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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor

many insane (by your category) person then disagrees with you and think that you are merely dis-info agent



There's the rub.

It's undeniable that there are "troubled" truthers. They will not be swayed by logic, reason, or engineering. There's nothing to be done about that. Nothing will change their minds. They really believe what they're saying.

OTOH, there's plenty, from what I can see, that are merely saying this for political reasons - at first it was the antiwar moonbat left. You don't hear too much from them now that one of theirs is in office.

The others are the wacko Libertarian/isolationist/NWO believers/antiwar types. They don't care who's in office.

These 2 groups don't really believe what they're saying. They're merely saying it to push their political belief that Bush/Cheney should go before the Hague to answer for their war crimes.

Obama will be on their list soon.....




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I have seen too many boilers with MELTED steel tubes lying in puddles because there wasn't any water in them while the burners were firing, and those burners were firing a fuel that is far less volatile than jet fuel.


Is that right? So what was the boiler made of? What keeps the heat in the boiler from melting itself? Is it because the heat is not in direct contact with the boiler itself, only the material it's designed to heat up?

Jet fuel does not burn hotter than a carbon fire so it would make no difference to overall carbon fire temperatures. Why do people assume jet fuel to be so 'volatile' [sic], it's actually one of the lowest burning fuels there is for safety reasons.


Flame temperatures in room fires
Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


Sorry but one hour is not enough to transfer room fire temperatures to thousands of tons of steel to cause it to globally and symmetrically fail instantly.

You are forgetting the physics of heat transfer and how the objects in a fire will not reach the same temp as the fire itself, even if it's in direct contact, most of the steel wasn't even close to the fire. How did all that steel in around 80 unaffected floors get hot enough to not resist the collapse? How did the building got hot enough to start to collapse in the first place in an hour?

en.wikipedia.org...

A furnace (boiler?) is a controlled system using a very high controlled flame temperature in direct contact with the material. It's a lot different to an open air uncontrolled room fire where the temps fluctuate constantly due to the air flow, and the flames were not always in direct contact with any of the central structure steel, and only then a very small percentage of it.

As someone who makes the claims you do, shouldn't you know this?

[edit on 6/11/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There's the rub.

It's undeniable that there are "troubled" truthers. They will not be swayed by logic, reason, or engineering. There's nothing to be done about that. Nothing will change their minds. They really believe what they're saying.


Nah the rub is you guys cannot discus the physics, you can only make posts like this. You bring nothing to the discussion but your opinion of other posters.

You have yet to provide anything that supports the OS that can not be challenged with simple common sense and basic physics.

Keep in convincing yourself you're right, cause that's all you are doing. When posts contradict your opinion you make posts like this, which is basically you sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'the truther, the truthers, the truthers'....



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Guess I'll put this out for anyone to answer.

If the towers didn't fall could they have put the fires out? If not, what were they going to do about that? Let them burn down?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Many buildings like that have water connections that allows fire departments to attach their water source (from hydrant or tanker truck) to a connection on the ground level of such a structure then pump the water up to higher floors using high volume CFM pumps to extinguish the fires. Each floor has multiple hose connections the firemen can connect their hoses to to once they reach the point of the fire(s). This was what they were doing on 911. However, firemen must determine a logistical attack plan and simply do not run into burining buildings with no such plan of attack like many think. They also most likely had to determine where potential survivors were, if the damage would impact them if they got too close and so on.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Many buildings like that have water connections that allows fire departments to attach their water source (from hydrant or tanker truck) to a connection on the ground level of such a structure then pump the water up to higher floors using high volume CFM pumps to extinguish the fires. Each floor has multiple hose connections the firemen can connect their hoses to to once they reach the point of the fire(s).


This is true.

However, the fires were so large, and on so many floors, that IIRC, this wouldn't havr helped much, cuz the standpipes couldn't carry enough water.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There's the rub.

It's undeniable that there are "troubled" truthers. They will not be swayed by logic, reason, or engineering. There's nothing to be done about that. Nothing will change their minds. They really believe what they're saying.


Nah the rub is you guys cannot discus the physics, you can only make posts like this. You bring nothing to the discussion but your opinion of other posters.

You have yet to provide anything that supports the OS that can not be challenged with simple common sense and basic physics.



See what I mean?

According to this prime example, it's easy to refute anything about the "os" using basic physics. If that truly were the case, the discussion would have long been over, as well as the trials/imprisonments/executions.

The fact that this HASN'T happened, proving his statement wrong, means nothing to him...



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
According to this prime example, it's easy to refute anything about the "os" using basic physics. If that truly were the case, the discussion would have long been over, as well as the trials/imprisonments/executions.

The fact that this HASN'T happened, proving his statement wrong, means nothing to him...


You think huh?

So again all you're doing hear is ignoring what's actually being said, because you fail to understand it, this is obvious by now to anyone paying attention.

Your line of argument comes from opinion and assumptions, not any kind of real evidence that supports the OS, or refutes anything I've said.

We were discussing the physics of the collapses, and according to you because no one has been arrested then I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you can not for your life refute what I've said, otherwise you would and not stoop to this childish manner of debating you seem to have a habit of.

You say anything to avoid the point. How the hell do you know what might or might not happen huh? Everything you say is simply argumentative opinion and nothing to do with what happened to the WTC buildings.

See what I mean?


[edit on 6/11/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Double post deleted

[edit on 6/11/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Plus the pipes were more than likely damaged in the impacted areas also. But I agree with your reply




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
And the answer to the one question I have not answered yet as asked by a few:


"So what do you thing happened to the WTC Towers?".



First I'm no Metalergous, Physics expert or a Skyscraper builder but, I do and have used common sense and reasoning to arrive at my answer and therefore, my opinion as to what caused the towers to fall.


Buildings like the Towers as I understand from many books, videos and other resources are built to hold up/support the weight of itself. This is common factual knowledge. They are sprayed and/or wrapped with a fire coating and that fact alone would tell the common individual that there is a danger from fire to the steel otherwise, no need to insulate it would be required by today's building codes. Once completed these types of structures hold a tremendous amount of weight once the structure is occupied. Introduce a couple of flying bombs and you have the very real as well as very likely chance that something catastrophic will happen.

The weight load points at the beams fail or are so weakened by the impact itself compounded with the weight in it, around it and on it, the unpredictive nature comes into play. Steel melts at a higher tempreture than it weakens at, steel does not have to be kept at it's melting point over tie as many incorrectly cite or make their theorys around.

Need an example?...
A welder can hold his cutting torch (or welding torch) to a peice of metal the very same grade as the WTC Towers were constructed with, and it takes only a few seconds to glow red. At which point it bends very easily.

This same effect with the impact of the airliners and what fuel entered the towers played in my opinion, that unique and very few minutes of heat to start the steel on it's way to failure.

What about the steel then?
There were and still are plenty photos showing the bowed and failed support beams that failed. Many say there are none..that is none they want to believe. The proof is there for me anyway and after looking at many WTC rubble photos using my laptop connected with a projector displayed onto a very large screen it really is quite clear what happened.

What about the slanted cut beam footer sections seen in photos described as the "use of Thermite cutter packs?

First fact is that none of those photos were taken until after clean up crews began their clearing of ground zero. Those were cut slanted by a torch at the hands of cleanup crews because the very slag residue on it is a clear tell tale sign of what happened to them. Anyone who welds knows that. They were also most likely cut slanted in the direction they wished them to fall and were probably attached to a crane as they cut them for removal. The Thermite or Thermate claim here is a fraud.

Those towers were made to sway by the engineers.

Given th efact that this is well known construction fact it also should allow for anyone to determine that if they were made to sway then, they had some "play" in them! Add two screaming balls out airliners stricking them at 500+ mph then yes, I'm sure they did sway. They also in my opinion suffered irreversible damage at that poinjt and led ot their collaspe. To me, this makes sense and it is surrounded by fact more so than energy weapons, thermite use and the other theories.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I don't have to be an expert or a conspiracy nutjob to know that the towers in NY should not have collapsed, or collapsed in a pancake fashion where floors stack one on top of another.. to know that those pilots could not have operated Boeings at such low altitute at the speed they were going, let alone aim them at the towers..



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I could not make myself read your latest op ed piece. Too busy living in the world of Physics and Chemistry to go astray. Nothing you've put out thus far counters science. Some of what you wrote is the same as saying, "The sky is red, I believe it to be, so it is." That is the gist of your argument. How much an hour, or per post, are you being paid? Also, who is paying your paycheck? Should I expect you to be arguing the Warren Commission report on JFK was correct? I suggest you pick up, "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper. I also expect you to be saying, "Al Gore gains nothing from this, he wants to save us, he bought homes near the ocean even though he is convinced it is too late but we must TRY to save ourselves and keep oceans from rising." Don't you know that when the elite get their full control, through 911, oil disaster, wars based on lies, that they then have no reason to pay to hire disinfo types such as yourself? Wake up.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AdmiralX
 


I suggest you take head out of whatever it's been in and READ the post. There is nothing in it but one man's journey to the truth of 911. Got a problem with that?
As for your suggestion that I'm some form a "dis-info agent" is laughable, to me anyway because I'm about as far away as you can get to being that. But how would you know that by reading one post...Then you know them already?
Well, if thats your feelings then fine, nothing more I could ever say obviously so there is no need for me to reply to any more of your future posts, which I doubt there would have been anyway since you know me so well.....



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by frozenspark
 


But you DO need common sense and an un-biased rational process of thinking to arrive at any one conclusion in the 911 drama. But many simply cannot do that. You know?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

We were discussing the physics of the collapses, and according to you because no one has been arrested then I don't know what I'm talking about


Pretty much, yep.

The truth of this escapes truthers however. You are no different.


yet you can not for your life refute what I've said


Again, refute what? You've supplied zero support for symmetry/speed/resistance claims. Here, I'll give as much support for my refutation.

You're wrong.

See how that works? Zero support for your statement requires zero support for the refutation.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Zreply to post by frozenspark
 

the dis/mis info is amazing. They must be paid well, or are 10 year olds in Tel Aviv sitting in homes u.s. tax payers bought, on internet the billions they get sent pays for. No need to work, just surf around misleading people. Nothing you've said discounts my posts, and hopefully people continue to wake up. Or, maybe an nsa or cia worker sitting in a cubicle.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by frozenspark
I don't have to be an expert or a conspiracy nutjob to know that the towers in NY should not have collapsed, or collapsed in a pancake fashion where floors stack one on top of another.. to know that those pilots could not have operated Boeings at such low altitute at the speed they were going, let alone aim them at the towers..



Posts like these always puzzle me. You guys always say that these things could not have happened, but you never explain why....as if its common sense. It seems to me that you'd need to be well versed in aviation and piloting as well as physics and engineering to make the statement you just made. Are you?

I've said that things are impossible in this forum, but when I do - its a subject that I'm qualified to discuss and I always back up my assertion with facts.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Posts like these always puzzle me. You guys always say that these things could not have happened, but you never explain why....as if its common sense. It seems to me that you'd need to be well versed in aviation and piloting as well as physics and engineering to make the statement you just made. Are you?

I've said that things are impossible in this forum, but when I do - its a subject that I'm qualified to discuss and I always back up my assertion with facts.


All you need is an intuitive grasp of physics (which you have just by living on Earth) to see that the buildings imploded.

If a remote controlled airplane crashes into a tree, does it:

A) Potentially cut it where it hit, thus causing it to topple over.

B) Barely damage the tree.

C) Cause the tree to implode 30 minutes later.

I was 15 on 9/11/01, and when we were watching the towers implode on the live broadcast, several of us laughed when the towers came down. Why? I didn't realize why at the time, but it was because IT WAS A CHEESY SPECIAL EFFECT. We knew intuitively that what we were seeing was fake, but it was on a subconscious level.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
re: the OP

Welcome to the dark side, mikelee. All the chimp screaming about disinfo agents is expected whenever a truther has a change of heart as you did. That should be sort of a reaffirmation that the other side is mainly fueled by paranoia and ignorance.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join