Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I think no one has ever addressed this in any forum. Weren't the Twin Towers mostly offices and some restaurants? I believe there was a day care center too. Now any good fireman will tell you that fires of today burn different than fires 50 years ago and that is because of the different chemicals used in our modern conveniences. So in those models of buildings burning, did they take into account the many tvs and computers that were there?

If your computer is burning, and especially back then before the new flat screen HD ones, the cathode ray tubes would have burned and left certain chemicals. We know that your house may have one computer, but the Twin Towers had hundreds of computers. And the kitchens, I am sure those appliances must have left chemical traces also.

While we see all kinds of models these "Truthers" want to throw out there, in all of them they failed to mention the fact that hundreds of computers made of chemicals burned and left certain chemicals, that combined with other chemicals would make certain compounds not usually found in regular fires. Now toss jet fuel on top of that not to mention the thousands of feet of coaxial cable that fed into the televisions and modems. Would they not also melt and mix with other chemicals?

That is not even including the many telephones. I would imagine that the Twin Towers also had a main frame server to manage the computer system.

Has any model taken that into account?

You are doubting the "truther" version of what happened solely based out of speculation. You offered no evidence to support your claim. Thanks for the contribution.

reply to post by smurfy

it takes nothing away from the idea of a mysterious collapse of the rest of the buildings, as in both cases 'the hammer from above' was simply not there,

Has anyone, such as yourself even tried to calculate how much weight was in the upper structure? The "hammer", as you stated was tons and tons of dead weight at freefall, downward.

Here is a list of what some of the towers floors consisted of.

1. The 110th floor of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) housed radio and television transmission equipment. The roof of 1 WTC contained a vast array of transmission antennas including the 360 ft (approx 110 m) center antenna mast, rebuilt in 1999 by Dielectric Inc. to accommodate .

2.Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services in mechanical floors Level B5/B6 (floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76, and 108/109), which are four two-floor areas evenly spaced up the building.................

I am a tinner I work setting up the massive ventilation setups in the mechanical rooms. We are talking massive duct work and heavy equipment to keep it all running.

3..Restaurants......The North Tower had a restaurant on its 106th and 107th floors called Windows on the World, which opened in April 1976................That is alot of equipment right there...

4. How much did all of the windows weigh?

5.The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck.......It says lightweight, but it is still concrete that has alot of weight.........

6. all of the steel beams core structure, outer structure, floor trusses, and stair wells......Lets not forget about the steel decking that the concrete gets poured on.....Were are talking massive I beams here. They look little on tv.....

7......ventilation ductwork......this stuff is heavy, fire dampers and louvers, and all the fixins.

8. Please do not forget about the sheetrock or drywall, this includes the interior wall studs and all the screws.

9. were the floors carpeted or tiled?

10. plumbing, drain pipes, water mains and run offs.....that is alot of piping...

11. What about the elevator equipment athe the top. The cables and tracks and such.

12. roofing materials

13. electrical.....how many feet of heavy copper wire do you think was in all of them floors? I bet miles worth What about the telephone lines or other communcations cables........
I can go on and on..such as office equipment, faxes, computers, copiers and such.
en.wikipedia.org...


I just feel like reminding the people of ATS that the weight was there.....Massive amounts of weight that naturally wants to come down......

I feel like posting a little background photo of LJ01 putting up 20 inch to 72 inch round spiral duct work. I stared at trusses all day today..smacking my head a few times(try not to do that).........The metal decking was hot as hell. The roofers have not come and finished the roof yet.

I am going to examine the photo better. If there is anything incriminating it is coming down.

EDIT: The girlfriend just advised me not to post. Sorry....

Originally posted by edog11
Why exactly is it that this dude (Or dudette) who started this thread is getting so much attention when all he does is make claims without any actual proof or sources confirming his claims?

I'm so tired of doing this so here's the short version and here is how you are supposed to post your arguments. WITH SOURCES AND LINKS!

-The whole "Jetfuel melted the steel" argument is irrelevant because of a few things:
1) Most of the jetfuel burnt up in the fireballs. Link
2) Those fires were oxygen-deprived which is indicated by the amount of smoke (Smoke puts out fire in case you didn't know. Just google it ffs.). That means that the fires did not receive enough oxygen to continue burning at the same intensity. Here is what it looks like if a big fire is getting sufficient oxygen to burn in a skyscraper and Here is what the twin-towers looked like before collapsing. See the difference in the amount of smoke and the difference in fire-intensity?
The first picture is of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned much much more intensely than the twin-towers for TWO DAYS but did not collapse (Like any other case with steel-framed buildings vs fire)
3) Even if those fires were NOT oxygen-deprived (Which is NOT the case), they would not have been able to reach the burning temperature (1700C) to melt the steel since kerosene burns at around 800C.

And don't give me the "The impact of the planes f*cked up the support columns too much and thats what weakened the steel" cus then I'd just throw building 7 in your face and make you eat it.

-The debris of WTC 1 and 2 contained "Nano-Thermite" which proves controlled demolition.


If I didn't have to work 70 hours a week and had more time for ATS, I'd rip you a new one buddy

IT--

edit on 12-9-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)

Smoke puts out fire? Crap, crap and more crap.

A fire needs 3 things. Heat, oxygen and fuel. You remove one and you have no fire. When a fireman goes to, say a house fire, if there is smoke pulsating at the windows it means that the fire has gone out "BUT" that only means that the oxygen has been used up though there is still heat inside. Should they just smash a window or break down a door then air will be sucked in (new oxygen supply) and the oxygen will ignite causing an explosion (backdraft) So they'll puch a hole in two places of the house at the same time so the air is sucked in and blown out again stopping an explosion.

The smoke doesn't kill the fire it's the removal of the oxygen or the heat or the fuel ( fuel being anything that can burn). So water reduces the temperature removing the heat hense puts the fire out.

In 9/11 jet fuel ( which is nasty stuff when on fire) burned through everything. There was no shortage of Heat as the jet fuel burns really really really hot plus averything else in the building that could burn. There was no shortage of oxygen as there were big holes in the buildings sucking in oxygen. And there was no shortage of fuel from both the aircraft and the materials of the buildings.

SMOKE DOES NOT PUT OUT A FIRE. If it did you would never have a camp fire. but you do because there is heat, oxygen and fuel.

This thread is interesting to say the least – however, not because anyone (at all) is scoring great (or new) points. It is just plain amazing to see both “sides” expend so much time and energy (both physically and mentally) trying to convince someone who will NEVER be convinced to change their collective minds.

It’s a common misconception among posters to this site, and many other sites, that: coming up with “facts”; quotes from their own ideologists; links to websites that only bolster their own argument; and just plain made-up ideas will somehow make someone that already KNOWS what they have decided will suddenly say, in shock: “they are right, I never even considered that angle – I am changing my whole stance on that issue!!!!"

It must be a human trait – fight for my “side”, regardless of how stupid, ignorant or paranoiac it sounds; they MUST see how wrong they are, and how right I am!

Pro-life vs. Pro-choice

Gun rights vs. Gun control

Greater good vs. Personal good

Prayer in school vs. Church-State separation

“Truther’s” vs. “Believer’s”

Right-wing vs. Left-wing

Etc. vs. Etc.

Every issue seems to have folks on each side that keep slinging just plain crazy crapola at the other side, and expect it to stick. I’m not sayin’ to stop doing it; I get the feeling that the time and effort spent doing the work to come up with said crapola is some sort of lifestyle – a sort of fulfillment of a dream or escape from an otherwise unexciting life.

It is also very entertaining; especially when the real wackos (and you know who you are – maybe!) post great photos or videos that somehow “prove” their point. (Isn’t it obvious they were throwing handcuffed people out of the Towers!?!? Whattya – blind?) Just classic.

Of course, if you are trying to sway some 8th grader to your ideas – I see your point; they may be a bit too educated to buy it; but sling away – it’s fun for you (and possibly quite stimulating!) and it is just plain hilarious to read.

Humans are just plain – well – goofy!

Originally posted by Unvarnished


Explain how passports from the WTC were found... (facepalm)

Here Ya Go. Enjoy !

reply to post by WarminIndy


Office equipment and any random chemicals can not form the chemical composition of nano-thermite which is made up of iron, aluminum, titanium and also found was carbon. Carbon is used in very high end thermites. Military grade thermites.

The USGS did their own study of thermite in the dust. They found it. Along with high levels of barium which is only present in mass quantity during pyrotechnics. The USGS concluded it was due to aluminothermics.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


This is a gold mind of truth against the silliness of the so-called truthers.

Thanks.

Originally posted by axslinger
. Oh, one small detail, when you're about a half mile out, you have to be low enough to hit the lamp posts.

The amount of time AA77 spent clipping light poles and skimming the ground is about 2 seconds.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I don't login much.. I'm into conspiracies and this topic isn't one.. It is dealing with factual evidence and trying to refute it and then the entire premise without even a whisper. If X, Y, and Z are true, then A, B, C must not be true..

9/11 didn't happen like *they* said it did.. not even close.

The real conspiracy theorists on this one are the people that buy the official story.

Honestly.. when I read posts like this I begin thinking.. who are you working for?

Originally posted by steveknows
In 9/11 jet fuel ( which is nasty stuff when on fire) burned through everything. There was no shortage of Heat as the jet fuel burns really really really hot plus averything else in the building that could burn. There was no shortage of oxygen as there were big holes in the buildings sucking in oxygen. And there was no shortage of fuel from both the aircraft and the materials of the buildings.

SMOKE DOES NOT PUT OUT A FIRE. If it did you would never have a camp fire. but you do because there is heat, oxygen and fuel.

Jet fuel burns really really really hot? Really?

Jet fuel can only reach a temperature of 1790 degrees MAX. And that is only when it is fed pure oxygen. And a vast majority of the fuel was used up during the ensuing fireball as the planes punched through the opposite entry point. The velocity plus wind speed caused a huge ejection of fuel and debris upon impact. Sure, things caught fire, but not to the point that it was a towering inferno that was "really really really hot". There have been many videos of people standing in the point of impact waving white flags. They weren't burnt up. Granted there was plenty of office material to be burned. But the FDNY was putting it out. As evident by the white smoke that started to come from the buildings. One radio report stated that the FDNY needed "two lines" to knock down fires on the 76th floor. Not a raging inferno.

The 2nd tower did pick up fires after the first collapse because the FDNY stopped attacking them at that point and as you correctly stated, the wind coming through the buildings brought them back up.

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I think no one has ever addressed this in any forum. Weren't the Twin Towers mostly offices and some restaurants? I believe there was a day care center too. Now any good fireman will tell you that fires of today burn different than fires 50 years ago and that is because of the different chemicals used in our modern conveniences. So in those models of buildings burning, did they take into account the many tvs and computers that were there?

If your computer is burning, and especially back then before the new flat screen HD ones, the cathode ray tubes would have burned and left certain chemicals. We know that your house may have one computer, but the Twin Towers had hundreds of computers. And the kitchens, I am sure those appliances must have left chemical traces also.

While we see all kinds of models these "Truthers" want to throw out there, in all of them they failed to mention the fact that hundreds of computers made of chemicals burned and left certain chemicals, that combined with other chemicals would make certain compounds not usually found in regular fires. Now toss jet fuel on top of that not to mention the thousands of feet of coaxial cable that fed into the televisions and modems. Would they not also melt and mix with other chemicals?

That is not even including the many telephones. I would imagine that the Twin Towers also had a main frame server to manage the computer system.

Has any model taken that into account?

You are doubting the "truther" version of what happened solely based out of speculation. You offered no evidence to support your claim. Thanks for the contribution.

Do I need to prove there were computers being used in offices? Or do I need to prove there was a day care center? Ok let's go with the first...

americanhistory.si.edu...

tbtf.com...

Hmm, over 700 different companies, with computers and fax machines and telephones. Those are just the companies, not the office rooms they occupied.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.scienceclarified.com...

Now do I have to name every chemical in a CRT?

www.youtube.com...

Now that video is just one computer burning.Imagine 700 computers on fire

So do I have to keep posting endless youtube videos that show stupid people doing stupid stuff because it might give you a clue?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

This is a gold mind of truth against the silliness of the so-called truthers.

Thanks.

Thanks for that informative post. It really brings help to your side of the argument. As always, leave it to an OS'er to come strong with the facts. WOO!

Sorry OP, since you didn't provide any sources/links after your "NOT TRUE" claims. The thread is an absolute joke.

I think I'll go ahead and believe these guys who say there were explosives in the buildings, than you and our loveable government, thank you.

Originally posted by sokpuppet
This thread is interesting to say the least – however, not because anyone (at all) is scoring great (or new) points. It is just plain amazing to see both “sides” expend so much time and energy (both physically and mentally) trying to convince someone who will NEVER be convinced to change their collective minds.

It’s a common misconception among posters to this site, and many other sites, that: coming up with “facts”; quotes from their own ideologists; links to websites that only bolster their own argument; and just plain made-up ideas will somehow make someone that already KNOWS what they have decided will suddenly say, in shock: “they are right, I never even considered that angle – I am changing my whole stance on that issue!!!!"

It must be a human trait – fight for my “side”, regardless of how stupid, ignorant or paranoiac it sounds; they MUST see how wrong they are, and how right I am!

Pro-life vs. Pro-choice

Gun rights vs. Gun control

Greater good vs. Personal good

Prayer in school vs. Church-State separation

“Truther’s” vs. “Believer’s”

Right-wing vs. Left-wing

Etc. vs. Etc.

Every issue seems to have folks on each side that keep slinging just plain crazy crapola at the other side, and expect it to stick. I’m not sayin’ to stop doing it; I get the feeling that the time and effort spent doing the work to come up with said crapola is some sort of lifestyle – a sort of fulfillment of a dream or escape from an otherwise unexciting life.

It is also very entertaining; especially when the real wackos (and you know who you are – maybe!) post great photos or videos that somehow “prove” their point. (Isn’t it obvious they were throwing handcuffed people out of the Towers!?!? Whattya – blind?) Just classic.

Of course, if you are trying to sway some 8th grader to your ideas – I see your point; they may be a bit too educated to buy it; but sling away – it’s fun for you (and possibly quite stimulating!) and it is just plain hilarious to read.

Humans are just plain – well – goofy!

Hmmm. I don't see the point of the post in it's relation to a blog site. If you didn't have people with different views trying to prove things to each other well you wouldn't have a blog site of this nature which is the point of this block site.

Some of us just have common sense or are better informed through facts rather than some twisted link which says the U.S government killed thousands of it's own people(and others) just to go to war against the middle east. I'm not American but I know that the U.S has plenty of legit reason to go to war aginst the middle east without the need to murder thousand of its own people in order to do it.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I just watched a special on 9-11 that tried to make it look like controlled demolition and I must admit that to me it looked that way too; however, while watching it today I paid close attention to something. When the first building fell. it fell at an angle at the point where the airplane had struck. Until the plane had struck, they would've had no way of knowing for sure where the plane was going to strike, so they would've had to have been able to determine the order of the detonation on the fly, which is not very likely.

That doesn't mean that it wasn't an inside job and doesn't explain bldg. 7. Bldg 7 shouldn't have fallen at all and the other tower appeared to be a top down collapse, but with the plane having struck so close to the top, it's difficult to tell.

So how's that for truther honesty??

I've always prescribed to the twin towers being controlled demolition but hadn't really ever seen footage that showed without being obscured by smoke how the first bldg collapsed.

After seeing that and seeing that the part of the bldg above where the plane crashed skewed off to one side, I am more apt to believe that at least the first tower to fall was NOT controlled demolition.

Jaden

Why would you call it dishonest behaviour? Do you honestly believe the 'truthers' are doing what they're doing for some horrible reason? Truthers believe they are doing the right thing, they believe that the OS isnt 100% true and instead of just accepting it, they are investigating it... What's wrong with that? Why must we believe EVERYTHING that comes from the Govt or the msm?? If something doesnt add up to you, you should investigate it... Truthers are not here to cause harm or pain, they are here to track down the facts, that is all..

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Office equipment and any random chemicals can not form the chemical composition of nano-thermite which is made up of iron, aluminum, titanium and also found was carbon. Carbon is used in very high end thermites. Military grade thermites.

The USGS did their own study of thermite in the dust. They found it. Along with high levels of barium which is only present in mass quantity during pyrotechnics. The USGS concluded it was due to aluminothermics.

Hello, and what is steel made from? Iron. What were the planes made of? Aluminum. Oh yes, steel is also made of carbon. The USGS just defined what steel is made from. Good for them.

reply to post by WarminIndy


And somehow those compounds magically came together to form nanothermite???? Chemical compounds just don't come together randomly.

Here you go. Read up.

most of the things you've listed are not relevant to the most important facts that we do know. Facts that make the details of how it happened unnecessary to see the truth that a conspiracy exists.

reply to post by waypastvne

Very informative. Shows you that the OS is based on facts, not spurious hypotheticals.