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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 21
44
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

edit on 25-5-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


Your own logic hurts you. This is not worth my time because of your ignorance, lies, and thinking everyone is a criminal.


How dare we question the official narratives of 911, how dare we have a different of opinions to proven fraudulent NIST science.

How dare we show scientific evidence against the official narratives of 911 fairy tail.

Perhaps ignorance is what all Truthers should embrace and believe in everything our government says because they are not corrupt by any means.

To expose a little truth about the official narratives of 911 and post the evidence is now being frowned upon by very few members here.

According to a very few on here there are no conspiracy theories about 911 and the government reports are all transparent.


Thanks for taking a quote out of context. Typical example of truther integrity. How dare you put those who worked to improve building codes as part of the conspiracy. Also imply firefighters that lost brothers and sisters on 911 are part of the conspiracy. Imply the military are mindlessly drones and part of 911. You posting lies and not taken by a "murderous" government is proof there is no WTC conspiracy. Good karma to you to.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Purdue university, university of Edinburgh, and others did question the NIST reports and were critical. Are they part of the conspiracy?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The fact is, you took my whole post out of context.

I am not the topic here.

Do you have anything to say about the tread Topic?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
And no thuther will answer the question, if steel is impervious to an office fire why it needs fire proof insulated by code in the first place.
edit on 25-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

edit on 25-5-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

But you can say the government, engineering societies. Colleges, universities, forgiven universities, military, police, firefighters, ATS persons or shrills, and media are liars and part of the conspiracy?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

And who cannot answer a logical question?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

If they don't know why not?
I remember being slammed about EMF from cells, now we all know it's effecting people.
MIT stated there was no issue.
RAND said 50% of ALL US forces would die because Iraq was trained by Russia recently and they had been battle hardened.
Rand was wrong weren't they?
We took them in about 3 days ,give or take an airstrike.
SCARED the crap out of Russia who also thought as Rand had .
edit on 26-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neutronflux

If they don't know why not?
I remember being slammed about EMF from cells, now we all know it's effecting people.
MIT stated there was no issue.
RAND said 50% of ALL US forces would die because Iraq was trained by Russia recently and they had been battle hardened.
Rand was wrong weren't they?
We took them in about 3 days ,give or take an airstrike.
SCARED the crap out of Russia who also thought as Rand had .


How does this answer the question why steel supposedly impervious to fire needs fire proofing with insulation. Typical truther nonsense replay.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

When you read replys perhaps you'd best turn OFF the projections you have.
I was addressing INDIVIDUALS who wouldn't KNOW furthering a false story.
I have heard the explanations and they make LITTLE sense after what happened



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neutronflux

When you read replys perhaps you'd best turn OFF the projections you have.
I was addressing INDIVIDUALS who wouldn't KNOW furthering a false story.
I have heard the explanations and they make LITTLE sense after what happened

Your right cause you rant? Simple question. If steel is impervious to fire, why does it need the protection of insulation from fire. Then why is that insulated time rated. Still have never had a truther answer.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: samkent

You can discredit A&E 9/11 Truth all you want. They're only funding the research.


They would then put themselves in the position of proving to the world what they believed happened.
As in which columns were cut 1st then 2nd. etc
How the explosives survived the fires. etc

Wrong. Please stop the nonsense.

From the source,


“NIST says the building fell down due to office fires. Our investigation will evaluate the probability that this was the cause of the collapse.”

It would help if you stopped mentioning what they're NOT doing and focus on what they are. You're either deliberately trying to confuse others or are confused yourself.


WTC 7 did not fall only due to office fires it also had STRUCTURAL DAMAGE or are you another person calling members of the NYFD liars.

It's the same when truthers claim the towers were brought down by fires only or planes only it's a combination of events.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wasn't NIST's official stance that the structural damage to WTC7 was basically irrelevant?



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

So a 20 story gouge ripped in the south face of WTC 7 is irrelevant ....??

So why was the FDNY so concerned about the damage to the building ...??



The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini




At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale




[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti


Can find all the other quotes by FDNY members concerning WTC 7 .......

sites.google.com...
edit on 27-5-2016 by firerescue because: spelling



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wasn't NIST's official stance that the structural damage to WTC7 was basically irrelevant?


Is the irrelevant as well

The important part bold and underlined!!!!


Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.


That was the case until 9/11 thermal loading due to fire is now looked at in detail and not simplified.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neutronflux

When you read replys perhaps you'd best turn OFF the projections you have.
I was addressing INDIVIDUALS who wouldn't KNOW furthering a false story.
I have heard the explanations and they make LITTLE sense after what happened

Your right cause you rant? Simple question. If steel is impervious to fire, why does it need the protection of insulation from fire. Then why is that insulated time rated. Still have never had a truther answer.


The frame needs to be protected from fire because steel softens at high temperature and this can cause the building to partially collapse. It is also used to protect from corrosion.

But of course a steel frame building cannot collapse straight down through itself without a lot of help. At the very most the building would break off and fall to the ground from the point of impact.

Still not one example of any steel frame skyscraper imploding for any reason other than demolition. You haven't showed us any examples.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wasn't NIST's official stance that the structural damage to WTC7 was basically irrelevant?



Yes NIST admitted their hypothesis of the building 7 collapse was almost impossible.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: samkent

You can discredit A&E 9/11 Truth all you want. They're only funding the research.


They would then put themselves in the position of proving to the world what they believed happened.
As in which columns were cut 1st then 2nd. etc
How the explosives survived the fires. etc

Wrong. Please stop the nonsense.

From the source,


“NIST says the building fell down due to office fires. Our investigation will evaluate the probability that this was the cause of the collapse.”

It would help if you stopped mentioning what they're NOT doing and focus on what they are. You're either deliberately trying to confuse others or are confused yourself.


WTC 7 did not fall only due to office fires it also had STRUCTURAL DAMAGE or are you another person calling members of the NYFD liars.

It's the same when truthers claim the towers were brought down by fires only or planes only it's a combination of events.


(1) Look. You show us an example of an office fire causing an implosion in a skyscraper. You can't.

(2) If a building is damaged it will fall in the direction of the damage.

(3)Anybody that thinks building 7 went down because of damage or fire is a fool. Including any fireman.

(4)And for your information their are many fireman witnesses that experienced bomb explosions far away from any fire or plane impact. I'll show you the witnesses if you're not a shill.
edit on 27-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

But you can say the government, engineering societies. Colleges, universities, forgiven universities, military, police, firefighters, ATS persons or shrills, and media are liars and part of the conspiracy?


They will get a lot of grant money for betraying their country. Coming up with those phony papers. Higher individuals that refuse to go along often lose their jobs and lives.




top topics



 
44
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join