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: 62
10
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I guess if I were trying to market a book on the backs of people involved in a tragedy, I would never admit I was wrong either...


I guess if i was brainwashed by the media and lived in a fantasy world i would still believe the official story without any actual facts and evidence to support it like you.

Yet you use media reports and government websites to try and support your case?? That makes you brainwashed by the media also



The only people who are dishonoring the people that died that day are people like you who spread the lies of the official story instead of trying to find the truth of what happened.

That would be YOU my friend. You make claim after claim without evidence. When asked for evidence you refuse to provide it stating that since nobody else does, you don't have to.


WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I might ask you the same question.

Based on your posts, you have shown no interest in the truth. Based on your posts, you are not who and what you say you are so you have no credibility. You've ruined your own credibility here and on many other threads because of your attitude.

Instead of arguing, all you need to do to shut people up is post legit evidence yet you never do so. Why would that be? Do you like arguing just to argue? Do you like working people up to the point they say something that gets them banned? Are you just bored and need a hobby? Did someone steel your legos? What is it?




posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Instead of arguing, all you need to do to shut people up is post legit evidence yet you never do so.


But if you beleive the official story is correct then you should be able to post evidence to post evidence to support but yet you cannot. Why are you afraid of the truth that something might have happened other then the what the official story states?

You have failed to post any evindece when asked, so you have failed to show that the official story is correct. END OF DISCUSSION.







[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I'll buy the kid more legos if he promises to stay away from the keyboard.

Here's my (in-?)expert analysis:

A. Make bold claim

B. Claim evidence is there if you look

C. Deny any evidence at odds with my bold claim

D. Claim lack of evidence is also my evidence

E. Back-peddle when necessary

F. Obfuscate when back-peddling

G. Claim special knowledge/skills/access beyond the realm of mere mortals (even/especially if other people have demonstrated substantial knowledge of the subject matter)

H. Make up a new bold claim to change the subject

I. Accuse people of being shills or afraid of truth


Am I missing anything? Any new plays to the playbook, because these are getting boring?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Instead of arguing, all you need to do to shut people up is post legit evidence yet you never do so.


But if you beleive the official story is correct then you should be able to post evidence to post evidence to support but yet you cannot.

Why are you afraid of the truth that something might have happened other then the what the official story states?

You have failed to post any evindece when asked, so you have failed to show that the official story is correct. END OF DISCUSSION.



Even though it's not true, let's say it is for the purposes of this discussion. Since you have also not posted any evidence, then we have accomplished nothing. Now here's your chance to accomplish something and post evidence to pull people to your side. Will you do it? of course not


You say you have evidence, post it to shut us up. Come on expert....post away.. show us how wrong we are....show us how misguided and brainwashed we are.

We wait with bated breath



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'll buy the kid more legos if he promises to stay away from the keyboard.

Here's my (in-?)expert analysis:

A. Make bold claim

B. Claim evidence is there if you look

C. Deny any evidence at odds with my bold claim

D. Claim lack of evidence is also my evidence

E. Back-peddle when necessary

F. Obfuscate when back-peddling

G. Claim special knowledge/skills/access beyond the realm of mere mortals (even/especially if other people have demonstrated substantial knowledge of the subject matter)

H. Make up a new bold claim to change the subject

I. Accuse people of being shills or afraid of truth


Am I missing anything? Any new plays to the playbook, because these are getting boring?


I think that pretty much covers the big ones. Good job. The funny part is I think he's using a script as he does the exact same thing on EVERY thread. It's almost like he's a paid disinfo agent for the "truthers"
Maybe the children at "loose change" have him on the payroll ?

[edit on 3-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You say you have evidence, post it to shut us up. Come on expert....post away.. show us how wrong we are....show us how misguided and brainwashed we are.


Ok, so you admit you cannot post any evindece to support the official story.

I have posted lots of evidence that question the official story and in court would show reasonable doubt. The official story would not hold up in court.

But if you want evidence i can post tons.

1. NO steel buildings have ever collapse from fire or structural damage.
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.


wtc.nist.gov...

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.


2. NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing.
wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.



3. Most of the jet fuel burned up in the intial explosion at the towers.
911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.


TO BE CONT.






[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You say you have evidence, post it to shut us up. Come on expert....post away.. show us how wrong we are....show us how misguided and brainwashed we are.


Ok, so you admit you cannot psot any evindece to support the official story.

I'm sorry about your obvious reading disability. I have never admitted that and I have posted evidence which you have failed to read over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......



But if you want evidence i can post tons.

1. NO steel buildings have ever collapse from fire or structural damage.
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Please show me other comparably built buildings where large commercial airliners have flew into them.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
FACT: The Sears Tower has never collapsed from an earthquake. The Sears Tower has endured several earthquakes.

If a sufficiently severe earthquake eventually occurs causing a skyscraper like the Sears Tower or the Sears Tower itself to fall, we can hereby rest assured that it didn't really fall because of an earthquake. After all, it's never happened before.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[Please show me other comparably built buildings where large commercial airliners have flew into them.


How did i know you are going to pull the old "no plane hit"

But if you would have read the source you would see that the steel buildings had longer lasting foires anda more structurla damage then any of the WTC buildings. Please read the source before posting immature responses. Oh and a plane hit the Empire State Building and an Apartment complex and they did not collaspe.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have posted lots of evidence that question the official story and in court would show reasonable doubt. The official story would not hold up in court.


TO BE CONT.


Gee, I hope you contacted Moussaoui with this info. I wish you had been his lawyer. Not that he would have got off, but atleast you couldn't repeat this nonsense.

I'm very impressed by your ability to cut and paste and all, but are you actually going to say anything off the script?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You're comparing a fire with no kinetic impact (and resulting structural damage). And then a plane crash involving a world war ii bomber at a slower speed and a total weight ever so slightly above that of the two engines on the 757? Seriously? That's your "proof"?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
More facts and evindence that questions the official story and you cannot debate.

1. Pilots of Flight 77 were held in the back of plane. meaning they did not put up a fight and were killed by the hijackers.
www.satp.org...(2)/CN_ghosh.htm

The wife of the Solicitor General, Barbara K Olson called her husband, at the Justice Department at 09:25 hrs from the ‘plane to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were being held towards the rear of the plane.








[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Gee, I hope you contacted Moussaoui with this info. I wish you had been his lawyer.


Come on do you really think he was going to get off? He was a scapegoat.

Are you really that naive?



Originally posted by _Del_
You're comparing a fire with no kinetic impact (and resulting structural damage).


Are you really serious ? you really have done no research at all or you would know that the kinetic energy had nothing to do with the collaspe of the towers (according to all reports including NIST computer model)

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've "done enough research" to know that the impact also separated much of the protective insulation for the structural components. I also note the article you culled from neglects that "weight" (or mass) of the aircraft is only one (and the smallest) factor of kinetic energy. I would hope you're aware that velocity is the primary factor in the equation for kinetic energy. I'm sure you can dismiss that as well, and if you can't then you'll change the subject. We've already chased this weasel around-the-mulberry bush in several separate threads.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I've "done enough research" to know that the impact also separated much of the protective insulation for the structural components. I'm sure you can dismiss that as well, and if you can't then you'll change the subject. We've already chased the weasel around-the-mulberry bush in several separate threads.


What does that have to do with the no steel building ever collaspsing from fire?

Strange how a fire in the North tower in 1975 casued no damage to the steel but we are supposed to believe that a fire lasting less then an hour casued enough damge to cause the building to collapse. Also the 1975 fire is what casued them to install sprinklers and insulation.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This is the kind of circular logic that leads one to have a hard time taking you seriously...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
This is the kind of circular logic that leads one to have a hard time taking you seriously...


So just because you cannot accept the facts of what i post you cannot take me seriously, what a cop out.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Only because we've already danced this dance...

Was the fire fueled by tons of jet fuel? Do you have measurements of the intensity of the fire in 1975? Do you have reason to believe it was more severe in terms of heat produced than the event produced by aircraft? Was the temperature (independent of heat) higher than the fire produced by the aircraft? Were the loads of the columns higher than a "normal" state for some reason in 1975?

Just because I tire of your game doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to recognize it.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
This is the kind of circular logic that leads one to have a hard time taking you seriously...



Seriously, we try and try but what can you do? he doesn't want the truth, he wants to argue, pretend, deny.

How do you rationalize with an irrational person?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I'm just glad he doesn't claim to work for the post office!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join