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.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 
this isn't about what the terrorists said, this is about the collapse of the twin towers.




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
BTW, there's a huge difference between the temperature of the steel and the temperature of the fire. I'm talking steel temperatures not fire temperatures.


So you're trying to say that a fire burning approx. 1000C is NOT going to heat directly exposed steel to at least 600C (the point where the steel would have lost its structural integrity as per both NIST and Eagar), particularly naked steel that had its fireproofing stripped off from the plane impact??

No, actually, I think YOU need to back THAT claim up. That contradicts pretty much every blacksmith in recorded human history.



Please point out your calculations that show 33,000 L was enough to do the exact same effect as 90,000 L.


33,000 liters of aviation fuel spread over a 40,000 square foot floor is enough to burn it down three times, particularly if it's spread as an aerosol. Add the fact that the floors were chock full of flammable items like carpets, furniture, plastics, wiring, cubicle partitions, etc and the equivalent fuel figure easily triples.

You're really stretching your argument, here.


Eager states that since the smoke from the fires was black, it had to be fuel rich. Nist states that the fuel burned off rather quickly.

How can Eager have his fuel rich fire if the fuel burned off quickly?


The two have nothing to do with each other. Fuel rich means that it has a poor air-fuel ratio, meaning, oxygen starved. The fires could have been oxygen starved AND have burned off quickly, particularly if the smoke from the fires contained unburned traces of fuel.

That's not the point, though. As the fuel burned off, it set entire floors' worth of contents on fire simultaneously. Those were most certainly NOT burned off quickly, as both NIST and Eagar are in agreement that the floor contents are what continuously fed the fires after the fuel was burned off.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I would say we know your skill set. Looking at conspiracy websites and videos. Believing anything that lines up with your fantasies.


nope. you know nothing about me. a modicrum of training in architecture and physics is in my skillset. i've operated cranes and other heavy machinery many times as a young lad, and worked around and with big steel on large buildings.
like i said, i knew on september 11th, 2001 when i watched the news at noon. the towers exploded, and fell way too fast. as soon as i saw it, i said, "damn it! the cia is starting worldwar three".
i realise, now, i was wrong. the cia is just one arm of the octopus that is starting world war three.
however, like i also said, i discuss this with engineers, architects, chemists, and physicists, not websites and videos, although, OF COURSE, websites and video are very useful for conveying information.
a website with a real person's name on it, like architects and engineers for 911 truth, pilots for 911 truth, etc. have a lot more integrity than "mmichael", some sock puppet desk agent on this forum who spends all day arguing with "psychos" about something which he feels is obviously completely inane to believe.
if i start a thread that says the moon is made of green cheese, will you tirelessly defend the truth that it is made of rock? can we get a thousand pages of debate on the topic?
the websites and videos i find to be highly lacking in REAL critical thought, are ones like "debunking 9/11", etc., and guys like ryan mackey and the JREF posse.
they, like you, turn to insults and name calling and blanket authoritative pronouncements to substitute for reasoning. they, like you, avoid the most salient points of evidence, in favour of changing the focus of discussion whenever they have no answer. they, like you, use non-sequitor logic and rhetoric to try and force a square through a round hole.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Didn't we discuss things on another thread and you were telling the story of how the bin Ladens worked on the construction of the WTC in the 60s and pre-planted bombs in the walls?


i was relating what paul laffoley told me.
he didn't say they planted bombs. he said they asked the best place to put them. i'm sure the "subtle" difference is lost on you, and you will forget this, again, reverting to your tired rhetoric.


Originally posted by mmiichael
A Saudi company where no one spoke English which had never worked on anything bigger than a palace or a mosque. But supposedly they were consulted on the tallest most modern most complex structures in history?


yeah. that's right. no arab can speak english. it's impossible for them to learn, and they can't get their camels through customs, so they couldn't even have been in north america.
let's see, i had lunch with an architect who was there during construction, and you are some irrational poster on the internet who paints every one of his posts with insults and implications of mental incompetence against the millions of people who don't believe everything they read in the newspaper. whom should i believe?
how many architects who worked on the wtc have you met and discussed this with? is meeting an architect who was there and discussing it with him a website or a video?


Originally posted by mmiichael
But some guy who worked there at a low level drafting job told you so. So it must be true.


he was the architect in charge of several storeys of one tower. hardly a low level draftsman. paul laffoley. look it up, again, mr. alzheimer's.
BTW, they asked if he had any ideas, and he said, yeah, he had two. one was build two or three walkways that connect the towers, and the other was diagonal crossbracing on the perimeter. the boss he told was quite excited, and said he'd bring the suggestions to roth that night.
the next day, he was fired out of the blue. why? because, the two towers were symbols, as well as being buildings. nelson and david, they called them.
think, if they had implemented his ideas, many more people could have escaped, across the bridges, and the added strength of diagonals would have made "collapse" less likely.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sorry for expressing a strong opinion on this story. It's lunacy.

When I type these messages I feel like I'm doing rehab in a Psych Ward.

M


nice ad hominem approach (and, yes, i'm doing it back to you in this thread. immature of me, i know, lol). i wonder if you can ever respond without putting your own intellect on a pedestal above everyone else's?
your debating style is dirty. sickening. lame. i puked in my mouth a little, reading your response.

there. i can do it, too. it's using linguistics to invoke an emotional response from the reader, hence, sullying the reader's ability to focus on the facts. good lawyers can sway a jury with this tactic.

you have still completely ignored the FACTS i posted that PROVE 9/11 was an inside job.
you are nothing more than a rhetoric machine, with no ability to determine for yourself what scientific reasoning is valid, and which is tainted.

the 2.28 seconds of freefall of wtc7 is proof the building gave absolutely ZERO resistance to collapse for that period (about eight storeys!). in other words, it could not have been breaking itself apart with gravity during that phase.
the NIST simulation looks NOTHING like the actual collapse, and is therefore completely invalid.
the FASTER than freefall ejections from inside the towers are an impossibility in a natural collapse.
BTW, i did the two frame "faster than freefall" analysis with the purple and blue lines myself using raw video from abc. it's on a website or two, now, but i still believe it.




[edit on 27-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
 
this isn't about what the terrorists said, this is about the collapse of the twin towers.


Wow. This statement is as wrong as it gets.

The crux, the entire raison d'etre of the Truth Movement for years has been to disprove what they call the "Official Story" which states Arab hijackers flew planes into the WTC causing destruction to the towers that resulted in their collapse.

Well I know most people don't want reality to intrude in their fantasies, but one of the planners of these plane attacks who established targets, co-ordinated activities and dealt with the same hiackers personally, is about to go on trial in the US.

I would say without qualification he knows more about what happened on 9/11 and whether there was US govt complicity than your average Youtube analyst.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So you're trying to say that a fire burning approx. 1000C is NOT going to heat directly exposed steel to at least 600C (the point where the steel would have lost its structural integrity as per both NIST and Eagar), particularly naked steel that had its fireproofing stripped off from the plane impact??


First, you have to prove the fireproofing was completely stripped off.

Second, you have to prove that steel would reach this temperature in the given amount of time.

Third, NIST even proves you wrong by their own samples from the fire affected floors.


No, actually, I think YOU need to back THAT claim up. That contradicts pretty much every blacksmith in recorded human history.


A blacksmith doesn't use fire creep as a means to shape steel.


33,000 liters of aviation fuel spread over a 40,000 square foot floor is enough to burn it down three times, particularly if it's spread as an aerosol.


Don't forget the fieball outside....say at least 20% lost....then don't forget the fuel that went down elevators....another 10%.....this brings it down to about 20-25 kL.

That brings it to about 1/2 liter of fuel per square foot.

1 liter is ~ 1 quart (or about the amount of a bottle of motor oil)

So, we have 1/2 of a bottle of motor oil per square foot.

Does this really sound like a "fuel rich" fire to you?

BTW, I asked for calculations. Not speculations.



Add the fact that the floors were chock full of flammable items like carpets, furniture, plastics, wiring, cubicle partitions, etc and the equivalent fuel figure easily triples.


Since Eager doesn't mention any of this, why are you bringing it up? We are talking about Eager's report are we not?


You're really stretching your argument, here.


Who's stretching? 1/2 liter per square foot?


The two have nothing to do with each other. Fuel rich means that it has a poor air-fuel ratio, meaning, oxygen starved. The fires could have been oxygen starved AND have burned off quickly, particularly if the smoke from the fires contained unburned traces of fuel.


Did you even read what I quoted from Eager?


the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available.


www.tms.org...

That directly correlates the fuel richness of the fire to the amount of jet fuel available. NOT the amount of office materials present.

He also states this....


This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.


Meaning that normal office fires don't get above this either. Unless you can explain why an office fire would be different or hotter than a residential fire. There is, after all, just as much furniture in a residence than there is in an office.


That's not the point, though. As the fuel burned off, it set entire floors' worth of contents on fire simultaneously.


So, now it becomes "several" floors that this 20-25,000 L of fuel spread onto. Well then, that makes the 1/2 liter per square foot from above that much less.

Say it was 2 floors.....it becomes 1/4 liter per ft^2
Say it was 3 floors.....it becomes 1/8 liter per ft^2
Say it was 4 floors.....it becomes 1/16 liter per ft^2
etc.

Your arguement is better off if you stick to the one floor theory.



Those were most certainly NOT burned off quickly, as both NIST and Eagar are in agreement that the floor contents are what continuously fed the fires after the fuel was burned off.


And Eager has stated that normal fires do not get above the 650C range. As quoted above.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
attack my evidence, don't attack me.


Easy.

You've cherry picked a small sample, and stated without evidence that this short gif - the one with the arrow and line - are after the debris has fallen for hundreds of feet.

I see the debris line catching up to the arrow.

Now, extend the gif to include a longer time frame.

Failure to do this is in fact admission that you're commiting fraud.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I see the debris line catching up to the arrow.


The fact that the "collapse" seen coming from the inside of the tower is happening faster than a free falling body at any point in time is absolute direct proof of more than just gravity doing work.

Especially when you consider that the "collapse" was supposedly going through the path of MOST resistance while the falling debris is going through the LEAST resistance.

There should be NO point in time when the collapse wave outraces the freefalling debris. Unless there was more than gravity doing the work of course.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


well, then, failure to admit that i'm right proves you are commiting fraud.



i dislike debbies, a lot. so vile.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


BTW Joey,

If you are going to have in your signature that truthers are uneducated, you might want to be able to spell "education" yourself.


Unless you just want to look stupid?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

The fact that the "collapse" seen coming from the inside of the tower is happening faster than a free falling body at any point in time is absolute direct proof of more than just gravity doing work.



Provide the full video where BB's gif came from.

Cuz i KNOW that he cherry picked a sample from early in the collapse, BEFORE the debris has fallen very far.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cuz i KNOW that he cherry picked a sample from early in the collapse, BEFORE the debris has fallen very far.


So, you are saying that the falling debris is like Wile E. Cyote and didn't start falling with the acceleration of gravity but waited until it saw it was suppossed to fall?

Because even if this is early in the collapse, the collapse through the building still should not be accelerating faster than a freefalling body through air.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


You're either a fraud, or you're just copying from stupid conspiracy sites evidence which you haven't vetted yet.




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Nice video of the last half of the collapse. Where's the first half?

And you have the gall to call billybob a fraud.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   






this last one shows a "squib", or more properly, jet of debris, coming out from the same floors as this wave of ejecta, which, incidentally, disproves the "syringe/overpressure" argument for the "squibs".





[edit on 27-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by billybob
 


You're either a fraud, or you're just copying from stupid conspiracy sites evidence which you haven't vetted yet.



vet this.
you can't even see the west wall (where the ejections i'm pointing out are coming from) in that video you posted.
keep it up, though. you're colours are shining through.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by technical difficulties
 
this isn't about what the terrorists said, this is about the collapse of the twin towers.


Wow. This statement is as wrong as it gets.

The crux, the entire raison d'etre of the Truth Movement for years has been to disprove what they call the "Official Story" which states Arab hijackers flew planes into the WTC causing destruction to the towers that resulted in their collapse.
I might be missing something here, but you really aren't making any sense. How is my statement wrong? Here is the post I replied to:


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by technical difficulties
I believe in the laws of physics, so naturally, i'm not going to agree with "planes did it" as to why the two towers both collapsed into themselves, therefore, I don't believe in the official story.


Great opportunity for the Truth Movement and it's True Believers.

In the real world (check outside the closest window - unless you're in a basement) Khalid Shekh Mohammed, who with Ramzi Yousef, planned and co-ordinated the 9/11 plane attacks, is coming to the US to stand trial.

You can explain to him how he worked out details, coached hijackers, co-ordinated funds, etc - his team did not really hijack those planes and it was a government false-flag operation.

A real explanation is needed why he confessed and provided details of the plan and how it lines up perfectly with recorded conversation, wire transfers, credit card receipts, photographs, and a few thousand other pieces of evidence gathered in a dozen countries.

Do I think Truthers are dumb? Prove to me otherwise.


M




[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]
I was talking about the collapse of the towers, and then you reply with how the terrorists admitted that they planned this beforehand, which isn't relevant to how the buildings fell, which as you can see, is what my post was about.


Well I know most people don't want reality to intrude in their fantasies, but one of the planners of these plane attacks who established targets, co-ordinated activities and dealt with the same hiackers personally, is about to go on trial in the US.

I would say without qualification he knows more about what happened on 9/11 and whether there was US govt complicity than your average Youtube analyst.
Seriously, why are you still talking about this?





[edit on 27-11-2009 by technical difficulties]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

you can't even see the west wall (where the ejections i'm pointing out are coming from) in that video you posted.


So then you're admitting to cherry picking the west wall. And only from a moment at that.

Nice.

The video shows debris FAR outpacing the "squibs", over a time frame that is at least 10x of what your gif showed.

It proves you to be a fraud.

The only ones that will be comng to defend you will be other delusional truthers, as we have already seen.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Nice video of the last half of the collapse.



Pick any complete video that you wish. It will show the same thing.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

i was relating what paul laffoley told me.

he didn't say they planted bombs. he said they [bin Ladens] asked the best place to put them

he was the architect in charge of several storeys of one tower. hardly a low level draftsman.


Thank you for the elaboration on what Paul Laffoley told you regarding his period working on the desins for the World Trade Center and his profeaaional interfacing with the bin Ladens. I found the original post you made on this providing further specifics:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

paul loffoley said the bin ladens' were inspecting the building, and he was an architect for some lower floors. he said the bin laden's asked him where you would put explosives to bring it down. so, the bin laden's construction company were intimate with the design and have known where to put explosives since the sixties.

he says he was shocked by the question at the time, as it wasn't common to think that way, back then.


According to Lafolley’s own page and summarized in his Wikipedia entry:


en.wikipedia.org...

(born August 14, 1940)

“he attended the progressive Mary Lee Burbank School in Belmont, Massachusetts”

“Laffoley matriculated at Brown University, graduating in 1962 with honors in Classics, Philosophy, and Art History.”

“In 1963, he attended the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and apprenticed with the sculptor Mirko Basaldella before being dismissed from the institution.“

“Laffoley worked for 18 months on design for the World Trade Center Tower II (floors 15 to 45) with Emery Roth & Sons under the direction of architect Minoru Yamasaki. Following his suggestion that bridges be constructed between the two towers for safety, he was summarily fired by Yamasaki”

“Laffoley obtained his formal Architectural License in October 1990”


Now though Laffoley may have become an architect in 1990 at age 50, in the period he worked on the WTC designs, c. 1964-5, he would have been 24 years old with a degree in “Classics, Philosophy, and Art History. He attended Harvard Graduate School of Design, apprenticing with a sculptor before he was dismissed from the school.

Given his level of experience and education at the time, I contend the highest position he could have worked on for high level design firm, Emery Roth & Sons under the direction of architect Minoru Yamasaki, is as a non-excutive draftsman.

The story about the bin Ladens also being involved in design of the WTC building, making inquiries about the placement of bombs, I think is complete fabrication. My conjecture is that Lafolley, after the attack and collapse of the WTC buildings has been dining out on his brief involvement with the design firm of the buildings.

As Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama and 53 other children, had a construction company in Saudi Arabia at the time, it is an easy attention getter to claim there was bin Laden family input on pre-planned destruction of the WTC nearly 40 years before the buildings were attacked and collapsed.

I don’t think anyone rational reading this far can conclude this is anything beyond fantasy.


[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
First, you have to prove the fireproofing was completely stripped off.


Bait and switch. Noone ever said it had to be *completely* stripped off. It was almost certainly the partial removal of the fireproofing that caused the uneven heating of the steel that created the thermal expansion to begin with, becuase it means one section of exposed steel would have been heated to much higher temperatures than a fire proofed section six inches away.

If you're going to say next that I need to prove that *any* of the fireproofing was stripped off, you should know before you say this that the wreckage of the plane destroyed the central emergency stairwells in the core of the building. Stripping off the fireproofing would have been the least destructive thing the plane impacts did.



Second, you have to prove that steel would reach this temperature in the given amount of time.


Read my statement again. I said the FIRES reached 1000C within fifteen minutes. The steel itself would have been exposed to this heat for (in the case of WTC 1) almost two hours



Third, NIST even proves you wrong by their own samples from the fire affected floors.


I will ask AGAIN: Can you provide the page number that says the steel never reached over 250C? I am going by THEIR statement that the fires reached upwards of 1000C in areas, and the steel lost its structural integrity at 600C, and I already gave you the page number that shows this.


He also states this....


This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.


Meaning that normal office fires don't get above this either. Unless you can explain why an office fire would be different or hotter than a residential fire. There is, after all, just as much furniture in a residence than there is in an office.


Then you just contradicted yourself. Both Eagan and NIST agree that temperatures only need to reach 600C or so for steel to lose its structural integrity. The fires didn't need to reach actual melting point temperatures before the steel lost its ability to hold the weight it was holding.


So, now it becomes "several" floors that this 20-25,000 L of fuel spread onto. Well then, that makes the 1/2 liter per square foot from above that much less.


In case you don't realize it, if you're really arguing on such a incredible microscopic level of detail where you absolutely have to know the exact fuel to area dispersement ratio within the building, it's more of a mark of desperation, then it is anything else.

The jet fuel set the buildings on fire. If you can't grasp that concept then this discussion is about to go nowhere fast.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join