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: 69
10
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


It's less than truthful to state that they have refused to model the global collapses. They have always been very clear on why it hasn't been done.

They have stated from the beginning that the global collapses COULD NOT be modelled due to computer limitations. The chaotic nature of the collapse would overwhelm Big Blue, from what I understand.....

This has never been refuted.




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
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.


WRONG, i base my statments on being a crew chief on the RF-4 in the Air Force.

Also if you believe my numebrs are wrong about the structure of an F-4 then please be adult enough to post evidence th debate my statements.



[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Just to expand on this notion....

Weird things happen, in accidents or terrorist events...

At the Shankseville crash site, UAL93....a pilot's logbook....the 'little red book' that pilots carry, on a flight, to keep a record, and transpose into the main logbood they have at home....this survived, in Shanksville!!

People think that because one....ONE!!!....of the hijacker's passports survided in NYC, it must have been 'planted'....why not 'plant' all of the passports??

Things happen in crashes, things that defy imagination or human experience....I point, again, to an airplane crash in Detroit, Michigan, in 1987....one....I repeat....ONE survivor....a little girl...a child.

Some may decide to invoke 'god'....so be it, in the case of the little girl. BUT, that same 'god' must also have left the unscathed passport, the slightly singed little red book.....and all the other clues behind so that we would know it was done by people, intent on destruction....



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
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?


As many as it takes to debate the sites thaty say a large portion (most) of the fuel burned off.

www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage. But the rest of the fuel quickly snaked across floors and down elevator shafts, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.



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".


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)




[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
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


Thats funny, why does FEMA state the buidlings could have kept standing after the plane impacts? That does not sound like a combination of impact and fire.

Plus here is a FEMA report that states the buildings withstood the plane impacts and ONLY the fire caused the collapse, NOT A COMBINATION.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.
.




[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
No building has ever reacted the way these buildings have. All the sudden three in the same day and all within a little distance from each other?

Each of those buildings should have reacted differently, each from each other and each from every building in history.

Total collapses just dont happen with our given parameters.
It doesn't add up.

www.serendipity.li...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As many as it takes to debate the sites thaty say a large portion (most) of the fuel burned off.


No, son. Under no circumstance does a "large portion" mean "most". Neither is most to be confused with "much". I doubt many people would argue this point.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny, why does FEMA state the buidlings could have kept standing after the plane impacts? That does not sound like a combination of impact and fire.

Plus here is a FEMA report that states the buildings withstood the plane impacts and ONLY the fire caused the collapse, NOT A COMBINATION.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.
.



I don't see anywhere in that quote that says it was the result "only" of the fire. Is that quoting the actual report, or a summary of the report on a third party website as it appears to be? Further, I posted the actual FEMA report with the chapter/section you could find it. Can you do us the same courtesy? To link to the actual report and not an editorial website passing editorial as fact?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Plus here is a FEMA report that states the buildings withstood the plane impacts and ONLY the fire caused the collapse, NOT A COMBINATION.


Sorry Ultima but you're getting less convincing all the time. There's a zillion quotes saying the opposite of what you're attempting (very badly) to prove. The problem is that the most obvious logical concepts seem to escape you and you don't realise what's happening.

Do you have evidence?

Some of us were hoping to see something new presented but as usual there's nothing.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I posted the actual FEMA report with the chapter/section you could find it. Can you do us the same courtesy?


Please be adult enough to show me where FEMA states it was a combination of impact and fire that casued the collapse.

According to the reports i have read they state the buiildings withstood the planes impacts and ONLY the fire caused the collapse.

Repeated for a point.

FEMA does not state a combination casued the collaspe.
9/11 commission does not state a combination casued the collapse.
Homeland Security does not state a combination casued the collapse.

FEMA report states it was the FIRE (ALONE) that eventaully weakend the steel framework. I do not see anything about a combination of impact and fire casuing the collaspe.

www.firehouse.com...

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse
The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.






[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Plus here is a FEMA report ...


Okay, I just followed your link, and as I suspected, you are linking to an summary of the FEMA report written by an Associated Press contributer. You cannot say "here is a FEMA report" and link to something other than a FEMA report. It's dishonest.
Contrast that with the link I provided from the actual report available from FEMA. You don't even have file a FOIA request.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's a zillion quotes saying the opposite of what you're attempting (very badly) to prove.



Well there might be a zillion quotes but what about actual statemets from official agencies that state it was combination.


Originally posted by _Del_
Okay, I just followed your link, and as I suspected, you are linking to an summary of the FEMA report written by an Associated Press contributer.


In case you cannot read the heading of the report.

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse.


Can you show me in the 9/11 commission reports where it states a combination?

Can you show me in the FEMA reports where it states a combination?

Can you show me in the Homeland Security reports where it states combination?

Can you showm me in the FBI reports where it states combination?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's a zillion quotes saying the opposite of what you're attempting (very badly) to prove.


Well there might be a zillion quotes but what about actual statemets from official agencies that state it was combination.


YES. Let's post from the actual agencies. Not a summary you found on a website.




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...


[edit on 6-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

In case you cannot read the heading of the report.

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse.


I'll ignore the repeated attacks on my literacy... I know you only know how to state things ad hominem

This is your link:
www.firehouse.com...

The title of the ARTICLE is "FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse"
It is by AP Contributer SHANNON McCAFFREY

It is not a FEMA report. Please stop saying that it is. It is foolish at best and lying at worst.

I provided you my link to the FEMA report itself.

If this is the standard of the evidence and "official reports" you continue to bring, what does that say about your honesty?


[edit on 6-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I provided you my link to the FEMA report itself.


The FEMA report i posted does show the same thing that that FEMA report you posted. Its just too bad either of the FEMA reports never stated it was combination that casued the collapse.

As with all other major reports, none state it was a combination of impact and fire that casued the collapse.

I am still waiting for anyone to post an official report that states that a combination of impact and fire casued the collapse, and no NIST does not count since the 9/11 commission did not agree with them.


[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
That's funny because my quote from the actual FEMA report actually says there were two severe simultaneous events that led to the collapse.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
That's funny because my quote from the actual FEMA report actually says there were two severe simultaneous events that led to the collapse.


Thats funny that you did not post it.

Please post the statement that says it was a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
That's funny because my quote from the actual FEMA report actually says there were two severe simultaneous events that led to the collapse.


Thats funny that you did not post it.

Please post the statement that says it was a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse.


I will not repost it a third time. I don't feel the need to spam the forum with something I just posted a few short posts ago. Someone else does that...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well i will keep on posting statments to the fact that it was not a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse. Lets see how much i can post that prove that it was not a combination.

This is usually a one sided debate anyway, since no one ealse wants to post information when asked.

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.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).




[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

WRONG, i base my statments on being a crew chief on the RF-4 in the Air Force.

Also if you believe my numebrs are wrong about the structure of an F-4 then please be adult enough to post evidence th debate my statements.


Ok, I will.

www.vectorsite.net...

"The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium"

Empty weight 30,000 lbs

Mostly aviation aluminum alloys. Hmmmmm.

Engines are 3800 lbs. Even if I'm very generous and say that they are 75% steel by weight, that's only 20% of the entire plane's dry weight. So the airframe without engines would have to be 31% steel by weight for the entire plane to be "mostly steel".

Please post your independently corroborated evidence to prove your point or admit that you were either:

a- knowingly making a grossly inaccurate statement

or

b- were never a crew chief for an F-4 and have been making this up.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join