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: 66
10
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Well, you've certainly posted alot of things. Way to deflect the point. No wonder you write books. Discourse would prove more difficult.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
No wonder you write books. Discourse would prove more difficult.


Oh i see, you cannot post evidence to debate me or support the official story so you have to make childish post.

And since you are way off topic i will have to say something to the mods.





[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]


United States currency has water marks on it and yet it's still changed on a regular basis to make counterfeiting more difficult. Watermarks do NOT guarantee that something cannot be faked. A real government employee would know this



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
United States currency has water marks on it and yet it's still changed on a regular basis to make counterfeiting more difficult.


Anyone with basic intelligence and common sense could tell if my documents are real or not by a litlte research and discussion with me.

But i would not hold my breath for you guys to admit my documents are real anyway. Becaue i know you guys don't like to admit to anything, specailly if you are wrong.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh i see, you cannot post evidence to debate me or support the official story so you have to make childish post.

And since you are way off topic i will have to say something to the mods.


It's always best to censor opposition. This is how real truth is found. Apparently...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
This is how real truth is found. Apparently...


What would you know about finding the truth, you still believe the official story. Which is not the truth.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The official story isn't the truth. Only Ultima's book holds the elusive truth. Anyone who doesn't agree or buy the book is insulting the memory of the victims of the tradgedy. I've heard it already...

I'm not the one claiming to hold the key to secret knowledge. I'm not the one selling a book by cherry picking data out of preliminary reports without revealing the actual conclusion of the reports disingenuously.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.


Really now? You posted from the Final NIST report? How did you miss the section on Jet Fuel?

That is where I linked my paragraph from:

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST final report...section 2.4 titled Jet Fuel

Now...show us all the statement that said MOST of the jet fuel burned off in the initial explosion...as you stated HERE and HERE and HERE

Please, ULTIMA1, show us.

We await your answer...

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This is what the NIST final report says about the jet fuel
Page 74 of the report.

Less then 15% 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 inside 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 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.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why are you still trying to say the NIST computer model is wrong?


It seems you're not recognising a logical escape route and still trying to deny everything that doesn't fit into your personal agenda.

Arguing over estimates is a waste of time because there's a lot of variability in those numbers making it impossible for anyone to know the exact situation. The same estimates (with a degrees of variance) were used as inputs to the simulation so while I'm not saying the models were wrong, there's every chance that they do not 100% fit reality basically because they had to guess unknown factors.

Look at the reality that was observed, planes hit buildings, fires burnt, buildings collapsed and tell me if there's a flaw in that observation.

The computer model played with parameters that were 'best guesses' and did indeed cause collapse to start without any inputs other than the obvious (planes, fires, buildings) so the model was a success in regard to the fact that it duplicated what was seen.

Which of the parameters they used was possibly under/over estimated and what affect would that have on the other parameters and the outcome?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Look at the reality that was observed, planes hit buildings,

Planes appear to hit the towers, gliding into them without any buckling of the airframe or change in velocity.

No wreckage of the alleged planes is ever identified to confirm the identify of the alleged planes. At best, the identity of the alleged planes remains an unknown mystery.



fires burnt,

Fires burnt, but they couldn't have been that intense for a woman to stand at the Wile-E-Coyote-Hole in the tower and peer out. She didn't look like she was suffering any adverse heat stress to me.



buildings collapsed

Buildings collapsed, instantly, after standing strong for an hour or so. Buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed, with around 80 stories offering next to no resistance against the 'pancake' theory. Buildings collapsed with concrete turning into a fine powder....



and tell me if there's a flaw in that observation.

Yeah, you're right. No flaws there... you described it just like it happened.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Look at the reality that was observed, planes hit buildings, fires burnt, buildings collapsed and tell me if there's a flaw in that observation.


Several reports state buidlings survived planes impacts, planes had no casue in the collapse.

Several reports also state fires were not hot enough or last long enough to casue collapse.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Several reports state buidlings survived planes impacts, planes had no casue in the collapse.

Several reports also state fires were not hot enough or last long enough to casue collapse.


casue? what is a casue collapse?

These reports also go on to say it was a combination of the impacts and resulting fires that started a chain of events leading to eventual collapse.

Why do you always leave that part out?


Also noticed you skipped right over the "jet fuel" posts.


[edit on 5-5-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed These reports also go on to say it was a combination of the impacts and resulting fires that started a chain of events leading to eventual collapse.


NO, only the NIST final report states it was a combination (contridicting all previous reports and the computer model).

As far as the jet fuel i can keep on posting sveral sources that state a large portion of the fuel was burned off in the initial explosion and what was left burned off quickly.

911research.wtc7.net...

(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings. This was particularly evident in the case of the south tower. After the impact nearly all of the jet fuel would have been spread throughout the area as a flammable mist. When this mist ignited it would have emptied the building of almost the entire fuel load, which then "exploded" outside the building. This is exactly what was seen in the videos of the impacts.

(2) If any quantity of liquid jet fuel did manage to accumulate in the building, then its volatility would lead to large amounts of it being evaporated and not burnt (pyrolysed) in the interior of the building. This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen.

(3) The jet fuel fires were brief. Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds, and all of it within 2-3 minutes (if all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor as a pool, it would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes). The energy, from the jet fuel, not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period, would have been vented to the outside world.

This means that the jet fuel fire did not heat the concrete slabs or fire protected steel appreciably. Large columns such as the core columns would also not heat appreciably, even if they had lost all their fire-protection. Unprotected trusses may have experienced a more sizeable temperature increase. The jet fuel fire was so brief that the concrete and steel simply could not absorb the heat fast enough, and consequently, most of the heat was lost to the atmosphere through the smoke plume.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So...you admit that the final NIST report states it was a combination.

Thank you for finally andmitting that.

Plus, the link you just provided also states that 10 to 30% of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosion/fireball. That leaves 70%.

Unless mathematics have changed at the NSA, 30% is not MOST of the fuel.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So...you admit that the final NIST report states it was a combination.


NO i admit the NIST final report contridicts all the previous reports and their own computer model. No other agency reports state it was a combination.


Plus, the link you just provided also states that 10 to 30% of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosion/fireball. That leaves 70%.


Please repeat the following line to yourself over and over till you understand what it says.

(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please repeat the following line to yourself over and over till you understand what it says.

(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings.


Disclosed - remember what his standards are :

some = most

As in the F-4 has some steel in it. Therefore his statement that the F-4 is mostly steel is correct.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Disclosed - remember what his standards are :


Please do me a favor and read the following lines from my sources before insulting peoples standards, becasue you do not want me to go after the standards of people like you who still beleive the official story.

(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings. This was particularly evident in the case of the south tower.


[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Fires burnt, but they couldn't have been that intense for a woman to stand at the Wile-E-Coyote-Hole in the tower and peer out. She didn't look like she was suffering any adverse heat stress to me.


I was amazed at that revelation myself and in a blowup of that pic I thought I could see someone else leaning on the remains of another broken wall column.
Looking closely at the picture can you tell which way the air is travelling through the hole or more precisely, which way it isn't travelling?
Do you think it would make difference?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please do me a favor and read the following lines from my sources before insulting peoples standards, becasue you do not want me to go after the standards of people like you who still beleive the official story.

(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings. This was particularly evident in the case of the south tower.



Yes, we're all aware of the fantasy movement's standards.

Your example here and regarding the amount of steel in an F-4 serves as a fine example why no one takes the CTists seriously.

Carry on.........



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join