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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by jfj123
If you would like to have an adult conversation,
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by jfj123
I have not seen a legitimate comparison based on structural damage from outside source
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.
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.
I have shown steel buildings that have had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings.
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?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The EPA statement has not been proven incorrect.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Now try to tell us you're not attempting to distort facts for some personal agenda.
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.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Leats look at the facts (that are not distorted) of my statement, and that you cannot debate.
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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
This is what happned to the 12,000 gallons you like to bring up.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I'd agree to is that a large amount of fuel was consumed in a burning building -
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.
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.