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: 19
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


u see i was saying same thing ur buildings where weaker and they didnt colapse from fires

much much greater than WTC fires

i sgree if fire caused the colapse ur building should have colapsed for sure so please ease up on the tone

when u say i need to learn somthing




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
i agree with all what u are say why the nasty tone ??

i was helping u out with my post dude read it in confirmed what u said


Sorry i did not mean it for you but that others should read.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've read them before.
Saw the holes.
*shrugs*

With that I wish everyone a good night.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I've read them before.
Saw the holes.
*shrugs*

With that I wish everyone a good night.


So would you agree the building on the site had longer fires and more structural damage and did not collapse, YES or NO ?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I believe we've been over the issue of comparative wind loading capability a few times already. Could we expect a 200MPa wind load to tear holes in the columns or is that evidence of an applied local pressure exceeding 200MPa by a massive amount?

That's part of the evidence we can rely on IE planes made holes in the buildings, started fires and buildings failed eventually. What planes, how they got there, who flew them and why, how the buildings collapsed completely are the parts that aren't crystal clear as yet.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Hey i am still unbiased here

im just trying to fish out the truth some how

i just want all of us to be factual

rather than emotional


emotion clouds reason

and reason creates logic

and logic thinking creates tests, which create results which, create facts

WHAT is fact??


Somthing that can stand the very very hard test of time



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
For me it would take:

No eyewitnesses-including family members who were there

No Bodies

No airplanes flying into the WTC + Pentagon

No dead heros

No accounts from the families who lost loved ones

I would have to have not seen for myself what happened.

I would like to add that it is my belief that the only reason a conspiracy theory has arisen from 9-11 is because our government shot down flight 93 to avoid any further deaths.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And for the zillionith time Ultima.
HAS NO BEARING ON THE SITUATION OF THE TWIN TOWERS!!!!!!
Different design otherwords different configuration and most likely types of steel.
Different across the board and you want to USE that as proof.

The only ways those building are anything alike is that they had steel and were burning and damaged.

End of story.
I am done trying to lead someone I thought was at least a little intelligent by the hand through every statement I have made.

Goodnight.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And for the zillionith time Ultima.
HAS NO BEARING ON THE SITUATION OF THE TWIN TOWERS!!!!!!


How does the fact that other steel buildings have not collapsed from longer fires and worse stuctural damage have no bearing?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Different situations.

Sure both included fire and structural damage.

But from there on in you get different.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Now now u have to give that steel for buildings is basicly the same just placement and thinkness very,


But that dosent matter ealy

his point i think is
the melting point of steel is static it dose not change

so his other buildings do make a good point

1 inch plate is 1 inch plate and 2 inch plate is 2 inch plate we all agree on that.

so he dose have a point



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
When an airplane of this size hits a building the size of one of the twin towers, it enters the building, the fuel from the plane is ignited as it rushes down stairs and elevator shafts to the bottom floor desimating everything in its path, leaving a weak structure behind to collapse shortly after the explosions, numerous materials fuel the fire as well, paper, natural gas sources, ect. Then another plane hits the second tower and the same thing happens. Why is that so hard to understand or believe?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sure both included fire and structural damage.


But the facts are facts, the simple facts are the WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to ever collapse from fire and structural damage.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
YEs they where the firs and last and we will never see another building ever colapse from a open air fire ever agin



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


For yet another repeat.
Are all buildings designed and built with the same design and materials?
Nope.

Different conditions from A to Z.

To use and stand by your argument is pure ignorance in that it ignores those key points.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
When an airplane of this size hits a building the size of one of the twin towers, it enters the building, the fuel from the plane is ignited as it rushes down stairs and elevator shafts to the bottom floor desimating everything in its path, Why is that so hard to understand or believe?


Several reasons why this is hard to believe.

1. The plane that hit the second tower went in at an angle through the side of the buidling not causing as much damage.

2. Reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

3. Reports state the majority of the fuel was burned off OUTSIDE the buildings. What was left burned off quickly.

4. There is only 1 elevator that goes from the upper floors to the sub basement where the explosions were reported.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


Actually.
Different types of steel have different tolerances.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I needed to add this

Yes we will never see another building fall from an open air fire ever agin even if
it is built just exactly like the twin towers where built



latter all im going to bed


PS NEVER FORGET 9/11 no matter what



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


They are also the only ones to have two airplanes fly into them, as far as expirements go I would say this one proves that a plane can collapse a steel framed building.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by space cadet]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Actually.
Different types of steel have different tolerances.


So if the other buildings that had fires had stronger steel then the towers would you admit i am corract?


Originally posted by space cadet
They are also the only ones to have two airplanes fly into them, as far as expirements go I would say this one proves that a plane can collapse a steel framed building.


But the building withstood the planes impacts. I have shown other buidligns that had longer fires and worse structural damage that did not collapse.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join