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: 38
10
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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



Actually it does not. A majority of the article is paraphrased. Having worked at a major newpaper (and being married to a current editor for 15+ years now), I think I know what a paraphrased article looks like.

If the FEMA report does indeed state that, then you should have no problem linking the exact quote....or telling us what page it is on.




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the FEMA report does indeed state that, then you should have no problem linking the exact quote....or telling us what page it is on.


Oh you mean like i can quote the NIST computer model stating the plane impact and fire did not casue the collapse?

911research.wtc7.net...

2.2.1.1 Initial Damage From Aircraft Impact
Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analyses and also evidenced by the fact that the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact. However, the structure's global strength was severely degraded. Although the structure may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could potentially have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes. WTC 1 probably experienced some additional loading and damage due to the collapse of the adjacent WTC 2. The extent of such damage is not known but likely included broken window and facade elements along the south face. This additional damage was not sufficient to cause collapse. The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.






[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

And I see you choose to only read what you want to read.
This is what I said.
You're always going to have some conflicting testimony. That's why they say, "preponderance of evidence".


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.


Do I really need to post all the photos and videos? I will if you like. Then it will be up to you to debunk the hundreds and hundreds of photos/videos. Would you like to do that?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj12

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.

Of course you are taking them out of context. There are several reports that have been posted that have directly contradicted what you've stated. I've posted one of them-The NIST final report.



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.

Simply put, you are wrong. It's been proven that the statement you have made is wrong.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Keep in mind that isn't what we're talking about at the moment. Ultima is making a claim as to what is in the report and it isn't there. Let's take it one step at a time.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Do I really need to post all the photos and videos? I will if you like. Then it will be up to you to debunk the hundreds and hundreds of photos/videos. Would you like to do that?

You can show me as many pictures and videos of planes as you like. However, until you can show me the positively identified plane wreckage, then how can you expect me to believe that there really was a plane in any of those pictures or videos?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course you are taking them out of context. There are several reports that have been posted that have directly contradicted what you've stated. I've posted one of them-The NIST final report.


I have posted several reports that state the planes did not casue the collapse the fire was the main cause.

I have also posted the NIST computer model that states the plane impact and fire did not casue the collaspe.

Also i have shown that NIST made mistakes and they have contridicted thier own reports.

FEMA contridicts the NIST reports.

2.2.1.1 Initial Damage From Aircraft Impact
Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analyses and also evidenced by the fact that the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact. However, the structure's global strength was severely degraded. Although the structure may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could potentially have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes. WTC 1 probably experienced some additional loading and damage due to the collapse of the adjacent WTC 2. The extent of such damage is not known but likely included broken window and facade elements along the south face. This additional damage was not sufficient to cause collapse. The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.





[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Do I really need to post all the photos and videos? I will if you like. Then it will be up to you to debunk the hundreds and hundreds of photos/videos. Would you like to do that?

You can show me as many pictures and videos of planes as you like. However, until you can show me the positively identified plane wreckage, then how can you expect me to believe that there really was a plane in any of those pictures or videos?


Well there is either were planes or there were not. The videos, pictures and eye witness show there were some sort of planes at the very least.

Basically what you are claiming is as follows:
let's say someone runs you over. When the police question you, you cannot identify the car that ran you over. You yourself saw the car but don't know what kind. Since you cannot identify what car ran you over EXACTLY, the police tell you that they can't determine you were actually hit by ANY car. That's what you're saying. Maybe you should rethink that tact and get back to me.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course you are taking them out of context. There are several reports that have been posted that have directly contradicted what you've stated. I've posted one of them-The NIST final report.


I have posted several reports that state the planes did not casue the collapse the fire was the main cause.

I have also posted the NIST computer model that states the plane impact and fire did not casue the collaspe.

Also i have shown that NIST made mistakes and they have contridicted thier own reports.

FEMA contridicts the NIST reports.

2.2.1.1 Initial Damage From Aircraft Impact
Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analyses and also evidenced by the fact that the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact. However, the structure's global strength was severely degraded. Although the structure may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could potentially have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes. WTC 1 probably experienced some additional loading and damage due to the collapse of the adjacent WTC 2. The extent of such damage is not known but likely included broken window and facade elements along the south face. This additional damage was not sufficient to cause collapse. The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Even this report says that the planes were the initiating factor in collapse.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Basically what you are claiming is as follows:
let's say someone runs you over.

Your useless analogies do not help to supply me evidence that identifies the alleged planes. This thread is about evidence for a 911 conspiracy, not me being hit by a car. Stay on topic, please.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
FEMA found signs of a thermite type reactino in the steel.


I read through fema403_apc.pdf again and thermite is a word that doesn't appear in there for some reason. The only thing this corrosion has in common with thermite is heat and the microscopic analysis only indicates it experienced temperatures of 1000C or less which is far cooler than thermite. Thermite is a simple reaction and the only products are heat, iron and aluminium oxide but the chemical analysis comes up negative for the presence of aluminium oxide if I read correctly.

NIST may not have publicly investigated actual samples of WTC7 steel for thermite but they did at least analyse hypotheses involving thermite and that study was completed in mid 2006 with no breakthrough announcements. They currently have contractors working on WTC7 scenarios to determine whether blasts small enough to not break windows (therefore quietish) could possibly cause failure of major structural elements. Final report *should* be released sometime this year.

Maybe the thermite theories are just a flash in the pan



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You can show me as many pictures and videos of planes as you like. However, until you can show me the positively identified plane wreckage, then how can you expect me to believe that there really was a plane in any of those pictures or videos?



Just trying to understand your position on this

Do you think there were no planes at all involved?
Plane 'bits' did fall out of the sky that day after all and planes were extensively witnessed hitting the buildings. If I were unprepared and glimpsed a fast-moving large aircraft for just 2 or 3 seconds I may be able to tell you how many engines it had and whether the landing gear was lowered but not much more than that.

Or is it case of planes not necessarily the ones it was claimed to be (just similar at a quick glance) ?

Or maybe you're just holding out for corroborating evidence matching the parts. After all this time would you accept such evidence signed by the FBI, NTSB and whoever else it takes to make it 'official' ?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Basically what you are claiming is as follows:
let's say someone runs you over.

Your useless analogies do not help to supply me evidence that identifies the alleged planes. This thread is about evidence for a 911 conspiracy, not me being hit by a car. Stay on topic, please.


The only reason I gave you that analogy is that you were unable to understand what I posted previously. I am on topic.

Once again, We don't need to know exactly what flight numbers were on the planes that hit the buildings, if we just want to know whether or not planes hit the buildings. There is evidence to support, at the very least, some type of planes hit the buildings. For example,
The majority of eyewitnesses say they saw planes.
Photos show planes
Videos show planes
There was plane wreckage scattered about around the buildings.
These things are known as evidence. That evidence points toward, at the very least, 2 real airplanes of some type, hit the buildings. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this so hopefully this explanation helps.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Even this report says that the planes were the initiating factor in collapse.


You did not read tht report then. At least read the last line, maybe you can understand that.


The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.



I have shown that the FEMA report along with other reports that evewn include Homeland Security that state the aircraft di dnot do enough damage to casue the collapse and that the main factor of the collaps ewas th fire.

These reports along with the NIST computer model debate the NIST final report.

quote]Originally posted by Pilgrum
NIST may not have publicly investigated actual samples of WTC7 steel for thermite but they did at least analyse hypotheses involving thermite and that study was completed in mid 2006 with no breakthrough announcements.

NIST did not recover any steel from buidling 7. Even NIST reports state they did not recover any steel, so their could not have been any testing..

[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Even this report says that the planes were the initiating factor in collapse.


You did not read tht report then. At least read the last line, maybe you can understand that.


The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.



I have shown that the FEMA report along with other reports that evewn include Homeland Security that state the aircraft di dnot do enough damage to casue the collapse and that the main factor of the collaps ewas th fire.

These reports along with the NIST computer model debate the NIST final report.

quote]Originally posted by Pilgrum
NIST may not have publicly investigated actual samples of WTC7 steel for thermite but they did at least analyse hypotheses involving thermite and that study was completed in mid 2006 with no breakthrough announcements.


NIST did not recover any steel from buidling 7. Even NIST reports state they did not recover any steel, so their could not have been any testing..

[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Re-read what you posted. The report is quite clear that the planes were the initiator. Also, the final NIST report says pretty much the same thing.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Re-read what you posted. The report is quite clear that the planes were the initiator. Also, the final NIST report says pretty much the same thing.


The planes might have initiated the fire but the planes had nothing to do with the casue of the collapse as proven by most of the reports.

As stated and proven by the NIST computer model, the PLANE IMPACT and FIRE did not cause the collapse.



[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Re-read what you posted. The report is quite clear that the planes were the initiator. Also, the final NIST report says pretty much the same thing.


The planes might have initiated the fire but the planes had nothing to do with the casue of the collapse as proven by most of the reports.

As stated and proven by the NIST computer model, the PLANE IMPACT and FIRE did not cause the collapse.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


What does the NIST say caused the collapse if not the planes and fires?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What does the NIST say caused the collapse if not the planes and fires?


It doesn't, only that it took more then the impact and fire to cause 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.



[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What does the NIST say caused the collapse if not the planes and fires?


It doesn't, only that it took more then the impact and fire to cause 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.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


So logically you must assume since no conclusion is reached in this part of the report, you must look elsewhere for their final cause right? Is there somewhere else in the NIST final report that states what the cause is?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
There was plane wreckage scattered about around the buildings.

Was any of this alleged evidence ever confirmed to be the wreckage of the alleged flights AA11 or UA175?




top topics



 
10
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join