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.

 

9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

I'll have a look over at what GOLDEN CHILD has put in his brilliant post later on.
Who wants to to take a wild guess? I got dibbs saying he is 15


Not trying to stick up for him but with a name like that I would guess he was in the Navy...
A shellback is someone who crosses the equator, with Neptunus Rex and his royal court. A Golden Shellback is someone who has crossed the equator at the 180th meridian (12hrs ahead of GMT where day and night starts).
But that's not classified info so I could be wrong...




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goldenshellback

PS
Those who cry cover up, shut up! You believe what you want, maggots. Cause I leave this final time to your inner thoughts of paranioa and sweet dreams. Veterans do it better and smarter with down to earth common sense. Liberals makes me sick!


I'm a vet too there my mature friend, and yes I do it smarter and with down to earth common sence. If you don't see a cover up then you are choosing to be blind. It's got nothing to do with being liberal or paranoid, it's got more to do with you choosing to believe anything anyone in authority tells you.
Were you sent looking for a pad eye puller? Found it yet?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Wow, people are so gullible.

Man, I don't know jack about physics, but I do have common sense. Even if these fires were so hot in the North and South Towers (which they weren't), how is structural damage to the upper floors going to cause the entire building to collapse??? Besides, I'm sure those engineers who designed the buildings were flunkies; you design buildings that tall without making them resistant to aircraft collisions. Wait, they actually DID design them this way...

Come on, at least give me better evidence that this. Use your common sense. Did anyone miss that insane blaze in that building in Madrid last weekend??? That thing was lit up like a Christmas tree, yet it NEVER collapsed!!!! Hmmm, very interesting.

You would think that the first time steel buildings collapsed from fire would have been a historical event work looking into. But of course, no one cares about something that makes sense.

Oh well. If you're convinced that easily, so be it. But, don't feel deceived when you find out the truth later on down the road.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Did anyone miss that insane blaze in that building in Madrid last weekend??? That thing was lit up like a Christmas tree, yet it NEVER collapsed!!!!


And if you go to the thread about that fire you would have learned that the core of the Windsor tower in Madrid was build with concrete columns not steel.

The steel portion of the building did collapse, but the concrete portions did not.

So you really can't compare the that building with the WTC structures at all.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Man, I don't know jack about physics, but I do have common sense.

Based on your next couple of sentences, you don't know jack about common sense either


Even if these fires were so hot in the North and South Towers (which they weren't), how is structural damage to the upper floors going to cause the entire building to collapse???


Cool, a new sig line.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Seeing as you said you were never coming back, twice,,,,,see ya in a couple days


I guess I did. So, did you read or just type nonsense again?


So now you resort to name calling because a few people have different opinions than you.brilliant
Too bad you dont really stay away


Na, we like you so much. We would hang you over the yard arm. Beside you did not read any of the threads I post anyway. Read first before chucking your comments.



I'll have a look over at what GOLDEN CHILD has put in his brilliant post later on.
Who wants to to take a wild guess? I got dibbs saying he is 15
:

I wish I was fifteen.
Ya, I am a shellback in real live and traveled in the Navy on an aircraft carrier. Golden Child? Yeah, I sure like that. Eddie Murphy starred in that movie. Golden Child.
Do you know what a scuttlebut term means in the Navy?
BUt you never considered what links I had because your mind was already made up before I even post. So, you have your opinion and so do I. We can disagree! But I dout that I would be surprise of the outcome what comes out in the future.
I love America, it gets interesting as I go.
Sorry I called you maggot, please except my apology.

Golden Shellback.......................King Neptune Rex Royal Court....................Mermaids loves sailors

PS
Yes, I am an a$$hole, male genes.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SMR

I'll have a look over at what GOLDEN CHILD has put in his brilliant post later on.
Who wants to to take a wild guess? I got dibbs saying he is 15


Not trying to stick up for him but with a name like that I would guess he was in the Navy...
A shellback is someone who crosses the equator, with Neptunus Rex and his royal court. A Golden Shellback is someone who has crossed the equator at the 180th meridian (12hrs ahead of GMT where day and night starts).
But that's not classified info so I could be wrong...


Unclassifed. Another way of getting Golden Shellback is crossing the equator 5 times. I sailed the seven seas as well. Went around the world and then some.


Golden Shellback...............................King Neptune Rex Royal Court now in session.....................bring in the belly dancers.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Seeing as you said you were never coming back, twice,,,,,see ya in a couple days

So now you resort to name calling because a few people have different opinions than you.brilliant
Too bad you dont really stay away


HOWARD:
I believe I made a post to a similar reply,will look in the other threads for it.Cant be too hard can it
Only like 50 gazillion 9/11 threads hahaha

I'll have a look over at what GOLDEN CHILD has put in his brilliant post later on.
Who wants to to take a wild guess? I got dibbs saying he is 15


FOr name calling, remember you said I followed Howard like a puppy. What would you call this?

Golden Shellback...............................King Neptune Rex Royal Court



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Well, Howard, thanks for setting me straight.

I bet you believe that diagram of the WTC buildings the BBC put out. You know, the one that cunningly depicted the core as being composed of 4 steel columns and CONCRETE. They also talk about asbestos being in the building; they said that there was a substantial amount of asbestos in the building, which is true.

What's false is that this was an accurate depiction of the core. The core actually had NUMEROUS concrete-and-steel structures all combining to make a solid core. You didn't think a simple core would suffice in these buildings, did you?

Maybe I am stupid. Please explain to me how a 110-story building (no, make that 2) can fall from being damaged in the UPPER QUARTER!! If it was the lower quarter it might have been believable, but the upper quarter??? Wait, that doesn't make sense, does it???

You still didn't address the fact that this was the FIRST time that a steel building has collapsed from fire. Why not??? Is it because there's NO way that jet or diesel fuel can burn hot enough to melt that much steel? As for the jet fuel, how can you explain its impact on the second collision? Oh, did you miss that huge fireball after the plane hit? That was the jet fuel exploding OUTSIDE of the building.

How come engineers, architects, etc. were unconcerned that this was the FIRST time that a steel building has collapsed from fire alone? I know why, it's because anyone that knows better has been told to shut up.

Look, Howard, you and the other "debunkers" deny what others and I say, but consider this. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the ENTIRE WTC complex, ADMITTED that they "pulled" building 7. You know, the one that "mysteriously" fell after NO airplane hit it??? He admitted this. The firefighters told reporters to get back because they were going to pull it.

Tell me, how do you go inside of a burning building (that damn diesel fuel, it'll burn you like hellfire), plant explosives at strategic positions, and THEN bring down the building in a demolition while the public ignorantly believes it was the "terrorists??" Explain that one, Howard.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, Howard, thanks for setting me straight.

I bet you believe that diagram of the WTC buildings the BBC put out. You know, the one that cunningly depicted the core as being composed of 4 steel columns and CONCRETE.


Uh no, I don’t, as you can see here




Originally posted by truthseeka
They also talk about asbestos being in the building; they said that there was a substantial amount of asbestos in the building, which is true.


Yes, so what?


Originally posted by truthseeka
What's false is that this was an accurate depiction of the core. The core actually had NUMEROUS concrete-and-steel structures all combining to make a solid core. You didn't think a simple core would suffice in these buildings, did you?


No, no, that is wrong. No concrete was used in the construction of the towers other than in the composite floors slabs. This is quite well known by structual engineers who have studied the design of these buildings, but apparently, not by the BBC editors.



Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

source



Originally posted by truthseeka
Maybe I am stupid. Please explain to me how a 110-story building (no, make that 2) can fall from being damaged in the UPPER QUARTER!! If it was the lower quarter it might have been believable, but the upper quarter??? Wait, that doesn't make sense, does it???


Even 30 floors of the building weigh a lot. Inertia took over when the first floor collapsed.


Originally posted by truthseeka
You still didn't address the fact that this was the FIRST time that a steel building has collapsed from fire. Why not??? Is it because there's NO way that jet or diesel fuel can burn hot enough to melt that much steel? As for the jet fuel, how can you explain its impact on the second collision? Oh, did you miss that huge fireball after the plane hit? That was the jet fuel exploding OUTSIDE of the building.


I will not waste my time arguing with the willfully ignorant on this issue. Stay stupid. I don’t care.


Originally posted by truthseeka
How come engineers, architects, etc. were unconcerned that this was the FIRST time that a steel building has collapsed from fire alone? I know why, it's because anyone that knows better has been told to shut up.


Are you kidding me? There are tons of articles out there by engineers, architects, etc that examine this issue. It is you who chooses to remain ignorant on the causes of the collapse.


Originally posted by truthseeka
Look, Howard, you and the other "debunkers" deny what others and I say, but consider this. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the ENTIRE WTC complex, ADMITTED that they "pulled" building 7. You know, the one that "mysteriously" fell after NO airplane hit it??? He admitted this. The firefighters told reporters to get back because they were going to pull it.


I guess you missed the thread on ATS where it was determined that the term “pull” when used by a fire fighter means to pull the firemen out of the building and not to fight the fire.



Originally posted by truthseeka
Tell me, how do you go inside of a burning building (that damn diesel fuel, it'll burn you like hellfire), plant explosives at strategic positions, and THEN bring down the building in a demolition while the public ignorantly believes it was the "terrorists??" Explain that one, Howard.


Well, they didn’t. There were no explosives. The building was damaged by the collapse of the north tower and caught fire. The fire burned for twice as long as the passive fireproofing was designed to withstand. The water and electric in the building were out because of the tower collapse, thus the sprinklers were not working either. How hard is that to understand? If the structure is damaged, then it is impossible to predict how it will behave in a fire, or do you have a degree in structural engineering?







[edit on 25-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Boy, where do I start, Howard??

30 floors can overtake 80 floors? Inertia just took over? Yeah, I know, you're right. Makes sense that these buildings would be designed to collapse if only a small portion of them were damaged.

I love how you called me ignorant and stupid without providing any "enlightened" thoughts on the whole fuel fire thing. Why don't you type in "jet fuel fire temperature" at Google? Better yet, consider the temp at which diesel fuel combusts, a mere 350 degrees Fahrenheit. I can't find the temp for jet fuel, but when I will, I'll post it. I don't know why I'm considering this anyway when most of it combusted outside of the building. Again, you missed the invisible fireball.

According to who you ask, steel melts at 2500-2800 degrees Fahrenheit, either way a long ways from diesel or jet fuel. But hey, those fires were that hot, weren't they? That's why all you saw was smoke in the buildings, right? The fire in the Madrid building, a blazing inferno, wasn't hotter than those at the WTC buildings, right??

The eyewitnesses from the towers who talked about walking around AFTER experiencing heat in the building for a FEW MINUTES are nuts, too, huh? How can anyone walk around in a building where fires are raging at temperatures over 2500 degrees Fahrenheit? Looks like they should have auditioned for the part of the human torch in the Fantastic 4.

Seems to me like you're the tardy one, Howard. You're too slow to see the real deal, but hey, don't feel bad. It's not your fault that you're an idiot. Blame someone else like the Bush Administration did.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I didnt think the Popular Mechanics article proved anything they were trying to say.







[edit on 25-2-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Boy, where do I start, Howard??

30 floors can overtake 80 floors? Inertia just took over? Yeah, I know, you're right. Makes sense that these buildings would be designed to collapse if only a small portion of them were damaged.


Well unfortunately, that may very well be the case. Not that it was deliberate, but it has become increasingly clear that the potential for a catastrophic failure was inherent in the design of the towers. The tower design was innovative and pushed the envelope for high rise structures. In retrospect, many of the innovative features, a small central core area, large open span floor plans without intermediate columns, lightweight materials and gypsum board (drywall) core walls, etc. may not have been such a good idea after all.



Originally posted by truthseeka
I love how you called me ignorant and stupid without providing any "enlightened" thoughts on the whole fuel fire thing.


Well if you have been following any of the myriad of threads on this topic, you will know that I have, again and again. And I apologize you are not stupid. I do think that you are credulous and have been misled. I also do not think that you understand the concept of heat energy and temperature. I am tired of going over this over and over again, so I wont.


Originally posted by truthseeka
Why don't you type in "jet fuel fire temperature" at Google? Better yet, consider the temp at which diesel fuel combusts, a mere 350 degrees Fahrenheit. I can't find the temp for jet fuel, but when I will, I'll post it.


here you go please note that they don't list a temperature but that they give the value for the heat of combustion in joules. When you understand the relationship between heat and temperature, you will realize that there the statement: "diesel fuel combusts, a mere 350 degrees Fahrenheit," makes no sense whatsoever.


Educate yourself or remain willfully ignorant.



Originally posted by truthseeka
I don't know why I'm considering this anyway when most of it combusted outside of the building. Again, you missed the invisible fireball.


The invisible fireball?????

Not all of the fuel burned outside the building. At most, half of it did, that still leaves an enormous amount still inside the structure.


Originally posted by truthseeka
According to who you ask, steel melts at 2500-2800 degrees Fahrenheit, either way a long ways from diesel or jet fuel.


Before, I said that I did not think that you were stupid, here, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

You know as well as I do, since it has been posted here on this site (as well as on many many others) numerous times that it isn't necessary to heat steel all the way up to its melting point to cause a structural failure. Steel looses up to 60 % of its tensile strength at around 600 degrees C (about 1112 degrees F), which is well within the temperature range of even an ordinary office fire, let alone one with the added fuel load of a couple thousand gallons of kerosene!!!



But hey, those fires were that hot, weren't they? That's why all you saw was smoke in the buildings, right? The fire in the Madrid building, a blazing inferno, wasn't hotter than those at the WTC buildings, right??


Actually they were probably both about the same temperature in the hottest parts of the fire. The difference is simply the scale. You simply do not appreciate just how big the floor plan of the WTC towers were. From the pictures, I would estimate that the individual floors of the Windsor Tower were probably a quarter of the size of the WTC floors



The eyewitnesses from the towers who talked about walking around AFTER experiencing heat in the building for a FEW MINUTES are nuts, too, huh? How can anyone walk around in a building where fires are raging at temperatures over 2500 degrees Fahrenheit? Looks like they should have auditioned for the part of the human torch in the Fantastic 4.


I take it back, maybe you are stupid.




[edit on 25-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Even if what you said is true, you still can't account for the eyewitnesses. I think they would be the ultimate source of info on what went down inside the building. Then again, Popular Mechanics did set it straight...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
With all of the cameras and microphones trained on the buildings when they fell, how come not one of them picked up the sounds of the explosives?

Oh, that's right, the NWO used "hushaboom."



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
-

Originally posted by HowardRoark
With all of the cameras and microphones trained on the buildings when they fell, how come not one of them picked up the sounds of the explosives?

Oh, that's right, the NWO used "hushaboom."




Acording to New York firemen on the scene explosion were heard when when they fell.
See the documentary "9-11 In Plane Site" for footage of the said firemen describing what they heard.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
No, They said it sounded "like" explosions. Exactly what I would expect it to sound like as the floors slammed into each other.

If you have ever heard a building implosion, you would know that the sound of the charges is quite loud and carries for a long distance.




[edit on 26-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have not read through this complete thread so excuse me if someone has already made these points.

First would be forget the speculation about what the fire temp. was or if insulation fell off, these things we cannot prove. What we can prove though is the fact as to how fast the buildings fell. It was about 10 seconds, nearly the speed it takes a bowling ball to fall fro the same altitude. Seems that nearly 80 stories of steel reinforced concrete, each floor when the floor above "pancacked" down apon it would have slowed it up quite a bit! Also the buildings (all skyscrapers] structure becomes stonger as you get closer to the base. Just like a tree. Look at the video, do you see weight bearing down after the first few miliseconds or do you see a lot of pulverized debrie?

You cannot have a building fall completly in its own footprint by a pancacking effect. Cant happen.

Second, did anyone see that 37 story building in Madrid, just a few weekends ago burn? Damn thing burned for 24 hours with whitehot flame gutting the building. Did its structure fail from heat? Do you think it was built better than a 110 story skyscraper?

WTC had harly any visible flames before it collapsed and was billoing black smoke. The very best firefighters in the world, FDNY said that it was almost out and only needed 2 lines to finish the job.

Sorry the whole thing stinks. From the fact that it was inspected less that a normal airline disaster to the fact that the steel was sold to China for scrap, and everything in between.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   


Second, did anyone see that 37 story building in Madrid, just a few weekends ago burn? Damn thing burned for 24 hours with whitehot flame gutting the building. Did its structure fail from heat? Do you think it was built better than a 110 story skyscraper?


Just to point out the obvious. the skyscraper in Madrid was not severely damaged by an airplane flying at top speed before it caught fire.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



Second, did anyone see that 37 story building in Madrid, just a few weekends ago burn? Damn thing burned for 24 hours with whitehot flame gutting the building. Did its structure fail from heat? Do you think it was built better than a 110 story skyscraper?


Just to point out the obvious. the skyscraper in Madrid was not severely damaged by an airplane flying at top speed before it caught fire.


Just to point out the more than obvious. Why did WTC not bias its fall to a fraction of a degree towards the entry hole of the 757 200 widebody?

P.S. Why did building 7 fall the same way?

[edit on 26-2-2005 by LoneGunMan]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join