Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Beside the temps of the fires--what other destructive forces were in play?

There seems to be a desparate focus on the fire temps like THAT is the cause of the collapses and if it can be shown that its 600C and not 1000C then the building MUST have been imploded.

As far as evidence goes, thats lame.




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Beside the temps of the fires--what other destructive forces were in play?

There seems to be a desparate focus on the fire temps like THAT is the cause of the collapses and if it can be shown that its 600C and not 1000C then the building MUST have been imploded.

As far as evidence goes, thats lame.


The impact obviously had something to do with the collapse. At least it would have exposed the steel to the actual fire. If it was just a fire the steel would have been encased in concrete and covered with foam. This would have prevent direct heating, but with a plane smashing in to them that covering would have been removed at a lot of places thus allowing the steel to heat up by direct exposure.

But fire is probably a crucial factor in what brought the building down eventually, so they are right about that.

The thermite argument however is ofcourse ridiculous; it only burns for a short while but there was molten metal found a long time after the towers went down.
Someone claimed days, but I have to verify that.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Vushta
Beside the temps of the fires--what other destructive forces were in play?

There seems to be a desparate focus on the fire temps like THAT is the cause of the collapses and if it can be shown that its 600C and not 1000C then the building MUST have been imploded.

As far as evidence goes, thats lame.


The impact obviously had something to do with the collapse. At least it would have exposed the steel to the actual fire. If it was just a fire the steel would have been encased in concrete and covered with foam. This would have prevent direct heating, but with a plane smashing in to them that covering would have been removed at a lot of places thus allowing the steel to heat up by direct exposure.

But fire is probably a crucial factor in what brought the building down eventually, so they are right about that.

The thermite argument however is ofcourse ridiculous; it only burns for a short while but there was molten metal found a long time after the towers went down.
Someone claimed days, but I have to verify that.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by reallynobody]


I agree there were many other forces involved. Impact damage, fires, the much overlooked cooling forces, the added weight, the wind loads etc.
My point was to bring some of these real forces into a disscussion that seems to want to focus on only isolated fire temps or the color of smoke.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

I doubt it. There are lot´s of engineer talk on the web about it, and they conclude that if it was a modern building it wouldn´t even have leasted that long.


Where? Does that represent the engineer community as a whole?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Vushta, the problem for people trying to discuss anything against the "Official Story" is that we don't have enough evidence to support what we claim because it's simply not there for us to investigate.

So what do we do? We make observations, tons and tons of observations til we can compile them, and through trial and error, come to the conclusion of how we feel the building went down.

There are so many theories out there for how the building came down that you can't address the anti-"Official Story" community as a whole.

Observations on the color of the smoke? Important. Why?

The smoke tells us the fire cooled down due to lack of efficiency. It doesn't even matter if you throw in the different fuel B.S., they still became inefficient and sooty, thus they cooled down from the previous intensity that was fueled by the jet fuel.

The fires? It's one of the most important things, because if the fires can be proved that they didn't take down the towers or weren't allouded enough time, or they were too weak. Anything can help us.

Hopely people like Steven Jones will be caught in the American Eye and more will come forward to help. Only takes a matter of time..



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, the problem for people trying to discuss anything against the "Official Story" is that we don't have enough evidence to support what we claim because it's simply not there for us to investigate.

So what do we do? We make observations, tons and tons of observations til we can compile them, and through trial and error, come to the conclusion of how we feel the building went down.

There are so many theories out there for how the building came down that you can't address the anti-"Official Story" community as a whole.

Observations on the color of the smoke? Important. Why?

The smoke tells us the fire cooled down due to lack of efficiency. It doesn't even matter if you throw in the different fuel B.S., they still became inefficient and sooty, thus they cooled down from the previous intensity that was fueled by the jet fuel.

The fires? It's one of the most important things, because if the fires can be proved that they didn't take down the towers or weren't allouded enough time, or they were too weak. Anything can help us.

Hopely people like Steven Jones will be caught in the American Eye and more will come forward to help. Only takes a matter of time..


I agree with that point about access to physical evidence. Its not only access to the evidence but but the expertise and facilities to do something with the evidence even if access was granted.

This is why I keep harping about the obvious and something that tho needed for the CD theory to be valid, doesn't require access to any after the fact evidence.

The obvious question that needs to be answered and if it CAN be answered would help greatly with the believability of the CD theory is this.

Knowing what is known about what is needed for a CD to be accomplished, how was it done with no one noticing? You're talking about months of work that cannot be done without ripping walls apart and prefailing structural members and leaving miles of visible fuse trailing out of the buildings.
To say this is not needed only weakens the case to people who use reason to arrive at conclusions.

----So, anyone care to describe how the rigging was done?



The smoke tells us the fire cooled down due to lack of efficiency. It doesn't even matter if you throw in the different fuel B.S., they still became inefficient and sooty, thus they cooled down from the previous intensity that was fueled by the jet fuel.


This really is a non point as far as damaging the structure goes. The cooling down process can create greater stresses than the heating process.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by reallynobody

I doubt it. There are lot´s of engineer talk on the web about it, and they conclude that if it was a modern building it wouldn´t even have leasted that long.


Where? Does that represent the engineer community as a whole?


www.nae.edu...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, the problem for people trying to discuss anything against the "Official Story" is that we don't have enough evidence to support what we claim because it's simply not there for us to investigate.

So what do we do? We make observations, tons and tons of observations til we can compile them, and through trial and error, come to the conclusion of how we feel the building went down.

There are so many theories out there for how the building came down that you can't address the anti-"Official Story" community as a whole.

Observations on the color of the smoke? Important. Why?

The smoke tells us the fire cooled down due to lack of efficiency. It doesn't even matter if you throw in the different fuel B.S., they still became inefficient and sooty, thus they cooled down from the previous intensity that was fueled by the jet fuel.

The fires? It's one of the most important things, because if the fires can be proved that they didn't take down the towers or weren't allouded enough time, or they were too weak. Anything can help us.

Hopely people like Steven Jones will be caught in the American Eye and more will come forward to help. Only takes a matter of time..



TADA!

An article in the Journal of Metallurgy discussed microstructural changes that resulted in the erosion of a piece of a steel beam collected from 7 WTC:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a 'blacksmith's weld' in a hand forge.[30]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reallynobody face it you failed.The 9\11 poll clearly shows that the govt(shadow govt,illuminati) was behind the the attacks and even majority of members agree that a missile struck the pentagon.Go somewhere else where you would have supporters.May i suggest the white house forums



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Is it so surprising that on the conspiracy board majority member believes in (gasp) conspiracies?

Re the Pantagon and the missile, it only shows how easy it is to clutch at explanation that contradicts any and all available evidence



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 04:45 AM
link   
That poll was not scientific and proves nothing warthog.

i would have thought your thread about banning members who disagree you would have taught you something.

Apparently not.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
reallynobody face it you failed.The 9\11 poll clearly shows that the govt(shadow govt,illuminati) was behind the the attacks and even majority of members agree that a missile struck the pentagon.Go somewhere else where you would have supporters.May i suggest the white house forums


Are you saying that there is a positive correlation between the number of people believing an idea and the extent of truth of the idea?

In that case I like to gently remind you that once upon a time, people thought it be a good idea to pour boiling hot oil on open wounds.

Cheers!


[edit on 9-7-2006 by absolutelynobody]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Excuses for any lousy grammar but I ain't american. Any way, my dislike for Bush doesn't make me blind for fact. And that is that there isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that those towers collapsed by anything else then planes & fire, or that there wasn anything else 'faked' or 'rigged' for that matter.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]


No offense, but you should do some more research before posting and making yourself look foolish. The "claims" you refer to are not even amongst the most common reasons intelligent people think there is more to the story than what the government has revealed. It almost seems like you spent a half-day reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories then attacked what little you had read about.

My own gut instincts tell me the twin towers falling completely into their own footprints, and the collapse of WTC 7, were not caused by those two planes crashing into them. In 1945 a US Air Force bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, causing minimal damage. Maybe they just don't build 'em like they used to.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberSEAL

Originally posted by reallynobody
Excuses for any lousy grammar but I ain't american. Any way, my dislike for Bush doesn't make me blind for fact. And that is that there isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that those towers collapsed by anything else then planes & fire, or that there wasn anything else 'faked' or 'rigged' for that matter.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]


No offense, but you should do some more research before posting and making yourself look foolish. The "claims" you refer to are not even amongst the most common reasons intelligent people think there is more to the story than what the government has revealed. It almost seems like you spent a half-day reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories then attacked what little you had read about.

My own gut instincts tell me the twin towers falling completely into their own footprints, and the collapse of WTC 7, were not caused by those two planes crashing into them. In 1945 a US Air Force bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, causing minimal damage. Maybe they just don't build 'em like they used to.


Or maybe a 767 airplane is a lot bigger than a 1945 bomber and was traveleing at a way higher speed.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberSEAL
No offense, but you should do some more research before posting and making yourself look foolish.


Quite a few people gave me the thumbs up. It seems people that disagree with me are the only ones to think me foolish. But nothing new there. "If they can't attack the ideas, attack the thinker" is unfortunately used by CT's as well as sceptics.



The "claims" you refer to are not even amongst the most common reasons intelligent people think there is more to the story than what the government has revealed. It almost seems like you spent a half-day reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories then attacked what little you had read about.

Riiight. So that must be why so many people tried to refute my claims? :LOL:
It seemed I rattled cages with my post.

Half a day? I wish! I unfortunately had to bear the agony of reading CT articles for a longer time than that. There are conspiracy theories I can actually (at least partially) agree with. But almost all 9/11 don't even make a liquor sense.



My own gut instincts tell me the twin towers falling completely into their own footprints, and the collapse of WTC 7, were not caused by those two planes crashing into them.

Your gut instinct? My own gut-instinct tells me that they crashed thanks to those planes. So now what? Should my gut-instinct challenge your gut-instinct to a duel at dawn?



In 1945 a US Air Force bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, causing minimal damage. Maybe they just don't build 'em like they used to.


A totally different plane, a different building, and undoubtedly a different angle of impact and different speed. Nice comparishon. Whats next? A story of a child on a bicycle running into a wall?

Each case should be judged individually. If these kind of things all happened similarly there was no need for investigations: one rapport would suit them all.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
reallynobody face it you failed.The 9\11 poll clearly shows that the govt(shadow govt,illuminati) was behind the the attacks and even majority of members agree that a missile struck the pentagon.Go somewhere else where you would have supporters.May i suggest the white house forums


just because the majority of the members on a conspiracy website think the government was behinde it, it doesn't mean the govt was behind it. You would use a poll to say that the govt was "clearly" behind it. If the govt was clearly behind it, this site wouldn't have been having debates on what happened for the past 3 years.

by the way, that joke was really not funny.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The poll could hint at the NIST report not being conclusive enough for the majority of the people that commonly view this board.. no?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The poll could hint at the NIST report not being conclusive enough for the majority of the people that commonly view this board.. no?


Do you honestly think that the people who frequent this board are a valid representation of general society?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Howard, I would imagine a man of your intelligence would happily note I was pointing out to the majority that commonly view this board. Surely you could of seen that provided you actually came to understand what I was trying to say. Shame.. on you.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The poll could hint at the NIST report not being conclusive enough for the majority of the people that commonly view this board.. no?


I'm sure in many cases that is true, it also could hint how stupid some people are. I am not saying that you or any other CT is stupid, I am saying that I have seen several CTs explain why they believe it was an inside job. A holograph for example. There are a lot of dumb people on both sides on this site (one who claimed that Bush planned and executed Hurricane Katrina), i'm sure many contributed to there opinions with out the NIST report. In any case, you can't use a poll, especially one a conspiracy forum, to say that the govt. was clearly behind the attacks. I bet if you took a poll in North America on who was behind it 90% would say Bin Laden.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by nt327]






top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join