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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The colors in the chart are obviously not as accurate as they could be


And the photos?

You don't have the answer for this.


Did you see the video I posted above of the molten steel/concrete "meteorite"?


Yes I did.

Did you? It asks why an analysis hasn't been done. Let us know when you've done that.


All of them? Every single person that says they saw molten steel is wrong? [/quote]

There's only a few that say they saw steel. Most say metal, which includes aluminum, and can also be misidentified. The disconnect here is that you don't realize that the websites you get your info from, rather than doing your own research, are lying to you about how many first responders say they saw steel.

No surprise there.


So, you debunkers are "rational" and the firefighters, engineers, CD experts are all irrational for claiming to have seen molten steel?


No, they're quite rational for stating that, for that's what they believe.

Truthers are the irrational ones for believing it without any skepticism whatsoever. A trait you display well.


I'm not skeptical about molten steel, and neither have I ever been skeptical about how three WTC's were brought down with explosives. That will never change as long as I breathe oxygen.


Yes, we're all quite aware that truthers will never change their mind.

This is why calls for a new investigation from CTerz is laughed at, cuz like we have been saying all along, you will never accept the outcome of any new investigation unless it agrees with your fantasies.

Moon hoaxers display the same irrationality. You're in fine company.


So, unless you or anyone else can find aluminum in the color of red/yellow and still be in it's solid state, then I think we can finally conclude that the above image does, in fact, show molten steel, just like everyone there said they saw.


Why would I argue with you about a faked photo?

Construct all the strawmen you see fit to bolster your fantasies.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes, we're all quite aware that truthers will never change their mind.

You should look in the mirror some time. If you think that all debunkers are correct about every single thing, then you also can be lumped into that catagory. I've changed my mind about many things that have been presented by debunkers. That doesn't mean you're correct about every single thing. You debunkers are going to have to come to terms with the fact that many things that truthers claim are correct also.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Moon hoaxers display the same irrationality. You're in fine company.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up moon hoaxers. There's a documentary on Youtube from an investigative reporter who set out to prove that we went to the moon and kill all moon hoax conspiracy theories.

Know what he discovered? He couldn't prove for 100% certain that we went to the moon because there was no definitive evidence. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy either way regarding the moon, but someone who specifically set out to find the evidence and travel all over the country looking for it, couldn't find it. Keep that in the back of your head.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why would I argue with you about a faked photo?

So in other words, you can't find aluminum that is red/yellow in color and in it's solid form either, proving the image is showing molten and red-hot steel.

Calling the image fake based on someone's opinion is being blatantly dishonest and spreading purposeful misinformation.

I will venture to say that since the image shows molten steel and not aluminum, the debunkers are going to work overtime to try to discredit it. You'll try, you'll fail.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 



No question, reliable scientific evidence proves thermate in the WTC dust.

All the evidence points to an end of the world religious cult, infamous for sexual mutilation rituals as the perpetrators of the crime. They also have enough nukes to elevate the levels of tritium worldwide. High levels of tritium were also found on 911.

Don't forget this sect has a civil defense infrastructure in place for their zombie membership to ride out the radiation poison and emerge as "the chosen ones" when they finally decide to use their secret nuclear arsenal.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by beijingyank]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I will venture to say that since the image shows molten steel and not aluminum, the debunkers are going to work overtime to try to discredit it. You'll try, you'll fail.



You do not know what that image shows. Nobody took it to a lab to find out it's composition.

Moon Hoaxer Bonez? Really?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up moon hoaxers. There's a documentary on Youtube from an investigative reporter who set out to prove that we went to the moon and kill all moon hoax conspiracy theories.

Know what he discovered? He couldn't prove for 100% certain that we went to the moon because there was no definitive evidence. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy either way regarding the moon, but someone who specifically set out to find the evidence and travel all over the country looking for it, couldn't find it. Keep that in the back of your head.



There is a parallel here Bonez. You just choose to NOT make the connection.

This guy, a reporter, and presumably NOT a scientist of any kind, and probably lacking any science training at all other than high school biology and chemistry, thinks he didn't find his definitive evidence.

How would he know whether he found it or not? It is simple logic that there will be things he finds that are simply out his ability to decide on whether or not he has found "it".

It would depend on him accepting the word of experts that such and such is definitive proof that we went to the moon. Just like when something like 100+ articles get published in well respected, top quality technical journals that examine NIST's findings, on occasion making criticism of minute aspects - like Quintere's - but always agreeing with planes> impact damage>fires>fire damage> collapse.

The same holds with the TM. You are simply out of your league here.

There is also another point to be made. He did the best he could to find definitive evidence. What if he just simply missed "it"?

Or in the case of the TM, are denied access to it through privacy laws and security issues?

Just because he didn't find "it" that would definitively debunk the obvious delusional belief of moon hoaxers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_






It would depend on him accepting the word of experts that such and such is definitive proof that we went to the moon. Just like when something like 100+ articles get published in well respected, top quality technical journals that examine NIST's findings, on occasion making criticism of minute aspects - like Quintere's - but always agreeing with planes> impact damage>fires>fire damage> collapse.


Do you have sources for this?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

So in other words, you can't find aluminum that is red/yellow in color and in it's solid form either, proving the image is showing molten and red-hot steel.


Remember what I said about constructing all the strawmen you want? Apparently so, cuz you just did right here. Congratulations on you logical fallacy.


Calling the image fake based on someone's opinion is being blatantly dishonest and spreading purposeful misinformation.


So go debate him then. His handle is Major Tom.

the911forum.freeforums.org...


I will venture to say that since the image shows molten steel and not aluminum, the debunkers are going to work overtime to try to discredit it. You'll try, you'll fail.



Work?

What a laugh, and totally bass ackwards to boot.

It is YOU that needs to prove that the color balance is correct on this phot, if you want to crow about its authenticity. You'll note in the debunking that I supplied to you, that the author states that he tried to get these, with no response whatsoever from Jones. That's cuz there is no exiga(?) file for that photograph. Cuz it's faked.

Then, once you decide to ignore that challenge, you can start working on actually identifying the material. You'll ignore that too.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc


Do you have sources for this?


Yes.

Do you have evidence that your presence here isn't some sort of parody on truthers?

Judging by your posts, I'd say so.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc


Do you have sources for this?


Yes.

Do you have evidence that your presence here isn't some sort of parody on truthers?

Judging by your posts, I'd say so.



Can you cite your source (sources) please?

I can't prove anything. I am here in a quest to find accurate information and the truth. I am here in a quest to point out to people that they are ignoring a lot of expert testimony and evidence. You can get the story from the person who knows more about what I think than anyone on the planet (me) and then just call me a liar. I can give links to posts that i've made that point out to a debunker that there are experts who agree that the wtc towers were demolished.

SOURCE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that does not prove anything either.

So to answer your question:

Yes I have have evidence that my presence here isn't some sort of parody on truthers.

Can you answer some questions for me:

Can you please cite your source like I just did?

What does me being a parody on truthers have to do with you not citing your source even after I asked you to?

Did you know that some people came here to assist with research?

Did you know that citing your source helps people with research?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
According to NIST's calculations, only about 15%-16% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged from the impact of the jetliners. That leaves 85% of the structure in the impact zones and 100% of the structure above and below intact. The impacts caused very minimal damage to the actual structures and fire doesn't bring steel-structured high-rises down.

Those buildings should still be standing today.


Umm.

Sorry to jump in on this.

That means that 15% of the structures load bearing capacity for the weight above the points of impact has gone, and has to be redistributed through a structure that has just suffered an impact so violent that it is entirely possible it seriously weakened or snapped load bearing welds and bolts in other places.

Although the structure looks massive compared to the aircraft, when they hit you are dealing with a 160ton mass travelling at speeds over 300mph. Don't think of the planes as a series of tubes, think of them as a dead weight impact pushing through the side of the tower. The force of the impact will have shunted the tower sideways - maybe imperceptibly to the naked eye - but it will have done, and at that point any micro fractures, weld weaknesses and fatigued metal will have come under forces that they would not have come under.

The building was designed for wind stresses spread out across the surface area, but not necessarily for a direct, blunt, impact of an aircraft at nearly full speed.

And while the structure below may have appeared to be intact, no one - and I do mean no one, not NIST or any conspiracy theorist on the planet has any idea whatsoever of what condition it was in because of the incalculable number of variables involved in load transfer througout a seriously weakened 30 year old structure.

You CANNOT make the statement that the buildings should be still standing because, quite simply, none of us have any idea on that. You can theorise, but thats all it is. You don't know. None of us do.

And while the fire may not have caused the collapse on its own, or the impact may not have caused the collapse on its own, the combination of the two may have caused the collapse, and some element of the structure may have failed in a continual pattern that caused the towers to drop how they did. You simply cannot treat one event in isolation of the other.

Again though, thats a theory. Just like any other statement.

As I keep saying, this was the rule, not the exception.

No professional engineer or architect worth their qualifications should be making any kind of definitive statement one way or another on this because, frankly no one knows for sure. No one ever will do either, because the event simply cannot be re-created.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
If a building of that size was to go thru plan check,if it were able to collapse that quickly,surely the city of NY has higher standards then that?,sounds like a real weak excuse,impossible



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
According to NIST's calculations, only about 15%-16% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged from the impact of the jetliners. That leaves 85% of the structure in the impact zones and 100% of the structure above and below intact. The impacts caused very minimal damage to the actual structures and fire doesn't bring steel-structured high-rises down.

Those buildings should still be standing today.



That means that 15% of the structures load bearing capacity for the weight above the points of impact has gone, and has to be redistributed through a structure that has just suffered an impact so violent that it is entirely possible it seriously weakened or snapped load bearing welds and bolts in other places.

Although the structure looks massive compared to the aircraft, when they hit you are dealing with a 160ton mass travelling at speeds over 300mph. Don't think of the planes as a series of tubes, think of them as a dead weight impact pushing through the side of the tower. The force of the impact will have shunted the tower sideways - maybe imperceptibly to the naked eye - but it will have done, and at that point any micro fractures, weld weaknesses and fatigued metal will have come under forces that they would not have come under.

And while the structure below may have appeared to be intact, no one - and I do mean no one, not NIST or any conspiracy theorist on the planet has any idea whatsoever of what condition it was in because of the incalculable number of variables involved in load transfer througout a seriously weakened 30 year old structure.

You CANNOT make the statement that the buildings should be still standing because, quite simply, none of us have any idea on that. You can theorise, but thats all it is. You don't know. None of us do.

Again though, thats a theory. Just like any other statement.

As I keep saying, this was the rule, not the exception.

No professional engineer or architect worth their qualifications should be making any kind of definitive statement one way or another on this because, frankly no one knows for sure. No one ever will do either, because the event simply cannot be re-created.



A team of professional engineers and architects at MIT agree with some of your statements when the did an independant investigation about the amount of damage caused to the WTC towers by the airplanes.

"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help. This is the point of view that has been given almost no attention or thought."

"we fully agree that the fire effects played a large role in the deferred damage."



Source: web.mit.edu...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc


Do you have sources for this?


Yes.

Do you have evidence that your presence here isn't some sort of parody on truthers?

Judging by your posts, I'd say so.



Can you cite your source (sources) please?



Sure.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For you to repeat, with a straight face, that RG's website is peer reviewed indicates that you're seemingly taking a neutral view in order to make truther's arguments dumber than they already are.

I applaud the effort, but it really isn't needed, for every day that I think that truthers arguments cpuldn't get any dumber, that they have pegged the needle on my delusional meter, they try to break it off.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

And while the structure below may have appeared to be intact, no one - and I do mean no one, not NIST or any conspiracy theorist on the planet has any idea whatsoever of what condition it was in because of the incalculable number of variables involved in load transfer througout a seriously weakened 30 year old structure.



This untrue.

NIST did this load redistribution analysis. Therefore, they DO have an idea of what the load transfer was. Bonez just likes to make a statement of since only ~15% of the columns were compromised, then all the other columns would share that extra load evenly. He has zero technical paper that he can point to that will back his claim. NIST shows otherwise, from how loads were redistributed after impact, to how they would have continued to be redistributed during the fires.

Is it absolutely correct? Of course it can't be, for the very reasons you stated. And, if one were to honestly consider what you're saying, then NIST's work will be a best case scenario, meaning that the building will be more prone to collapse.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc


Do you have sources for this?


Yes.

Do you have evidence that your presence here isn't some sort of parody on truthers?

Judging by your posts, I'd say so.



Can you cite your source (sources) please?



I meant some specific examples of when:

articles get published in well respected, top quality technical journals that examine NIST's findings, on occasion making criticism of minute aspects

I already cited MIT and PERDUE. If you have any more by all means throw them my way!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
If a building of that size was to go thru plan check,if it were able to collapse that quickly,surely the city of NY has higher standards then that?,sounds like a real weak excuse,impossible


There is no requirement to design a building to resist prevent this type of global collapse.

And I don't believe there's much reason to either, since this is a singular event.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This untrue.

NIST did this load redistribution analysis. Therefore, they DO have an idea of what the load transfer was.


No Joey, they don't.

They can't possibly have any idea, because they don't know exactly what was damaged.

They can provide a theory on the structure as it was supposed to be built, brand new on day 1, in ideal conditions with all the specifications met exactly.

What they can't do is tell you what condition that structure was in immediately prior to the impact.

What they can't do is factor in the idea that a welder had an off day 30 years prior to the event and several of the welds were only 99% instead of 100%

They can't factor in things like a flaw in the steel that made one, or possibly two critical bolts more brittle.

Structural collapse isn't just about the big things. Its about the little ones as well. Load transferance is highly unpredictable. Some of the components may have exceeded their design stresses, others may have broken early. As the load spreads then more of the structure becomes exposed to potential failure and a cascade reaction occurs.

But don't be fooled by claims of people who say they know exactly what happened for sure, because they don't. Its all educated guess work.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This untrue.

NIST did this load redistribution analysis. Therefore, they DO have an idea of what the load transfer was.


No Joey, they don't.

They can't possibly have any idea, because they don't know exactly what was damaged.



That's quite a creative edit there. You know, the part where I acknowledge exactly what you stated?

From that post:

"Is it absolutely correct? Of course it can't be, for the very reasons you stated. And, if one were to honestly consider what you're saying, then NIST's work will be a best case scenario, meaning that the building will be more prone to collapse."


But to say that they have NO idea is at best, poorly informed.

They DO have an idea. What is not specified is the error range. I have no idea what it is, and neither do you.

It would be a correct statement if you were to say, after your own analysis, that their load redistribution analysis is off by greater than x%, and that is not acceptable.

But first, you need to do your own analysis, which ain't gonna happen. Therefore, your belief is baseless.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
They can't possibly have any idea, because they don't know exactly what was damaged.

I've made a similar statement earlier in this thread. NIST is theorizing, we're theorizing. So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by neformore
They can't possibly have any idea, because they don't know exactly what was damaged.

I've made a similar statement earlier in this thread. NIST is theorizing, we're theorizing. So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories.


That is entirely false.

That is strictly a Truther tactic to try to put yourselves on an equal footing with NIST in an attempt to "legitimize" your claims.

Skeptics see right through that. It is a standard tactic of all those who try to get their claims and "theories" seen as legitimate but it never has worked.

Examples abound and it is one of the most obvious fallacies those with weak, unsupported views and ideologies try to advance. It immediately signals to skeptics the weakness of your arguments and claims.

Creationism, now morphed into "Intelligent Design", is nothing more than a persistent attempt by religious fundamentalists to get school boards to "recognize" their claims as "legitimate" science to be taught "along side" the theory of evolution. Or, that schools should be "teaching the controversy" where no actual controversy exists.

FAIL.

Truthers are in the same position as Creationsists. NIST has backed up everything that forms their conclusions. They are accepted as such in the same way that evolutionary biology is scientifically accepted and Creationism is not. Truthers, including you, have the burden of proof of refuting NIST as Creationists do toward evolutionary biology. NIST has NO such obligation towards you.

Truthers need to recognize and accept that the burden of proof is on them. Attempts to give themselves the same equal status as NIST fail before even getting off the ground. Until, and unless, you all do so, you will not recognize why you have not advanced one single step since 9/11.



[edit on 17-5-2010 by jthomas]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join