of the building involved enormous amounts of kinetic energy. This is what pulverized the concrete. (The pulverization of the concrete also liberated heat in its own right).



Does that even matter, we have already established that the impact is not a factor. However, what you evaded here, is that the fuel dispersed and was consumed in a fireball outside of the building.


OK, hot shot. Prove it. show me some calculations that prove all of the fuel burned up in the fireball.

I am particulary interested in how you acount for the fuel in the left wing of the second plane, and all of the anrcdotal evidence of fuel odors in the building.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a few more links for your perusal

www.mishalov.com...

Poorly translated, this report is from china
www.luxinzheng.net...



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
The commonly accepted theory is that fires caused the WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 to collapse. The fires somehow weakened the structural integrity of the steel frames of all buildings. However, it would appear that the actual factual evidence would suggest otherwise:

1. WTC-7 was across the road from WTC-1 and WTC-2. It was not struck by the airliners. However, it is believed that somehow, the cause of which is not understood nor deliberated upon, it caught fire from WTC-1 and WTC-2 and collapsed due to weakened structural integrity

2. WTC-1 and WTC-2 showed evidence of vaporized concerete, humans and molten steel. This would suggest at the very least that the temperatures However fire fighter generally agree that the fires were containable and not a notch above the average office fires. Nor did not suspect the buildings were about to collapse.

3. As eye witness and video testimony shows, the moment the planes stuck, they erupted into a huge fireball. In particular, the plane that struck WTC-2(South tower) collided at an acute angle at the edge, and immediately disintergrated and generated a brilliant fireball outside. The fire extinguished within minutes, leaving nothing but billowing sooty smoke. It would however seem that while humans onboard and the plane itself were vaporized, a passport of a claimed terrorist onboard managed to survive, enough, for identification.

4. It is a scientifcally valided fact that steel, one of the most fire-proof metals known to man, requires in excess of a thousand degrees to malform it and more to melt it. It is also a scientifically validated fact that jet fuel/kerosene ignites at some 210 degrees celcius. As there is evidence of molten steel. Therefore, the jet fuel somehow reached in excess of a thousand degrees. How? Everyone is an expert.

The official explanation is contested by many experts, including an executive of a company who supplied the steel for the construction of WTC. As well as scientists and physicists and chemists who maintain that it is scientifically implausible.

So how warranted is their skepticism. Have fires ever caused a steel building to collapse, or even partially collapse. There are thousands of steel high-rise buildings in America from 100 years, and perhaps hundreds of cases of severe fires. Yet, never, anywhere in the world, has a steel building collapsed, not even partially, due to a plane attack or a fire.

To illustrate:

In 1956, the Empire State Building was struck by a B25 at 600mph on the 79th floor. It caused heavy fires and the engine shot through the walls and down an elevator shaft. It did not collapse.

In 1970, the 50 story 1 New York Plaza had an explosion and a subsequent fire for more than 6 hours. It did not collapse.

In 1998, the 64 story First Interstate Bank suffered uncontrollable fires for 3.5 hours, destroying the 12th to 16th floors. 64 fire companies battled it. It did not collapse.



In 1991, the 38 story Merdian Plaza suffered a very severe fire. The fires burned for more than 18 hours and destroyed 8 floors initially caused by oil rags and other flammable stuff. The damage was very extensive, it included several window breakages and cracking of granite. It did not collapse.



In 2004, The Carcus high rise(the tallest building in Carcus,Venezuela) suffered a disasterous fire that started on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors and burnt for more than 17 hours. The heat was so intense the firefighters could not reach the upper floors and injured 40 firefighters. It did not collapse.



In all of the above cases, the fires were so disasterous, that they burnt on several floors, caused granite to crack, windows shattering and needed entire armies of firefighters, that in turn got injured or could not contain them. But -- they did not collapse!



In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
In actual building fires, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Chorus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C.


So this could only mean that the experts skepticism is well-founded. It was not the fires that caused WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC-7. It was also not the planes. So what was it?

On 2001, September 11th. The proof of God was given. He is Allah, and he is on the Muslims side. It was he that struck WTC with a divine thunderbolt and protected one of their passports with a divine shield so they could become famous for an act of God. I will let Howard submit this for the $100,000, he deserves it, for it were not for his persistance, I would not have found God. I am coverting to Islam tomorrow.

Case Closed.

[edit on 18-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Of course you do... I have never seen a political post of yours that wasn't intended to create a pissing contest....

If you had anything to back-up your claim, you would be $100,000 richer. C'mon guy, it should be really easy to back-up the government position. The fact is that you cannot do so.


How exactly did I try to create this into a "pissing contest?" It was not I who started throwing insults at anyones intelligence...

And if you think that having a different opinion than you and relying on hard facts to support theories such as this is "intended to create a pissing contest" then that's your problem... That first.

Second, there are many offers like this one which noone will be able to claim. What's his name.... Randi (sp?) has made a contest just like this one, but in this contest anyone should be able to prove that any paranormal, or spiritual acts exist. Here is an excerpt from Randi's website....


At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account.


Excerpted from.
www.randi.org...

The problem is that Randi has never accepted, and will never accept, nomatter what proof is given that anything paranormal or even spiritual exist....As another member said, you cannot prove a negative to anyone.

The same thing can be said of anyone who believes that there were explosives at the WTC, or that the government was involved...nomatter what proof is given, people have already made up their minds and will probably not change their views.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Indigo....the Empire State building was built under other standards that the WTC didn't have, and the other buildings, none of them were hit like the WTC. Perhaps you don't know that the kinetic energy of a moving object increases greatly with it's speed. The WTC buildings were hit at faster speeds than the Empire State, not only that but the building materials of the WTC and the Empire State building were totally different.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Indigo, I have chosen to stay on the outside of your discussons on this thread and have and will add little tidbits here and there.

You seemed to be skeptical of the notion that paper in an office could burn hot, however having been through a fire acadamy once (Iwanted to be a fireman at one stage) I can tell you that the sheer amount of combustable material in a standard office is staggering and once it all begins to burn a tremendous amount of heat energy is liberated. Think of all the plastics from copiers to file tabs to chairs and desks, etc. etc. Add to that the ignitor, a 767 full of fuel travaling at a high rate of speed and that seals the fate of the building. No sprinklers combined with naked steel its toast.

The other tidbit in regards to steel. A blacksmith can forge steel at much lower temperatures than 2000 degrees. Add to the fact that the heated and damaged steel had to support the weight of the building above factors into the steel bending and giving way. The WTC was much more dependant than the Empire State Building was on its core structure. Once that was compromised, its impressive that it stood as long as it did.

Good luck with your new religion. Insha Allah



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
How ya goin, o.k. monsieur le Crakeur, thats fair enough. That dude could be anybody. What i base my opinion on is simply gut feeling based on a third of a century of working with steel. However admirable that may be, it is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yourself, Fred & Howard have done a bit of research on this & you have facts & figures. I seem to be aligned with Indigo & i will not insult yorselves, nor Indy, with unproven feelings of suspicion & deceit. I have a couple of slack days at work so i will stay home & with an open mind i will read all i can about this matter. We have a pretty fair library for a small country town too. If i have a brain explosion, i will rip the scab off a victoria bitter, sink it & push the reset button. If i can prove that you are correct i will split the 100,000 greenbacks between us all as a mark of respect. As General Douglas MacArthur said " I,ll be back mateys".



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
.........................
On 2001, September 11th. The proof of God was given. He is Allah, and he is on the Muslims side. It was he that struck WTC with a divine thunderbolt and protected one of their passports with a divine shield so they could become famous for an act of God. I will let Howard submit this for the $100,000, he deserves it, for it were not for his persistance, I would not have found God. I am coverting to Islam tomorrow.

Case Closed.

[edit on 18-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]


Hold your horses there....proof of God, any God, in the death of innocent people?...and because of a passport's survival?..... That attack was caused by demented people... on innocents.... The conclusion of this in three words is....."you are insane"....yes, case close.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I've had such a really good laugh at America's expense, and watched your thinking be manipulated with the amount of theories to do with why, how, who was involved, when in actual fact, you're all forgetting the basic rules of phyisics.
After watching Soooooo many videos on the subject, have any of you measured the amount of time it took for the buildings to fall, from the time they actually began to fall,.............6.2 seconds.......Impossible!! Under normal circumstances of demolition and using the figures for gravity, those buildings should have taken over 12 seconds to reach ground zero, so obviously anyone in the running for the millionaire's money should give up now. Why? Your'e all using the explosion theory! Turn off your TV's and think for yourselves for a change.
Oh, by the way, did anyone notice the only thing floating down from the buildings was paper, but no furniture nor filing cabinets that held that paper, nor were there any found amid the wreckage?
Add to this, the extra buildings in the WTC complex, which collapsed within the next 24 hours, due to the structural integrity of those same buildings being compromised due to the same EM pulse, (which by the way, took approximately 5 milliseconds)
So take a back seat and listen up................GRAVITY WAS REMOVED from the equation using EM technology, which has been tested, AND has been Congress approved!!!
Technology,... which does not belong to a person sitting in a cave in Afghanistan.
The planes were there for the worldwide audience to get angry, and point a finger at whoever they told you to get angry at!
So! Mr. Millionaire, where's my money?
I could give you all a beautiful description of how it was done, and why it was done, but I really don't want to end up in an American Corporate prison..............suffice to say, there are 100,000,000 students worldwide studying this exact science as we speak, the problem is, the government know about us learning of this, but cannot stop it!
I guarantee within five years there will be a Hollywood movie about the greatest ever broad-daylight bank robbery in history, namely Sept 11.
Have a nice day America! If you think that will blow your mind, wait till you see Bush's new legislation on the testing for mental stability of ALL U.S. citizens, including school age children shelved for FEB 16.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by blueymorgan]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by blueymorgan]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by blueymorgan]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Well if gravity was removed from the equation, then how come the towers fell down?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueymorgan wait till you see Bush's new legislation on the testing for mental stability of ALL U.S. citizens, including school age children shelved for FEB 16.



should I start studying now? I'm thinking the stability test should be global. Lots of loons in other countries too.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I was looking at www.terrorize.dk/911 and noticed several eye witnesses saying they heard "gunfire-like" explosions right before the first tower collapsed. Sounds to me like several charges went off to initiate the collapse. Besides, the towers collapsed almost perfectly. Right down as if this was a calculated job, coverd up and helped by the airplanes weakening the structure. Imagine, the amount of explosives needed was far less than normal, since the structural damage was quite severe from the impacts. I say: Nice self destruct mechanism...

Lots of good videos, analysis and pictures over at www.terrorize.dk/911



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well if gravity was removed from the equation, then how come the towers fell down?


It really amazes me that most people on this planet cannot fathom the english language.
Don't you realise that gravity also holds things UP as well as bring things down.....didn't pass physics at school huh?
The LAWS of gravity prevail in all structures on Earth, whether standing or falling.
Terminal velocity, of the top sections of the buildings, was reached in half the amount of time it would normally take, because the centre sections were removed via an electromagnetic pulse, which in turn proceeded to pulverise the concrete, steel and glass into a slurry of smoke and powder.
This powder, smoke and dust covered one square mile, 5" deep all over New York, and was removed from everywhere including ground zero, before anyone was allowed to see it, thereby removing forensic evidence from the scene of a crime!
Has just one American figured that small item out? NO!
Four weeks before the event took place, a very significant amount of world-shattering events took place under everyone's nose without a whimper from the press, and they were:
~1. The towers were purchased by the Port Authority of New York, which of course is run by the Post Office. (check, if you don't believe)
~2. Most of the furniture in both buildings was changed to new and very ornate plastic stuff. (Why?)
~3. The day before the event, postal-inspectors were to commandeer the $30 billion in gold bullion, plus the $12 Trillion in bank credits, (stored in the WTC) as part payment on a $400 Billion lawsuit which the U.S. government was ordered to pay to the World Court.
I won't go any deeper, but belive me, it does!
I hope, for all our sakes that someone over there has the balls to carry this investigation through to the finish, because it's gonna make for a hell of a Hollywood blockbuster.................I've already written half of the script.
The problem is, that Hollywood is so controlled, I'd probably get shot after making the movie!!!!!
So! Gravity can be removed from anywhere, instantaneously, thanks to the scientists in the military and in the mercenary world of grants.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueymorgan
Don't you realise that gravity also holds things UP as well as bring things down.....


Thanks for the new sig line.

That has to be one of the funniest (i.e. dumbest) posts that I have read in a while.


But I will give you the benifit of the doubt. Please provide proof of what you claim.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Well Howard, I really do believe those headlines in the papers after Bush was re-elected, ...."How could 59 Million Americans be so dumb".
I hope you're not one of them....Listen up Pal!
If at all you attended Quantum Physics and Science studies, you would know there are certain LAWS of PHYSICS which stipulate that the co-efficient of expansion as well as contraction exists in all physical aspects of three dimensional objects, whether man-made or natural...right?
The co-efficient of expansion (as I said before) of concrete, steel and glass, which by the way are ALL polymers, is 6.3..(Look up David Wynn Miller, the man who wrote the program )
Of course, if you try to bypass this theory when designing a skyscraper, the bloody windows would fall on the public below, which is why no-one builds with aluminium any more.
The only two things in the world that can send an EM pulse of 6.3, which will alter the molecular configuration of those three polymers and convert those same polymers to dust or powder, is C4 plastic explosive, or a nuclear detonation...........right?
Now who on Earth do you suppose would possess this type of new technology? Certainly not a bearded wonder sitting in a bloody cave!
Believe me when I say this.....There WILL be a movie made out of this, but not for some time until they publicly announce that the weapon is here and is also used for other purposes....IT does exist, and there's more than one!!!
After spending eight years in the Military you kind of get around a bit and learn things and see things, OK!
Some of them we will agree with and some we won't. Unfortunately for the majority of the world,..... football, beer, Doritos and 600 channels of TV are more credible to the brain than having to think about such diabolical inventions.
The reason for thinking is to abolish thinking! Think about that.
Now where in the hell is my $100,000










Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by blueymorgan
Don't you realise that gravity also holds things UP as well as bring things down.....


Thanks for the new sig line.

That has to be one of the funniest (i.e. dumbest) posts that I have read in a while.


But I will give you the benifit of the doubt. Please provide proof of what you claim.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Pulverizing concrete is not an easy task unless you change the molecular structure, but also how do you pulverize steel and glass WITHOUT altering their molecular structure.
And another thing all you whackers out there! JP8 jet fuel is only kerosene!
Since when does kerosene burn hot enough to melt anything but butter?



Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Paper? Boy you would make up any excuse.

Paper, plastic, etc. Due to computers workstations, cubilcle designes, etc. The fire load of modern offices is actually higher now then it was when the WTC towers were designed.



Office materials, and walls. Why don't you throw in some thermite explosives to justify how it could have melted the steel, and vaporized the concrete, humansl. Which reminds me, you have not explained how the terrorists passport survived.


The collapse of the building involved enormous amounts of kinetic energy. This is what pulverized the concrete. (The pulverization of the concrete also liberated heat in its own right).



Does that even matter, we have already established that the impact is not a factor. However, what you evaded here, is that the fuel dispersed and was consumed in a fireball outside of the building.


OK, hot shot. Prove it. show me some calculations that prove all of the fuel burned up in the fireball.

I am particulary interested in how you acount for the fuel in the left wing of the second plane, and all of the anrcdotal evidence of fuel odors in the building.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Hmmm, (looks at the calendar) Oh, My, there is a full moon tonight!




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join