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: 93
10
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I've NEVER, not one time, EVER said there was coal at ground zero. It's an example that an underground fire, with the proper fuel, can burn almost indefinitely.


At least you admit there was no coal at ground zero, so the comparison with the coal fire does not apply.


The WTC's were full of insulative materials that could have encased fires and created furnace like conditions.


I asked for evidence not more opinions and theories.




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I've NEVER, not one time, EVER said there was coal at ground zero. It's an example that an underground fire, with the proper fuel, can burn almost indefinitely.


At least you admit there was no coal at ground zero, so the comparison with the coal fire does not apply.

I've always told you that there was never coal at WTC. It applies as an example. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to NSA school.


The WTC's were full of insulative materials that could have encased fires and created furnace like conditions.


I asked for evidence not more opinions and theories.



Prove me wrong with evidence and not your opinion. My OPINION is supported by one of your posts



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Prove me wrong with evidence and not your opinion.


Right after you post evidence and not just an opinion.

Why do you keep asking for evidnece but can never post any when asked?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Prove me wrong with evidence and not your opinion.


Right after you post evidence and not just an opinion.

Why do you keep asking for evidnece but can never post any when asked?



Why do you lie? You said you'd answer legit questions. I am asking a legit question yet you refuse to answer it. So why would I believe you will EVER answer any questions? What is my motivation to answer yours?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Prove me wrong with evidence and not your opinion.


Right after you post evidence and not just an opinion.


Is this the ATS version of the schoolyard "I know you are but what am I?"


You're a riot.

Were my diagrams of the WTC complex (which you've completely ignored) opinion too? Or were they evidence? If they were evidence, can you answer his question just for me please?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You're a riot.


You just keep proving that you will do anything to keep from posting evidence when asked.

Everyone can see what type of person you are with the lies, misquotes, and refusing to post evidence when asked.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
You're a riot.


You just keep proving that you will do anything to keep from posting evidence when asked.

Everyone can see what type of person you are with the lies, misquotes, and refusing to post evidence when asked.


Everyone has seen the diagrams he's posted which is evidence so once again, you're lying. Nothing has been misquoted and he has not refused to post evidence.

Once again, you said you would answer legit questions yet you now refuse.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Everyone has seen the diagrams he's posted which is evidence so once again, you're lying.


So why does he lie about me and not post evidence when i ask?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Everyone has seen the diagrams he's posted which is evidence so once again, you're lying.


So why does he lie about me and not post evidence when i ask?



I haven't seen him lie about you.
Maybe if you acted like an adult instead of a petulant child, you would get your answers. Speak in a respectful tone and you will get that in return. If you treat people like idiots, expect the same. You choose how to act and those actions have consequences.

With regard to the molten METAL in the debris, I have given you a reasonable hypothesis of how it could have happened. Without knowing every variable related to the collapse, I cannot provide absolute proof. Nobody can. But keep in mind that one of your own posts supports my hypothesis.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Everyone has seen the diagrams he's posted which is evidence so once again, you're lying.


So why does he lie about me and not post evidence when i ask?



Gee. I think your last question directed at me had to do with the absence of large holes under neath the debris pile. I think I offered conclusive evidence that you were demonstrably, horribly, stunningly wrong.

If I'm going to be accused of lying in everyone of your posts, I'm bringing out the book claims again. Again, I can't imagine why one person is allowed to slander people calling them "liers" [sic].



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What fuel? Certainly wasn't jet fuel since it burned off in the first few minutes, and office furniture fires do not get hot enough to melt steel.

Where is the draft coming from that kept the fire hot enough to keep metals and steel molten for 6 weeks?


How many thousand tonnes of combustible material were inside those buildings when they collapsed?
Jet fuel only acted as the accelerant to get the initial fires going. All that potential fuel for a fire was crammed into a porous pile with air feeding it from below as previously explained.

NIST's experiments showed a temperature around 1000C was achievable from burning typical office materials and the NASA scans plus the FEMA study corroborate that temperature. A possibilty is that magnesium/aluminium alloys or other building material not normally considered combustible could have been ignited at that temperature in isolated hotspots deep in the pile.

What puzzles me is the insistence on a conspiracy associated with post-collapse fires. IE what purpose did they serve?

And there you go again with that 'steel kept molten for 6 weeks' thing which is highly unlikely if not impossible.

NOTE: 1 tonne (metric ton) = 1000kg = 2200lb as opposed to the imperial ton which is 2240lb (gotta love the metric system)

[edit on 25/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I think I offered conclusive evidence that you were demonstrably, horribly, stunningly wrong.


NO, not really you offered a theory. No real evidence as to the molten metals and steel that were there at least 6 weeks.

Can you post the photos of the roof damage to the subway and where the damage is in realtion to the debris fields?







[edit on 25-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What puzzles me is the insistence on a conspiracy associated with post-collapse fires. IE what purpose did they serve?


What conspiracy, since when is wanting to find the truth a conspiracy?

Lets look at some factors.

1. The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel.

2. The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse.

So what other heat source could have casued that much molten metal and steel to melt and stay molten ?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What puzzles me is the insistence on a conspiracy associated with post-collapse fires. IE what purpose did they serve?


What conspiracy, since when is wanting to find the truth a conspiracy?

Lets look at some factors.

1. The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel.

2. The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse.

So what other heat source could have casued that much molten metal and steel to melt and stay molten ?



We've already told you how it could have happened. How many more times do you need to hear it? You say the fires were burning out, not burnt out before the collapse. Embers alone could re-ignite a large fire. Some of the largest forest fires in California have been started from a single cigarette butt thrown from a car window.

[edit on 25-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
We've already told you how it could have happened.


"HOW IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED" is not evidence of what happened is it?

Why are you guys having such a hard time understanding a simple request for evidence? NOT theories and opinions.

You guys ask me for evidence, now i am asking you for evidence. Is that really so hard to understand?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Lets look at some factors.

1. The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel.

2. The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse.

So what other heat source could have casued that much molten metal and steel to melt and stay molten ?


Now you're talking about pre-collapse conditions which is a totally different situation however I agree that those fires were not hot enough to melt steel prior to the collapse. There is also no evidence of steel melted pre-collapse but it could have been seriously weakened in the impact zones as a contributing factor in initiating the collapse.

How much steel was melted and how long was it kept molten?
Are there any official measurements or estimates?

If you're working toward thermite as the answer I suggest you look into how long thermite burns for starters then arrive at a figure of how much thermite it would take to keep burning for 6 weeks. You'll quickly find that thermite is not the answer here.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
We've already told you how it could have happened.


"HOW IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED" is not evidence of what happened is it?

Why are you guys having such a hard time understanding a simple request for evidence? NOT theories and opinions.

You guys ask me for evidence, now i am asking you for evidence. Is that really so hard to understand?


OK show me evidence that my hypothesis is wrong. You won't be able to show any evidence either
See how this works?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
We've already told you how it could have happened.


"HOW IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED" is not evidence of what happened is it?

Why are you guys having such a hard time understanding a simple request for evidence? NOT theories and opinions.

You guys ask me for evidence, now i am asking you for evidence. Is that really so hard to understand?


We're also right back to your statement that you would answer legit questions but you don't. When are you going to stay true to your word or were you just lying to try and get what you wanted?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
OK show me evidence that my hypothesis is wrong. You won't be able to show any evidence either
See how this works?


But i did not ask for a hypothesis, i asked for evidence. SEE HOW THIS WORKS.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I did eventually get to view that video - thanks for posting it.

At least they end it with a question and don't presume to know the answers and it isn't evidence of steel being kept molten for 6 weeks. Red hot molten material could not be steel as it solidifies just below white heat so if it's still running at red heat it has to be something else.

Was that running material sampled and analysed?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join