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: 39
10
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
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?


Actually, not necessarily. NIST left a lot unanswered. That's what people mean when they say, NIST left a lot unanswered.


NIST refuted "pancake theory" but offered no specific global collapse theory of their own. So that's another example.

NIST also says each floor could withstand the equivalent of 6 more floors impacting it. So what about the first floor to theoretically fall, when it hit the floor just below it? That's another question NIST never answered.

It's so easy, just not answering questions. It's as if the questions will just never exist or matter.

FEMA even left WTC7 as a huge, blatantly unanswered question. NIST is still trying to answer that one, since someone is obligated to.




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?


Did I ever, at any point, say it was? NO.
Am I claiming, based on available evidence, that SOME TYPE of large planes hit the WTC's? YES.

How many times do you need to read that? Broken record much?

Unless you believe that all of the photos, videos, and eyewitness reports have been faked, the only out you have if you don't believe real planes hit the towers, is the HOLOGRAM IDEA. That idea has been completely debunked.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by jfj123]



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

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
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?


Actually, not necessarily. NIST left a lot unanswered. That's what people mean when they say, NIST left a lot unanswered.


NIST refuted "pancake theory" but offered no specific global collapse theory of their own. So that's another example.

NIST also says each floor could withstand the equivalent of 6 more floors impacting it. So what about the first floor to theoretically fall, when it hit the floor just below it? That's another question NIST never answered.

It's so easy, just not answering questions. It's as if the questions will just never exist or matter.

FEMA even left WTC7 as a huge, blatantly unanswered question. NIST is still trying to answer that one, since someone is obligated to.


Well since we're speculating and playing the "What if" game,
What if the buildings were just built poorly? That's pretty common unfortunately.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well since we're speculating and playing the "What if" game,
What if the buildings were just built poorly? That's pretty common unfortunately.


What if? That doesn't cut it for me, but why not?

A lot of the core columns don't look like they were ever actually welded end-to-end. You're right: that's something else NIST just never talks about.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Did I ever, at any point, say it was? NO.
Am I claiming, based on available evidence, that SOME TYPE of large planes hit the WTC's? YES.


Oh, so now you agree you have no evindence that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers? So does that mena you do not believe the official story now?



Originally posted by jfj123
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?


The final report contridicts what the computer model states, and other prior NIST reports.

FEMA report contridicts the NIST final report.

Homeland Security report also contridicts the NIST final report.

In fact several reports contridict what the NIST final report states.



[edit on 2-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Did I ever, at any point, say it was? NO.
Am I claiming, based on available evidence, that SOME TYPE of large planes hit the WTC's? YES.


Oh, so now you agree you have no evindence that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers? So does that mena you do not believe the official story now?

I didn't say that. I am currently discussing whether or not planes of any type, hit the towers. I think there's enough evidence to suggest, at the very least, some type of planes hit the towers, and the other person is simply not getting that.



Originally posted by jfj123
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?


The final report contridicts what the computer model states, and other prior NIST reports.

FEMA report contridicts the NIST final report.

Homeland Security report also contridicts the NIST final report.

In fact several reports contridict what the NIST final report states.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Well I can understand that the NIST interim report contradicts the final report. That's why you have more then one report. If NIST knew with 100% certainty that everything was answered in their 1st report, they never would have made a final report. Preliminary reports in investigations are very common.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
they never would have made a final report. Preliminary reports in investigations are very common.


But a final report should not completly contridict what all prior reports state.

How can the final report state that the collapse was caused by impact and fire when their own computer model states that the impact and fire did not cause the collapse?

[edit on 2-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
they never would have made a final report. Preliminary reports in investigations are very common.


But a final report should not completly contridict what all prior reports state.

Why not? What precident has been set that this cannot happen?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But a final report should not completly contridict what all prior reports state.


So if an agency puts out a preliminary report, then subsequently find new information that changes some outcomes, they should not include that in their final report?

You would prefer they cover up information rather than modify their final report?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How can the final report state that the collapse was caused by impact and fire when their own computer model states that the impact and fire did not cause the collapse?


From the current state of their report in relation to the modelling, they did produce a collapse initiation based on impact force, fuel explosions and subsequent fires. They had to take the parameters to extremes to do it but it did indicate collapse from plane impacts and fires alone was possible. The key variables were plane velocity, fire temperature and building strength. The first 2 were ramped up to what many consider unrealistic levels while there was perhaps some reluctance to decrease the figure for the 3rd variable enough to allow slower planes and cooler fires to get the same result.

That indicates that they (so far) believe the planes and the fires did cause collapse to start. The 'other' factor in the collapses isn't necessarily explosions or thermite, it may be that the buildings were more severely damaged by the impacts than has been considered due to structural issues (pre-existing) and that could mean they fell apart more easily than the design dictates as collapse progressed (the lack of resistance thing). It would open a giant legal can of worms if they declared the buildings weren't put together as well as intended for whatever reason.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why not? What precident has been set that this cannot happen?


Becasue that would mean they were either wrong or lied on the prior reports or on the final report.


Originally posted by Disclosed
So if an agency puts out a preliminary report, then subsequently find new information that changes some outcomes, they should not include that in their final report?


No, that not what i stated.

If the computer model states the impact and fire DID NOT cause the collapse and then the final report states the imact and fire DID cause the collapse then either 1 report is completly wrong or they lied on 1 report.

The reports should not completly contridict each other.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
That indicates that they (so far) believe the planes and the fires did cause collapse to start. The 'other' factor in the collapses isn't necessarily explosions or thermite, it may be that the buildings were more severely damaged by the impacts than has been considered due to structural issues (pre-existing) and that could mean they fell apart more easily than the design dictates as collapse progressed (the lack of resistance thing).


But that still does not explain the molten steel in the basment and debris.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Why not? What precident has been set that this cannot happen?


Becasue that would mean they were either wrong or lied on the prior reports or on the final report.

That's the whole point of having a preliminary report or reports and a final report. New evidence may come into light or variables that may not have been considered were considered later. What's the big deal? This happens all the time. You're making a mountain out of a tiny, tiny mole hill.


The reports should not completly contridict each other.

Why not?



[edit on 3-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
New evidence may come into light or variables that may not have been considered were considered later.


Please explain to me how the computer model can conclude one thing and the final report state something completly different?

There are no varibables in the reports, they are completly contridicting each other.

Plus the fact that several other reports disagree with the NIST final report, and NIST is not the main investigating agency for 9/11 the FBI and NTSB are.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Plus the fact that several other reports disagree with the NIST final report, and NIST is not the main investigating agency for 9/11 the FBI and NTSB are.


If this report doesnt matter much to you, since the FBI and NTSB reports are the only official reports (which have yet to be released).....then why obsess so much over them?

You seem to be fixated on finding flaws in it....yet you keep saying its not part of the main investigation.

Just curious...

[edit on 4-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But that still does not explain the molten steel in the basment and debris.


But a source of heat is the only explanation for that, like post collapse fires in the rubble unless you have proof that there were no fires. I fail to see the conspiracy in a fire after a building has come down while having extensive fires in it.

From the NIST final report on WTC1 & 2:



• The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
• In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.


Also their 'more severe' model for each tower did achieve a collapse but the parameters were questionable in terms of impact speed/damage and fire temperature as I stated earlier. Those cases assumed the buildings retained an integrity of about 80% of design but if it was far less than that the impact and fire parameters could be substantially reduced.

So I fail to see the contradiction there as the damage to the fireproofing was caused by the planes obviously, leaving the structural steel more susceptible to thermal damage from fire.

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
You seem to be fixated on finding flaws in it....yet you keep saying its not part of the main investigation.


Mainly because people that believe the official story keep using the final NIST report as the bible as proof what happened on 9/11.

When in fact its been shown that the NIST final report has many flaws and contridicts their own computer model.

Also NIST still has not been able to come out with a official and proper report on building 7 after 7 years becasue they failed to recover any steel for testing.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
But a source of heat is the only explanation for that, like post collapse fires in the rubble unless you have proof that there were no fires.


But where did the source of heat come from?

We know the fires in the building were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse.

So where did the heat source come from to melt steel and keep it molten for up to 6 weeks?



[edit on 4-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed

Also NIST still has not been able to come out with a official and proper report on building 7 after 7 years becasue they failed to recover any steel for testing.

The NIST final report for building 7 is due out this year. I've never seen a statement by the NIST that says, "We can't come out with the final report because we failed to collect steel samples for testing". Could you please post that statement from the NIST? Thanks.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
But a source of heat is the only explanation for that, like post collapse fires in the rubble unless you have proof that there were no fires.


But where did the source of heat come from?

Maybe smoldering fires?


We know the fires in the building were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse.

Actually we don't know that they all burned completely out and the probability that they burned out including hot coals and small isolated fires, is very small.


So where did the heat source come from to melt steel and keep it molten for up to 6 weeks?

Underground fires can burn indefinitely as long as there is material to burn.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But where did the source of heat come from?


The post collapse fires - they were hot.
Didn't they get IR imaging from space?.
I never heard of anyone having put a pyrometer probe into the heart of the fires to get actual temperatures but why would they.



We know the fires in the building were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse.


According to those reports you often quote, the pre-collapse fires didn't have to be that hot (hot enough to melt steel). Even FEMA's 'sample 1' of corroded steel from the towers (not the 'sample 2' from WTC7) showed it was subjected to a temperature below 1000C which is well short of actually melting steel (>1300C).



So where did the heat source come from to melt steel and keep it molten for up to 6 weeks?


The heat came from the fires.
Do you have evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks or even 1 day or 1 hour or is that just guesswork?
Logic would indicate that the likelihood is inversely proportional to the duration.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The post collapse fires - they were hot.
Didn't they get IR imaging from space?.


How did the fires from the towers get hot enough to melt steel, they were burning out before the collapse?

No, the EPA requested NASA to overfly the WTC with a plane having special imaging equipment (AVIRIS) to look for hotspots, toxic and radiation areas.

Their were temps over 1600 degrees up to 6 weks after the towers collapsed, no fires would have burned that long and hot not getting oxygen through the tons of debis.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How did the fires from the towers get hot enough to melt steel, they were burning out before the collapse?


But didnt you state earlier that fires were the primary cause of the collapse? Now you are saying the fires were bruning out before the collapse?


Which is it....burning or not burning?




top topics



 
10
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join