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.

 

Why was ground zero so hot for so long?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Yep, maybe there were many sources of oxygen, flammable material for the steel to such an heat when the towers hit the floor however, what caused the towers to hit the floor is still unknown imho. The planes wouldn't have caused such a structure to crumble like it did. It might aswell have made out of paper with some of the things I've seen in this thread.




posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by David291
Yep, maybe there were many sources of oxygen, flammable material for the steel to such an heat when the towers hit the floor however, what caused the towers to hit the floor is still unknown imho. The planes wouldn't have caused such a structure to crumble like it did. It might aswell have made out of paper with some of the things I've seen in this thread.


If you want, challenge me to explain it to you. I still believe that any remotely competent and unbiased investigator can understand the nature of the collapses. I have plenty of spare time this Jubilee Weekend as I sure as hell won't be out on the streets celebrating (bah humbug!)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DonJuan
Paper, being watered, burns for 3 months and generates a lot of heat? You do not have to be a professional to understand that it is impossible, but just using common sense.

How many building collapses have you experienced where 220 acres of offices have been set on fire? I certainly haven't been to any, and so I don't have any way of saying what will or will not burn for a long period.


Thermite of course cannot generate heat over long period. Maybe hours, but not weeks!

If Thermite and office materials can't have caused heat over this period. What can?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
I think they sent you in to cause confusion,

Please don't accuse me of being 'sent in'. I don't work for anyone and will just report you and let the mods deal with it if you do accuse me. It's very disrespectful and I'm sure you'd be offended if I claimed you were mentally ill or similar. Why do you think it's ok to accuse other people of being plants?


I've read your comments and you swing both ways, you cant believe the OS and be and not believe it at the same time. However, I agree with 50% of what you say, the other 50% seems designed to uphold the OS.

You can of course believe parts of the 'official story' and not be a slave to repeating what other people tell you. It does not particularly shock me that a truther fails to understand this. I have my own mind, my own thoughts and my own beliefs. Instead of just repeating what conspiracy websites say, you should try this some time.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DonJuan
The only opinion you can trust is yours, based on multiple sources of information.

OS is too weak to be attacked here and the most ATS members do not believe it already, and I have no fun debating it. It is more difficult with the mainstream truthers theories instead.
OS is Level 1 lie. Once you pass it, you are on Level 2 lies, the Truth movement theories.Once you realize, that they are designed to hide the truth, you are on Level 3, maybe still not the final...

Total and utter nonsense.

This is classic conspiracy theorist special pleading. 'You can only trust your own opinion' means in reality 'you should not believe those people who disagree with us'.

It's rubbish, nobody is creating a giant onion of lies that you can slowly peel back. What's actually happening is you are slowly deluding yourself more and more, slowly corrupting the framework you use to look neutrally at a situation. You're already so corrupted that when someone disagrees with you you accuse them of being a plant.

QED.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Please do. Send me a PM with it.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How many building collapses have you experienced where 220 acres of offices have been set on fire? I certainly haven't been to any, and so I don't have any way of saying what will or will not burn for a long period.

This is classical "you are not qualified in this area, you must refer to an expert".
I have enough understanding of physics, but I am not pretending to be an expert. Someone who always needs an expert opinion can be easily manipulated.


Thermite of course cannot generate heat over long period. Maybe hours, but not weeks!

If Thermite and office materials can't have caused heat over this period. What can?

It is all in internet. Search, compare, consider, and you will discover early or later.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is classic conspiracy theorist special pleading. 'You can only trust your own opinion' means in reality 'you should not believe those people who disagree with us'.


It does not matter what it may also mean. "You can only trust your own opinion" remains very solid and obvious statement.


It's rubbish, nobody is creating a giant onion of lies that you can slowly peel back.


How can you know this? I would create "a giant onion of lies", if I wanted to hide the truth.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DonJuan
Paper, being watered, burns for 3 months and generates a lot of heat? You do not have to be a professional to understand that it is impossible, but just using common sense.

How many building collapses have you experienced where 220 acres of offices have been set on fire? I certainly haven't been to any, and so I don't have any way of saying what will or will not burn for a long period.


Thermite of course cannot generate heat over long period. Maybe hours, but not weeks!

If Thermite and office materials can't have caused heat over this period. What can?



Probably none, as there were no 220 acres of office floor on fire that day, but guess hyperbole helps you...
You campfire neural diarrhea is also quite laughable, you do know that the towers were airtight, dont you?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DonJuan
This is classical "you are not qualified in this area, you must refer to an expert".
I have enough understanding of physics, but I am not pretending to be an expert. Someone who always needs an expert opinion can be easily manipulated.

Then don't talk to an expert you believe will manipulate you. Go and talk to the firefighters that were working on the site and ask them how much fire they saw and what they think was causing it. They are after all the people most likely to know.

I simply don't see the problem in believing that if you drop a bunch of objects that are on fire onto 220 acres worth of office materials and god knows what, that it will continue to burn. Especially as people have pointed out, there were tunnels right underneath the WTC complex which could easily have served to form a chimney effect. It seems entirely reasonable to me that that insane amount of various combustibles could have burned slowly over a week or two.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
Probably none, as there were no 220 acres of office floor on fire that day, but guess hyperbole helps you...
You campfire neural diarrhea is also quite laughable, you do know that the towers were airtight, dont you?

Each WTC floor was about an acre, there were 220 of them, most of them were general offices with regular office furniture.

Once they collapsed, a lot of that debris stayed in and around the WTC complex. That is what was burning over the proceeding week or so

Also no, the towers stopped becoming remotely airtight at just before 9am that morning.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Read, for example, this article, with comments, in case if you want to find the reason why the fire burned so long.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent



Originally posted by kidtwist
I think they sent you in to cause confusion,



Originally posted by exponent
Please don't accuse me of being 'sent in'. I don't work for anyone and will just report you and let the mods deal with it if you do accuse me. It's very disrespectful and I'm sure you'd be offended if I claimed you were mentally ill or similar. Why do you think it's ok to accuse other people of being plants?



Do you have more than one account here under different names do you exponent?

Are you DonJuan who my reply was initially to? Either that or you're getting paranoid for no reason because you are replying to something I wrote to a person called DonJuan.

I find it highly suspicious you would reply to me, about a comment I made to someone else, thinking I had made that reply to you?

Do you have multiple accounts here and are trolling from different ones to spread disinfo? Maybe you're juanxlink as well?!

As for respect, that has to be earnt, and calling people 'truther' all the time when I have categorically stated I am an independent person, and am not part of the perp created 'truth movement', is not going to earn you respect.

If you do have multiple accounts, you want to keep track of which accounts you are replying from because having multiple accounts, and pretending to be other people, so you can spread disinfo, will ultimately get found out.





edit on 2-6-2012 by kidtwist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DonJuan
reply to post by exponent
 


Read, for example, this article, with comments, in case if you want to find the reason why the fire burned so long.



Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."

The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."

And there is the issue of human remains. These are still being found and removed and, since the fires are not threatening any property or lives, they are being allowed to burn on.


This is a contradiction, so whilst looking for survivors they will allow them to be burnt by the heat, so they dont get wet from adding water? That makes no sense at all, not buying this theory one bit.
edit on 2-6-2012 by kidtwist because: added quotations



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
Do you have more than one account here under different names do you exponent?

Are you DonJuan who my reply was initially to? Either that or you're getting paranoid for no reason because you are replying to something I wrote to a person called DonJuan.

I find it highly suspicious you would reply to me, about a comment I made to someone else, thinking I had made that reply to you?

Do you have multiple accounts here and are trolling from different ones to spread disinfo? Maybe you're juanxlink as well?!

I do not, You quoted him quoting me and I misread it. I do apologise. I get accused of being a 'shill' all the time so I guess I wasn't careful enough. Sorry again.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
Do you have more than one account here under different names do you exponent?

Are you DonJuan who my reply was initially to? Either that or you're getting paranoid for no reason because you are replying to something I wrote to a person called DonJuan.

I find it highly suspicious you would reply to me, about a comment I made to someone else, thinking I had made that reply to you?

Do you have multiple accounts here and are trolling from different ones to spread disinfo? Maybe you're juanxlink as well?!

I do not, You quoted him quoting me and I misread it. I do apologise. I get accused of being a 'shill' all the time so I guess I wasn't careful enough. Sorry again.


Ok, let's both just start off on a new standing and try and debate in a respectful healthy way. It's obvious different people here have different views and it can get heated at times, but it just gets a bit silly jumping down each other's throats. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree. I'm not here to p*ss anyone off, I'd rather avoid conflicting and getting personal. I'm sure we can present different views without resorting to categorising and name calling. Time for all on here to chill for a bit, it's only a forum after all!





posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
This is a contradiction, so whilst looking for survivors they will allow them to be burnt by the heat, so they dont get wet from adding water? That makes no sense at all, not buying this theory one bit.


That's good. But at least we must know what is their theory. And the holes in their theory indicates that they lie. The fact that they lie and the common sense telling that it cannot be "office" fire rules out "office" fires



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 



I've always wondered this, especially seeing as the collapses would have smothered any fires.


Good - so next time am at a fire scene can tell the chief after the building collapses

Chief, theres this clown on the internet who said the fire is out, smothered by the collapse

We dont have to stay here all night pouring water on the burning rubble......

Question is how many fire scenes you been at?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DonJuan
Paper, being watered, burns for 3 months and generates a lot of heat? You do not have to be a professional to understand that it is impossible, but just using common sense.

How many building collapses have you experienced where 220 acres of offices have been set on fire? I certainly haven't been to any, and so I don't have any way of saying what will or will not burn for a long period.


Thermite of course cannot generate heat over long period. Maybe hours, but not weeks!

If Thermite and office materials can't have caused heat over this period. What can?


Where do you get the idea that 220 acres of offices were set on fire?! It was only certain floors, which do not add up to 220 acres, and those floors were smothered by all the dust and rubble during the collapse, so there would have been minimal, if any fire left by the time the buildings came down.

Thermite has produces its own oxygen so it can burn for a long time, and nano-thermite can also be used as an explosive.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by kidtwist
 



I've always wondered this, especially seeing as the collapses would have smothered any fires.


Good - so next time am at a fire scene can tell the chief after the building collapses

Chief, theres this clown on the internet who said the fire is out, smothered by the collapse

We dont have to stay here all night pouring water on the burning rubble......

Question is how many fire scenes you been at?


I don't need to be at fire scenes to know this! If you can remember, no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire before, so what you wrote about the fire chief and collapses is total rubbish. This has not happened before, so how can you possibly refer to something that has never happened?

Now who's the internet clown!




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join