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: 70
10
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please post the statement that says it was a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse.


Funny how someone that is looking for the truth seems to be hiding from it instead.

If you did any actual research, you would see what the FEMA reports states.

Here is your statement:

www.fema.gov...
Paragraph 2

"The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building."




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.


Could you post from an actual report an not a blog, please? I'd like to see the reports not someone's opinion or summary.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Yet more information on the buidlings surviving the plane impact and ONLY the fire being stated the main casue fo the collaspe, NOT A COMBINATION.

jnocook.net...

To enter the debate as to whether the plane crashes or the resultant fires caused the collapse of World Trade Center Towers I and 2, I would like to weigh in on the side of the fires. These buildings were designed to take the impacts of large plane crashes, and I doubt whether either building would have collapsed and whether multitudes of people would have been trapped above the crash floors except for the fire, smoke and heat. Apparently the effects of the inevitable explosion and fire after the simulated plane crashes were not considered in the design of the building. The point is; these buildings didnt immediately collapse, they took almost an hour for Tower 2 and well over an hour for Tower 1 the North Tower to collapse. According to Ronald Hamburger a structural engineer investigating the disaster, We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely and been repaired. The fire caused most of the life loss and building damage and the buildings were evidently deficient in fire protection.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

"The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building."


Gee and eveyone bitches at me for not posting from actual reports.

How about you post from a report then a summary.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
You'd probably get more slack if you posted from FEMA or NIST or something other than blogs...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee and eveyone bitches at me for not posting from actual reports.

How about you post from a report then a summary.


It is quite obviously you don't know anything about publishing reports. Lets look at the WTC study, shall we?

www.fema.gov...

Since you seem incapable of clicking on links posted by other users, let me summarize for you:

The World Trade Center Building Performance Study is the complete report made by FEMA on the WTC investigation. This report is broken into seperate PDF files, to allow users to download the sections they need in smaller, more conveniant file sizes.

They are broken down as listed:

Table of Contents (PDF 672KB)
Executive Summary (PDF 76.6KB)
Chapter 1 (PDF 3.66MB)
Chapter 2 (PDF 5.15MB)
Chapter 3 (PDF 2.37MB)
Chapter 4 (PDF 3.38MB)
Chapter 5 (PDF 3.34MB)
Chapter 6 (PDF 1.77MB)
Chapter 7 (PDF 3.34MB)
Chapter 8 (PDF 125KB)
Appendix A (PDF 793KB)
Appendix B (PDF 793KB)
Appendix C (PDF 2.03MB)
Appendix D (Accessible Version)* (PDF 2.15MB) with Spreadsheet (XLS 65KB)
Appendix D (Nonaccessible Version)* (PDF 2.22MB)
Appendix E (PDF 534KB)
Appendix F (PDF 420KB)
Appendix G (PDF 81.1KB)
Appendix H (PDF 41.4KB)
Appendix I (PDF 101KB)

So are you stating because they broke this report into smaller sections so people could download it easier....that it makes the entire report invalid?


You want just one GIANT 33mb report or something? Would that make you all warm and fuzzy?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
We have never doubted you could find all kinds of interesting contradictory tidbits on people's blogs. Particularly when those people are selling a product.
You keep claiming that the official reports don't say things, so I'd like you to point them out from the official reports, not from a third parties assessment. You've claimed to have done alot of research on this topic, including FOIA material and official reports, so it should be no sweat for you to find these contradictions.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza...200 pounds of fuel is about 3 gallons.....

weedwhacker, I always respect and sometimes even enjoy, your posts about the airline industry. They clearly show extensive knowledge and experience. However, your above quote shows that you apparently know very little about mathematical and computer modelling.

For a computer simulated, mathematical model to be valid, it must produce logically consistent output results, given that the input parameters are within a reasonable domain.

We all agree that the plane may have had around 62,000 pounds of fuel at the time of impact and that this is a reasonable input parameter.

The NIST model used an input parameter of 62,000 pounds of fuel, yet its output result was 62,200 pounds. The model has failed.

This is NOT a case of rounding error. Any good model would internally round-off values, as required. Any good model would check the output parameters, against the input parameters, to see that the results are consistent and logically valid. The NIST model has failed to do this.

The magnitude of the error (whether it be 2, 20, 200 or 2000 pounds) is not important. The fact that there IS an error is important. A mathematical model CAN NOT create (or lose) an extra X pounds of jet fuel, with X = 200, in this instance.

Again, this is not rounding error. This is an error with the internal programming script of the model. The model has failed to check its results for self-consistency.

The NIST model used 197,600 pounds as an input parameter for the mass of the aircraft debris. The output result was 196,700 pounds. Where did the missing mass of 900 pounds go? Matter can not be created or destroyed. Again, the model has failed - it is not self-consistent.

The NIST model failed to show that an engine exited the tower from the northeast corner of the tower, despite the official story alleging that an engine was observed exiting the tower.

Sorry, NIST model - three strikes and you're out. The NIST model has clearly failed - at least three times.

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

It would appear that people who put 'faith' in, or 'believe' in the results of a flawed computer simulated, mathematical model can also be described as lemmings.

If it can be shown that aspects of a model are logically flawed, then the validity of the entire model is questionable.

The NIST model is flawed and I would place very little confidence in any results that it produced.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yes lets look at what the FEMA report states about the aircraft impacts shall we.

Please see page 21, Chapter 2 of the FEMA report to see the following statment that the buidling withstood the plane impact SO NO COMBINATION.


Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analysis and also evidenced by the fact tha the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes lets look at what the FEMA report states about the aircraft impacts shall we.

Please see page 21, Chapter 2 of the FEMA report to see the following statment that the buidling withstood the plane impact SO NO COMBINATION.


Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analysis and also evidenced by the fact tha the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact.


Excellent. I'd prefer a link, but atleast you're trying. Now, explain how that quote means the aircraft impact had no contributing effect on the collapse. In your own words please.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Why yes it does.

Did I say the aircraft impact alone brought down the buildings? Think hard, ULTIMA1....I know it's tough to do.

The answer is No.

Now, if you look even further down in the report, it states the fire alone did not bring the buildings down.

No really, it does!

Thats where the magical word COMBINATION comes into play. Can you say "Combination"? I knew you could.


The plane impact, and resulting fires, led to a chain of events that caused the eventual collapse.

It says that right up at the tippy top of this big ol' report. I know, I know, you hate doing research, but really, if you look at the executive summayr, it sums it all up nicely. Thats why its called a summary. Can you say summary? I knew you could.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Excellent. I'd prefer a link, but atleast you're trying. Now, explain how that quote means the aircraft impact had no contributing effect on the collapse. In your own words please.


Well i did give a page and chapter, you just have to go to the FEMA report.

Basically from what i have been reading from several different sources is that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts without much of a problem and would have kept standing if something else major would not have happened like a fire, thermite reactions, or explosions that would have taken out more supports.

Like the statement from this source. www.tms.org...

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.


So basically its hard to see how a combination of impact and fire would have caused the collapse since most sources say the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Did I say the aircraft impact alone brought down the buildings? Think hard, ULTIMA1....I know it's tough to do.


You state that it was s combinations that brought down the buildings. Only problem is most reports state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

So that means that only the fire brought down the buildings since they withstood the plane impacts according to most reports.

The NIST computer model even stated that neither the impact or fire brought down the buidlings.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Basically from what i have been reading from several different sources is that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts without much of a problem and would have kept standing if something else major would not have happened like a fire, thermite reactions, or explosions that would have taken out more supports.

So basically its hard to see how a combination of impact and fire would have caused the collapse since most sources say the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.


You see no link here between a the two events? If I punch Disclosed in the mouth, it's not likely to fell him (I'm not as strong as I used to be). He probably wouldn't fall down if I kneed him in the gut either. But if I knee him in the gut and then punch him in the mouth the combined effect of simultaneous events are enough to knock him over.
(sorry Disclosed, I sacrificed you in the name of science)...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You state that it was s combinations that brought down the buildings. Only problem is most reports state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

So that means that only the fire brought down the buildings since they withstood the plane impacts according to most reports.


Then I can say, only the punch knocked down Disclosed. And we all know that my punch isn't strong enough to knock him down alone. So I must have shot him or poisoned him earlier.... In fact, no Disclosed has ever fallen down under the impact of just my punch. Ever... Proof I poisoned him

Do you see how that doesn't make sense?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Most sources say the buildings withstood the impacts. AGREED

Most sources said the buildings would have withstood the fires alone. AGREED

However, the COMBINATION of plane impacts, and resulting fires started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.

I'm curious why you always leave that part out?

You always jump at the chance to say "The impacts didnt cause the collapse". You've shoved that little baby down our throats a million times. The official reports agree with you, so calm down about that already. Sheesh!

The fires alone also didnt cause the collapse. Also in the reports, also shoved down our throats ad nauseum....we get it we get it.

But for some reason, you cannot accept the possibility that the combination of events resulted in the eventual collapse.

Heck, even your theory (which you posted a loooong time ago) involved the plane impact to some degree (causing the aluminum pieces and expose steel beams), plus the fires (to melt the aluminum to start your thermite reactions).

Unless the combination happened, even your own theory doesnt work now, does it?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You see no link here between a the two events?


Well i am going by sourcves that support the fact that there was no link between the 2 events since several sources agree the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why you always leave that part out?


I leave part out because several sources agree the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

That means no combination, since the impacts are ruled out as as cause of the collaspe.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i am going by sourcves that support the fact that there was no link between the 2 events since several sources agree the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.


_del_,

there is no trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think the rest of the forum understands with crystal clarity. He is just being stubborn and refusing to admit when he has lost in a discussion.

The only benefit is knowing your facts and evidence are posted to give others that are willing to look some real evidence to look at.

We appreciate it!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'd expect better from a member of the NSA. I mean, the entire intelligence community is about compiling and analyzing data.

Sorry about sacrificing you, Disclosed...




top topics



 
10
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join