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: 37
10
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Disclosed
So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?
This isnt turning into a "no planes" thread now, is it?

Here are some conflicting eyewitness reports that dispute what might have allegedly 'hit' the towers.


You're always going to have some conflicting testimony. That's why they say, "preponderance of evidence". It's really hard to argue with the massive amount of videos and photos though showing at the very least, some type of planes hit the buildings.

FYI: This will not be turning into a no-planes thread as that hypothesis as been completely debunked as realistically IMPOSSIBLE.




posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Incorrect. The reports state the following: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse. I can show you those quotes again in the released reports, if you like.

More structural damage? Were they hit by aircraft as well? What caused the structural damage?

So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?


Most reports state that the main casue of the collapse was the fire.

Here's a bit of info from the NIST FINAL REPORT

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings

This doesn't say that the fires were the primary cause.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisclosedThanks for agreeing with my post.


I will makes this as simple as i can.

Please read the following lines and please try to understand that they are stating the fire was the main casue of the collapse.

but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


By selectively copying those lines, you are taking the idea of the report out of context. Let me put it simply, you are wrong based on your own posts.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST definately knows what its talking about
Combined effects....impact and resulting fires.

Fact.


How can NIST know what they are talking about when they do not do test for chemicals and explosives on the WTC 1 and 2 steel and do not recover any steel at all from WTC 7?

FACT,, Thats not what the Director of NIST stated in front of Homeland Security, was he lying to them?


[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Why would they test for explosives? It's evident that the plane impacts created the chain of events. As example, if a police investigator is looking into the shooting death of a person, they don't test them for cancer to make sure what they really died of, do they?



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed


Originally posted by Disclosed
I thought at one time you said the fires were not that large, and burning out. Yet these experts say the fires were large enough to bring down the buildings on their own?

I am just posting facts and evidence from the sites as i do research.

As stated trying to find the truth of what really happened.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

But according to your own previous posts, those aren't facts. You can't have it both ways.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 30-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is quite apparent that once they got all the facts and evidence, they were able to make their conclusions

How can they conclude that planes contributed to the collapse of the towers, when they don't have the facts or evidence to identify that planes were involved?


You don't need to know the flight number to know how much damage a large plane can do when you have photos and videos showing the damage occurring. THATS HOW.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're always going to have some conflicting testimony. That's why they say, "preponderance of evidence". It's really hard to argue with the massive amount of videos and photos though showing at the very least, some type of planes hit the buildings.

Yes, there is conflicting eyewitness testimony about no plane hitting the building. I guess that you have to choose which evidence you believe, along with the associated risks that you might be ignoring significant evidence by choosing not to believe other evidence.

There is evidence of TV fakery on 911. Here is the first link from a search, showing how the FOX archives do not match the 'live' broadcasts. There are plenty of matches on TV fakery, nose out video, Chopper 5 velocity video, if you care to search them.

Don't worry, this won't be a no-plane thread. It's a thread about evidence. I've provided evidence of eyewitnesses, at the scene, who never saw any planes - while you can't provide any evidence for me to identify the planes that allegedly hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So what you're saying is that the fires in the other buildings caused more structural damage then a jet liner hitting a building. So you are also saying that indeed fires can cause severe structural damage.

Would you like me to post photos, videos, etc.?? Because those things are evidence that SOME TYPE OF LARGE PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS.


1. The fires in the buidlings i posted were longer then the fires in the WTC buidlings so they casued more structural damge. The fires in the towers did not even last 1 hour so little structrual damage was casued by the fire.

2. Well you can show all the photos, videos and what ever else you want but if you claim that FLight 11 and 175 hit the towers you need to show evidence of FLight 11 and 175 hitting the towers or you are just making an opinion.



Originally posted by jfj123
By selectively copying those lines, you are taking the idea of the report out of context. Let me put it simply, you are wrong based on your own posts.


NO, i am not taking the reports out of context. The reports state that the fires were the main cause of the collapse.

Also i have shown that NIST own model concludes impact and fire did not casue the collapse.


Originally posted by jfj123
Why would they test for explosives?


NO it is not evident that the planes casued the buildings to collapse. Most reports state the buildings withstood the planse impacts.

FEMA thought it was imprtmat enough to test for chemicals and explosives and recover steel from building 7.


Originally posted by jfj123
But according to your own previous posts, those aren't facts.


Yes they are facts as stated in the reports i posted, even NIST own reports that contridict the theory of impact and fire casing the collapse.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Did FEMA report finding positive evidence of explosives or traces of chemicals that would have to be introduced to the building (IE chemicals that couldn't have been already present for everyday non-evil purposes) in order to cause structural failure?

From the report posted by Griff in another thread they maybe only retrieved a single piece of steel that showed 'interesting' signs of corrosion with no indication that such samples were plentiful at the scene (WTC7 rubble).

What I noticed from pics of the remains of the towers is that the huge majority of core steel sections don't appear to have been cut or even bent which would seem odd for a controlled demolition. Sure the floor trusses were tangled like pretzels though, as if a huge mass had grossly overwhelmed them.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, i am not taking the reports out of context. The reports state that the fires were the main cause of the collapse.

Also i have shown that NIST own model concludes impact and fire did not casue the collapse.

The report does not state that fire was the main cause of the collapse. The NIST report clearly states the following:

wtc.nist.gov...


General Findings
Finding 42: The structural analyses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 found that the collapse of the towers was due to the combined effects of structural and insulation damage from aircraft impact and the subsequential fires on the core, floor systems and exterior walls. The towers collapsed when the weakened core and exterior columns could no longer redistribute or support the building loads with the reduced load carrying capacity.

Finding 43: Impact damage alone did not cause collapse of the towers, as they were stable after the aircraft impact. Global analyses showed that both towers has substantial reserve capacity after the aircraft impact.

Finding 44: The multi-floor fires alone did not cause the collapse of the towers. Without impact damage to the insulation, the structural steel temperatures would have been generally less that 200 C to 300C, with a few isolated locations of structural steel temperatures exceeding 400 C in WTC 1 floors and 500 C in WTC 2 floors. The core would not have weakened, the floor sag would have been insufficient to pull inward on the exteriour columns, and the exterior walls would not have bowed inward.


Please show us where it states that fire was the main cause of the collapse.



[edit on 31-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST report clearly states the following


NIST never verified their conclusions in any way whatsoever.

Just because you refuse to post their real evidence, doesn't mean we're suddenly going to believe NIST's report is therefore somehow legitimate.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Did FEMA report finding positive evidence of explosives or traces of chemicals that would have to be introduced to the building (IE chemicals that couldn't have been already present for everyday non-evil purposes) in order to cause structural failure?


FEMA found signs of a thermite type reactino in the steel.

911research.wtc7.net...

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


911research.wtc7.net...

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The report does not state that fire was the main cause of the collapse. The NIST report clearly states the following:


The NIST computer model clearly shows that impact and fire did not casue the collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


The FEMA report states the buidling withdtood the planes impacts and that fire was the main casue of the collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


After reading things like this, and knowing what the NIST report does and does not contain, I have to wonder how the "debunkers" came to think these reports really agreed with their own opinions in the first place. It's like these reports just put their unsupported and over-simplistic collapse hypotheses in the spotlight (as more or less 'best guesses') and don't even try to hide all the ugly details that point to what actually may have happened. I guess they (correctly) figured no one would really read it that closely or even ultimately care.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
After reading things like this, and knowing what the NIST report does and does not contain, I have to wonder how the "debunkers" came to think these reports really agreed with their own opinions in the first place.


As stated NIST never did any testing for explosives or chemicals and they did not recover any steel from buildling 7 for testing.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The FEMA report states the buidling withdtood the planes impacts and that fire was the main casue of the collapse.


I'm curious why you linked a reporters story, and interpretation, rather than the actual FEMA report. You should have no problem showing us what page of the report states that then.

The NIST report definately says otherwise.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why you linked a reporters story, and interpretation, rather than the actual FEMA report. You should have no problem showing us what page of the report states that then.

The NIST report definately says otherwise.



FEMA gives in chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1 that the perimeter columns severed on the impacted floors was less than 15% of the total.

NIST modeled maximum core column damage from impact, even changing Flight 175's impact angle to do so, and got a max of something like 7 out of 47 columns severed.

Assuming a generalized safety factor of 2, the impacts took out less than 15% of the columns when they needed to take over 50% (at least).

50% - 15% gives you a rough idea as to how much more damage the fire would have to do than the impacts.

(Ie at least 4x as much structural damage.)



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST report definately says otherwise.


The site that posted the FEMA report is a firefighter site. Not a media site.

But the NIST computer model states that plane impact and fire did not cause the collapse.




[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The site that posted the FEMA report is a firefighter site. Not a media site.


The report you linked was this:

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse

SHANNON McCAFFREY
Associated Press Writer


Associated Press Writer. AP is a media organization.

AP is not a division of FEMA.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Associated Press Writer. AP is a media organization.


But the site is a firefighter site and it quotes the FEMA report.

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join