9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by Disclosed
[So...when the NIST makes a preliminary report...then later finds discrepancies to that report, they are not allowed to add ANY of that information to their reports because it goes against the first one?

But the Probelm is we know NIST is not a very reliable source. Their reports contridict and they made mistakes like not recovering steel from buidling 7 for testing.

Also the fact that even the 9/11 commission that hired NIST to do the reports does not asgree that it was a combination of impact and fire.

So lets look at some more facts/

1. 9/11 commission DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

2. FEMA DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

3. Homeland Security DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But he doesn't seem to have much problem posting for 1-3 hrs every afternoon. Highly dubious IMHO that he with the NSA.......

How many sources do i have to post that state most of the fuel was buned up before you will come out of your fantasy world and face reallity?

Originally posted by _Del_
I think the NSA claim can be dismissed until he provides a copy of a paystub.

I think you liltte robots would not admit even when i post the documants i have that prove my education and background.

I have had the problem before on other sites even with otherpeople that work at NSA back me up, Little robots like you still would not admit it becasue you would have to come out of your fantasy world and face reallity.

Originally posted by _Del_
That's as close to an admission of guilt as I think we're likely to get. Thanks for giving us a break.

Too bad a littlle robot like you will never even get close to admitting guilt like that you have not evidence to support the official story.

When will you stop living in a fantasty world and face reallity?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
That's as close to an admission of guilt as I think we're likely to get. Thanks for giving us a break.

Too bad a littlle robot like you will never even get close to admitting guilt like that you have not evidence to support the official story.

When will you stop living in a fantasty world and face reallity?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Again, I admit to the Mods....I have pulled a full quote....but I do this to indicate the excesses ULTIMA goes to....even though, it's not directed at me, it has been, in previous posts. AND, even though I don't personally know these other posters, I still feel a kinship.....

ULTIMA has lied about me. I can let that slide, since I am above that.

However, ULTIMA is a continung thread diverter....even from his own OPs...Someone, somewhere said it very succinctly....ULTIMA is a 'baiter', not a 'debater'.

Not my words...I saw them, read them, and repeated them.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, even though I don't personally know these other posters, I still feel a kinship.......

Well you should tell your friends to stop the lies and the trolling, to be fair. Why people want to insult me and lie about me becasue i want to find the truth is beyond me.

Please tell your friends to stop the lies about me writing and selling books or i will ask the mods to ban them for trolling. This is the last warning they get, i am sending a ntoice to the mods also.



[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So lets look at some more facts/

1. 9/11 commission DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

2. FEMA DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

3. Homeland Security DOES NOT agree with NIST about combination.

Well, the FEMA report does agree with the NIST report of combination of fire and structural damage. I suggest you read chapter 8 of the report. Notably section 8.2.2.1

Preliminary analyses of the damaged structures, together with the fact the structures remained standing for an extended period of time suggest that, absent other severe loading events such as a windstorm or earthquake, the buildings could have remained standing in their damaged states until subjected to some significant additional load. However*, the structures were subjected to a second, simultaneous severe loading event in the form of the fires caused by the aircraft impacts.
*emphasis mine

www.fema.gov...

I suppose you could quote just the first part and ignore the second and claim FEMA denies the official story, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the full report. I haven't taken the time to pull the conclusions from the other reports, but I think it shows the level of integrity being shown.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Once again, ULTIMA.....I DO NOT know these other ATS members....it is your own terrible mind that creates these conspiracies.....

I wish you the best of mental health, because I wish you will seek out professional help....you seem to need it.

I truly wish this for you....because if you really work for the NSA, and you live in New Oxford, PA, then you have a terrible commute to BWI....at least 1:30, each way...in bad traffic, 2:00 each way....according to Google Maps......

I would hate to have such a commute....I would use my skills to find a job closer to my home.....screw the NSA!!! I say!!!!!

With all of our skills, especially your ability to spell, many jobs await you!!!

Best of luck, thanks for your posts,

WW

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's a very weak point to try to prove or disprove anything with. The quantity of remaining fuel was estimated because the precise figure can never be known and the sum of estimates (62200) is rounded to the nearest 1000 producing a rounding error in the vicinity of 0.32% which does not really represent a glaring mistake.

I don't dispute that the exact quantity of fuel AT THE POINT OF ALLEGED IMPACT will never be known. I have no problems with NIST making an estimate. Naturally, the estimated figure casts doubt on the reliability of their models. Whether it is 62,000 pounds or 63,000 makes no difference to me as the input data for their model.

However, I have every concern that NIST can not sum a column of output numbers that agrees with the total input amount. Sure, they can round off the fuel distribution, as much as they like. Ultimately, they can not create an extra 200 pounds of fuel and then try to pass off their model as being accurate! A column of numbers in an output table MUST sum to the stated input value. There CAN NOT be a rounding error of 200 pounds of fuel. Fuel can not be created or destroyed by the process of numerical rounding in a mathematical model.

NIST put 62,000 pounds of jet fuel into their model and output 62,200 pounds of fuel. Hey, maybe they've found a way to create free-energy that we've all been looking for?

Have you read this bit in the NIST report:

A portion of an engine exited the tower at the northeast corner of the building from the northeast corner of WTC2. Based on the engine trajectory, it was estimated that the engine exited the building at 120 mph. In the simulation, neither engine was calculated to exit WTC 2.

The NIST model can't correctly sum columns of figures relating to jet fuel and airplane wreckage. The NIST model failed to show that an engine was allegedly ejected from the tower.

What else has the NIST model failed to do? It seems it also failed to find the true cause for the collapse of the towers.

Originally posted by Double Eights
1. At what temperature does steel lose strength?

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F.
Steel loses 90 percent of it's strength at 1800° F.
source: American Institute of Steel Construction

2. How long must steel sustain these temperatures to "give way?"

Don't know, will need to get back to you

3. What were the temperatures at the WTC(s) on 9/11/01?

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

4. At what temperature does jet fuel burn?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
That's as close to an admission of guilt as I think we're likely to get. Thanks for giving us a break.

Too bad a littlle robot like you will never even get close to admitting guilt like that you have not evidence to support the official story.

When will you stop living in a fantasty world and face reallity?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Again, I admit to the Mods....I have pulled a full quote....but I do this to indicate the excesses ULTIMA goes to....even though, it's not directed at me, it has been, in previous posts. AND, even though I don't personally know these other posters, I still feel a kinship.....

ULTIMA has lied about me. I can let that slide, since I am above that.

However, ULTIMA is a continung thread diverter....even from his own OPs...Someone, somewhere said it very succinctly....ULTIMA is a 'baiter', not a 'debater'.

Not my words...I saw them, read them, and repeated them.....

He does this on every thread I've seen him on which makes me think it's a game to him which is to ruin threads. This is just my opinion but if you read his circular, tangential posts along with insults, and refusals to accept evidence that he always requires from others but does not require of himself, you may come to the same opinion.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I think the NSA claim can be dismissed until he provides a copy of a paystub.

I have had the problem before on other sites even with otherpeople

Big shock !
You can understand our skepticism as many things simply don't add up. For example, we never realized the NSA was so informal about allowing their documents posted online, allowing it's employee's to access the internet and chat for hours throughout the day and mention the fact that you have access to top secret data to strangers on a chat board.
They must be pretty cool bosses, do they have any job openings? Do they allow you guys to play MMORPG's at work too? If so that cinches for me !!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have proved the amount of streel on an F-4 and if you would have read my post you would have seen that i just lowered the amount trying to be considerate and giving the believers a break.

Riiiight.

a- You either KNOWINGLY made a grossly inaccurate statement about the amount of steel in an F-4 for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument.

or

b- You had no clue how much steel is in an F-4 and just made it up out of whole cloth because you never were a crew chief for an F-4.

so

c- since you base a lot of your statements about what you know since you work for the NSA, in order to continue to use this sooper seekrit information to make your points, your credibility cannot be questioned about previous issues. So you continue to defend that previous statement, even though it has been utterly destroyed.

The fantasy movement - they keep on repeating lies over and over, hoping for a new result - namely that someone will believe them.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How many sources do i have to post that state most of the fuel was buned up before you will come out of your fantasy world and face reallity?

How many times do we need to show reports showing only 30% of the fuel was burned up on the initial impact before you come out of your fantasy world and face reality?

Hell, even the link you provided stated that as fact.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How many sources do i have to post that state most of the fuel was buned up before you will come out of your fantasy world and face reallity?

I'm still waiting for the first that has any credibilty.

Let's look at your website. They simply state that most of the fuel burned up outside.............

No analysis of why they think so. No reasoning through the problem. No examining the fireballs and trying to determine how much fuel would be required to get that size. No backup what-so-ever......

And yet, believers in the fantasy movement think that this is a good source. No surprise there. They'll believe anything that fits their preconceived beliefs.

This is the exact opposite of the scientific method. And yet this is "research" according to the fantasy movement. No surprise there either.....

I just have a few things to add to what jfj123 posted in response to Double Eight's questions.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Double Eights
1. At what temperature does steel lose strength?

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F.
Steel loses 90 percent of it's strength at 1800° F.
source: American Institute of Steel Construction

This "strength" is known in civil engineering as the yield strength, and it's the strength (measured in how much force is applied) at which the materials begins to permanently deform. Steel is elastic, it just doesn't seem so to us because it takes way more energy than we can provide by ourselves to bend it around. The yield strength is just the strength at which the deformations become permanent, meaning the steel won't go back to its original shape anymore when the load is released.

That strength has nothing to do with ultimate failure strengths or anything of that nature, and one would think it would be hard to utterly fail a large steel column just by making it hot anyway, since the heat only affects a small area and the cooler steel above would just sink lower down onto the cooler steel below. No bending over like wet spaghetti noodles, either.

2. How long must steel sustain these temperatures to "give way?"

Don't know, will need to get back to you

The steel will not "give way" at those temperatures at all. At least not in the way required. More like deforming in the centimeter range at max.

A more relevant question is how long it takes to heat the steel.

A fire may be 800 C, but if you throw a big steel column into it, that steel column isn't going to be the same 800 C for a damned long time.

3. What were the temperatures at the WTC(s) on 9/11/01?

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

In their computer simulations, and these are probably what they refer to as flashover conditions, where heat and gases accumulate near the roofs of floors and eventually start burning and putting off a lot more heat, but only for a limited amount of time before it all burns away again. The 1832 F would not be a sustained temperature or necessarily even a very common temperature. It's probably just the absolute max they found in their simulation.

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza...200 pounds of fuel is about 3 gallons.....

THREE gallons.....that's equivalent to about 12 litres, for our audience from Canada or Europe.....

People....Jet-A weighs, on average, 6.7 pounds/gal

Water is heavier....plain ole' H2O is about 7 pounds/gallon

Automobile gasoline/petrol is about 6 pounds per gallon....same as AvGas, used in piston airplanes.

The continued distraction and misstatements, by the so-called 'truthers', is the real problem. Instead of learning, they follow, like lemmings......

What a shame....

Originally posted by bsbray11
That strength has nothing to do with ultimate failure strengths or anything of that nature, and one would think it would be hard to utterly fail a large steel column just by making it hot anyway, since the heat only affects a small area and the cooler steel above would just sink lower down onto the cooler steel below. No bending over like wet spaghetti noodles, either.

This is a good post. One that many can learn from.

Many get this whole subject miserably wrong, including believers of the official story, as it applies to how NIST describes their thoughts about how the core columns failed, according to how I understood it.

Nowhere does NIST say that the core columns failed because they were hot. Rather they describe exactly what bsbray states above - that the column would "sink" lower. NIST described this as creep.

Then, as the fires moved on to other areas and the core columns cooled, they "shrunk" (because steel expands/contracts when heated/cooled), so at that point they weren't supporting any loads. Rather, the loads formerly supported by the core columns were transferred via the hat truss onto the outer columns.

The outer columns had their own unique method of failure. And to be clear, there was no single mechanism that can be pointed to and say that any single event was the cause. from what I understand, many factors contributed to the mechanical failure.

In short, the whole "how hot were the fires, they weren't hot enough to weaken the steel sufficently to cause collapse of the core, etc" angle is a red herring. NIST never stated this in relation to the core.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
In short, the whole "how hot were the fires, they weren't hot enough to weaken the steel sufficently to cause collapse of the core, etc" angle is a red herring. NIST never stated this in relation to the core.

Really NIST never stated much at all about the core in terms of how it was initially compromised, such as WTC1's antenna sinking simultaneously with the outer facade falling vertically on all sides into the columns below. All they really stated about the collapses, was about what they decided to look at and label the collapse "initiations," and even then only regarding the perimeter columns/trusses, and even then offering hypotheses that were either never verified in the lab or were contradicted by their actual lab tests.

They said: the trusses got hot and sagged, and this (somehow, not modeled or simulated or even specifically explained by them) caused enough inward "pulling" force on the exterior columns, despite their bolts and spandrel plates (again, completely ignored, not modeled, etc.) to cause sufficient deflection at an angle, on a sufficient number of columns (once again, never provided), to initiate what they simply referred to as an "inevitable" "global collapse." And they have always refused to model the global collapses or offer any insightful information as to how th eyprogressed all the way to the ground in the manner that they did.

reply to post by bsbray11


bspray, don't you think the weight of the antennae on the roof contributed, along with the added weight of the floors above the damage point? (i.e., the impact pont).

Do you not realize that fire tends to burn upwards? I'm talking about flames here, of course....lots of JET-A was introduced into the buildings....

I think the intent was to (hopefully, in the mind of the hi-jackers) cause the buildings to topple. Atta probably hoped for that....the second guy (UAL175) just saw the first Tower burning, and thought to do more damage, by hitting it lower......

NONE of them expected the final outcomne....they likely hoped for a Tower falling over, as you see in CGI disaster movies....it is nonsense!!

Of course, since they're dead, we can't water-board them and extract any confessions as to what they really thought....

BUT....the intent is clear....and anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't live in the real world.....