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: 21
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
"The people who support the OS theories are not any more crazy than the people who support the thermite theories, or the nano-thermite theories"


I agree, but how crazy do most of these people sound to you?














TO Mikelee (OP), I can see where you are coming from, but how do you know the pictures you saw regarding the Pentagon are not doctored?

Do they prove it was actually Flight 77 that crashed there? I believe there is evidence of a plane crashing there, but not a 757.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline74
"The people who support the OS theories are not any more crazy than the people who support the thermite theories, or the nano-thermite theories"


I agree, but how crazy do most of these people sound to you?




It depends on the theory. The death star energy beams and micronukes are a little far fetched but they both present arguments and evidence to support those theories.

Person that sounds CRAZY to me:

"It's a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH that __________ caused the collapse of the WTC towers!"



The people who sound normal to me:


"I believe that ________ caused the collapse of the WTC towers"

"I support the theory that _________ caused the collapse of the WTC towers"



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline74
 


I'm not OP, and can't be speaking (much) about physicians or firefighters, (such small numbers, eh?) who sign on to those "Truth" sites...but I AM quite well aware, and conversant, with the tactics employed by your third link, the "Pilots" site.

Last year, in breathless frenzy, THEY announced their 'bombshell', so-called 'smoking gun proof'....an ATS member picked it, ran with it, in this thread:

77 = No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight

IF you take some time to read through it, you will find that, as in ALL of the P4T claims, it was absolutely without any merit, whatsoever.

Further, a mere glance at their homepage, and it should jump out immmediately, the "true" motives....see what they have to "sell"...

Oh, and sidenote...by "they", I mean "HIM"....Rob Balsamo, is the entire website, just about. With, a few committed acolytes.....



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I don't even bother reading much of those crackpot theories regarding "The death star energy beams and micronukes"

They are very far fetched and there is no evidence to support them.

I still believe the collapse of Building 7 in NYC, leaves many unanswered questions, and most likely brought down by conventional explosives.

However I can't find any real evidence that confirms the OS, regarding Flight 93, and most likely won't either.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline74
 



...can't find any real evidence that confirms the OS, regarding Flight 93, and most likely won't either.


Which aspects? If you follow with the OP's previously stated beliefs, you will find that the ONLY part of the so-called "OS" he disagrees with is the last few moments. Specifically, the question of whether or NOT the final cause of the crash was from a shoot-down.

(gawd, that "OS" is such a derogatory, and completely imprecise term the 'truth movement' coined!)

Which parts do you have a problem with? Or, are you in tacit agreement with mikelee? Because, that would be just about the only area of focus, right now...rest of United 93's flight facts are well established.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hi Weedwhacker, I wasn't replying to your post and trying to bait you with pilotsfor911truth - I know Mikelee is the OP.

I've been on a long time reader of ATS, but not long a member

But, Thanks for reminding me about that cockpit door, I do actually agree with you on that!

Also I noticed in my original post that I said that I didn't believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, I actually meant to say Flight 77. I'm still researching this event, and I'm still not 100% convinced that it was actually Flight 77 that crashed there, hopefully we all get to see the photos that Mikelee mentioned in his OP.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Skyline74]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Who cares if your beliefs have been changed??????. If your beliefs can change FACTS or actually happenings, then ill listen. Do you want to change facts? is that it?=Good luck



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah sorry, I am referring to the shoot down (or how the plane crashed) and I am still looking at some of the evidence involving the crash site and big differences/contradictions in all the eyewitness testimony.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Anyway lead is silver like aluminium when molten, not bright red.

Do you check anything before you assume?


You would be wrong in the case of aluminum. Aluminum does get quite bright and red when melting. It all depends on the temperature and process being used.

Dr. Judy Says So

So Do these Guys who make the stuff

As far as lead goes, dunno. I'd imagine anything can get red hot given enough heat, and lead has a very low melting point.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
Who cares if your beliefs have been changed??????. If your beliefs can change FACTS or actually happenings, then ill listen. Do you want to change facts? is that it?=Good luck


Apparently you do because you replied. The facts about 911, no one will ever know until some form of unbiased investigation happens and/or some whistleblower gives something or someone up with a boatload of hard evidence. THATS WHEN we'll know the truth. All of the theorys on ATS & other forums are only speculation until evidence is presented to back them up.

So...

While you might feel compelled to post 911 related theories or star & flag all of your "911 think a like buds" the fact remains that the entire events of 911 are still unknown, uncertain, untold in their finality and will continue to be debated, disputed, agreed on and argued about until genuine disclosure is a reality.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


OK fair enough, but again where did the heat come from to maintain molten lead to such a high temp that it would glow bright red, way above it's melting point...Whether it's steel or something else, it's still an issue that cannot be explained from carbon fires.

BTW do we know what kind of batteries were used? Not all batteries are lead-acid. Is this really a genuine alternative to molten steel? Or just another throw-away assumption taken as possible fact, without anyone really researching the idea?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Originally posted by Archirvion
Who cares if your beliefs have been changed??????. If your beliefs can change FACTS or actually happenings, then ill listen. Do you want to change facts? is that it?=Good luck


Apparently you do because you replied. The facts about 911, no one will ever know until some form of unbiased investigation happens and/or some whistleblower gives something or someone up with a boatload of hard evidence.



If the first 15 investigations were biased then what's going to stop the next 15 investigations from being biased?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


OK fair enough, but again where did the heat come from to maintain molten lead to such a high temp that it would glow bright red, way above it's melting point...Whether it's steel or something else, it's still an issue that cannot be explained from carbon fires.


Now that is a good, legit question. From what I have read, there were hot pockets in the rubble for weeks after. I've heard that this was due to the hot pockets being insulated and creating a closed furnace effect, or something like that. It was either the Fema or NIST report, don't remeber which. But the answer didn't sound very certain, from what I remember, so as far as that question is concerned, I have no answer, really.

Lead melts at 600f, Aluminum at about 1200. Normal house fires can burn hotter than that, and there were many things in the WTC that could have caught fire and burned quite hot.

As to why it burnt for so long and kept thing in a molten state for some time, is a question that I'd be curious to find the answer to.


BTW do we know what kind of batteries were used? Not all batteries are lead-acid. Is this really a genuine alternative to molten steel? Or just another throw-away assumption taken as possible fact, without anyone really researching the idea?


Lead acid are the most common, and cheapest, as well as productive. Again, I do not know on this point.

If the molten metal at the WTC could be conclusively proven to be steel, then someone got's sum 'splainin' to do. But so far, I haven't seen anyone prove conclusively that the metal was indeed steel or iron, So my opinion remains grey in that area.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
"The facts about 911, no one will ever know until some form of unbiased investigation happens and/or some whistleblower gives something or someone up with a boatload of hard evidence."

So you admit that the investigation of 9/11 was inadequate rubbish and the facts have not been exposed, but you still apparently change your mind about the events and conveniently hop over to the OS debunker camp? How is it possible that you are able to flip-flop and draw such definitive conclusions without having access to facts?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The facts about 911, no one will ever know until some form of unbiased investigation happens and/or some whistleblower gives something or someone up with a boatload of hard evidence."

So you admit that the investigation of 9/11 was inadequate rubbish and the facts have not been exposed, but you still apparently change your mind about the events and conveniently hop over to the OS debunker camp? How is it possible that you are able to flip-flop and draw such definitive conclusions without having access to facts?



You can believe that it is possible that airplanes and fire cause the collapse of the WTC towers and at the same time think that there should be a new investigation.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Good points, here is something else to consider...


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.

www.doctorfire.com...

It takes 8 hours to reach 1260°C in the standard fire endurance test, which is a controlled situation that would be set up to create the maximum effect, far different than a real world fire where the oxygen and fuel is not controlled and thus cooler temps would be generally found. In 4 hours it reaches 1093°C.

Then you have to account for heat transfer, the lead/steel is not going to get to the same temps as the fire (known fact), only the material in direct contact with flames would even get close to as hot as the fire and that would take hours to achieve.

Then there is the wicking effect (sp) where the hot spots in the steel would be cooled by the spreading of the heat through the length of the piece of steel, only when the whole piece is equally heated will it start to increase it's temp towards failure. All that steel in the core was connected together, it would all have to heat up to failure for it collapse the way it did.

So it would be impossible for a room fire to get hot enough in an hour to do much melting to lead let alone steel. Not even hot enough to start melting lead or weakening the massive steel supports.

Remember the first tower fell after an hour of sporadic, (relatively) cool burning office fires that came into direct contact with a very tiny percentage of the overall steel supports.

[edit on 6/23/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The heat wicking question is one of those things that leave lingering doubts to the correctness of the NIST conclusion. Heated steel weakens, certainly, but how hot did the steel get? Exactly what would have been the rate of heat expansion from the site of the fire, how fast would it travel and disperse throughout the entire skeleton?

Even NIST doesn't know for certain how hot exactly it burned up on those floors, they have estimates and educated guesses. Reports conflict on that. I've seen reports that the fires were indeed blazing infernos. People were deciding jumping to their deaths was preferable to being burned alive, or the heat was becoming too much. Kevin Cosgrove's last phone call describes the intense heat. We also have reports that the fires were smaller than they looked, and don't see many flames from the outside of the building.

This is why the WTC question is a Grey area: I favor neither explaination because I don't have enough data.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


The thing is the heat can be estimated because fires temps are predictable.

A lot of people assume the more fire the higher the temperature but that's not true, you may feel more heat from a larger fire but the temps of all material/fuels has a max temperature that it will not exceed, by the time is gets there the fuel is extinguished.

An example, a candle flame burns at a much higher temp than a carbon room fire, but a candle is not going to make you jump for your life like an approaching wall of fire in a room will, regardless of what the actual temperature of the flames is.

An open air uncontrolled fire CAN NOT get as hot as a controlled fire as used in the standard fire test, so those temps in that quote are quite reliable and there is nothing that would have made the fire temps any different to any other open air room fire. The jet fuel wouldn't make a difference to the overall temps either because jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than a carbon fueled fire. All the fuel would do is help spread the fire, which is accounted for.

People saying 'that was a hot fire' doesn't mean anything really, we have to go by known science not peoples perceptions. Most common room or house fires don't reach anywhere near the max temperatures they could reach but no one is going to say the fire felt cool, even though technically they would be considered cool burning fires. If you see deep red flames and black smoke that is, relative to what it's temperature could be, a cool burning fire.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I'm not OP, and can't be speaking (much) about physicians or firefighters, (such small numbers, eh?) who sign on to those "Truth" sites...but I AM quite well aware, and conversant, with the tactics employed by your third link, the "Pilots" site.

Hi Weedwhacker! I enjoyed the entire post that this came from.

You really hit it with the 'small numbers' thing on the Doctors, anyway!

Berks County, Pennsylvania has 9800 healthcare professionals alone. I wonder what percentage the 143 members of Medical Professionals for Truth make up of all healthcare professionals worldwide? Gotta be pretty small.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

An open air uncontrolled fire CAN NOT get as hot as a controlled fire as used in the standard fire test, so those temps in that quote are quite reliable and there is nothing that would have made the fire temps any different to any other open air room fire. The jet fuel wouldn't make a difference to the overall temps either because jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than a carbon fueled fire. All the fuel would do is help spread the fire, which is accounted for.
Have you ever heard of the chimney effect?

To call the fires in the Twin Towers an 'open air fire' is not at all accurate.

BTW: Just what is jet fuel composed of? Any carbon in there? Yes, and hydrogen too!

A carbon fueled fire would be a fire fueled by carbon. Common carbon sources would be charcoal, coal, graphite and diamonds. Did they truck that stuff in there to fuel your carbon fire?

Or do you mean hydrocarbons, like what's in the jet fuel? Because paint, paper, lubricants, solvents and plastics are hydrocarbon sources. That's more like what was burning in the WTC towers, burning like a blowtorch because of the chimney effect, where cool air is pulled in at the base of the fires and the hot combustion gases exit the building at the top, through elevator shafts, chaises, ducts, and piping that was severed by the plane flying through them.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by butcherguy]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join