It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by irongunner
Not long ago there was a bridge in Oak Land that collapsed from a diesel fire Oak Land Bridge Collapse
So there we have established that a fire can melt concrete and soften steel re-bar.
And I found this NIS Report on building collapses. Of course you truthers may not accept the report because it is from the NIST, but what other organization in the world would do this kind of analysis?
Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.
so, we have that buildings can collapse and do collapse from fire and that there is little to no record of this because of the rarity and insignificance of a building falling over without other things happening like deaths.
okay so half or better of your required evidence is provided.
also, i would think that the heat factor (about people walking so close to the fire) can be explained by insulation (walls and floor) , like an oven mit; you can pick up a dish that is more than 400 degrees without discomfort, BUT it will still burn.
Originally posted by justamomma
Originally posted by JimBeamWow! I wish I could be as infantile as you.
Gaah Gaah, Goo Goo, the matrix has you.
Seriously? Did I just click on the wrong button and end up in the kiddie forums some how? Obviously you have the rationality of a child (although even that may be too much credit chalked up in your favor).
The question being asked is valid and all you can say is 'gaah gaah goo goo, the matrix has you"? just
Originally posted by cmongo4
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
For those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who do not, no evidence is enough.
Some say that in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I say, in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man would be labelled a lunatic-heretic, and then be stoned to death.
That is the sad reality of our world.
It wasn't that long ago that we as a race were killing our fellow man because he didn't believe the earth was flat.
It wasn't that long ago that we burned women at the stake as witches because of fear and ignorance.
We haven't "evolved" much in a few hundred years, nor have we learned much from the experiences of our ancestors.
If nothing else, this site proves that point.
If anyone believes our government is truly concerned about it's people and are an honest, forthright entity, why are we spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq when we have tent cities full of homeless families popping up all over the country? Why are they "bailing out" major financial organizations with billions of more of our tax dollars instead of prosecuting the thieves who made their own mess?
That alone to me is evidence in itself of how well our government and elected officials can be trusted to tell us the whole truth, and nothing but.
No thanks. I'll believe what I see before I blindly believe what they say.
Something stinks in the "Bushes", and if you look into them, you will see the rotting carcass of Truth buried in a shallow, unmarked grave.
[edit on 9/19/2008 by cmongo4]
Originally posted by JimBeam
reply to post by irongunner
We are not evolve beings. We are suppressed beings. Major difference.
We evolve when we are not limited in our daily lives. Friends, family, your church(if you go), work, the media, etc. are all in place to keep you IN place. Only when you are able to detach yourself from your social structure are you truly free to evolve.
We put our energy into stuff, but rarely do we put that energy into us. You think we are evolved because you see these "marvelous" things we have created. They were building pyramids thousands of years ago in Egypt, so what. An architect can design wonderful structures but is an out of shape, overweight, divorced, lonely person.
If you really believe evolvution can be measured by the things we produce, you are in for a major shock if you ever "wake up" from your delusional state that you are in at present time.
A producer is a slave.
My dad was a physicist and worked for NASA, on his deathbed he had only one thing one his mind, women. Why do you think? Could it be because we are told to do things throughout our whole lives that are counter productive to our own nature??? Hatred of self and others is the driving force behind this machine. Love is frowned upon. Without unconditional love, you cannot evolve.
Originally posted by scotty18
Chancelot- Are you seriously trying to compare a B-17 and a Corsair hitting a building to the planes that hit the WTC? Perhaps you would like to compare the damage a hand grenade would do compared to a nuclear warhead.
JimBeam- Do you have anything of value to add to the thread or are you just here to insult people?
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
We don't have a lot of planes hitting buildings, however, you don't find ANYTHING odd about the fact that the only building to have EVER collapsed due to a plane hitting them are the world trade centers?
"Debunkers" like to say that it wasn't the jet fuel that "melted" the steel beams, it was everything inside that caught fire. So, the question still remains: Why didn't the empire state building catch fire and collapse?
Why didn't any of those other buildings collapse? Remember, the ratio of building mass to airplane weight, energy, etc, was MUCH, MUCH GREATER in those smaller buildings than in the other ones.
Besides, how does CONCRETE GET TURNED INTO DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE. Something the "debunkers" will tap dance around time and time again.
Do you have an explanation for how the concrete got turned into a fine dust? Any explanation?
What OTHER methods do we know of that turn concrete into "dust" when a building collapses. Do we know of any methods that do that? I know one, but I'll leave it to the reader to learn for themselves what that method actually is.
Originally posted by Phatcat
But, in his infinite wisdom, Mayor Guilliani (an ex-District Attorney I believe) saw fit to have all the evidence shipped off to China for processing as soon as it was cool enough to handle..
Originally posted by Phatcat
This is thé biggest investigation the World has ever known, not just America's, and they only take a few samples.
I remember when that plane exploded above Lockerby, èvery shred of the plane was retrieved.
I doubt they took that piece we all saw footage of, the ones that where cut at 45° angles..
And even the little of the material they did take showed evidence of Termaid being used..
By the way, if you're going to attack 1 point of my post, why not discount them one by one? Too hot to handle?
Originally posted by Retseh
Have 9/11 conspiracists reached the same point as the moon landing hoax believers who now state that there is no longer any evidence that would convince them the moon landings actually took place?
Just what conclusive evidence would actually convince you that 9/11 really was all about a group of terrorist hijackers wanting to cause as much damage to the US as possible by flying planes into buildings?