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: 90
10
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Still waiting for you to stope making excuses and answer MY questions.


Sorry, guess i have been aroud the beleivers too much. Since they make excuses and never answer questions.

Please ask a legit question and i will answer it.



Have you ever notice how you try to avoid answering difficult questions by insulting or attacking people?

Is that your defense mechanism?

Legit questions have been asked and you have made excuses not to answer them. Step up or shut up for once.




posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18
Is that your defense mechanism?

Legit questions have been asked and you have made excuses not to answer them. Step up or shut up for once.


I treat people the way they treat me.

So ask me a legit question or leave the thread.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Any physical evidence directly disproving the official story.


There are lots of reports that question the official story. As far as pysical evidence, the biggest evidence against the officail story is the lack of evindece that supports it.

That's not evidence as we have previously discussed.


Also lack of evidence it used in court all the time.

A lack of evidence has never been used in court to convict anyone. Don't start that again!!!


As far as physical evidence of explosives i do not know, but we do have the evidnece of all the molten steel in the basement and debris. We know the fires in the towers did not get hot enough to melt steel so there had to be another source for the molten steel.
[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Like I've said before, I would tend to believe that the steel became red hot because of a furnace effect of the surrounding debris and burning fires. Just like a brick pizza oven.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
A lack of evidence has never been used in court to convict anyone. Don't start that again!!!


If you believe that then you do not know much about the court system.


Like I've said before, I would tend to believe that the steel became red hot because of a furnace effect of the surrounding debris and burning fires. Just like a brick pizza oven.


But the fires were buring out in the towers before they collasped. Where did the heat source come from that melted steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Is that your defense mechanism?

Legit questions have been asked and you have made excuses not to answer them. Step up or shut up for once.


I treat people the way they treat me.

So ask me a legit question or leave the thread.



1) I asked you a few legit questions...that you keep avoiding. It's funny how you keep changing your excuses to not answer questions.

2) Actually reading this and other threads you are involved in you treat people like a complete jerk as soon as anyone questions you and then acts like a perfect hypocrite.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
A lack of evidence has never been used in court to convict anyone. Don't start that again!!!


If you believe that then you do not know much about the court system.

I do actually. It's obvious you don't. Nobody has ever been convicted for something because they couldn't prove the person did it. It simply doesn't make sense.


Like I've said before, I would tend to believe that the steel became red hot because of a furnace effect of the surrounding debris and burning fires. Just like a brick pizza oven.

But the fires were buring out in the towers before they collasped. Where did the heat source come from that melted steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks?

Then there was no molten metal. Case solved.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Is that your defense mechanism?

Legit questions have been asked and you have made excuses not to answer them. Step up or shut up for once.


I treat people the way they treat me.

So ask me a legit question or leave the thread.



1) I asked you a few legit questions...that you keep avoiding. It's funny how you keep changing your excuses to not answer questions.

2) Actually reading this and other threads you are involved in you treat people like a complete jerk as soon as anyone questions you and then acts like a perfect hypocrite.


Lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Please ask your legit question again as he has agreed to answer it.

If he then refuses, I will contact the mods and explain that I believe he is trolling and attempting to disrupt the threads topic.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I do actually. It's obvious you don't. Nobody has ever been convicted for something because they couldn't prove the person did it. It simply doesn't make sense.


Thats not what i meant. A lack of evindece can be used as evidence.

If you cannot show evidence to support a claim, then your lack of evidence IS evidence that you cannot support your claim.

By the way i have testified in court and have had police training on court room proceedings.


Then there was no molten metal. Case solved.


You really shoud do research, there are lots of reports, photos, and videos of molten metals and steel. Even the 9/11 commission reports state that.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I do actually. It's obvious you don't. Nobody has ever been convicted for something because they couldn't prove the person did it. It simply doesn't make sense.


Thats not what i meant. A lack of evindece can be used as evidence.

Nope.



By the way i have testified in court and have had police training on court room proceedings.

Yes, many of us have been on jury duty



Then there was no molten metal. Case solved.

You really shoud do research, there are lots of reports, photos, and videos of molten metals and steel. Even the 9/11 commission reports state that.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Then the fires didn't burn out under ground did they?



[edit on 23-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj.....could not a tremendous amount of heat be developed as a result of the collapse of the building??

Let's postulate.....the Jet-A burning, and other flammable sources contributing to the fires....fires tend to burn up.....but several floors were already compromised......and even if the heat didn't MELT the steel, it compromised (softenend) the steel....especially, the center core, which was the main support structure of the Towers....

As that central core weakened....it could no longer support the floors above....hence, the cascade failures that ensued. It is just common sense, not some silly 'plan' of pre-set demolition charges!!!!!

Why, when NOTHING has ever been shown to suggest any pyros, does this debate continue?!????



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj.....could not a tremendous amount of heat be developed as a result of the collapse of the building??

Let's postulate.....the Jet-A burning, and other flammable sources contributing to the fires....fires tend to burn up.....but several floors were already compromised......and even if the heat didn't MELT the steel, it compromised (softenend) the steel....especially, the center core, which was the main support structure of the Towers....

As that central core weakened....it could no longer support the floors above....hence, the cascade failures that ensued. It is just common sense, not some silly 'plan' of pre-set demolition charges!!!!!

Why, when NOTHING has ever been shown to suggest any pyros, does this debate continue?!????



The debate continues because "truthers" like the idea of "knowing" or having "special" knowledge that we normal humans don't posses and they guard said knowledge with the greed of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. I can actually see them sitting in a darkened room with their computer monitor flickering and typing about a new conspiracy they just thought up and saying "MY PRECIOUS" under their breath


I've seen other collapsed buildings with underground fires which have burned for months and since concrete is an insulator, it is pretty easy to see that it would act just like a furnace. Underground fires can even burn years or decades with basic fuel sources.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123 Nope.


Yes, look it up. If your not afraid.


Yes, many of us have been on jury duty


Can you read, Did i say jury duty? I stated i have actually testified in court and have had police training in court room proceedings.


Then the fires didn't burn out under ground did they?


Acccording to the 9/11 commission report, if you would read it. Stated about the liquid molton metals in the basement of building 6.

The fires stayed burning deep under the debris (without oxygen) for at least 6 eweeks.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Let's postulate.....the Jet-A burning, and other flammable sources contributing to the fires....


All reports state the Jet-A burned off within the first 5-10 minutes.

So no jet fuel to help the fires in the basement and debris.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 Nope.


Yes, look it up. If your not afraid.

I don't need to. I'm familiar with US law and know you're wrong. Nuff said.


Yes, many of us have been on jury duty

Can you read, Did i say jury duty? I stated i have actually testified in court and have had police training in court room proceedings.

Yeah sure you have.


Then the fires didn't burn out under ground did they?

Acccording to the 9/11 commission report, if you would read it. Stated about the liquid molton metals in the basement of building 6.

The fires stayed burning deep under the debris (without oxygen) for at least 6 eweeks.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Although fires can burn underground almost indefinitely, they don't burn without oxygen.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Although fires can burn underground almost indefinitely, they don't burn without oxygen.


Yes, now you are beginnig to understand.

Whatever the heat source was that was melted the steel and kept it molten did so without oxygen getting to it.

Maybe something like thermite that makes its own oxygen?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Although fires can burn underground almost indefinitely, they don't burn without oxygen.


Yes, now you are beginnig to understand.

Whatever the heat source was that was melted the steel and kept it molten did so without oxygen getting to it.

Maybe something like thermite that makes its own oxygen?



Or maybe there was oxygen available and no thermite.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Or maybe there was oxygen available and no thermite.


How much oxygen would have gooten under the hundreds of tons of debris? Enough to keep fire hot enough to keep steel molten?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Or maybe there was oxygen available and no thermite.


How much oxygen would have gooten under the hundreds of tons of debris? Enough to keep fire hot enough to keep steel molten?



Sure. Why not? There have been plenty of underground fires that have burned a long time.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Sure. Why not? There have been plenty of underground fires that have burned a long time.


Only ones i know are coal fires.

Was their coal at ground zero?

Oh and tree stumps, any tree stumps at ground zero?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Let's postulate.....the Jet-A burning, and other flammable sources contributing to the fires....


All reports state the Jet-A burned off within the first 5-10 minutes.

So no jet fuel to help the fires in the basement and debris.





"ALL" reports!?!!!! Please post your sources as to ALL reports.

Thanks, ULTIMA!!!!

Again.....please post ALL reports!!!! ALL of them!!!!!

Can't wait!

WW



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join