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.

 

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
So what's your point tuccy?

You can clearly see the fire in the WTC buildings were a bright red colour, too low of a temp to make steel fail, let alone leave molten pools in the rubble.

The smoke went from grey to black, indicating a cooling fire.

But go ahead keep your blinders on, keep ignoring the scientific facts, and keep making excuses for the sorry asses who did this. Welcome to the NWO you deserve it!




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
All of this is pure silliness. The reasons the WTC are simple and have been explained many times. The fire didn't MELT steel it simply weakened it to the point that the weight collapsed the structure.


How did the fire get hot enough to weaken the steel, its already been explained the jets were half full of fuel and a majority of it was burned up on the intial explosion. I was a Crew Chief and know aircraft and fuel.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So what's your point tuccy?


My point is I have no reason NOT to believe a) Our firefighter resources (claiming usual temperatures of fire in a common office/living room/whatever), b) material parameters of construction steel, c) footages of several fires here (incl. all-steel buildings, however low they might have been) resulting in collapses or atleast partial collapses even though there were hardly any flames seen on the outside and even though the buildings weren't mechanically damaged prior to the fire and there wasn't a column of storeys above them.
But then I guess those warehouses etc. were also wired for controlled demolition and our firefighters are also involved in conspiracy. After all after 0911 they've offered special teams of doghandlers so they have to be.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How did the fire get hot enough to weaken the steel, its already been explained the jets were half full of fuel and a majority of it was burned up on the intial explosion. I was a Crew Chief and know aircraft and fuel.


Don't you thing the building itself contained more than enough flammable materials just waiting to be ignited by the explosion? Even a relatively empty dance hall may catch fire with great temperature, now add furniture, papers etc. into the mix.

EDIT: Anyway, good night for now, it's closing to midnight and I'm rather tired.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by tuccy]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How did the fire get hot enough to weaken the steel, its already been explained the jets were half full of fuel and a majority of it was burned up on the intial explosion. I was a Crew Chief and know aircraft and fuel.


Don't you thing the building itself contained more than enough flammable materials just waiting to be ignited by the explosion? Even a relatively empty dance hall may catch fire with great temperature, now add furniture, papers etc. into the mix.


Ok, tell me what tempertures that furniure and other office material can get to.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How did the fire get hot enough to weaken the steel, its already been explained the jets were half full of fuel and a majority of it was burned up on the intial explosion. I was a Crew Chief and know aircraft and fuel.


Don't you thing the building itself contained more than enough flammable materials just waiting to be ignited by the explosion? Even a relatively empty dance hall may catch fire with great temperature, now add furniture, papers etc. into the mix.


Ok, tell me what tempertures that furniture and other office material can get to.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Explain away this then....

You have yet to provide ANY scientific evidence regarding the temperatures endured by the steel supports connecting the exterior to the core and how that affected their ability to support concrete floors.

Stop grasping for conspiracies where the truth is so completely obvious.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by spartacus_wi]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
cool debate, keep it going guys

as for me, i never will belive in the official story about this catastrophe!



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
You have yet to provide ANY scientific evidence regarding the temperatures endured by the steel supports connecting the exterior to the core and how that affected their ability to support concrete floors.


You need to take some time and go read some more threads here on ATS and you will find your answers my friend. The NIST report has been ripped to shreds numerous times here.

They started with a conclusion and then focused on what fitted that conclusion, and ignored anything that didn't fit.

Typical government and corporate cop out to get away with doing something they don't want the majority of ppl to figure out. The few of us that do are so small in number, that we've never been that much of a threat before. But do you know what? We're not the minority anymore!


CNN Poll: 90% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11

www.infowars.com...

You feel lonely yet?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
NM

[edit on 30-5-2006 by zerotime]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
You have yet to provide ANY scientific evidence regarding the temperatures endured by the steel supports connecting the exterior to the core and how that affected their ability to support concrete floors.


Maybe that's because there's no information to present. NIST is making an assertion based on nothing and you're asking for evidence that they are wrong.

Maybe you were never taught this, but science works by someone suggesting something and then backing it up with evidence. It doesn't work by someone suggesting something and then asking you to prove them wrong.

Where is the evidence that steel was sufficiently heated so as to cause collapse initiation in either tower?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
wow i think its time for me, bs and Anok (did i just spell that wrong i caught a glympse of the name before i posted response) to start reposting....we already debunked all this like 9 pages ago



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Here is a squib that I find very hard to believe it was caused by "compressed air":



There is another pic of the WTC that I've seen that shows a squib even further below the demolition wave. Unfortunately I can't find it right now. I think it was from the video that this pic was taken from:




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
To start off i would like to address the reasons for blowing up our own buildings. May not make sense at first, but really think about it.


1. To start War on Terrorism
2. To rally the people to war(like stirring up a hornets nest)
3. To sell military contracts like no other
4. To make their own personal stocks in Military Arms corperations skyrocket
5. To pass the Patriot act prt 1, 2, and the Victory act, both of which give them more control and takes away our rights.
6. To go to war with Iraq for oil (Bush's first oil company was started up with the help of Osama's brother)
7. To slowly course us into Martial Law




www.youtube.com...
www.fed-soc.org...

-Hmm, you ever hear of the Wolf in sheeps clothing?
-This reminds me of the time Hitler burned his own captial building down to ralley the Nazi army, Sound familar?
prisonplanet.com...
-I must say, The Pentagon and the WTC werent the only targets. Did u know the US and Isreal tried to destroy our own boat? The USS Liberty
www.prisonplanet.com...

OK, Now that lots of reasons are thrown out there with some ideas to get ur head wondering and having it pulled out of ur u know what? Lets debunk what really happened.

Theory: Planes hit the WTC, Coverup is terrorists did it.
Fact: Planes hit the WTC, Demolitons destroyed it.
Theory: Fires caused the steal to weaken and collapse the building
Fact:Fire didnt destroy the building, i dont care who says it did, they are retarded and the word Steralization comes to mind. Dont belive? Well luck for us, some Firemen tapes were realsed before the FBI covered it up quickly. Sometimes u just need to see to belive.
www.youtube.com...

Theory: Air pressure caused those implosions. Right...and im a flying pig.
Fact: They were controled demolitons.
When a building of that size starts a pancake effect the resistance gains as it falls floor by floor, thus eventually stopping it after about 20 floors of falling, but in order to keep the pancake in effect. Key areas must be weakened to prevent resistance overpowering weight. Thus the building keeps falling. Now when building of that size supposedly gets air trapped inside and it blows out symetrically out of tiny areas, well u obviously never took any science classes or blew up things when u were younger. Air pressure would cause the whole floor to implode and it would be every floor all the way down, cause each floor would have air build up. You say it goes out weakened spots, yes it does, and no window in that building was specifically weakned more, thus they would all be the same in theory and all would go at the same time(the whole floor).
Also i would like to add to the resistance theory that the core was only weakened in the blast area, not the rest of the building, thus that would of caused great resistance if it hadnt been weakened by something...say demolitons?
As the video addresses, if it was really that hot up there, how the firefighters saying they had very little fires and how were the people standing in the scars?

I do like the point that someone said above, (me being an EMT and a Icident commander in a moch disaster) You would have never sent ur men in unless u thought it was safe and had "all ur bases covered"...meaning u sent noone in unless you had facts that the place was not going to fall by itself. For example you dont send ur men into a burning building thats already collapsing or you know will collapse. He sent his men in because he knew that the fires were undercontrol. He didnt expect to the bulding to have bombs.

Edit/note: Watch the Youtube videos, i put them together myself from some various documentries and videos(including a couple of alex jones)



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
To support a some facts of a goverment coverup on the steal melting theory....i would like to say that the guy in charge of cleaning it up was a Federal Attounry (cant spell and cant think of hte propername) anyways he would know a thing or two about keeping evidence cause his job requires it, but after the building fell the first thing he did was have them clean up the steal and remove it and melt it...why would he do that? they were key peices of evidence, when asked all he could say was well uh i didnt think we would need the steel beams. WELL DUH WE NEEDED THEM. they tell us how hot it really got, what happened in the building, what areas were most weakened, etc etc Now its too late!
...want me to make everyone a picture?.....let me explain this a little better... When a 120story+ that gets hit by a plane the core becomes weakened in that general area it was struck (according to the japenese company that helped build the buildings said it was supposed to withstand atleast 5 planes per buildings). The core DOES NOT become weakened any where else and the building is still sturdy as ever where its not damage inflicted. (also if was anymore damaged it would of fell over on its side, but notice it came STRAIGHT DOWN like a demolitoned building)(Imagine that) As the pan cake started down words more resistance is built up because of the strong building integrity still in place and the peices that are falling just stop going down and go out words off around the building...

_________
!---------- !
!---------- !
!---------- !
!



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Here is a squib that I find very hard to believe it was caused by "compressed air"
Like most of the "commenters" on this board, you're taking the image of of context. You see an ejecta and think it's a squib...but a squib would:

1. Explode prior to the building collapse (else why would it collapse?)
2. Be violently expelled under the energy of it's explosion without relation to the building collapse

Take a look at the image below...



Some items of note:

1. On the right hand side of the photo... the building has started falling...perhaps even as much as one story..not the circled plume of smoke being forced out of the collapsing floors.

There is also no SQUIB ejecta as in the right side of the photo (Red Arrow)...yet by definition this would have had to occurr for the building to start its collapse in the first place.

2. Now that there is a pseudo-squib ejecta plume... note that it bears an exact relation to the distance the building has fallen?

3. The Plume has been cut and pasted in order to demonstrate the near exact ratio of collapse distance to plume size.

If you watch the video of this, it's even more obvious...the plume is slowly expelled in the same speed the building is collapsing...if it were a squib it would be an explosive ejecta, and bear no relation to the speed of the collapse.

Occams razor...the simplest explanation is that murderous religious fanatics flew an airplane full of av-gas into a steel building..the fire weakened the steel support under the concrete floor which then buckled and collapsed to the floor below... the doubled weight on THAT floor then gave way...and so on and so forth as each successive floors weight was added to the force on the steel supporting structure on the floor below it...thus a full collapse.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi

If you watch the video of this, it's even more obvious...the plume is slowly expelled in the same speed the building is collapsing...if it were a squib it would be an explosive ejecta, and bear no relation to the speed of the collapse.


Great, but that does not explain what caused that squib waaaay below the demolition wave in the previous pic I posted.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
...want me to make everyone a picture?.....let me explain this a little better... When a 120story+ that gets hit by a plane the core becomes weakened in that general area it was struck ....any where else and the building is still sturdy as ever where its not damage inflicted.
If I have a 10lb weight sitting on four sticks with the weight distributed widely and evenly...each pencil supports 2.5 lbs. If I remove on pencil, does the weight that the remaining three pencils increase? decrease? stay constant?

Of course it increases...THAT is basic physics... so regardless if portions remained intact, the stresses acting on them change...so it's not as sturdy as ever. If you really believe that nonsense, try removing 3/4 of the supporting wall studs in a wall of your house and see if you can sell it by claiming "its as sturdy as ever"


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityAs the pan cake started down words more resistance is built up because of the strong building integrity still in place and the peices that are falling just stop going down and go out words off around the building...
As the building collapses, so too does the weight of the mass on top of the floors below increases...it's simple math.... the remaining floors don't get STRONGER...in fact, they are less able to remain standing because the mass is moving downward and thus has MORE energy than each floor was designed to hold


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
_________
!---------- !
!---------- !
!---------- !
!



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Great, but that does not explain what caused that squib waaaay below the demolition wave in the previous pic I posted.
Yes it does...it's the exact same thing, just a different location... you are looking at a still image and deducing that it was an explosion rather than looking at a video to see the real time ejection. (In other words, you are taking the image out of context of the event)

The common hypothesis is that the building collapsed due to the weakening of the structural supports on the floors where the fire was started from the airplane impact. In order to invalidate that hypothesis, you have to DISPROVE it.... that fire COULD NOT have weakened the metal sufficiently, that the weight of the mass above the impact could have been supported by the weakened metal support system. That hasn't been done.

Instead you offer an alternative hypothesis, but no supporting evidence that isn't consistent with catastrophic collapse. A hypothesis without evidence is nothing more than a wild-ass-guess.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityor everyone who wonders why they were destroyed by demoliton....google rachsteig (sorry cant spell it)......short version...is hitler burned his own capital building to ralley the people for war against poland.....sound familiar? (history repeats itself ALOT)

That would be the Reichstag fire... perhaps you need to return to 10-12th grade history too?


spartacus_wi earlier: "Speaking of 10-12th grade...perhaps you missed the Enlish and rhetoric classes?"



If you had completed your Rhetoric/Logic class, you'd know that arguing that because something happened 60 years ago it must also be true of this case is a logical fallacy.


I think he just brought the Reichstag up to show you what corrupt govt's are capable of. YOU are the one who took it and ran with it to mean something else.



Show me evidence of explosives being planted...who did it? when? who pushed the plunger? how many lbs of explosives were needed? where? How could they have been planted without anyone seeing it? when was the conspiracy planned? Who planned it? Explain the planes..who flew them? where are the passengers? if they never boarded the planes where are they? If they did how do you explain their calls about the take overs? How do you explain the recorded voice of the terrorists?


How in the world would anybody who was not part of the conspiracy be able to answer any of these questions? Such ridiculous questions you ask to people who were not in on it.



any HARD evidence at all? No, didn't think so


I'm still waiting for the hard evidence that Osama did it!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join