9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

LeftBehind
Where's the support for your claim that one reporter at PM is Chertoff's cousin, other than sharing a last name.

Vushta
Its been pointed out here more than once and documented by B. Chertoff that he is not related to M.Chertoff.

Fair enough. I must admit it is something I hadn't taken the time out to confirm or dispel. My mistake.

It doesn't, however, change any of my contentions regarding the content of the PM article, the manner in which it was written, nor the fallacies and omissions therein.

[edit on 2006-6-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Thanks for being honest.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the manner in which it was written, nor the fallacies and omissions therein"

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Originally posted by Vushta
Thanks for being honest.

No problem. The 9/11 forum would be about half the size data-wise and twice as fun if we were all able to admit our mistakes and concede points, or God forbid...collaborate. Heck, we might even get closer to the truth. Imagine that.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the manner in which it was written, nor the fallacies and omissions therein"

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

See my post on page 11.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
You dodge direct questions, rather than answer them, or take them to heart.

With that, you still didnt answer the question I asked you. I never expected you to though.

Originally posted by innerevolt

Michael Moore actually said it best towards the end of F.9/11.

REPLY: To be fair, you should see the "farenhype 9-11" movie. 95% of Moore's movie has been disproven, and was merely the first to change the term "documentary" into something that no longer has to be accurate. Algores "Inconvenient Truth" is another example.

To ALL members posting in this thread.

The excessive use of quoting, nested or otherwise, has obviously taken root here and needs to stop NOW.

PLEASE Do Not Post a response containing Nested Quotes of previously quoted content!

Not only does it weigh heavily on the database servers [i.e. cpu calls], BUT they make the thread flow extremely difficult to follow.

PLEASE quote ONLY that portion which you are responding to or drawing reference from.

As a reminder Please review the following link:
The Use of Quotes on ATS – Please Review This Link.

Those who continue to quote Entire preceeding posts, or unedited nested quotes, will be subject to Big Quote points deductions from here on out.

Thank you.



[edit on 6/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

12m8keall2c: Just curious.... does that include Mods? (See WeComeInPeace, above, and others throughout ATS)

Wecomeinpace selected specific points and quoted individual sections.

Damn, I said I wasn't going to post in here again....crap

^^^ zappafan1,

Actually the above by WCIP is Proper and Selective Quoting, as it should be. As for "throughout ATS", we obviously can't be everywhere at all times.

My note to the thread is focused more on unnecessary quotes of Entire preceeding posts or ANY post in it's Entirety, to include Nested quotes such as this,

This

Is

a

Nested

Quote

.

They serve no purpose whatsoever and make the "flow of discussion" Extremely difficult to follow.

As mentioned Please quote only that portion which are directly addressing or responding to.

Again, if you require further clarity for the proper use of quotes on ATS, Please review the following link.
ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

Thank you.

...and now, back to the topic of this discussion:

9/11 conspiracies are nonsense


[edit on 6/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

no offense to the original poster... but... u are biased and in denial obviously.
it does not take temperatures to prove WTC failing wrong but physics alone prove that even if the temperatures were above melting point, they still would not have fell straight down as fast as a suicidal man jumping from the top. thats the simple and most effective point if you ask me. ... then come the temperature portion and how jet fuel would have burned away in 2 minutes but the towers fell well after that period. WELL after.

Michael Moore's 95% innacuracy or not. what else has in the past 2006 years has exhumed so much debate besides Jesus? answer 9/11.
it's easily proven that something has and is happening because of that fact.
and no, JFK doesn't count. then man was assasinated just as Lincoln was. don't include our assasinations as the biggest of the last 2006 years. many foreign countries have the same things happen much more than us. so screw the assasination portion of our conspired history and "inside job coups." they have nothing to do with the extremity of "Jesus" and "9/11."
nothing has made any man more suspicious than Jesus(and all religion for that matter) and 9/11. about anything and everything.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by daisaison_x]

it does not take temperatures to prove WTC failing wrong but physics alone prove that even if the temperatures were above melting point, they still would not have fell straight down as fast as a suicidal man jumping from the top. thats the simple and most effective point if you ask me.

Physics alone prove you wrong.

they still would not have fell straight down as fast as a suicidal man jumping from the top

How else could the have fallen other than straight down--well as least as "straight down" as they did---which wasn't straight down--but anyway...

Please repeat this until it sinks in.
"They didn't fall at freefall speed"

thats the simple and most effective point if you ask me.

The most simple and effective point for the other side--which will ALWAYS be avoided by them is:

"Knowing what must be done to accomplish a controlled demo and the inescapable time needed--how were the buildings rigged without anyone noticing"?

If this question can not be answered, all the other crap about temps, squibs, smoke,dust, freefall..etc. is completely and unmistakably moot.
Like it or not, that is a fact.

you answered my question easily. easily without mentioning temperatures. i am no scientist, but, with the top falling to one side like it should- the rest should not have fallen like wood. this is steel we are talking about. yes/no? not aluminum, not the stuff spoons are made of... steel. the whole thing should have grown steadily cooler after the jet fuel burned away, maybe steady for while but not hotter.

and aside from the small portion that fell to the side, it was straight down man. i was not on 7 hits of acid when i saw it live.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by daisaison_x]

[edit on 30-6-2006 by daisaison_x]

Originally posted by daisaison_x
no offense to the original poster... but... u are biased and in denial obviously.
it does not take temperatures to prove WTC failing wrong but physics alone prove that even if the temperatures were above melting point, they still would not have fell straight down as fast as a suicidal man jumping from the top. thats the simple and most effective point if you ask me. ... then come the temperature portion and how jet fuel would have burned away in 2 minutes but the towers fell well after that period. WELL after.

I understand why you rather not read all the postings but I explained why the temperatures can get really high already and dont feel like posting it again. Try looking it up either in page 11 or 12.

Originally posted by daisaison_x
you answered my question easily. easily without mentioning temperatures. i am no scientist, but, with the top falling to one side like it should- the rest should not have fallen like wood. this is steel we are talking about. yes/no? not aluminum, not the stuff spoons are made of... steel. the whole thing should have grown steadily cooler after the jet fuel burned away, maybe steady for while but not hotter.

and aside from the small portion that fell to the side, it was straight down man. i was not on 7 hits of acid when i saw it live.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by daisaison_x]

Why should it have fallen like wood? I don't understand why people think that.

It was a unique design to optimize floor space.
The connections were basically at the perimeter and the core. When those connectors failed the entire floor fell and then the next and the next.

Cooling can be more damaging than heating.

[quote of Entire preceeding post removed]

Have you heard of angular momentum? The upper half of the building was tipping over the impact zone, til somehow, the core sort of gave way, causing the upper half to just fall down unto the rest of itself.

Vushta, does black smoke mean oxygen starved or just a different fuel? Just curious. Still haven't found the sense made of what you mean by "different fuels cause black smoke." when pertaining to the WTC. The fuels never changed.

Do you honestly believe the jet fuel was the only thing burning when the building was on fire for the first 15 or so minutes?

Come on...


[edit on 6/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Masisoar
[quote of Entire preceeding post removed]

Have you heard of angular momentum? The upper half of the building was tipping over the impact zone, til somehow, the core sort of gave way, causing the upper half to just fall down unto the rest of itself.

Vushta, does black smoke mean oxygen starved or just a different fuel? Just curious. Still haven't found the sense made of what you mean by "different fuels cause black smoke." when pertaining to the WTC. The fuels never changed.

Do you honestly believe the jet fuel was the only thing burning when the building was on fire for the first 15 or so minutes?

Come on...


[edit on 6/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

This quote isn't too long so I just left it as is.

Not sure what you mean by the first part.

I was just pointing out that some things that fuels fires just naturally produce a black smoke and at the same time burn very hot.
This was in response to the idea that black smoke= cooler burn.

The fuels did change as different combustible became involved in the blaze. Maybe not "changed"--but "added and subtracted".

I think that in the first 15 mins many other things were definately burning. jet fuel..plastics..wood..composites..paper..humans. But because of scale the most visually obvious was jet fuel.

It's not like each floor housed its own unique set of office supplies/building supplies.
Everything was relatively the same!

Vushta, you need to understand what smoke is, it's basically lots of carbon, due to the fact that a flame isn't efficient and lacks a good air/fuel ratio. If something is burning with black smoke, then it is not receiving enough oxygen, this is true for so many scenarios, I don't even know where to start. (WTC perhaps).

Show me evidence that proves otherwise.

As said before, the fire was efficient because it basically had a catalyst for more efficient flame (the jet fuel) and it helped it burn more efficiently! Sounds repetitious? Trying to impact the point.

When the black smoke started appearing, the jet fuel was exhausted by then, leaving just the regular stuff in the building that was originally there to burn, and by not having enough oxygen, the fires were not efficient, thus bad fuel/air ratio, and because they weren't as efficient as the jet-fuel fed fires, they cooled down from the previous.

Holy cow I've probably said this 100 times =)

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, does black smoke mean oxygen starved or just a different fuel? Just curious. Still haven't found the sense made of what you mean by "different fuels cause black smoke." when pertaining to the WTC. The fuels never changed.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Actually it did. There was fuel for emergency generators present in the WTC buildings. Building 7 had a huge tank in the basement with a pressurized line leading to one of the floors. This would have kept the fire going for a long time.

Not to mention the other combustible items, theres lots of stuff that can burn in modern buildings, which seems to be enough to cause ordinary housing to burn for a long time. So no, it was not just jet-fuel.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


Flight 77, again, what reason would anyone have to believe that it crashed in that field, other than being told so by a government that has a habit of lying to the people of the world.

first of all, it was Flight 93 that crashed in the field, and what reasons would we have to believe it?? Oh my. Only dozens of eye witnesses that saw the plane crash into the field.
We know that plane was hijacked because people working a Cleveland Center heard an Arab sounding guy say "This is the captain, we have a bomb on board". But hey your right, why should we beleive the witnesses and the people who received phone calls, and the Cleveland Control Center guys, there all just government agents who are lying to us right?? Or maybe a massive Orca whale jumped up over the country clipping the wings of all the four planes causing them to crash, an orca personally trained by George Bush's second cousins best friends university room mate. OMG, CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!! O

Or maybe Jesus planned 9/11.........and Bush is christian.........OMG........... there is another CONSPIRACY!!!!

[edit on 1-7-2006 by nt327]

[edit on 1-7-2006 by nt327]

Originally posted by Masisoar


When the black smoke started appearing, the jet fuel was exhausted by then, leaving just the regular stuff in the building that was originally there to burn, and by not having enough oxygen, the fires were not efficient, thus bad fuel/air ratio, and because they weren't as efficient as the jet-fuel fed fires, they cooled down from the previous.

Holy cow

I've probably said this 100 times =)

So, what is your conclusion from this? Are you trying to tell us that the fires were almost out or dying?

You've already said that a dying fire can take days to die, so we know your loose use of the term dying fire.

Is this a dying fire?



Why do you keep arguing about the temperature? What is the point? If it's to convince us that the fire was dying, then you are wrong.

Black smoke does not equal dying fire.

BTW, isn't there another thread where you complain about the fire issue derailing the thread? Perhaps you should take your own advice.