9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ungoliath
911research.wtc7.net...
and heres an article that debunks the debunkers


You might be inclined to find a better sourcing then the one you linked cause it has been shown to be faulty and not reliable, but hey, welcome to ATS. The ATS archives on this matter will indicate just what I have mentioned, when you find the time to view them.





seekerof




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
No. It's like saying you can use a candle burning at 375 deg F to light an oxyacetylene torch burning at 1500 deg F to ignite phosphorus burning at 4000 deg F.


For clarity purposes Off_The_Street, i assume that you agree with PM's conclusion? That jet fuel burning at max temp of 1200F, combined with "the stuff" burning inside the WTC increased internal fire temperatures to 1800F? For this theory to be true, it implies a vast/ready source of oxygen allowing the temperature of the internal fire to increase. The only ready available source of oxygen would be the large impact cavity left by the plane impact, thus the results would draw out inferno fires burning at 1800F due to its limitless supply O2.



At 1800F+ this woman should have been incinerated by inferno flames.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer

At 1800F+ this woman should have been incinerated by inferno flames.



Unless she was elsewhere in the building where there was no fire and then made it to that point after the fire...

hmmm or maybe the picture is FAKE ...



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
that lady could have planted the bombs that finally brought the building down and after the picture was taken she could have jumped out with a parachute to escape.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Actually it isn’t really the temperature, but the heat released that is the key. A test of a mock up of a single cubicle used in the WTC indicated that it could release up to 9.9 megawatts of heat energy. (or up to 1200 degrees
)



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Give me a break!
I'm sure the spray-on fireproofing insulation literally jumped off its steal beams in fear when it noticed 800-1500°F fuel fires coming its way.


Actually that is probably pretty close to the truth. Sprayed on fire proofing is just that, sprayed on. It is light, fluffy and friable and comes off the beams fairly easily. That is why it is so dangerous when it contains asbestos. The asbestos fibers are easily released if the material is disturbed.

One other, very important thing to keep in mind. The core walls of the towers consisted of double thickness of drywall for fire protection of the core shafts. Typically, these walls are installed before the sprayed on fireproofing is applied, otherwise you can not build the walls close enough to the columns as they need to be.

Those walls were breeched by the impacts. This is evident by the number of elevators that crashed, the fireballs from the exploding jet fuel that burst into the lobby, etc. Even that transcript from the fire chief indicates numerous breaches into the stairwells.

When these walls were broken and smashed, the unprotected steel underneath would have been exposed.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The burning of "stuff" caused by jetfuel fires insinuates that resulting hydrocarbon fire released enough energy to melt steel.



Look at all that fabulous weight crunching down on the floor that houses a so called 1800 degF fire.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Syntaxer says:

"For clarity purposes Off_The_Street, i assume that you agree with PM's conclusion?"

Yes, and I have been saying that for over three years. I am not a structural engineer, but as a logistics engineer I have taken the usual slate of strenght of materials, heat transfer, statics, and dynamics; and although I might not be able to calculate impact stresses without opening my Marks' Handbook, I know enough to realize that the scenario that was released for both the WTC and the Pentagon makes sense from an engineering standpoint.

"That jet fuel burning at max temp of 1200F, combined with "the stuff" burning inside the WTC increased internal fire temperatures to 1800F?"

Yes.

"For this theory to be true, it implies a vast/ready source of oxygen allowing the temperature of the internal fire to increase. The only ready available source of oxygen would be the large impact cavity left by the plane impact, thus the results would draw out inferno fires burning at 1800F due to its limitless supply O2."

Probably. Again, I'm not a structural engineer (nor is anyone on this board, probably); but when you have whole banks of elevators whose walls were probably breached, you end up with great big venturi columns which can suck up that ground level air and feed the flames, threby raising the temperature to the softening point -- and thus failure mode -- of the structural steel members.

Note, by the way, the the melting point of steel is not the key factor; it is the softening point and failure-mode point, which is probably substantially lower. Your comment, "...hydrocarbon fire released enough energy to melt steel." while possibly correct, is irrelevant.

And remember, if there're fires burning at 1800 deg F in one location, that doesn't mean that the entire structure is at 1800 deg F. As a matter of fact, given the superabundance of oxygen feeding the fires at the center core of the building brought up by the elevators shafts, you'd expect the fire to be the hotter there (which, by the way, is where most of the structural supporst is). This would account for the fact that the people at the outer areas by the windows weren't roasted, and why the center support collapsed.

And finally, on a personal note, I find it hard even today to describe -- and I know it is impossible for you to understand -- the rage that everyone at work felt. The aircraft were Boeing aircraft. Those sons of bitches stole my airplanes to do their deeds.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Wasn't their a UFO siting at 9/11?
I'm still searching for the website. I forgot to book mark it when I saw it!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
people look in all the wrong places for all the wrong information. To find out what really happened and why, you must look away from the actual events of 9/11. Into the past and present.

(you will realize i do not jsut coming out with the answers i beleive people should find them on their own or it will have no meaning)

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SaD PaNdA]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kushi_Master
Wasn't their a UFO siting at 9/11?
I'm still searching for the website. I forgot to book mark it when I saw it!



sorry for double post (do you guys get upset like most other forums about that?)

but yea i can recall many ufo sightings. some of them were just debris flying through the air, but i saw a few that involved large objects moving very fast.

i will find some clips for you guys





One thing that i should mention is the empire state building took a direct hit from a US bomber in the 40's or 50's and it was fine, the wtc was designed to be able to take a hit from a plane, not a 757 but that is still mroe prepared than the empire statebuilding was.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SaD PaNdA]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Concerning the amount of air in the towers at the time of explosion. Yes the elevator shafts would've acted as air-pockets among other things. but has anyone questioned the air-conditioning systems?? How many were there? Did they need to be on to increase chances of higher temperature levels after the crash? were thay all on and if so would that have fueled the flames to reach the melting point of which you talk of?
just trying to take another angle..

But after watching the fall of the structures and observing the collapse for about 4 years i'll have to agree with most members of this forum. My opinion is that it was a timed professional demolition. Its highly possible and given Government's forte for secrecy, it is highly likely.




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
If Popular Mechanics was to be a propaganda tool to help people unremember the role of negligence and complicity of the Bush administration in the tragedy of 9/11, then it would be through publishing technical articles that debunk certain events as implausible or impossible on scientific grounds. Very good.

Unfortunately, the unanswered questions have less to do with the technical merits of these arguments, and more to do with the hallmarks of criminality of this administration: that is, prior information and affiliations, misuse and misdirection of the intelligence services, money, decision making to the benefit of its own agenda only, and propaganda, deceit and lies, as well as stonewalling all official enquries.

None of these things are myths to be debunked. They are the sad truths, locked away perhaps for years to come... or perhaps not.

BTW, just why were living people quickly identified as being amonst the terrorist hijackers, and what exactly was the President achieving during his extended period of inaction in the primary school with the book about goats, and why was it so vital to whisk away the Bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia, without interrogating them, in the days that followed?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nim_rod_13
Concerning the amount of air in the towers at the time of explosion. Yes the elevator shafts would've acted as air-pockets among other things. but has anyone questioned the air-conditioning systems?? How many were there? Did they need to be on to increase chances of higher temperature levels after the crash? were thay all on and if so would that have fueled the flames to reach the melting point of which you talk of?



Good point. Most high rise buildings have "fire dampers" in the duct systems these are essentially metal shutters held in place by fusible links. Theoretically, when a hot fire melts the link, the shutter closes and keeps the fire and smoke from penetrating the duct risers. On the impact floors these would have been wiped out by the impact.

The fans themselves probably shut down due to loss of power. Stack effect in the breached stairs, elevator and service shafts would have been enough to feed O2 to the fire. much like a blast furnace works. Again I have to repeat this it was not nessessary to reach the melting point of steel for the structure to collapse.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Here is a article about the Popular Mechanics piece



Popular Mechanics Attacks Its"9/11 LIES" Straw Man by Jim Hoffman Version 1.1, February 8, 2005

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition.

Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism.

It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack.

Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines,, warnings received by government and corporate officials,,complicit behavior by top officials,, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, ,or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
Link



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism.

It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack.




That's the meat of it.

The Popular Mechanics debunkation is officially debunked.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
There's nothing in that PM article that hasn't either been shredded or debated with much more information here in these forums.

It's also far from complete. There are far more questions for that day than logical answers.

Shallow debunking in PM and other media is simply the official attempt to slander those 'radicals in the US' (as the article says) who don't completely agree with the party line.

Gee, I'm a radical. Never thought it'd be true, but it says so in PM



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I think that no matter what the topic there will be people that come up with another theory and ideas of what "they" think happened. Bottom line is most of us where not there and those that were in the heat of it are dead. We may never know everything that went on with 911 but the fact is our country was attacked and innocents lives destroyed. Now we have to do what we can to prevent such attacks in the future. There are no sure things but hopefully are eyes are more open and we understand that we are as fragile in the USA as anyone else in the world.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
9/11 commision BOOK has already stated that the antiFlame foam didn't work because "when the jets flew into the buildings the force of the impact knocked the foams off the steel beams" this statements in it's self should convince you ALL without any doubt that the U.S. Gov commited 9/11 act and just came up with FANTASTIC explanations on why the buildings fell.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Foam? I have heard about remote controlled planes, setting bombs, but foam is new. For those that really believe our gov't would do such a thing, what would be the motive? I just cannot see into this conspiracy. Thing is, a bunch of radical nutcases hyjacked our planes and flew them into buildings.





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join