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: 106
10
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Neither has it been shown that this happened to the towers. Matter of fact, it's just something NIST hypothesized,

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.


1- wrong. NIST did not "hypothesize" about how much fire insulation would be removed from the cores by the plane hits. They did detailed studies that determined several factors. Like how strongly the spray-on would adhere to the steel, and how much it take, in lbs force, to remove it. They did similar tests for drywall/its destruction. And before you claim that the core columns had "layered" insulation, go search my recent discussion with Griff - since you respect his opinion - where he says that he basically agrees with me on this. NIST also did extensive testing/modeling on how fast the plane parts would be going after going through the ext columns. So nothing is made up. It has been tested and modeled and shown to be realistic.

2-Yes, the firse moved around some on individual floors. I didn't mean to imply that an entire floor would poof into flame and then go out 90-120 minutes later. Soryy if you got that impression. But this is why floors are given shorter fire ratings codes than the columns were. Fire engineers know how fires behave, That's their job. Columns are given longer rating codes because it is probable that they will be exposed for more than just 1 floor's burn time. Again, this isn't an arbitrary decision by these engineers. But basically, your argument hinges on debunking the scientifically proven fact that the fire insulation was removed by the plane parts. I'd love to see some evidence or calcs of some kind that would suggest otherwise.




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
We don't have video of the plane hitting the pentagon but we have witnesses and plane parts on the scene.


You mean the witnesses that could not agree on what they saw or admitted they were told later it was a 757?

Too bad the plane parts cannot be matched to AA77.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, would you respectifully take a moment and respond to my post on the 'Pentagon' thread?

Sorry for a few typos, and it didn't seem to format with the paragraphs I'd intended, so take your time.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, would you respectifully take a moment and respond to my post on the 'Pentagon' thread?


Well i am getting ready for work, will get back to you on this.

But basically it comes down to the debate about which side of the gas station the plane was actually on as far as the flight path.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


OK, ULTIMA.....I've followed that, the various debate of eyewitnesses, versus what you've found to be contratictory from NTSB.

I'm just expressing a desire to look into the limitations of the actual DFDR, and it's inherent lack of accuracy, in this situation: A very fast-moving commercial jetliner, operating outside its normal speed expectations, at that altitude. Inaccuracies are bound to crop in, even to as much as one-half a mile (or more?) laterally. That makes a big difference. But it doesn't seem to dispute the impact point, which was well-documented....I still see it in my mind as I drive I-395.

Side idea....perhaps, one point to consider....and I am just thinking here...incredible Public demand for details would have been exerted, especially on AAL77, since the DFDR was recovered, as was not the case in NYC. A Ground Track (better term than 'Flight Path') that was 'officially' published, as you pointed out, could have been off by a few yards, as I am trying to suggest, as more witnesses came forward, years on.

Could you concede, at least, that reputations would be on the line, if the early results were....shall we say, hasty? But, as I said, there was intense pressure to publish something!!

If it's a matter of a few yards, north or south of a gas station (which I have driven by, many times) then what is the issue here, really???

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- wrong. NIST did not "hypothesize" about how much fire insulation would be removed from the cores by the plane hits. They did detailed studies that determined several factors.


You can enumerate your opinions all day with numbers and dashes, and play semantic games, but what you called "detailed studies" still amount to nothing but a hypothesis. Maybe you just do not understand what the word "hypothesis" means, as opposed to a fact.


So nothing is made up. It has been tested and modeled and shown to be realistic.


"Hypothesis" does not mean "made up." So now I've confirmed that you just don't understand what the word "hypothesis" means. Either that or you put words in my mouth. One or other, where I suspect to find either are par for the course, Mr. Butz.



2-Yes, the firse moved around some on individual floors.


Were you not just suggesting that the WTC fires were any different from other fires in that respect? Of course you're going to say "no" now, but I hardly care now.



But basically, your argument hinges on debunking the scientifically proven fact that the fire insulation was removed by the plane parts. I'd love to see some evidence or calcs of some kind that would suggest otherwise.


I'd love to see the evidence or calculations that prove this "fact" to begin with. (Being facetious: it is not a "fact," and even NIST would admit this much. They use the term "hypothesis" liberally in their reports.)

Feel free to post the relevant NIST excerpts here. Only the actual proof, please. Not just the statement of the hypothesis. (You would confuse that, too.)

[edit on 9-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm just expressing a desire to look into the limitations of the actual DFDR, and it's inherent lack of accuracy, in this situation: A very fast-moving commercial jetliner, operating outside its normal speed expectations, at that altitude. Inaccuracies are bound to crop in, even to as much as one-half a mile (or more?) laterally.


Its so funny you guys that believe the official story really need to get on the same page.

You stated that the DFDR may be innaccurate but other people that beleive the official story state that the DFDR is the 1 main piece of evidnece that is true and supports the official story.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm just expressing a desire to look into the limitations of the actual DFDR, and it's inherent lack of accuracy, in this situation: A very fast-moving commercial jetliner, operating outside its normal speed expectations, at that altitude. Inaccuracies are bound to crop in, even to as much as one-half a mile (or more?) laterally.


Its so funny you guys that believe the official story really need to get on the same page.

You stated that the DFDR may be innaccurate but other people that beleive the official story state that the DFDR is the 1 main piece of evidnece that is true and supports the official story.



Just so we can get on the same page, who said what? Maybe something was miscommunicated? We want to get the right info out right? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm just expressing a desire to look into the limitations of the actual DFDR, and it's inherent lack of accuracy, in this situation: A very fast-moving commercial jetliner, operating outside its normal speed expectations, at that altitude. Inaccuracies are bound to crop in, even to as much as one-half a mile (or more?) laterally.


Its so funny you guys that believe the official story really need to get on the same page.

You stated that the DFDR may be innaccurate but other people that beleive the official story state that the DFDR is the 1 main piece of evidnece that is true and supports the official story.

Thanks, again ULTIMA.

You have quite a trendency (word I just made up!) to pull selective quotes, in order to meet your needs.

I am not accusing you of anything, personally....(Mods, please note...)....but, ULTIMA seems to be not posting as one person.

Or, when confronted with conflicting information, ULTIMA wishes to de-rail, and thusly keep everyone off-balance.

So, for Mods....please read carefully, and act accordingly. Thanks!!






posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You have quite a trendency (word I just made up!) to pull selective quotes, in order to meet your needs.


How am i doing that? Didin't i quote you correctly (unlike others)?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You have quite a trendency (word I just made up!) to pull selective quotes, in order to meet your needs.


How am i doing that? Didin't i quote you correctly (unlike others)?



I can't speak for him but I've seen you cut and paste my posts, NIST, FEMA, etc.... posts to take them out of context and twist the meaning of them. Hopefully this answers your question.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I can't speak for him but I've seen you cut and paste my posts, NIST, FEMA, etc.... posts to take them out of context and twist the meaning of them. Hopefully this answers your question.


I cut and paste the parts that pertain to the thread i am on.

Also i have seen believers only cut and paste things that only go along with the official story and not the entire quote.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I can't speak for him but I've seen you cut and paste my posts, NIST, FEMA, etc.... posts to take them out of context and twist the meaning of them. Hopefully this answers your question.


I cut and paste the parts that pertain to the thread i am on.

Also i have seen believers only cut and paste things that only go along with the official story and not the entire quote.



I have seen that myself. However, it doesn't make it right for you to do either.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I have seen that myself.


Well at least you admit they do it.

As stated i copy and paste the quote pertaining to the thread.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I have seen that myself.


Well at least you admit they do it.

As stated i copy and paste the quote pertaining to the thread.


Of course I have seen it happen but only to a small extent. You do it as part of normal practice. The vast majority of posters on both sides of the debate, post in a proper manor and do their best to answer questions that others may have.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This is a very busy forum. Rather than trying to personally list ALL the questions about 911 and its connection to an inside job I will offer a link with questions that almost answer themselves.

Let's say I have something under a blanket. You are not allowed to look under the cover but you can reach under the blanket and use all your senses to find out what I have hidden under cover.

You hear a quack.
You feel feathers.
Its head has a bill.
It has webbed feet.
its neck is long.

Call it anything you want but my money is its a DUCK!

Use the same wisdom for 911
Go here and read all the questions about 911 and see the connection.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Buildings DO NOT fall into themselves at almost the speed of gravity without resistance and no resistance means something was clearing the way as the building turned into DUST!

Do you people realize that this government is evil and has went to the dark side, exactly what Chaney said they were doing.
Anyone that can't or won't see the absolute reasoning that brings us to a sad but true reality that 911 was an inside job is either an idiot or with the terrorist government that did it!



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondular
This is a very busy forum. Rather than trying to personally list ALL the questions about 911 and its connection to an inside job I will offer a link with questions that almost answer themselves.

Let's say I have something under a blanket. You are not allowed to look under the cover but you can reach under the blanket and use all your senses to find out what I have hidden under cover.

You hear a quack.
You feel feathers.
Its head has a bill.
It has webbed feet.
its neck is long.

Call it anything you want but my money is its a DUCK!

Use the same wisdom for 911
Go here and read all the questions about 911 and see the connection.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Buildings DO NOT fall into themselves at almost the speed of gravity without resistance and no resistance means something was clearing the way as the building turned into DUST!

Do you people realize that this government is evil and has went to the dark side, exactly what Chaney said they were doing.
Anyone that can't or won't see the absolute reasoning that brings us to a sad but true reality that 911 was an inside job is either an idiot or with the terrorist government that did it!



Please go here to read what really happened with the collapse of the buildings.

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
www.debunking911.com...


Thats too funny. You posted a answer to a question from conspiracy site using a conspiracy stie.

When are you guys going to learn about actual professional and government research sites?




[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join