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: 42
10
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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?


Wow, who would've thought you would say the collapse made the fires more intense? Awfully convenient for what you already believe but it doesn't make much sense.

Fire is not a physical object that can fall. Fire is the oxidation (a chemical reaction) that takes place when whatever is hot enough to burn, is exposed to oxygen, and a proper fuel/air ratio is established. I don't know if you've made many fires in the woods, for example. You can blow on embers and rekindle a fire. Warm/hot air is best because cold air is also a heat sink in addition to an oxygen source, and if you drop something that's burning 1000 feet through the air, I don't think that's going to make it burn better. In fact, I know it's not. [snip] unless you'd like to post some links or something to explain this phenomenon you have in mind.
 

Moderator edit and note:
Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by dbates]




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
You mentioned flashpoint earlier and that applies to all flammable material. The ejection of fireballs as those impacted floors collapsed indicates that there were substantial fires still burning in there so how much combustible material could be expected to be above it's critical temperature even if the flames were fanned away briefly?

What I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't have lost much of that heat in the short time it took to reach ground level. Would flammable material still heated above flashpoint and in the presence of still burning material (most likely smouldering after the collapse) be reasonably expected to re-ignite?

All this material that was smouldering which was 3 or more floors worth of it at the very least mixed with some heated steel possibly at or near red heat would have been mixed with fresh sources of combustibles. The fact that it continued burning with even more intensity doesn't surprise me.

I don't expect universal concensus on it - it's just my opinion after all.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't have lost much of that heat in the short time it took to reach ground level.


Well all the photos and videos show the fires were burning out before the collapse.

I am still waiting for a good explanation of the molten steel in the basements and under the debris.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?


Well here's an example of steel being melted just because there were gas tanks in the tunnel. I've looked at quite a few other tunnel fires and found the same thing.

I-5 tunnel fire
The fire spread from vehicle to vehicle, sent flames shooting nearly 100 feet in the air outside the tunnel and reached temperatures as high as 1,400 degrees.

The fire "consumed everything that was burnable" and left only "molten metal, frames of vehicles," Tripp added.

As the fire spread Friday night, flames shot out of both ends of the tunnel, rising as high as 100 feet into the air, firefighters at the scene said.

The intense heat caused concrete to crack and melt, sending chucks falling onto a road below throughout the night.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Pilgrum


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.


Weren't there fires on multiple floors? Couldn't parts of the multiple fires be burning plastics, etc. which would produce dark smoke while other parts of the fires were burning more efficient materials?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.



I think he's still waiting for your to prove that molten metal was there for 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Weren't there fires on multiple floors?


Didn't the planes physically impact multiple floors?


Couldn't parts of the multiple fires be burning plastics, etc. which would produce dark smoke while other parts of the fires were burning more efficient materials?


You're still implying that the fires were mostly giving off sooty smoke, which is indicative of the same thing. Even if it's plastics, that's just how plastics burn. It's not some kind of excuse, it's just how it is.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher

For example, in the first 10 minutes you'll be told that 'The Rothschilds bought up the British economy' (precise quote) after it was erroneously reported that Napoleon had just won the Battle of Waterloo. Well, you can easily discover that in 1815, over 99% of the Brit economy was in private hands, and not even for sale. Of the very tiny part which had publicly available shares, there is no record of 'The Rothschilds' buying ANY shares during that period. I presume Jones researched the fact that Nathan Rothschild had a private intelligence service which brought news of the battle's result early, and he just invents the rest.



Please elaborate. Where did you get this information?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher

For example, in the first 10 minutes you'll be told that 'The Rothschilds bought up the British economy' (precise quote) after it was erroneously reported that Napoleon had just won the Battle of Waterloo. Well, you can easily discover that in 1815, over 99% of the Brit economy was in private hands, and not even for sale. Of the very tiny part which had publicly available shares, there is no record of 'The Rothschilds' buying ANY shares during that period. I presume Jones researched the fact that Nathan Rothschild had a private intelligence service which brought news of the battle's result early, and he just invents the rest.



Please elaborate. Where did you get this information?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123[/i
I think he's still waiting for your to prove that molten metal was there for 6 weeks.


I have proven this. Also see FEMA reports.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have proven this. Also see FEMA reports.


I've read a lot of relevant FEMA publications and haven't come across any statement of steel being kept molten for 6 weeks which doesn't mean it's not there. Could you possibly quote the paragraph making this statement and give me the document ID so I could check for myself?

In fema403_apc.pdf, as posted by Griff relating to the WTC7 steel sample:


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.


The Summary for that sample:


1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.


They also said:


The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.


They are not saying a puddle of steel remained molten for 6 weeks in that report. There's evidence of intergranular surface melting that made the sample susceptible to accelerated corrosion.

In fema403_ch2.pdf another reference to molten material:


Following the impact, fires spread throughout WTC 2, similar to the manner previously described for WTC 1. Extensive videotape of the fires’ development through the building was recorded from various exterior vantage points. This videotape suggests that, in the minutes immediately preceding the collapse, the most intensive fires occurred along the north face of the building, near the 80th floor level. Just prior to the collapse, a stream of molten material—possibly aluminum from the airliner—was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner at approximately this level.


I'm keen to see this documented evidence of steel kept molten for 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Answering the OP...what evidence would make me believe in a conspiracy?

- Physical evidence of explosives or thermite/mate devices in either the towers or WTC7. (I'm talking remnants of devices)
- Statements from people who were actually involved in the conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Here we go pics full o raging fires.
















Pics ripped off from a powerpoint presentation someone sent me a while back.

But as you can see the damage and the fire was pretty pervasive. And incidently this is of the second tower after the other one fell down.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Here we go pics full o raging fires.


I do not see a raging fire. I see plenty of dark, black smoke that means the fire is oxygen starved and burning out.

This is a raging fire.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Both at night.
Are you honestly going to tell me that the fires are different based on that?
Wait. I forget to whom I am talking to.
*sigh*



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Both at night.
Are you honestly going to tell me that the fires are different based on that?
Wait. I forget to whom I am talking to.


No, the first pic is not at night. I am also basing the fact ath fire professionals have stated that no steel buidling has ever collapsed from a fire.

I am still waiting for more evidence that the fires were hot enough and burned long enough to cause the molten steel found in the basements and debris.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That is at night or at least twilight where it was darker than say in the afternoon.

As for the rest of what your waiting for, it has been provided.
You just refuse to see it. I remember a very wise man saying something about how believers will accept anything no matter how small to continue their belief.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Both at night.


That's not the only difference. That fire also burned hours longer, the building had smaller columns (meaning heat would saturate them faster) and entire floors were gutted by fire damage before it was put out.

That particular building also uses pretty much the same construction method as the towers: columns on the outside face, open office space inside, then the primary load-bearing core structure in the center. It was more than half as tall as either of the towers and the fires were on the lower floors (floor 17'ish), with "all that weight bearing down" or whatever other misconceived argument that is usually asserted along those lines.


Think, too: your objection is based on how the fire looks, which is subjective. It depends upon your opinion. In other words, for example, I don't care (nor would anyone else that values objectivity). Everything else I just posted about that fire (burned longer, building had smaller columns, entire floors gutted), is objective and was documented, and I could post all the specifics. Whether the fire burned during the day or during the night obviously makes little real difference as towards the physics of the fire.

Something *hopefully* to think about. On top of the fact that all other case histories and lab studies of fire on steel structures similarly show no catastrophic failures of any kind whatsoever (that means nothing to you either, I guess?). Only sagging and deflecting, and even that is a very gradual process that occurs over time with more and more heat.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And minus massive structural damage from being hit by a plane as well.
Sorry but all I have ever seen you guys do is string together similarities while completely ignoring differences that are very important, though not so if one asked you.

You will believe what you want to believe regardless of where the proof lies.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I remember a very wise man saying something about how believers will accept anything no matter how small to continue their belief.


You are talking about the people that believe the official story that live in a fantasy world and only accept what they want.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And minus massive structural damage from being hit by a plane as well.


Why do you keep avoiding the fact that most reports state the buidlings withstood the planes impacts?



[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
10
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join