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: 65
10
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Actually, a majority of the fuel did not burn off during the initial explosion. This has been discussed previously in MANY threads and proven wrong. Even the official reports show a percentage burning off in the initial explosion, but clearly not a majority.

I can post the links again, but clearly ULTIMA1 is posting dis-information by stating it burned off a majority of the fuel.


Would you mind posting the links and also post a summary here so we can review the summary info in this forum? Thanks. Nice seeing you here again by the way




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
I can post the links again, but clearly ULTIMA1 is posting dis-information by stating it burned off a majority of the fuel.


I have and can post many links that state a large majority (most)of the fuel was burned off in the initial explosion and what was left burned off quickly.


If you post links, please also post summary information here so we can discuss it here. Thank you.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
How much was burnt off in the initial explosion? How much was left? When you're done tying yourself in circles, we can go back to the 1975 fire if you'd like, as you didn't answer all the questions there either...


I posted several links about the 1975 fire, but then we all know you would not read them since they disagree with what you believe.

Well i am still waiting for you to post any evidence to debate what i have posted about the jet fuel and the 1975 fire. But then again we all know you wont.

If you cannot understand whats posted you are beyond my help.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


If you or anyone else is going to make claims on this thread, please post the information on this thread and not just links as we are not discussing that information on those websites. This is something I have asked from the beginning of the thread. If you don't want to comply, maybe this thread isn't for you.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Would you mind posting the links and also post a summary here so we can review the summary info in this forum? Thanks. Nice seeing you here again by the way



The following are a few sources that confirm that a large quanity of the jet fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left was burned off in a few minutes. They also confirm the jet fuel did not make fire any hotter then a normal office fire.


jnocook.net...

I believe the intensity of the fire (as it relates to building collapse) was comparable to a heavy ordinary combustible fire after the explosion dissipated much of the jet fuel. According to Francis Brannigan author of "Building Construction for the Fire Service", temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees are the rule in severe fires. The average person has no idea of the temperatures which can be reached in a quite ordinary fire.(Brannigan 1971, p245). The heat output of an interior fire is limited, by the amount of air reaching the combustibles and the smoke produced. In the standard furnace tests used to determine the collapse-resistance of building components, authorities switched from oil fires to natural gas since; The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)


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.


www.tms.org...

Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.


www.nist.gov...

The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel.


911research.wtc7.net...

IN FACT: Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".







[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you or anyone else is going to make claims on this thread, please post the information on this thread and not just links as we are not discussing that information on those websites.


As shown in my above post the fires in the towers on 9/11 did not burn any hotter then a normal office fire and burned less then an hour. The 1975 fire burned on several floors for 3 hours and was just as hot, but only caused very minor damge.

So we are supposed to believe that a fire burning for 3 hours casued minor damage but a fire burning less an hour was enough to casue the collapse of the towers?

911research.wtc7.net...

February 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing. 1

The fire, which broke out just before midnight, did not kill anyone but forced the evacuation of fifty people, consisting mostly of maintenance staff. The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch." One hundred thirty-two firefighters fought the fire, which burned primarily on the 11th floor. Sixteen men were treated for smoke inhalation. The New York Times reported that "flames could be seen pouring out of the 11th-floor windows" on the tower's east side, but described damage to the tower's core as "apparently confined to electrical wiring." 2 The fire spread to portions of the core beyond the 11th floor via telephone cables in a cable shaft.

On the day after the blaze, Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan called for the installation of sprinkler systems in the towers. 3 Eventually sprinkler systems were installed throughout the Twin Towers.

Although the data on this fire is limited -- there apparently being no publicly available photographs of it -- it was clearly less severe than the 2001 North Tower fire, though of longer duration. However, it may have been more severe than the South Tower fire.


www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Additionally, February 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ; New York Times, 5/8/2003; Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 213, 214, 324; Kuligowski, Evans, and Peacock, 9/2005, pp. 1] An article in Fire Engineering magazine will later summarize, “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Sad someone would go out of their way to twist terrible events to market a book. I'm sorry you think anyone not agreeing with you is biased. Surely the only two available options, like you said are that I am biased or I agree with you.
Feel free to employ the martyr complex; I'm sure someone will feel sorry for you. It just won't be me.


If the NIST issues a new find saying that it was explosives that caused the collapse, can I reject it on the same grounds you reject the final study? I mean, after all it apparently contradicts their previous project. So it wouldn't be true, right?


[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]


So do you think it's a book or is he one of the Loose Change kids?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?


Why do you have to insult me because i am trying to find the truth? You must not care about the people that died that day or you would want to find the truth too.

How dare you invoke the names of those people who died on that day as a self serving personal insult to Del. That tactic is about as disgusting as I've ever seen on ATS. You do not know Del and putting that on him is at best childish and in my humble opinion deserves to get you banned.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
How dare you invoke the names of those people who died on that day as a self serving personal insult to Del.


Well how dare he insult me by saying i am on here to sell books. That was very immature and deserves to get him banned.

He does not know me and what i do. I support our troops in the field on a daily basis.

quote]Originally posted by jfj123
So do you think it's a book or is he one of the Loose Change kids?

Speaking of childish reposnses.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
How dare you invoke the names of those people who died on that day as a self serving personal insult to Del.


Well how dare he insult me by saying i am on here to sell books. That was very immature and deserves to get him banned.

Well there must be a reason why you're here and it's obviously not because you want to find the truth as you have ignored it every time it doesn't support your claims. Logically you must have an ulterior motive for being here. A book or video is a logical possibility and trying to squash dissenting opinions to a theoretical book or video would help keep those theoretical sales up.


He does not know me and what i do. I support our troops in the field on a daily basis.

Just another claim you've made with no proof. My personal opinion is that you do nothing for them unless it's part of a video game. Again it's just my opinion.


Originally posted by jfj123
So do you think it's a book or is he one of the Loose Change kids?

Speaking of childish reposnses.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Not childish just logical speculation




[edit on 4-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well there must be a reason why you're here and it's obviously not because you want to find the truth as you have ignored it every time it doesn't support your claims.

Just another claim you've made with no proof.

Not childish just logical speculation


Yes i am on here to find the truth, you would know this if you would not ignore the facts and evidnece i have posted from research.

I can prove who i work for and what i do, but you would just ignore that like most people who believe the official story.

No seems more childish.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well there must be a reason why you're here and it's obviously not because you want to find the truth as you have ignored it every time it doesn't support your claims.

Just another claim you've made with no proof.

Not childish just logical speculation


Yes i am on here to find the truth, you would know this if you would not ignore the facts and evidnece i have posted from research.

I can prove who i work for and what i do, but you would just ignore that like most people who believe the official story.

No seems more childish.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I doubt you can prove who you work for. Things are too easy to fake nowadays so anything you were to provide would be suspect due to your lack of credibility.

Your own posts prove you're not here looking for the truth.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I doubt you can prove who you work for. Things are too easy to fake nowadays so anything you were to provide would be suspect due to your lack of credibility.


I can post a governmet document that has watermarks that cannot be faked.

Also all it takes is a little research to find out the other documents i have are real, oh sorry forgot research is a bad word for you guys.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Is there a specific reason you're quoting from superseded progress reports which were compiled prior to completion of testing?

At least there's a common thread through all of them like plane impacts + fires leading to collapse.

The precis of the final report after completion of modelling, testing, investigation says:


This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.


And yes - it is just a report but based on the evidence which is documented extensively. It would be easy to just sit back and declare it was a controlled demolition so no need to worry about improving minimum building standards, fire codes etc

I've yet to see the evidence that counters the whole of the collected evidence and existing published works. I'd be pleased to see evidence that could change my opinion of what happened but so far all I see is a desperate attempt to inflict a variety of fantasies on the undecided.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I love the excuse "If the government was behind it, information would have leaked."

If that's true, how did 19 blowhard terrorists not spill the beans? How did no one know the plans of 9/11 until the day of the attacks? If it's so "hard to hide information," why did we not know what was going on?



[edit on 4-5-2008 by Double Eights]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As shown in my above post the fires in the towers on 9/11 did not burn any hotter then a normal office fire and burned less then an hour. The 1975 fire burned on several floors for 3 hours and was just as hot, but only caused very minor damge.

So we are supposed to believe that a fire burning for 3 hours casued minor damage but a fire burning less an hour was enough to casue the collapse of the towers?

911research.wtc7.net...


Although the data on this fire is limited -- there apparently being no publicly available photographs of it -- it was clearly less severe than the 2001 North Tower fire, though of longer duration. However, it may have been more severe than the South Tower fire.


This is your proof? This is funny. Data is limited. The 1975 fire was clearly less severe than the 11 Sept North Tower fire, but MAY HAVE BEEN more severe than the 11 Sept South Tower. Yeah. That sounds like a definitive win for you.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Additionally, February 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. ... though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat.


Clearly a fair comparison to a situation wherein entire floors are gutted by an aircraft and the building has several structural supports removed. I can't imagine trusses failing in the larger event....
You never answered the question about the book. Are you in fact selling one? Where can you buy it? How much does it cost? How much have you made to date?


NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

wtc.nist.gov...




[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I doubt you can prove who you work for. Things are too easy to fake nowadays so anything you were to provide would be suspect due to your lack of credibility.


I can post a governmet document that has watermarks that cannot be faked.

Anything can be faked that is why the government continually updates it's currency to stay ahead of conterfeiters. You think a government employee would know that



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Would you mind posting the links and also post a summary here so we can review the summary info in this forum? Thanks. Nice seeing you here again by the way


Sure thing, jfj123,

The NIST final report (NIST NCSTAR1) states the following in the section 2.4 Jet Fuel:


Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.


So...in a nutshell, 15% burned off inside, 15% outside in the fireball. 30% is NOT a majority...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
And yes - it is just a report but based on the evidence which is documented extensively.


Its just too bad that NIST is not the main invetigating agnecy for 9/11 asnd thier reports are not the official reports.

Why are you still trying to say the NIST computer model is wrong?



Originally posted by jfj123
You think a government employee would know that


Well i can see you do not know anything, or you would know that my military transcript has watermarks that cannot be faked.

Either that or you just don't want to admit that i can post documents tp prove my education and where i work.




[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So...in a nutshell, 15% burned off inside, 15% outside in the fireball. 30% is NOT a majority...


Are you for real?

I already posted 5 different sources (including NIST) that stated a large portion of the fuel was burned off in the initial explosion and the the fires were not hotter then a normal office fire.


[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join