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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
911 conspiracy thread again.




YAWN!!!!!


Originally posted by snoochies
IMHO, there are only 2 types of people who would try and refute the evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists.

1.) The American fascist lemmings blinded by the spoon fed media portrayal of the ACTUAL events of 9/11…
2.) Government DIS-informants trying to prevent exposing the blood thirsty neo-con regime currently in power…AND Fear of them having to REWRITE HISTORY.


I CAN'T believe the lid HASN'T been blown off as of yet to expose the REAL TERRORISTS...

The REAL TERRORISTS are the SAME people professing their DUTY to protect us.

Snooch


These "real" terrorists are all in your minds. Seek therapy.

If the two bullets quoted above are any indication of the authenticity of the conspiracy "facts" then your cause is in trouble. You list two types of refutees, I am neither. There are therefore at least three types. The two you aknowledge and myself. Even I would not claim that that ends the classification.

You will never prove anything other than that which is already public.

Get on with your lives.................At least you still have one...........

Bye for t' now.....




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Why doesn't someone, anyone, put an I-Beam in a jet-fuel fire, let it burn for as long as the fires in the WTC towers burned, and starve it of oxygen to the same degree, and then measure the I-Beams temperature. I'm no physicist. Yet many of the questions that are repeatedly debated seem susceptible of experimental analysis and not merely verbal wrangling. Anyone know if such an experiment has been conducted anywhere by anyone. How hot can a jet fuel fire burn and can it melt steel? It's tiresome reading the same point / counterpoint on this issue over and over and over again. I highly doubt that the airplane impact coupled with the oxygen starved jet fuel fires could have caused the towers to collapse as they did. There is far too much evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Hey, T Trubballshoota, here's my response to your opening line "911 conspiracy thread again.
"



The primary reason why there are so many 911 conspiracy threads is that the fundamental questions have never been answered, the official story reeks of coverup, and the position of those who buy the official story hook line and sinker is a crock of hogwash.

This post is at the same level of discourse as yours.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
NIST did that, they performed detailed and extensive experiments including building mock-ups of elements of the building and subjecting them to fires of equivilant characteristics, but apparantly it's not good enough.
I suspect it's because their findings brought them to the conclusions that the conditions could have brought on structural failure.
It doesn't matter how many times people do it, because it'll show that it was possible and that is basically not what some people want to hear.


Draft report on project 5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (238 pgs.) (Appendixes)
Draft supporting technical reports
Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis
Chapters 1-8
Chapter 9-Appendices
Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towerswtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

I suspect it's because their findings brought them to the conclusions that the conditions could have brought on structural failure.
It doesn't matter how many times people do it, because it'll show that it was possible and that is basically not what some people want to hear.


More like you can't trust any of the assumptions they make in that report. They came up with fires in excess of 1000 C in those things, across significant portions of the towers, and it even looks like they suggest perimeter column heating to a point that would have, in reality, caused the steel to glow visibly, in broad daylight.

I don't think I have to mention that none of this lines up with what was seen on 9/11. They may have managed these results in their labs, or on their computers, while being able to tweak any variables they wished (and did so, making many assumptions they have failed to support), but it still doesn't line up with the towers themselves.

You're looking at inefficient fires (look at the sooty smoke), and relatively small at that, with plenty of ventilation and lifespans of only about 56 and 102 minutes if I remember correctly. And no glowing steel (steel heated over 400 C) or shattering windows (from 700+ C fires) or anything like that. And yet NIST comes up with raging infernos in excess of 1000 C in their labs and with their modeling? Why does this not surprise me? A better question: why should I care, unless these finds are shown to be true to the actual events?

And were they able to actually get any of the steel to fail, AgentSmith? Prof. Jones has read through all of these reports, and last I heard of him, he was saying that in none of these reports did NIST get an actual failure.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
whoever the hack is
down playing the loose change video
he needs to get his head examined a bit
after reading the first few of his ridiculous comments
i had to stop
it was like listening to a small child ask his father
what's a bird
a bird is something that flies
what's flies?
well it's something you do in the air
what's air?

come on!!!
at some point you should listen rather than hear and respond like a retarded fart echo.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Yeah I know what you mean, I got that sort of feeling when starting to watch the original.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And were they able to actually get any of the steel to fail, AgentSmith? Prof. Jones has read through all of these reports, and last I heard of him, he was saying that in none of these reports did NIST get an actual failure.


They didn't have their mockups under the same loads that they would have been in the WTC though, and they did weaken substantially i believe and show significant structural failure, they just didn't collapse.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
There is so many threads/debates/video/evidece on this subject now, both for and against, it is almost mindblowing. I want to believe that this wasnt a conspiricy by whomever, but sadly I have to admit sofar gut instinct tells me it is.

There are alot of truths in videos like loose change, far too many to just dismiss it, dont get me wrong I am not saying there information is 100% fact..even 50%..

This video has done more to open peoples eyes and ask questions about 9/11 and other issues around the globe then any one here..its an amature video made by a few young individuals, I applaud them just for this alone.

Agent Smith, you have obviously been looking into this area for along time, and seen many debates on this issue, you come across as an official story believer, I am not disrespecting you here atall, you have a valued opinion here on ATS and I guess many others will also see it this way. But the wording and context of your posts are more convincing then the actual information your supplying.

I would just like to know what has made you so convinced the official story is true and just, and why you resent the loose change guys so much.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
By the way, the fire directly after the initial impact and explosion were oxygen starved, so don't anticipate a high intensity flame out of anything else in the building.

How was it oxygen starved when there is a huge hole in the building? It makes no sense, because everyone on the floor would be dead instantly if there was no oxygen!



Also I'm curious, how did they acknowledge such pockets of fire hit 1832°F within the building?


Don't ask me, I'm not the NIST. Ask them on how they do their procedures.



But from this One-Sided Cookie, you're saying the initial explosion from the jet fuel, wasn't as intense as the burning of materials in the building after the jet fuel was spent?


I'm saying a combination of both. I really want to know, since you claim to know everything..

How should the buildings have fell then?



Lemme get this straight, an oxygen starved fire, not enriched with jet fuel, fueled by office supplies and building materials burned hotter than a jet fuel enriched flame, for a good portion of an hour, to bring down the buildings?


Jet fuel, fire, non-existent fireproofing, carbon-based materials, plastic burning...able to weaken steel? Yes, that does make sense.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostyank
whoever the hack is
down playing the loose change video
he needs to get his head examined a bit
after reading the first few of his ridiculous comments
i had to stop
it was like listening to a small child ask his father
what's a bird
a bird is something that flies
what's flies?
well it's something you do in the air
what's air?

come on!!!
at some point you should listen rather than hear and respond like a retarded fart echo.


If your theory is strong, you should be able to answer questions.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
How was it oxygen starved when there is a huge hole in the building? It makes no sense, because everyone on the floor would be dead instantly if there was no oxygen!


OneSidedCookie, the better fuel/air ratio, the better the flame, this was explained by BSB and I a number of times. Why would I make an outrageous comment as to say there was no oxygen, I didn't, move on. I'm saying there's a lack of oxygen in quantity (a.k.a. oxygen starved). There's your lesson for the day.





Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
I'm saying a combination of both. I really want to know, since you claim to know everything..



Let's see, with the jet fuel, you get a more enriched flame, without it, you don't. There's your explanation.


Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Jet fuel, fire, non-existent fireproofing, carbon-based materials, plastic burning...able to weaken steel? Yes, that does make sense.


Minus the jet fuel, and you get common materials found around the office place, that fueling an oxygen starved fire (lack of oxygen).Remember this, there was no strong wind gusts that day, so you didn't have any air, or oxygen rushing into the situation as one would like to have a good flame. You're only inlet is the impact zone itself and the windows that were knocked out, not to mention the air wasn't exact being forced into a focused area, along with the fuel (office/building materials) to give you a strong flame as you'd get from a bunsen burner for example.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Joy of joys. Another "Anyone who doubts that there is a conspiracy is ignorant and a sheep" versus "Anyone who believes that there is a conspiracy is paranoid and/or ignorant of the way the government works or is organized" discussion.

I implore people to consider asking themselves the following questions:

If those who believe there is no conspiracy have the good of their country and the exaltation of truth as their primary motivation, how does anger or the desire to be right or win an argument further those goals? I ask the same of those who do believe in a conspiracy. How does ridiculing one another or seeking to somehow prove your correctness help further those goals?

Conversely, if your goal isn’t the good of the country and the exaltation of truth, what can it possibly be other than to be right and win an argument? How worthy of your time is that pursuit? How worthy of my time, or anyone else’s, is reading that pursuit?

How anyone thinks the truth, whatever you personally believe it to be, will be brought to light or proved/disproved through such divisive and competitive tactics is beyond me. The whole point becomes lost in the “heat of battle.” Then again, that's probably the point.

I should remain silent though, as I have little else to contribute beyond these comments, myself.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
How was it oxygen starved when there is a huge hole in the building? It makes no sense, because everyone on the floor would be dead instantly if there was no oxygen!


OneSidedCookie, the better fuel/air ratio, the better the flame, this was explained by BSB and I a number of times. Why would I make an outrageous comment as to say there was no oxygen, I didn't, move on. I'm saying there's a lack of oxygen in quantity (a.k.a. oxygen starved). There's your lesson for the day.





Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
I'm saying a combination of both. I really want to know, since you claim to know everything..



Let's see, with the jet fuel, you get a more enriched flame, without it, you don't. There's your explanation.


Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Jet fuel, fire, non-existent fireproofing, carbon-based materials, plastic burning...able to weaken steel? Yes, that does make sense.


Minus the jet fuel, and you get common materials found around the office place, that fueling an oxygen starved fire (lack of oxygen).Remember this, there was no strong wind gusts that day, so you didn't have any air, or oxygen rushing into the situation as one would like to have a good flame. You're only inlet is the impact zone itself and the windows that were knocked out, not to mention the air wasn't exact being forced into a focused area, along with the fuel (office/building materials) to give you a strong flame as you'd get from a bunsen burner for example.


Why the hell do you keep saying oxygen starved? Black smoke does not equal Oxygen starved.

This MIT professor says differently. He is the head materials engineer of MIT.

And what does he says at figure 1?



Figure 1. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire


I can't believe someone with no education in fire safety or engineering is telling me about this.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Alright wise guy.

Let's take a little trip down campfire basics, when a flame's smoke starts to turn black, it is due to the fire not sucking in enough air. Let's take another trip to the Chemistry lab --> Fire up that Bunsen Burner, oh, you notice the yellow sooty flame? Oh that's because it's not BURNING efficiently enough, so just turn the air inlet a little bit and get some more air in there. Oh look, you now get a blue flame.

What's today's lesson class?

Smoke from a fire that turns black indicates it is oxygen starved, meaning not sucking in enough air to burn the fuel.

What's your claim to fame?



Why the hell do you keep saying oxygen starved? Black smoke does not equal Oxygen starved.


Edit: Oh and um.. one more thing I need to take you to school on.

When the jet liner exploded, causing the fuel enriched fire, it was BURNING efficiently. That's why you see the grey smoke. As that died out, the fuel, office supplies, doesn't burn like jet fuel, because the jet fuel is comprised of hydrocarbons. The office supplies and building material NEEDED more air than it was receiving, so thus you GET the sooty flame.

Can I get a hoo haa.




Yes, really.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Ask yourselves this...

Why would onesided cookie completely ignore my rebuttals of his BS?

I am waiting Cookie.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Ask yourselves this...

Why would onesided cookie completely ignore my rebuttals of his BS?

I am waiting Cookie.


Your rebuttals are crap.

Just updated on the video website, Madrid Building partially collapsed due to fire and explosions heard at Madrid

I guess it's true; buildings can fall down by fire and there can be explosions without bombs


Very sad that I had to bring that up. Public education at it's finest.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Your rebuttals are crap.

I guess it's true; buildings can fall down by fire and there can be explosions without bombs


[edit on 6-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]


When did I state that a fire could not cause collapse?

I said it could cause a PARTIAL and ASYMMETRICAL collapse in a best case scenario.

You ignored it all and attacked others weaker points...

Ownage.



[edit on 6-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


I said it could cause a PARTIAL and ASYMMETRICAL collapse in a best case scenario.



Well you certainly said that. But I fail to see how you proved this assertion.

Do you have proof of this?

Or should we just take your word for it?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Your rebuttals are crap.

Just updated on the video website, Madrid Building partially collapsed due to fire and explosions heard at Madrid

I guess it's true; buildings can fall down by fire and there can be explosions without bombs


Very sad that I had to bring that up. Public education at it's finest.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]


The Madrid Fire was interesting, and thought to maybe caused by an arsonist.

The World Trade Center situation is unique in its own way however, how just because how large the buildings were and capable of still standing despite the claims (claims which include the fires being too hot, the trusses giving out and the load of the falling trusses eventually buckling everything causing the building to fall collapse). But on 9/11 you had three individual buildings, which could mistaken for an implosion for the way they fall, collapse onto themselves in their own feet. WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, not to mention WTC didnt and couldnt of sustained enough damage to cause it collapse onto itself perfectly anyways.

Just my 2 cents.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join