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: 56
10
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
The official story is the equivalent of THE ACCUSED

No.

The official story accuses alleged terrorists of allegedly taking control of alleged planes and allegedly flying them into towers.

The official story acts as the prosecution against the terrorists.

If that's too difficult for you to conceptually understand, then you should use the book vouchers that you suggested I need.

The official story is not a given axiom, where it can then be 'defended'. The official story needs a clear chain of evidence, which leads to prove its claims against the alleged terrorists. The official story fails to do this.


You simply are not understanding in what context I'm referring so there's really not point in going into this aspect further. It's a very basic law idea based on the official report vs truthers and you are simply not understanding that basic concept. We won't be discussing it further.




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You've made CLAIMS of this but you've failed to provide actual proof. Claiming something doesn't make it so.


Stop the lies.

I have shown the firefighter site many times that show steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damge the the WTC buildings.

Why must you lie?


I can only respond to your personal attack in this way.
If you would like to have an adult conversation, I am open. If you're going to continue to call me a lier, I will no longer respond to any of your questions due to the disrespectful nature of them.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you would like to have an adult conversation,


Then stop the lies and lets have an adult conversation.

Can you be adult enough to admit i have shown steel buidlings with longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you would like to have an adult conversation,


Then stop the lies and lets have an adult conversation.

Can you be adult enough to admit i have shown steel buidlings with longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings?


I have not seen a legitimate comparison based on structural damage from outside source (planes), fire damage, original structural comparisons, structural stress via live and dead load over time, foundation stability, etc.. If you can provide these items, I'd love to see them. Please do not post a link and say go read as we're talking about it here and not on another web site.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You simply are not understanding in what context I'm referring so there's really not point in going into this aspect further. It's a very basic law idea based on the official report vs truthers and you are simply not understanding that basic concept. We won't be discussing it further.

The official story is a PROSECUTION case against 19 alleged terrorists who were allegedly responsible for the acts that day.

'Truthers' effectively act as DEFENDANTS for the 19 alleged terrorists. Truthers refute the prosecution's case by demonstrating that the official story lacks critical evidence and is inconsistent.

When, in the history of law, has the defendant ever had the burden of proving their innocence against assumed guilt?

The burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION to show that the alleged 19 terrorists are guilty of the events that day. Failure to do so results in the acquittal of the defendants (alleged terrorists) due to their presumed innocence.

I'm not sure how or why you think that 'truthers' have any burden of proof, when they are the defendants. I agree that we won't discuss this further, for your fundamentally flawed notion about the nature of burden of proof, inhibits you from understanding why 'truthers' don't need alternative explanations - they only need to show how the official story fails to substantiate itself.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
You simply are not understanding in what context I'm referring so there's really not point in going into this aspect further. It's a very basic law idea based on the official report vs truthers and you are simply not understanding that basic concept. We won't be discussing it further.

The official story is a PROSECUTION case against 19 alleged terrorists who were allegedly responsible for the acts that day.

'Truthers' effectively act as DEFENDANTS for the 19 alleged terrorists. Truthers refute the prosecution's case by demonstrating that the official story lacks critical evidence and is inconsistent.

When, in the history of law, has the defendant ever had the burden of proving their innocence against assumed guilt?

The burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION to show that the alleged 19 terrorists are guilty of the events that day. Failure to do so results in the acquittal of the defendants (alleged terrorists) due to their presumed innocence.

I'm not sure how or why you think that 'truthers' have any burden of proof, when they are the defendants. I agree that we won't discuss this further, for your fundamentally flawed notion about the nature of burden of proof, inhibits you from understanding why 'truthers' don't need alternative explanations - they only need to show how the official story fails to substantiate itself.

Please be wrong on your own time.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Have a nice day and thank you for flying with us



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I have not seen a legitimate comparison based on structural damage from outside source


Only because you do not want to see it. You like others who believe the official story are living in a fantasy world afraid to look at evidence and do research.

I have shown steel buildings that have had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings.

As far as the official stroy holding up in court, it would not. All i have to do is show doubt in the validity of the official story, which is very easily done since thier is no real evidence to support the official story and their is evidence that questions the official story.



[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


If you mean what you call "research" no thank you.
I prefer to take all factors into account not just snoop around with blinders on looking for what I want to see.
Once again.
Like the video.
And THAT has been glaringly shown how faulty your "research" methods really are.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
If you mean what you call "research" no thank you.
I prefer to take all factors into account not just snoop around with blinders on looking for what I want to see.


I use government and professional research sites, what do you use to do research?

Show me the sites you use, because i can show the sites i use for research.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I have not seen a legitimate comparison based on structural damage from outside source


Only because you do not want to see it. You like others who believe the official story are living in a fantasy world afraid to look at evidence and do research.

No evidence that fit the criteria I previously mentioned has been posted. Please post it and I will read it. Simple, isn't it?


I have shown steel buildings that have had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings.

Not fitting the criteria mentioned to actually make a fair comparison.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
If you mean what you call "research" no thank you.
I prefer to take all factors into account not just snoop around with blinders on looking for what I want to see.


I use government and professional research sites, what do you use to do research?

So when we use government info to support the official story, you ignore it as tainted but when you use it, it's ok. Great research technique



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The EPA statement has not been proven incorrect.


The asserted statement is definitely not incorrect if you place the statement in the context that was intended IE they were not referring to ALL the tanks were they?

In relation to the 12000 gallon fuel storage for Salomon Brothers:

From the testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
Acting Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Technology Administration U.S. Department of Commerce
Before New York City Council
Joint Meeting, Committees on Lower Manhattan Redevelopment; Fire & Criminal Justice Services
Hearing on “Oversight - Issues of Health and Safety Regarding the
Storage of Diesel Fuel at 60 Hudson Street, Manhattan”
September 8, 2006



NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and mitigate any environmental damage from the second system’s two 6,000 gal tanks. The tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty and the report stated that neither the underground storage tanks nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building.


Note the last sentence.

From the same testimony:


Salomon Brothers had a contract with a fuel delivery service who always
maintained the tanks full. Therefore, both tanks likely contained 6,000 gal of fuel on September 11, 2001.


Now try to tell us you're not attempting to distort facts for some personal agenda.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Now try to tell us you're not attempting to distort facts for some personal agenda.


Leats look at the facts (that are not distorted) of my statement, and that you cannot debate.

This is what happned to the 12,000 gallons you like to bring up.
www.wtc7.net...

Similarly, the SSB pump, which had a pumping rate of 75 gpm, would have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks serving that system in less than 3 hours. This could have accounted for the lost 12,000 gallons reported by EPA or the tanks could have been ruptured and the oil spilled into the debris pile.




[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Leats look at the facts (that are not distorted) of my statement, and that you cannot debate.


Well actually - what was the total fuel capacity?


NIST has reviewed the fuel system for emergency power in WTC 7, which contained two independently supplied and operated fuel systems for emergency power. The two systems combined with all of the sub-systems, contained more than an estimated 43,000 gal of fuel, assuming all tanks were filled near capacity.


Note the 2 systems and you've provided info on recovery from only one of those. Also note that something between 12000 and 23000 gallons are missing, not found in the soil under the damaged tanks.

If that 23000 gallons (roughly half the building capacity wasn't accounted for, do you suppose it could have been burnt in the fires pre and post-collapse?

ALL the fuel in the Silverstein tanks is not ALL the fuel on site now is it.


[edit on 26/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
This is what happned to the 12,000 gallons you like to bring up.


So you would agree then the that th 12,000 gallons was lost and did not have anything to do with the fire ?

You also would agree that my statement about the other 20,000 gallons recovered is correct also?



[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What I'd agree to is that a large amount of fuel was consumed in a burning building - remember how you were looking for something to spread fire and keep a fire going?

Now add that to 100000+ gallons of other hydrocarbon fuel and what result might we expect?

If you say ALL fuel was recovered you're making a false statement - presenting the statement in its entirety reveals the facts and that's what you're seeking I hope.



[edit on 26/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I'd agree to is that a large amount of fuel was consumed in a burning building -


But their are no facts that the fuel was consumed in the fire.

Facts state that 12,000 gallons were lost (not burned)

Facts also state 20,000 gallons were recovered (not burned).

So your statement that the fuel was consumend in the fire is not correct.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Hi Pilgrum... thought I would chime in here... Not sure if this has been shown on this thread...I am too lazy to go back and look...








NIST NCSTAR 1-1J Documentation of the Fuel System for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7 (Draft)


Excerpt from pgs. 46-47, Salomon Brothers Fuel Oil Distribution System

Based on the available documentation, the pressurized loop could have endlessly discharged fuel out of a broken FOS pipe. A break in the FOS pipe, between the pump set and FOS valve rig, could have activated the pump set. In the event of a FOS pipe break, the fuel could have emptied out of the valve rig, sending a low level signal to the pump controllers from the liquid level switch and starting the pump set. Fuel would have flowed out the break until the storage tank(s) were emptied. However, if the double walled construction of the FOS piping was designed similar to that of the Base Building system, it could have been possible that a leak detector switch would have shut off the pump set. This cannot be determined from the available documentation. The electrical characteristics of the system are unknown and need to be analyzed to determine if an electrical malfunction would have started or stopped the fuel pump set.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Excerpt from pgs. 46-47, Salomon Brothers Fuel Oil Distribution System

Based on the available documentation, the pressurized loop could have endlessly discharged fuel out of a broken FOS pipe. A break in the FOS pipe, between the pump set and FOS valve rig, could have activated the pump set. In the event of a FOS pipe break, the fuel could have emptied out of the valve rig, sending a low level signal to the pump controllers from the liquid level switch and starting the pump set. Fuel would have flowed out the break until the storage tank(s) were emptied. However, if the double walled construction of the FOS piping was designed similar to that of the Base Building system, it could have been possible that a leak detector switch would have shut off the pump set. This cannot be determined from the available documentation. The electrical characteristics of the system are unknown and need to be analyzed to determine if an electrical malfunction would have started or stopped the fuel pump set.


So basically they state what i have stated that the 12,00 gallons of fuel was lost. No evidence it was burned in the fire.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Thanks Captain - I have read that before

So let's look at what actual verifiable facts are presented:
The building diesel fuel storage capacity of approx 48000 gallons total is estimated to have been holding 43000 gallons on the day.
Only 23000 gallons were accounted for, leaving some 20000 gallons 'missing'.
The 20000 gallons were not located in the soil or anywhere else.
Over 100000 gallons of transformer oil also went missing.
The building was burning.
The rubble burned at a high temperature for some 6 weeks before being extinguished.

What I call remarkable conjecture is suggesting that the above 120000 gallons of 'missing' fuel avoided the fire somehow. I'm also hoping to never again see the claim that 'ALL the fuel was recovered' because it clearly was not and only about 20% is accounted for as unburnt.




top topics



 
10
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join