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: 21
10
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


My point exactly Pilgram! It seems that the fact that a PLANE hit the buildings is insignificant. I am sorry but that is one fact that cannot be disproved unless it is done again to scale, and I think that is what it will take for some to understand that the buildings went down due to damage.

Ultima- everyone knows the buildings did not imediatly collapse, it took around 45 min for the first one to go, but ultimately they fell from the sustained damage. What would you suggest they fell from? Did you witness the event firsthand? Are you aware that there were no other explosions or fires prior to the collapse other than the damage from the planes? Are you aware that there were men and women inside the buildings with radios and cellphones and no other fires or explosions were reported? It just happened. It is what happens when a plane slams into your arse. Or a steel core structure.

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




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendantLoL!!!!!!!
Your arguments are getting almost fun to poke holes in.


At least i do research and can post facts and evidence.

You have no evidnece to support your theory or the offical story.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
Ultima- everyone knows the buildings did not imediatly collapse, it took around 45 min for the first one to go, but ultimately they fell from the sustained damage.


NO, thats not what the report i posted states.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.


Also reports state the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to casue the collaspe either.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

At least i do research and can post facts and evidence.


Your "facts and evidence" have been disproven on other sites, many times over.

Unfortunately you have been banned from a majority of those sites now, so cannot defend yourself there....most recently Ebaumsworld.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

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.

Kindly show me where it has been confirmed that the two alleged planes AA11 and UA175 flew into the two towers? Forensic evidence, please - not hearsay.

Also, please explain how a passport (from the plane) can allegedly survive a fireball, fall to the street and then be found in readable condition. Thanks for clearing up that part of the official story for me.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Your "facts and evidence" have been disproven on other sites, many times over.


No, people think they have disproven my facts but actually they only posted statements and opinions with no actual evidence to disprove what i have posted.

Please do not post about other forums, we are talking on this forum, specailly since there might be a legal case.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The outside perimiter was a lightweight material, the inner core had no columns. The buildings collapsed inward. Structural defienciency played a part in the collapse as well. Have you ever worked on a construction job? The guys get tired and start stuffing beams with paper and materials certainly not meant to be a part of the building processes, beams that should have been filled with concrete wind up with nothing but empty beer cans and paper in them. Fire equipment is said to have failed as well, due to being cut off from the plane's impacts. Many other facts play into this.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


OMG, I am not about to try to prove that the dang planes did or did not hit the buildings! That is ridiculous. Where were you, under a rock inside a cave on some distant planet when 911 happened? I had family in New York, a pair of eyewitnesses to the event. These are not the only reasons for me to believe that planes hit the WTC, just a start.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
The outside perimiter was a lightweight material, the inner core had no columns.


Wrong, the inner core was made up of heavy collumns. Might want to do some research on the design of the buildings.

Also as stated in my post the buidlings were designed to withstand more the planes impacts.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Excuse me, maybe you need to read your own link/source Ultima, it states the exact same thing. Lightweight materials used on the outer perimeters.


here you go, from you own source:


In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.


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



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Total outside tower:10,600 lbs
WTC 2 floor 77: 1,300 lbs
WTC 2 floor 78: 6,200 lbs
WTC 2 floor 79: 11,400 lbs
WTC 2 floor 80: 6,000 lbs
WTC 2 floor 81: 14,400 lbs
WTC 2 floor 82: 10,600 lbs
WTC 2 floor 83: 1,500 lbs
WTC 2 floor 84: 200 lbs
Total fuel weight: 62,000 lbs
Since when is 10,600lbs of fuel a majority over 62,000 lbs?

I don't have the ability to download a 35MB file right now to check that link.

Therefore, could you please explain the methods that NIST used to determine, with a 0.322% accuracy, the amount of fuel that was allegedly spread over each floor?

You might want to grab a calculator and sum the figures that are mentioned in that article. They add to 62,200 pounds, not 62,000. I hope that NIST checked these figures before they were published (or faked?).

Thanks.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
Excuse me, maybe you need to read your own link/source Ultima, it states the exact same thing. Lightweight materials used on the outer perimeters.


Yes on the outer but not the inner.

Also even the lightweight beams on the outer perimenter shredded the thin aluminum airframe.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
OMG, I am not about to try to prove that the dang planes did or did not hit the buildings! That is ridiculous.

Well, if you can't prove that the two alleged planes hit the towers, then you can't prove the official story.

Thanks for your contribution, as brief as it was.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   


While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Again this is from YOUR source.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall,


Yes, and notice it only states perimeter wall colimns, not the interior. This has been verified by many reports.

You need to pay attention to this part.
"the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure"

As far as the fires, that has not been verified by reports. In fact most reports state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to casue the collapse.





[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


In all fairness, and in your all knowing wisdom, please give us the proof that they did or did not hit the building then. Not hearsay, your proof sir?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima, it goes on to explain that. I am history in this conversation for tonight, I find it maddening that you use sourcesto back up your theory and then only pick out the parts that fit for your theory to work. Then it still doesn't work, but you go on believing it. Good night.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
In all fairness, and in your all knowing wisdom, please give us the proof that they did or did not hit the building then. Not hearsay, your proof sir?


Well for 1, we have no reports mathcing parts found to the aircraft that were supposed to have hit the buildings.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
In all fairness, and in your all knowing wisdom, please give us the proof that they did or did not hit the building then. Not hearsay, your proof sir?

In case you're not familiar with logic and proof, I'll explain.

If you believe in the official story that AA11 and UA175 allegedly hit the towers, then you will be able to supply factual evidence to verify the claim.

A lack of belief requires me to do nothing.

The onus is upon you, making the claim that those two flights hit the towers, to supply the evidence which proves the claim.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
I find it maddening that you use sourcesto back up your theory and then only pick out the parts that fit for your theory to work. .


No i post facts and evidence that can be verified through other sources.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join