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: 41
10
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Are you stating that there was coal at ground zero that kept the fire burning, because there was not much other combusiables to burn.


Not much other combustibles? two 100+ stories collapse? That is a LOT of floors of combustibles. Unless every floor was completely gutted/burned out before the collapse.




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Since I didn't state that, I would have to say NO. As previously stated, I used that as example that underground fires could burn a very long time.


You brought up the PA fire. The fire is a coal fire so you are comparing a coal fire to the debris fire at ground zero.


Originally posted by Disclosed
Not much other combustibles? two 100+ stories collapse? .


I guess you did not see the videos where most everything including concrete was turned to dust.

Maybe you can explain though how these normal combustables would have made a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for at least 6 weeks with poor ventalation in under the debris.




[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I guess you did not see the videos where most everything including concrete was turned to dust.

Maybe you can explain though how these normal combustables would have made a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for at least 6 weeks with poor ventalation in under the debris.


Lets see what OSHA has to say about combustible dust and fires and explosions:


www.osha.gov...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Lets see what OSHA has to say about combustible dust and fires and explosions:


So what does that have to do with the molten steel under the debris pile ?

Oh, i am an OSHA rep, so i know a little bit about this stuff.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So what does that have to do with the molten steel under the debris pile ?


It shows that dust itself can be flammable, even explosive....and can be used in combustion. The link explained everything. I just thought you were looking for information.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
It shows that dust itself can be flammable, even explosive....and can be used in combustion.


But how does flammable dust melt steel under the debris and keep it molten?

Your information is of very little value.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Ahem,

Please stick to the topic at hand and cease the personal sniping. It adds nothing to the debate and lets face it if you have to go personal then maybe its time to take a break and rethink how to better defend your position.

Fred



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Please stick to the topic at hand and cease the personal sniping. It adds nothing to the debate and lets face it if you have to go personal then maybe its time to take a break and rethink how to better defend your position.


What is the personal snipe stating that his information on dust was of little value ???????????????


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I am a new poster to this board but I have been reading threads on this subject here for quite a while. I do not believe that our own government under the direction of a NWO or whatever other theory you may have were involved in planning 9/11.

Some of the theories almost make sense while others are laughable at best. From all the reading I have done it really seems like CT's on this subject only look at one side of the evidence aligned with their views.

I do however think that there are a TON of unanswered questions and think more will come out as time goes on. I agree with: "they had lots of warnings and could have stopped it."

I believe their was a gross negligence in the entire handling of that horrible day, from officials on many levels of our government before, during, and after the attack. 7 years later, I still just can't understand with all the technology we have and the air force, how this wasn't prevented. What makes me even more mad is that not only is Osama Bin Laden still alive but he is also allowed to spread his propaganda messages through mass media! It is a slap in the face to all the innocent people that died that day, military members, and all Americans in general for our government and media to allow his tapes over the air 7 years later, still not captured!


[edit on 6-4-2008 by Comsence2075]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075
7 years later, I still just can't understand with all the technology we have and the air force, how this wasn't prevented.


From the very ancient Art of War:


18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.


www.chinapage.com...


Psychology is part of the equation. It's actually more heavily relied upon than guns and tanks. Because they don't have enough guns and tanks for everyone. But there is always plenty of enough stupidity to spread around.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So what does that have to do with the molten steel under the debris pile ?


It shows that dust itself can be flammable, even explosive....and can be used in combustion. The link explained everything. I just thought you were looking for information.


Yep. And its worth noting that everything burns under certain and varying conditions.

Oh and you forget the shattered contents of the buildings themselves. Cars with gas tanks and other burnable stuff in the parking garage.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and you forget the shattered contents of the buildings themselves. Cars with gas tanks and other burnable stuff in the parking garage.


So what?

I don't like how "debunkers" can just throw out some garbage like this and expect everyone to just roll with it.

Why should I believe steel should be melted just because there are gas tanks in the WTC basement, or any other reason you give for it?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you can explain though how these normal combustables would have made a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for at least 6 weeks with poor ventalation in under the debris.


You've told us often how you're holding out for corroborating evidence from these crime scenes and you're not alone on that.

There's good evidence that there were fires approaching 1000C and that there were ordinary (non-planted) combustible materials normally in the buildings. If you can prove otherwise I'll pay attention.

Do you have good evidence of steel being kept molten for at least 6 weeks or that the fires were poorly ventilated?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's good evidence that there were fires approaching 1000C and that there were ordinary (non-planted) combustible materials normally in the buildings.


Are you sure you aren't talking about the flash-over's temperature? If you even know the difference. Post your source and we'll see.


Do you have good evidence [...] that the fires were poorly ventilated?


The smoke started turning dark about when the jet fuel burned up. NIST uses the change in smoke color to gauge when most of the jet fuel had burned away, and the fires were feeding primarily on office materials.

By definition, soot is uncombusted particles, that come from a less efficient reaction. That equates to a bad fuel/air ratio for oxidation ("the fire"), which is pretty much just what you're asking for: evidence of poorly ventilated fire.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and you forget the shattered contents of the buildings themselves. Cars with gas tanks and other burnable stuff in the parking garage.


I am still wating on a good explination of what caused the molten steel UNDER the debris, and kept it molten for 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Sorry if there's any confusion - I'm referring to the post-collapse fires (the 'at least 6 weeks' thing).

FEMAs analysis of the sample of 'interestingly' corroded steel from the main tower's rubble stated that it showed evidence of prolonged exposure to temperature of



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
there's no evidence to say that steel was maintained in a liquid state for 6 weeks or even 1 day.


We have photos of molten steel and a video of a fire chief talking about how hot it is under the debris 6 weeks later and about molten steel.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We have photos of molten steel and a video of a fire chief talking about how hot it is under the debris 6 weeks later and about molten steel.


But that's not proof that it remained molten for 6 weeks is it?

Remember we're talking about evidence and that sounds more like conjecture (molten for 6 weeks).

I could get into the subject of steel melting to liquid at 1000C, which it doesn't, but the fire chief observed a hot liquid 'something' and I have no evidence that the heart of those fires wasn't hot enough so I leave it as a possibility not being evidence of conspiracy either way. Who's to say that the act of uncovering the fire didn't cause the rapid temperature rise (increased draft) that produced the melting after all?

Just like you have no part number verification for the planes, there's no proof of steel staying molten for 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Just a question on this, what was the fire doing during the collapse? Was it put out or made more intense?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Just a question on this, what was the fire doing during the collapse? Was it put out or made more intense?


Just going by the fireballs that were squeezed out as the damaged floors collapsed, the fires were far from being out at that time. So I'd say they were intensified by the forced draft and how much of that heat would be lost in the 20 seconds or so that it took for the rubble pile to stop moving?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join