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.

 

Undebunkable 911 Truths - Official Story Destroyed (again)

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by IvanZana
1. Don't all the high-level officials agree on what happened on 9/11?

[...]
This page lists several “former” employees of different parts of the government or military. And some current ones as well. What it does not do is present and facts that would show LIHOP or MIHOP.


You just admitted Ivan has shown current government officials that don't support the official investigations, which is all he was trying to show here, but then you immediately move the goal posts and attack him because these officials did not go into any more detail about their personal positions.

It's disappointing to see that you can't hold on to a single thought for more than two or three sentences without losing your grip, so to speak, and producing a total fallacy, because you just can't wait to club someone over the head. And it's worse than disappointing to be re-introduced to the vitriol your posts carry, as if it has a mass and inertia of its own.




posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by IvanZana
 


So terrorists never thought of flying a plane into a large or prominent building before, therefore it would have never happened? The terrorists are far too stupid to be able to organize something like this right?

I guess these terrorists must have missed your memo:
Air France Flight 8969 December 24, 1994

"The GIA, or Armed Islamic Group, is a violent terrorist organization based in Algeria. The first major international incident involving the GIA was the 1994 hijacking of an Air France jet in Marseilles, in which hijackers reportedly attempted to crash the plane, fully loaded with fuel, into the Eiffel Tower."
www.pbs.org...

"Tired from the two day stand off, the hijackers maintained radio silence until late morning when the hijackers demand they receive nearly 27 tons of fuel; considerably more than the 9 needed to make the five hundred mile flight to Paris. Intelligence reports suggested that the hijackers intended to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or blow it up over the city; a maximum fuel load would make the Airbus into a flying bomb."
en.wikipedia.org...


Well, isn't it odd then that both Condoleeza Rice, in Congressional testimony, and George W Bush, in a broadcast speech, said that "no one" could have foreseen terrorists using jets as missiles? Not that it proves any complicity in the act, but it is an example of how our own government was the biggest source of disinformation about the attacks. So, who are they running interference for with this disinformation campaign?



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by philjwolf
go ahead and believe what you want.. you and the other 3 people in the world that think it was an inside job..

I think you left 8 or 9 0`s off your number there pal.

Why would you lie like that? there must be a good reason for this.
between you and throatyogart(which may i say is about the most vulgar
name I have seen on ATS and i`m surprised that ATS allows such filth)
the 2 of you sure do your best to make the truth sound like nonsense.

why is that.?????

the official story has been proven over and over and over again to be
false.

proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a scam.

yes the official story has been destroyed (again)
well done Ivan.
the world needs more people like you.... many more
kudos...starred and flagged....
never give up searching for truth and spreading it to others.


six

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

On 9/11, in the hour or so before either of towers fell, we could all see billowing black or grey smoke coming from the fires in the tower. When you see such a high degree of smoke it is an indication that the fire that is burning is DEPRIVED of oxygen. This is called a 'dirty burn' and temperatures in a dirty burn are even lower than a fire that is in the open air...


WRONG WRONG WRONG. Dark smoke is a sign of hydrocarbons burning. Please explain to me how a fire in a building with TWO very large holes in it is oxygen deprived. In fact temps were alot hotter than 550 F. Most of the contents in the building burn hotter than 550 F. Please PLEASE do your research before posting tripe.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Too bad that either way the fires were not hot enough to cause a collapse huh. Shame that.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


The fires reached up to 1800F. Steel begins to warp when exposed to these temps. Did you forget the airplanes that plowed into the towers, and were largely sitting inside, burning? Steel does not have to melt to fail. Steel expands when exposed to heat, and then contracts when cooled. Do you know what happens to the structural integrity when it goes through this?



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Cool, now show me the math. Do you have any idea the conductivity of that steel? The total mass of steel being heated? The rate of dissipation? It is nice to talk about how hot something got, how hot the steel framework got is quite another story. Just ask NIST, they could not make that math either so I cannot wait to see you try.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


NIST already had covered it.
If you had read the report, including FEMA's report, its all there. I've read it, have you?



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


NIST already had covered it.
If you had read the report, including FEMA's report, its all there. I've read it, have you?


Yes. Please go back and reread my post. Apparently math is not the only thing you have shortcomings in.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Show me the math. Right here, post it. Try to take all of the steel into account that would need to be accounted for, keep your units of measure conversions accurate and do not fudge any numbers. If you can do that, you are one up on NIST. If you cannot show math that both proves your theory and is actually correct to the situation, then you have proven me wrong. If all you can do is tell me what you have read and tell me what to read, you are not really making much of a case now are you.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Dark smoke is a sign of hydrocarbons burning.


And lighter smoke isn't?

I don't care who you are, darker smoke DOES mean a less energetic fire. It's physics, it makes sense, and if it doesn't make sense to you then please bear with me while I try to explain this concept, which actually does make a lot of sense to myself as well as other people that happen to be fire experts/professionals, from which I originally read this:

Dark smoke, relatively speaking, is dark because it has more particles in it. "Soot" is the word usually given. These particles, the "soot," contain hydrocarbons. So, the darker the smoke, the more soot, the more hydrocarbons you have in the smoke. The hydrocarbons in the smoke, were not combusted. That is to say, they did not burn. Because they did not burn, the energy that they would have given off, is still within them chemically as a potential. It was not released. It was not released because of one of only two things: either there was no oxygen available, or it was not at the proper temperature/pressure for the combustion to take place.

Lighter-colored smoke, on the other hand, represents a burn that is consuming more fuel and therefore producing more heat. It is more efficient, and leaves less residue behind.

Also, in darker smoke, the additional hydrocarbons act as a heat sink and actually serve to carry away heat energy rather than produce any of it.



Please explain to me how a fire in a building with TWO very large holes in it is oxygen deprived.


Oxygen deprivation may or may not have been the reason the fires were producing black smoke. They could have also been dying because their temperatures were not high enough to keep the fire going and spreading around to other parts of the buildings. But the bottom line is that darker smoke was being produced after the jet fuel burned away, about 10 or 15 minutes in according to even NIST.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Steel expands when exposed to heat, and then contracts when cooled. Do you know what happens to the structural integrity when it goes through this?


Do you?

All I have ever seen, in my entire life, including all these 9/11-related things, is deformations. Not even extreme deformations, just what you would expect.

Is there anything anyone can demonstrate, that goes from simple deformations, to forces surpassing ultimate strengths, to entire framed structures essentially free-falling? The answer is "no." We know heat causes steel to expand and this causes deformations, but that is all we know.

I would absolutely love to see an experiment from NIST or anyone else showing how the expansion of a truss is going to exert enough force on its columns to actually cause additional failures. No one has ever produced one. So all you have is a "hypothesis" from NIST and a lot of faith and unsupported assertions to go with it.


six

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually thick, black, turblent smoke is a sign of a very hot fire. It is a sign that flashover is close. It is not a sign of a "cooler" fire, one that is not burning efficently. The fire load in those buildings was incredible. The likelyhood of the fire not being hot enough to spread to other floors after 15 minutes is nil..nadda...zip....zilch. Everything on those floors was, for the most part, flameable and has a flash point, and the smoke signs indicate that the temps were hot enough for flashover. Reading books about fire is one thing. Living it is another. In truth, smoke is a poor indicator of what is burning. In some instances you can tell if the fire has gotten into structral components, but that is in ordinary or timber construction for the most part. You can tell that that was not a "cool" fire.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Cool, then you can show us the math that NIST failed to produce then. I am so glad we have two experts here on how fire caused the steel framework to fail. The government had to create a whole new concept to explain their ideas but here at ATS, we have two members that know far better and can explain the things NIST could not. Awesome. Can we see your math now? Or are you just saying some crap about what you learned about observing distant smoke? It is one thing to know what colors of smoke mean, it is quite another to claim that fire did what you say that it did.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


NIST and FEMA reports are all ready have been proven mostly false, chuck full of lies.
However you should have already known that, had you “ever” bother to read the NIST, and FEMA reports.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Actually thick, black, turblent smoke is a sign of a very hot fire.





That smoke doesn't look particularly thick or turbulent to me. It looks pretty typical of what you would expect from setting some cubicles on fire inside a steel framed building.

I think we should better define words like "hot." A greater amount of burning materials will give you much more heat energy, but not necessarily greater temperatures. A greater amount of burning materials burning with less-than-optimum combustion will produce a lot more dark smoke (I think that's what you mean when you talk about the very thick smoke rolling out of somewhere), and a lot more heat, but not necessarily greater temperatures.



The fire load in those buildings was incredible.


Compared to what?


Everything on those floors was, for the most part, flameable and has a flash point, and the smoke signs indicate that the temps were hot enough for flashover.


Which is hot enough to collapse a steel skyscraper, or just burn you badly? I expect you may have good enough experience with one, but none with the other, because the other never happens.


You can tell that that was not a "cool" fire.


Again, compared to how much it takes to burn you, or how much it takes to collapse a steel skyscraper? How much more intense do you think this fire was than any other skyscraper fire (fire, not a jet impact)? Because I can post some others that are no comparison at all imo. Have you ever seen the Windsor Tower burning?



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The Windsor Tower was built with reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire. Almost all the steel did in fact collapse.

The first partial collapse of the steel facade happened about 2 1/2 hours after the fire started. Partial collapses continued for the next several hours.


It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue.

The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.


source






posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 




The Windsor Tower was built with reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire. Almost all the steel did in fact collapse.

The first partial collapse of the steel facade happened about 2 1/2 hours after the fire started. Partial collapses continued for the next several hours.


Sorry the building is still standing and “never” fell over.
The WTC 1 & 2 only burn just over an hour!
The Windsor Tower burnt for many hours and it still did not collapse.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


Sorry the building is still standing and “never” fell over.
The WTC 1 & 2 only burn just over an hour!
The Windsor Tower burnt for many hours and it still did not collapse.


It is still standing?


The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.


And:


The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed


So it didn't "fall over?" Neither did 1,2 or 7.

You silly goose! WTC 1 & 2 were hit by airplanes. (going very fast)

You might want to go and re-read the case study I linked.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

You silly goose! WTC 1 & 2 were hit by airplanes. (going very fast)

You might want to go and re-read the case study I linked.


YAY!!!!!!!!!!! Here we go again, I love this ride.

truther those plane crashes could not have made the buildings collapse. Besides being designed to withstand it, the physics simply does not add up.

debunker The planes are not why the buildings fell, it was the fires.

truther The fires could not have brought the buildings down, here are examples of why

debunker Those buildings did not fall over because they were not hit by planes. The impact of the plane crashes is what made it all able to happen.

truther But the plane crashes simply did not do that actual damage. It is just not there. There is no way the plane impacts are what brought those buildings down.

debunker Duh, they didn't it was the fires.

truther The fires were not hot enough nor were they burning long enough. Here are other steel framed buildings that burned much hotter much longer and did not fall over.

debunker Planes did not hit those buildings.

and around we go..........................



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join