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.

 

VERY Well written 9/11 conspiracy report!! Mature/ordered posts only please!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Proposition, here's an amazingly detailed report by a professor at some university out in Utah. Almost all data in it is based on proven scientific data and experiments.

www.physics.byu.edu...

I ask everyone to please read this with an open mind, no baises whatsoever.

In return, you post any report you wish, from a private non government sponsored source, with scientific data behind the theories proposed. I'm asking for something with detailed sources, like this, data, like this, and from a credible source from a professional well educated person. This means no random websites that say "omg d00d l00k, a pl4ne hit the building, fire obviously made it collapse. "

If you can tell me you honestly looked at the report I linked to, with an open mind, and thought about the data that it containes, then I promise you, that I will read your linked report, with a clear open mine, and i will think about what it proposes.

Please let your source be from a private/non profit source. Corporate sources, including magazines/newspapers cannot be taken at face value. The popular mechanics arcticle debunking the 9/11 theories was a complete joke, biased, and caused me to lose faith in the credibility of that magazine. Interestingly enough, I looked online to check out investors for the company that owns popular mechanics. I couldn't find anything, but on wiki, I did notice that the owner of the company, is the Director of another major company in silicon valley. In 2005, a new position was created, soley for one person, Secretary of State Colin Powell.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Longshot? Yes. But it's still interesting. I know if you look long and hard enough, everything is connected. In theory I can drive down the street, and If I drive down it long enough, I can find your house. Given that you are in the USA. Almost every road is connected, even if two given points are thousands of miles apart.

Please read that article, and if you wish, discuss it and disprove it as you wish. Although when you "debunk" something, explain WHY what is stated there is false.

Example: statement A: steel melts at 1500C (not exact temp, just for an example). jet fuel can burn at a maximum temperature of 900 C (again, just made up for the sake of argument). It was impossible for the jet fuel to melt the steel and create the pools of liquid steel found in the basements of the WTC building.

The report uses this example, but with real data, and stated much better. I'll discuss this as it comes up, but the report proves wrong the theory that the gypsum/dust of other things cause some high intensity reaction.

Bad response to statement A: omg a plane crashed into the buildings, didn't you see the large fires? they were huge, that's really hot. the steel can weaken and the buildings can collapse.

Problem with the response? It doesn't disprove the statement with credible information. The facts that the fires were impossible to burn hot enough to create the liquid steel was not adressed.

Once again, i challenge you to submit a report like this, which supports natural causes of the towers collapsing. Give me something good, something that covers a lot of the things in the report above.

I'm asking this for a few reasons. A) I believe that regarding this situation, some people give more credit to their own hypothesis and guesses, than to scientificly proven data. B)I'm really interested to see the reaction towards this well written paper, and how people respond to the data within, most of which has been stated before, but not in such a credible, properly written report. C) I'm looking to expand my knowledge of this situation, and by you providing debunking sources just as credible, it will help me sort things out.

I understand not everything can be proven with data, a lot is observation. I'll start with one such thing addressed in the report. A second or so before one of the towers collapses, the top portion of the tower, the giant antenna, sinks/drops downwards before the building starts to collapse. Even FEMA stated they wern't sure about this, and the report states that it could only happen if the entral supportive columns of the building were somehow taken out, possibly with charges. Now showing that this happened first, before the rest of the building collapses, shows us that the center columns failed first. Now consider that the center columns were MUCH stronger than the outter support columns, why would they collapse first?

I know this topic has been discussed a million times, but i'm asking for a more mature, well thought out thread.

PLEASE!!!!!
Only reply to this if you have a decent, semi intelligent response, that adds to the conversation in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner. I do nay wish for this to become a conversation between two kids "she did it, no i didn't, yes you did, no i didn't, yes you did, no i didn't..." etc etc. Unlike a lot of people, i'm NOT doing this to rack up points from replies or whatever, I could care less about those. I'm actually asking people to LIMIT their responses. Like i said, don't just repond with something like....

"that report proves nothing" " your theory doesn't make sense" "dude you disbelieve everything" etc etc. You can probably grasp what i'm asking here. If you CANNOT follow the following, please don't post.
1) Make your post at lease a full paragraph. If you can't create a full paragraph, then your post is probably poorly thought out and or doesn't contain usefull information. I don't care about grammar. Hell, I can barely spell my own name, don't worry about it.
2) Try not to be biased. Anything discussed, please give actual thought to. I don't believe fires from the plane took the building out, but if someone provides an intelligent, well written statement/source, i'll read it and try to believe it. I just ask you do the same.
3) Try to make your post sound like an amendment of sorts, an addition or alteration of a chapter from a book. If your response seems more like something you'd write in the side margin of a book, while taking notes, it's not worth posting.

If you actually read all of this, well, thanks. I'm just trying to get some order into this 9/11 discussion thing.
:\

[edit on 27-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   


Example: statement A: steel melts at 1500C (not exact temp, just for an example). jet fuel can burn at a maximum temperature of 900 C (again, just made up for the sake of argument). It was impossible for the jet fuel to melt the steel and create the pools of liquid steel found in the basements of the WTC building.


Well there is an argument that the molten steel in the basements of the Towers 6 weeks after the attack wasn't actualy molten, only close to it.
I mean either way, the fact is there is no way Jet fuel could generate so much heat that it would cause steel to be glowing red hot weeks after the attack.

I believe HowardRoark claims that some how there was a small fire underneath the rubble after the Towers collapsed and that it some how smoldered and generated red hot metal 6 months afterwards....
But I don't see how anyone could compare what happened at the WTC to an underground coal fire (like Howard has.)

BTW check out my 9/11 articles:

911physics.co.nr...



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

When a credible whitness at ground zero states that the molten steel is "running", i think it's pretty good evidence that there was molten steel. It's pretty easy to determin if something is in a liquid or solid phase. At hot temperatures embers may glow, which can give them an odd liquid like appearance, but again, embers are easily differentiable from molten steel.

The article tackles the molten steel thing pretty well. One suggestion is that aluminum metal from the building continued to mix with the initial molten steel, which had other mixed metals in it by this time. This would cause the aluminum, under such high heat with other metal ions, to undergo exothermic reactions and produce extra heat would help account for the sustained temperature of the rubble.

Also, if normal fires were to account for months of burning, and eventual heating of the metal to that temperature, those fires underground would need a continuous supply of oxygen to burn, given that they are just "regular" fires. Logic shows us that having so much debri on top of a regular fires would smother them. Even if the construction equipment dug/stirred up the debris, it still doesn't seem like enough oxygen to fuel that much fire.

However, thermite reactions, such as aluminum and iron oxide, as stated above, don't require oxygen...



Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 27-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
What's amazing to me is, all people do is TALK.

Where is some concerted action to bring this "attack from with" to justice?

If it wasn't the planes, the explosives were loaded from within; the FAA stood down, due to politics within; the Air Force stood down due to politics within. WTC7 was "pulled" by the NYFD with Silverstein's permission, from within. The put options profitted Americans, from within. And nobody, within, is getting prosecuted. I can believe this.

After all this, if we can agree that, no way the airplanes did it, I think it's time for us to go prosecute--even if we begin with FAA and the USAF, who had no reason and no excuse for "standing down" during such an emergency.

Eventually, as Patrick Fitzgerald is slowly doing, we'll work our way to the top of the pile.

But if we only jawbone this thing to death, the terrorism (from within) will merely continue to haunt us and intimidate us into accepting totalitarianism.

So, when do you want to say, Let's move!



[edit on 27-3-2006 by chaiyah99]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join