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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 105
10
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Gee you really should learn how to do research.

I have shown several steel buidligns that has longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers and they did not collapse.



Research indeed.

While it's true that there have been some buildings that had longer lasting fires, there a couple of important differences that you haven't considered, apparently.

1- None of these buildings had their fire protection removed by 500 mph plane parts.

2- And perhaps more importantly, while these fires OVERALL lasted for several hours +, they didn't burn for the total time on a single floor. What typically happens is that a fire burns out on each floor after 90-120 minutes, consuming all the combustibles, then moves to another floor. Fire protection is normally rated at 3-4 hrs, therefore, the time that the steel was protected exceeded the "burn" time before the fires moved on to another floor, and collapse wouldn't be expected. This wasn't the case at the WTC, because of my statement #1.

In your search for "what happened that day", why haven't you run across this important fact, given that you have stated that you do "research"?

Pot, meet kettle.




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.


Gee you really should learn how to do research.

I have shown several steel buidligns that has longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers and they did not collapse.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


This is a non productive post. Please only post productive information that we can discuss. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down.

It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors.


But the original NIST computer model stated that NETHER the plane impacts or fires brought down the towers.

Also NIST originally stated the towers were a panckae collapse, later they changed thier story and stated it WAS NOT a pancake.

I WISH NIST WOULD MAKE UP ITS MIND AND STOP CHANGING THEIR STORIES.




[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


That's why they had a preliminary report then a final report. If you really were an NSA employee, you would be familiar with this very basic type of reporting structure. As a matter of practice, this happens in the business world all the time. My previous job had me working with MANY other companies and filing both preliminary and final reports was a common practice.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Here's some info about the "free fall" fallacy spouted by the "conspiracy theorists" (aka truthers)


In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Seymour,


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While it's true that there have been some buildings that had longer lasting fires, there a couple of important differences that you haven't considered, apparently.

1- None of these buildings had their fire protection removed by 500 mph plane parts.


Neither has it been shown that this happened to the towers. Matter of fact, it's just something NIST hypothesized, and you can actually see fireproofing still attached to the exterior columns right below where the planes severed them. Does that logically mean anything to you? Also spray-on fireproofing was only one of several types of fire resistance built into the towers.


2- And perhaps more importantly, while these fires OVERALL lasted for several hours +, they didn't burn for the total time on a single floor.


I'm not sure this is the case for fires such as the One Meridian Plaza or First Interstate Bank, but it certainly was not the case for either of the Twin Towers. The fires roamed, meaning they flared up and died down on different places on different floors in the short time before the towers came down. This is even in the NIST report.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is a non productive post. Please only post productive information that we can discuss. Thank you.


Actually it i s a productive post, unless you can show information to debate the following fire fighter site.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse.


[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
None of these buildings had their fire protection removed by 500 mph plane parts.

In your search for "what happened that day", why haven't you run across this important fact, given that you have stated that you do "research"?


1. Well if you had done research the fire protection is only rated for 2 hours, the fires in these buidlings burned longer then 2 hours.

2. Actually i have come across lots of information that questions the official story, too bad you cannot find any information that supports the official story.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
This is a non productive post. Please only post productive information that we can discuss. Thank you.


Actually it i s a productive post, unless you can show information to debate the following fire fighter site.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse.


[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I have posted information from another site which you have, as of yet, not invalidated so your post was NOT PRODUCTIVE.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
None of these buildings had their fire protection removed by 500 mph plane parts.

In your search for "what happened that day", why haven't you run across this important fact, given that you have stated that you do "research"?


1. Well if you had done research the fire protection is only rated for 2 hours, the fires in these buidlings burned longer then 2 hours.

2. Actually i have come across lots of information that questions the official story, too bad you cannot find any information that supports the official story.



Many people including myself have posted information that supports what you call, "the official story".

Can you invalidate ANYTHING from the following site? YES or NO?
www.debunking911.com...
If YES, show me your evidence.
If NO, then you have seen information that supports, "the official story".
For example, the chemistry of how the metal remained molten for weeks?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Many people including myself have posted information that supports what you call, "the official story".


No you have not. You have posted opinions not actual evidence.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Many people including myself have posted information that supports what you call, "the official story".


No you have not. You have posted opinions not actual evidence.



Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.
I just recently posted a link and a bit of information showing about your melted metal argument. The link was too lengthy to post here but it involved the actual chemistry of what happened. So how is that not evidence? Can you prove the chemistry is wrong??????? If so do so. If not, admit that it's evidence and stop pretending that nobody is posting evidence.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.
I just recently posted a link and a bit of information showing about your melted metal argument.


Please show me what actual evindece you have that supports the offifial story.

I mean because people should know by now that the FBI has still not released the majority of evidence.





[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.
I just recently posted a link and a bit of information showing about your melted metal argument.


Please show me what actual evindece you have that supports the offifial story.

I mean because people should know by now that the FBI has still not released the majority of evidence.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.
I just recently posted a link and a bit of information showing about your melted metal argument. The link was too lengthy to post here but it involved the actual chemistry of what happened. So how is that not evidence? Can you prove the chemistry is wrong??????? If so do so. If not, admit that it's evidence and stop pretending that nobody is posting evidence

www.debunking911.com...

wtc.nist.gov...

www.fema.gov...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.


Please show me the following or admit you have no evidence.

1. Actual photos or videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. FBI and NTSB reports matching all parts found to the 9/11 planes.

3. Evidence to debate the fact that no other steel building has ever collasped from fire.

4. Evidence to debate the fact that most reports state that planes impacts and fires did not casue the collapse of the towers.

5. Evidence to debate the fact that reports state most of the jet fuel was burned of in the intail explosions.

I will be waiting for your evidence or to admit you have no evidnece.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me what actual evindece you have that supports the offifial story.

I mean because people should know by now that the FBI has still not released the majority of evidence.


So you're admitting that some evidence, let's say something less than a majority, IS in the public domain. None of it disproves the 'official story' especially in terms of the physical side of events like planes crashing, buildings failing, lives lost.

The thread asks for evidence that proves a conspiracy (the first post clarifies further that it's proof of a government based conspiracy being asked for) and so far none has been presented. I had really hoped to see something of merit by now but I'm thinking it either doesn't exist or it hasn't come out in the last 7 years and perhaps never will (conclusive proof that is).

I've seen plenty of questions and questions are good (they make us think for ourselves) but answers are much better.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course we have, you just refuse to see it.


Please show me the following or admit you have no evidence.

1. Actual photos or videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

The only photos I've seen were from the security cam which didn't show the plane as it was not a 30fps video camera but a standard 1f/5s security camera.


2. FBI and NTSB reports matching all parts found to the 9/11 planes.

I haven't seen any information about this being released and these details may not be released for many reasons.


3. Evidence to debate the fact that no other steel building has ever collasped from fire.

I have, and posted a link explaining in detail. I hate repeating myself especially when someone isn't paying attention.


4. Evidence to debate the fact that most reports state that planes impacts and fires did not casue the collapse of the towers.

Already been posted by at least 6 different posters.


5. Evidence to debate the fact that reports state most of the jet fuel was burned of in the intail explosions.

Already addressed in many previous posts.


I will be waiting for your evidence or to admit you have no evidnece.

Again, there is no point in reposting the same evidence over and over as you simply don't want to see it. If you want your questions answered further, all you need to do is read through the thread again or for the first time, as all these things have been discussed and evidence provided.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The only photos I've seen were from the security cam which didn't show the plane as it was not a 30fps video camera but a standard 1f/5s security camera.


So you have no photos or videos of AA77 hiting the Pentagon.


I haven't seen any information about this being released and these details may not be released for many reasons.


So you have no reports that match all the parts found to the 9/11 planes.

So why don't you just admit you have no actual evidence to support the official story?



[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
The only photos I've seen were from the security cam which didn't show the plane as it was not a 30fps video camera but a standard 1f/5s security camera.


So you have no photos or videos of AA77 hiting the Pentagon.

Isn't that what I just said???


I haven't seen any information about this being released and these details may not be released for many reasons.

So you have no reports that match all the parts found to the 9/11 planes.

I have none, NO. Isn't that what I just said?


So why don't you just admit you have no actual evidence to support the official story?

[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Are you serious? Since those 2 things are not addressed, you are actually saying there is no other evidence?????? That is some of the most bizarre reasoning I've ever read on any thread on ATS since I started coming here.
All I can say is WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 8-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you serious? Since those 2 things are not addressed, you are actually saying there is no other evidence??????


Well those 2 things are very important evidence.

And since you cannot show any other actual evidence you should admit you have no evidnce



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you serious? Since those 2 things are not addressed, you are actually saying there is no other evidence??????


Well those 2 things are very important evidence.

And since you cannot show any other actual evidence you should admit you have no evidnce


We don't have video of the plane hitting the pentagon but we have witnesses and plane parts on the scene.

We don't have serial numbers of plane parts matched to files but we have plane parts on scene, eye witnesses and videos.

If the government released that information, you wouldn't believe it anyway as you don't believe the official story which means you believe the government is lying/covering something up so you must assume they would lie and cover up anything they released.

Finally, other evidence has been posted. Tell me how many times I need to post this until it sinks in to your brain and I'll just copy and paste the sentence over and over all at once so we can get it out of the way.




top topics



 
10
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join