Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Exposing the lies in the Official Story

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


So have you shown that the fires were below the 78th floor.....have you Verm.....I mean that was one of the questions....your still kinda saying that the fuel poured down the shaft.(which i disagree).

So please show evidence that any of this fuel progressed below the 78th floor...your saying it happened...but not showing this to be the case.

Why would you do this.....the only reason i can think of is you actually believe this to be the case out of your common sense...or you believe blindly what gets said....or your only here to confuse the issues....Now i for one...do not believe it was all just atomized fuel...nice effort though....


5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC towers
According to the FEMA BPA, aircraft fuel capacity was 23,980 gallons; at time of impact, each jet had
an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel on board. [286]"Calculations indicate that between 1000 and 3000
gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed" in fireballs for each tower. The remainder flowed away from
the structures, or burned within them. Assuming half flowed away, then approximately 4000 gallons
remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet Fuel would have been
consumed within the first few minutes. [287]
The NIST Executive Summary states "About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple
stories" [288]The more detailed account states: "Upon aircraft impact, a significant fraction of 10,000
gallons of jet fuel ignited within the building." [289]
Apparently struggling for every gallon to be burned within the towers, NISTfinally concedes that
somewhat less than 10,000 gallons of fuel actually burned in each tower: "The timing and appearance of
the fireballs indicated they were ignited within the building. A calculation based on the oxygen
contained within the building on the floors into which the fuel tanks entered indicated that up to 15% of
the available jet fuel could have burned inside the building in the immediate event...If roughly another
15-20 % of the jet fuel burned outside the building, as in WTC2, then about two thirds of the jet fuel
remained inside the building to burn later or just flow away from the fire zones." [290]
With WTC 2; we find classic NIST-ese. Is it a highly detailed description of how much fuel burned in
the building, or obfuscation? [291]
Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of StructuralEngineering in Purdue's School of Civil
Engineering, and lead investigator for the Purdue study, stated "the ensuing fire fed by an estimated
10,000 gallons of jet fuel". [292]
The figures from the first official investigation, by FEMA, are more in line with figures given on the
Discovery Channel, noted earlier by Dave McGowan. The tendency is that in later investigations, the
estimated amount of fuel burned inside the buildings escalates.


I think you should go read here...as eveyone should it is well presented and quite neutral in many aspects...but it does ask hard questions.

good 9/11 stuff

okay but lets look...IS purdue biased...


Why have many of the same people headed the study of the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing,
as well as the FEMA and NIST WTC collapse studies? Why have many of the same people been
responsible for writing the ASCE, FEMA, and NIST reports? Why did the engineers who signed off on
the NIST report also sign off on the Silverstein report, even though those two studies reached
contradictory conclusions regarding collapse mechanism?
Remember that in 2006 the Bush administration doubled the budget of the National Science
Foundation to $6.02 billion. Was the NSF funded Purdue Study a payback?
How can there so much uncertainty about the mechanism of the collapse, but yet such certainty of the
underlying “cause” of the collapse, i.e., aircraft impact and fire?
NIST was charged with determining how the towers “collapsed”, but themselveshave admitted that they
do not know how global collapse ensued. Why has this been accepted?


as per above link.
edit on 033131p://f31Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

So please show evidence that any of this fuel progressed below the 78th floor...your saying it happened...but not showing this to be the case.






posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia
 


So have you shown that the fires were below the 78th floor.....have you Verm.....I mean that was one of the questions....your still kinda saying that the fuel poured down the shaft.(which i disagree).

So please show evidence that any of this fuel progressed below the 78th floor...your saying it happened...but not showing this to be the case.


William Rodriguez was a custodian in the south tower when the plane hit. He reported that the flames from the burning fuel caused enough pressure in the service elevator shaft that it pushed the elevator (which was at the fourth or fifth floor at the time) down into the basement where he was. It severely burned the occupant of the elevator and it was this victim who Rodriguez rescued. Yes, the flames not only made it down past the 78th floor, they made it down to the basement- the victim in the elevator didn't get horribly burned from playing with his parents' cigarette lighter- and he even gave this very testimony to the NIST board.

By now, Plube, it should be dawning on you that the bulk of your "concerns" isn't from any real suspiciouns, but from the poor information you've been fed. It was in fact from the truthers here that I first learned about William Rodriguez' account, which is why I'n not going to pose a source for this- a 30 second Google search will give you all the material on his account that you wish.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
come on dave....now your saying that the force from the fuel has now pushed the lifts down the shafts...and you telling me that is am not grasping things here..I specifically said other than that from witnesses...because obviously NO witness accounts can be counted...because it seems from both camps they are immediately discounted...so yet again discounted because ...many witnesses describe explosive...remember the firemen..pop pop pop.....but get dismissed all the time...i am treating you as someone who has been speaking on the subject for a long time and you know what i am talking about.

And yes i guess i should be impressed by the fact he EVEN gave it to the NIST board...but did you bother to read the content were the same non professionals were used to sign off the the Siliverman paper...no...i didn't think so....

So ask yourself...how did this witness know exactly where the flames came from or were produced from....his statement is a assumption...and only an assumption ...not only that it was well after the fact....I specifically ask for video or photographic evidence....but you chose not to read that bit....

Now way did try an attempt...but he just show a pic with an arrow...and calls that what....give an explanation....time of photo....so we know how soon after impact....so then maybe possibly a time could be worked out...what is it with people.....the term EVIDENCE...means just that...evidence...not supposition...not conjecture...not assumption.....so failed again....work harder please.

Also are you so happy about the perdue report knowing it was done by a bunch of undergrads...which was a biased report saying thanks for the money.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

Now way did try an attempt...but he just show a pic with an arrow...and calls that what....give an explanation....time of photo....so we know how soon after impact....so then maybe possibly a time could be worked out...what is it with people.....the term EVIDENCE...means just that...evidence...not supposition...not conjecture...not assumption.....so failed again....work harder please.



So you are dismissing the photographic evidence you asked for ? And why is that ?



The photo shows a jet fuel explosion exiting the mechanical floors on floors 75 and 76. the photo appears to be 5 to 6 seconds after impact when compared to the Naudet video

You also seem to think the jet fuel just poured down the shafts. This is not true. The jet fuel was drawn into the shafts, remember they went up the shafts too.
edit on 14-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Ok, I've been following this line of reasoning here until I get to the fire balls down the shafts.

So maybe someone can clear this up for us.

The jet fuel (1000's of gallons) was 'drawn' to the elevator shafts somehow, then traveled all the way down the shafts before igniting?

Or was it already on fire as it traveled down the shafts?

So was it vaporizing in the shafts while simultaneously burning therefore causing explosions?

How fast can the fuel travel down the shafts? 9.8 meters per second squared or faster because of the planes exploding?

I sorry if I'm not getting this part but am open to explanations.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The photo shows a jet fuel explosion exiting the mechanical floors on floors 75 and 76.

You might want to choose your words more carefully. The photo shows an explosion exiting the mechanical floors. You have no possible way of telling whether that explosion is from jet fuel or not.

Furthermore, if you look at the top of WTC 1 in your image, you can see an explosion occurred at the mechanical floors up top at the same time as well.

The key to a successful "demolition" of the towers would include the destruction of the mechanical floors as the floors were made using steel beams instead of lightweight trusses like the other floors of the towers.


* FACT: In your image, you see explosions at the mechanical floors above and below the impact at the same time as the impact.

One can only speculate as to what caused the explosions. But there are also numerous witness reports of explosions at the lower levels of WTC 1 as well, at or before the time the plane struck. That is technically 3 points of WTC 1 that exhibited explosions at the time of the plane impact.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
come on dave....now your saying that the force from the fuel has now pushed the lifts down the shafts...and you telling me that is am not grasping things here..I specifically said other than that from witnesses...because obviously NO witness accounts can be counted...because it seems from both camps they are immediately discounted...so yet again discounted because ...many witnesses describe explosive...remember the firemen..pop pop pop.....but get dismissed all the time...i am treating you as someone who has been speaking on the subject for a long time and you know what i am talking about.

And yes i guess i should be impressed by the fact he EVEN gave it to the NIST board...but did you bother to read the content were the same non professionals were used to sign off the the Siliverman paper...no...i didn't think so....

So ask yourself...how did this witness know exactly where the flames came from or were produced from....his statement is a assumption...and only an assumption ...not only that it was well after the fact....I specifically ask for video or photographic evidence....but you chose not to read that bit....

Now way did try an attempt...but he just show a pic with an arrow...and calls that what....give an explanation....time of photo....so we know how soon after impact....so then maybe possibly a time could be worked out...what is it with people.....the term EVIDENCE...means just that...evidence...not supposition...not conjecture...not assumption.....so failed again....work harder please.

Also are you so happy about the perdue report knowing it was done by a bunch of undergrads...which was a biased report saying thanks for the money.


Is the Perdue simulation biased?

I'll tell you one thing. Their hippy dippy little animation does not match the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' shot on the very day of 9/11. Yeah so?

Yeah well that's a very critical thing.

EVIDENCE?

Who can prove to me with 'evidence' that there even was any "jet fuel" in the North Tower?

Let's start there with EVIDENCE.

Someone needs to prove to me there was jet fuel in the North Tower or everyone needs to just quit saying there was on no authority.

Another thing.

When I lived in Texas I worked for an oil company. On occasion I had to head on out to the refinery with my clipboard, my measuring tape, my pencil and a set of plans. I would spend whole afternoons out there taking down measurements.

Now, who can tell me who the guy was with the clipboard, measuring tape, plans of the building and a #2 pencil on the day of 9/11 measuring and taking note of what columns were damaged and which ones were severed and gone. I want this guy's name. What? No one's got a name? No one even knows how they arrived at the silliness they put in their made up report? You don't say. Talk to me about EVIDENCE.

No one can prove or verify what is put forth in the reports so people need to take a breather, think about that, and quit talking like the 'plane' went into the building just like the animation shows, that there was "jet fuel" and that the clipboard guy made it out unscathed with all his notes intact.

Because none of that is true.


Cheers



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Suggestions for a freindlier debate...

May I strongly suggest that members on either side of this debate refrain from using the terms "debunkers" or "truthers", or whichever term of endearment is currently in vouge?

That will aid all of you in holding on to what is almost certain to become a heated discussion.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Hmmm something new eh? Thanks for pointing that out. You don't seem to realise you base your whole assumption on generic common misunderstandings.

If the OSers are good for anything it's pointing out events that end up hurting their case, I guess they don't think too deeply eh?

To add to what Bones already covered, fuel does not explode. In fact trying to get jet fuel to burn in open air is hard. I have seen many many jet fuel fires in the Navy, the fuel never exploded. In fact what happens is if the fuel gets hot enough it's the fumes that burn, not the fuel itself. Burning fuel in an air tight container will cause an "explosion" because of the pressure it creates.

So what waypastvne has pointed out can not have been caused by "exploding" jet fuel. So thanks waypastvne for pointing out more evidence for explosives in the towers.


edit on 7/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

I sorry if I'm not getting this part but am open to explanations.


The aircraft involved in the crashes had air in side the fuselages that is what the people in side breath.

A 767 has about 19500 cu ft of air inside it. Air has weight. The air inside a 767 has a mass weight of about 1500 pounds. The air inside is traveling the same speed as the aircraft. For AA11 it was traveling about 680 ft per sec. A moving mass of air has inertia and will want to continue the path it is traveling.

The 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 ft per sec passed through the building and the elevator system. As it passed over the elevator shafts it syphoned air out of the shafts, due to Bernoulli effect, leaving a low pressure.

After the air passed the low pressure drew atomised jet fuel and air back into the shafts and it ignited causing the explosions in the lobby and mechanical floors.

For those of you who don't believe it would syphon air out of a shaft, take a look at how a syphon air gun works it nothing more than air passing over a tube. Just like the air passing over the elevator shafts.

www.google.com... GKCA&biw=1440&bih=764&sei=1fUBUOnfB5Ci8ASuxaiECA
www.highlandwoodworking.com...

This is also how a carburettor works.

www.bikerenews.com...

And it is also the reason for this.

www.accuweather.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


There are documented survivors, not people who say they know what happened, people who saw the flames and lived to tell about it. However, they are not discussed because it would null anything anyone else said including the select firefighters. Those survivors were there...lived it and smelt their own flesh burn so please, enough with the jet fuel cannot explode. In the situations you describe, I understand, did those fires include a commercial airliner going 500+? it is all about the total equation and perception of the question and answer.

Gravity "pulled" it.
As well as the expansion of those gases and flames that would take whatever route it would be allowed, including elevator shafts.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Furthermore, if you look at the top of WTC 1 in your image, you can see an explosion occurred at the mechanical floors up top at the same time as well.

* FACT: In your image, you see explosions at the mechanical floors above and below the impact at the same time as the impact.






Originally posted by waypastvne

remember they went up the shafts too



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

To add to what Bones already covered, fuel does not explode.


Gun powder also does not explode.



Burning fuel in an air tight container will cause an "explosion" because of the pressure it creates.


Exactly.
edit on 14-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


There are documented survivors, not people who say they know what happened, people who saw the flames and lived to tell about it. However, they are not discussed because it would null anything anyone else said including the select firefighters. Those survivors were there...lived it and smelt their own flesh burn so please, enough with the jet fuel cannot explode. In the situations you describe, I understand, did those fires include a commercial airliner going 500+? it is all about the total equation and perception of the question and answer.

Gravity "pulled" it.
As well as the expansion of those gases and flames that would take whatever route it would be allowed, including elevator shafts.


Okay, but you still seem to be ignoring the fact that only one elevator shaft ran the length of the building, and that was only from the 76th floor down. All the rest were "stepped". How do you explain the fuel exiting one shaft, then entering another, multiple times, to reach the lobby and the sub-basement before "exploding" ?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat


Okay, but you still seem to be ignoring the fact that only one elevator shaft ran the length of the building, and that was only from the 76th floor down. All the rest were "stepped". How do you explain the fuel exiting one shaft, then entering another, multiple times, to reach the lobby and the sub-basement before "exploding" ?


Elevators 6, 7 and 50 ran all the way from the top of the building to the basement.

Also the elevator shafts were not sealed off from one another on the mechanical floors.


Elevator 6, 7 and 50 are marked on the image below.

edit on 14-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





Okay, but you still seem to be ignoring the fact that only one elevator shaft ran the length of the building, and that was only from the 76th floor down. All the rest were "stepped". How do you explain the fuel exiting one shaft, then entering another, multiple times, to reach the lobby and the sub-basement before "exploding" ?


I am not ignoring anything. I am simply stating a fact. Now, it is also a fact that the elevators were staggered as you went up but that does not have any bearing on the fact that someone was burned severely in the lobby. There were more than one elevator that ran the length also just to point out another fact.

I do not have to explain, again, how it happened, because it did. There was not an detonation of explosive materials in the elevators but they did carry the fuel which caused an explosive fireball. 2 separate things.

Here is some light reading for you...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 14-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


So in all of the videos of 9/11, when the 'planes' hit the buildings, what is exploding there in your eyes?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
OK, folks...

This'll be the final warning about bringing personalities/name calling/or commentary about members.

Next on the agenda may result in post bannings.

Before you post snarky, think twice, think three times.

Consider this a friendly warning.
edit on 7/14/2012 by seagull because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join