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.
Originally posted by nh_ee
Not since before or after 9/11 has any steel structured building succumbed to fire by collapsing.
AND That's a fact !
Originally posted by Yankee451
Jayden? He hosts a forum which has posted some of the information, but he's certainly not the only one.
Besides, I don't care if the information comes from Tinkerbell. If it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Have you tried to verify the claims?
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by Yankee451
Jayden? He hosts a forum which has posted some of the information, but he's certainly not the only one.
Besides, I don't care if the information comes from Tinkerbell. If it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Have you tried to verify the claims?
Yes, I took a spreadsheet from the FDNY LODD page, which lists ALL of the firefighters killed for any given decade, filtered out all the ones not on 9/11, and kept the rest.
I then numbered all of them.
Guess what?
343. Jst as FDNY and I (And MANY other sites) claim.
So, if he's WRONG on that, what ELSE is he wrong about?
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Dude, you are hilarious. We have done a lot in this infowar. In fact I'm doing something right now, exposing your weak arguments.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- No, the conflict of interest is the fact that those who were involved in committing the crime were the same ones involved in investigating the crime. Take the three words and say them outloud...conflict...of..interest. Do you know what this means? It means the interests of those performing the commission report are conflicted because the outcome directly incriminates them. So can you see now that it's not about what was or wasn't damaged? Do you understand that you do not get an accurate investigation with such a striking conflict of
interest?
Originally posted by Game_Over
--no thanks. You go start a new thread on the 9-11 omission report. I'll talk about every and all subjects about 9-11 right here.
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
Please explain in your own words how the MIT paper arrived at their figures for their model. Let we laymen know you understand their modeling parameters.edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Yankee451
I don't know, have you checked?
Originally posted by Yankee451
I've been wrong before, have you?
Originally posted by Yankee451
How 'bout the government experts? Ever wrong?
Originally posted by Yankee451
CNN? Wolfgang Stael, Tina Cart or Robert Clark? Were they wrong?
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by Yankee451
I don't know, have you checked?
Why would I check other things, when he cannot count to 343 properly?
Originally posted by Yankee451
I've been wrong before, have you?
Sure. Everyone has. To claim otherwise, is a lie.
However, when counting individual names, and adding them all together, I've never had a problem with that.
Especially if someone gives me the list.
Originally posted by Yankee451
How 'bout the government experts? Ever wrong?
Sure.
Originally posted by Yankee451
CNN? Wolfgang Stael, Tina Cart or Robert Clark? Were they wrong?
About? I am sure they have. Media is not exactly known for their accuracy.
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
Please explain in your own words how the MIT paper arrived at their figures for their model. Let we laymen know you understand their modeling parameters.edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)
I understand their modeling just fine. Maybe you should read it? When do you plan on submitting a discussion to the authors?
Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by FDNY343
"Scooped is what they are using to compare it. Scooped is a similie. Meaning someone didn't LITERALLY scoop a portion of the building out with a backhoe. It LOOKED LIKE someone did."
-- I have seen a few pictures of this "scooped" out area, particularly this one, which clearly indicates that the photo has been altered.
i47.photobucket.com...
However I would love to see photos of the scooped out section you mention. It does seem odd that the asymmetric scoop would still allow wtc 7 to fall symmetrically. Perhaps you can ask the wizards at MIT for their opinion.
"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly, often with little warning. In contrast, wood loses strength slowly and only as material is lost through surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."
Originally posted by finalword
reply to post by wmd_2008
Even if there was a collapse, it would have been a localized collapse. It would not have "pancaked" all the way down the entire building.
And if it was merely a collapse, why was all of the concrete in the towers pulverized into a fine dust? A collapse does not pulverize. At most the concrete would have broken into chunks.
Go get yourself a job at the CIA or something.
Originally posted by Yankee451
It is not Jayhan's claim, and Phil's grammar and spelling aren't great either, so what's your point?
Originally posted by Yankee451
Errors happen. Besides, I'm talking about fraudulent photographs.
Originally posted by Yankee451
It is his forum, not his claim, and it is the claim I'm paying attention to, not the messenger.
Originally posted by Yankee451
Here's another link if letsroll is too offensive.
killtown.blogspot.com...
Originally posted by Yankee451
Media are not exactly known for their accuracy? That's a pretty powerful argument, you sure you don't want to rethink that or point to a bird or a plane, or tell me your mother's calling, or something?
Media are ALL you guys have for proof, but when I use their own work to show blatant FRAUD, you poo poo it?
Originally posted by Yankee451
Man, I can smell what you're shoveling from here.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- I have seen a few pictures of this "scooped" out area, particularly this one, which clearly indicates that the photo has been altered.
i47.photobucket.com...
Originally posted by Game_Over
However I would love to see photos of the scooped out section you mention.
Originally posted by Game_Over
It does seem odd that the asymmetric scoop would still allow wtc 7 to fall symmetrically. Perhaps you can ask the wizards at MIT for their opinion.
Originally posted by Game_Over
--Are you sure? I heard it used as a possible contributing factor on this very thread.
Originally posted by Game_Over
Regardless, NIST did initially state that the diesel generators were a major contributing factor in the collapse of wtc7. The trusters argued this as well until NIST told them what to think again.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Talk about having it both ways.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- I don't need to show you math. Do your own homework. As if you independently verified the math NIST used!?
Originally posted by Game_Over
What a farce this has become. The fires did not contribute to the collapse because they were small and their fuel source was minimal.
Originally posted by Game_Over
In fact, that building could have burned for days and not fallen...just like hundreds of other buildings do.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- So then why do firefighters still die when buildings collapse on them during firefights?
Originally posted by Game_Over
Shouldn't they "tend" to know when a building is unsafe? I mean, this is firefighting 101, right? No, in fact the firefighters were told the building would fall, just like the BBC...or did Jane Stanley take firefighting 101 too.
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- We haven't figured out how they demolished those three buildings that day. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that it happened.
Originally posted by Game_Over
What is it about us laymen calling out liars hiding behind science that bothers you so much?
Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Truth hurts.
Originally posted by Game_Over
--I'd rather not waste my time. I don't need daddy to tell me it's okay to believe something because it's been published and peer reviewed. In fact I would rather believe something that isn't reviewed by peers at all but rather by those who seek to rip it apart to get the truth.