A few points about 9/11

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Thridly, there is significant evidence that the fire was out (or nearly out) right after the initial explosions - you can see the pictures of people looking out the massive holes in the building - and this puts point number 4 in serious jeopardy.

No there isn't. There is absolutely no evidence that the fires were almost out in the WTC towers. There are a few photos of 2 or 3 people on the floor at the very bottom of the impact hole in one tower. Imagine that, what with fire/heat tending to go upwards. Only a few people's overactive imaginations, and a desire to change reality to fit their agenda or idea of what happened inside that building could make the fires "nearly out" -- they simply were not anywhere near out. There were no sprinklers operating on or above the floors that were on fire, there was nothing to extinguish or even hinder the fires.

The only way those fires would have been nearly out would be if they had used up all available fuel (as in carpet, paper, desks, paint, human fat, etc.). They didn't burn long enough to burn themselves out.

Originally posted by CatHerder
No there isn't. There is absolutely no evidence that the fires were almost out in the WTC towers.

Are you watching the same towers as we are ? Cause I for one can hardly see flames, all I see is smoke, wich turned black pretty quick. And it's been pointed out about a 100 times now that this means oxygen starved fires.

You still have to come up with evidence that there were indeed intense fires, but you obviously have no idea what an intense fire is since you posted a picture of the WTC. And let me add that nist telling us it was hot up there doesn't count.

But I guess we're comparing apples and oranges when we show you a real fire huh ? So I won't even go there.
Denying evidence won't get you anywhere.

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by CatHerder
No there isn't. There is absolutely no evidence that the fires were almost out in the WTC towers.

Are you watching the same towers as we are ? Cause I for one can hardly see flames, all I see is smoke, wich turned black pretty quick. And it's been pointed out about a 100 times now that this means oxygen starved fires.

Yeah, that was actually what I was about to say.

The color of the fires in both buildings showed a trend of turning darker over time, as well as an output of less smoke at the same time. Nothing about that says that the fires remained strong.

They were hydrocarbon fires, and as I'm sure you must know, dark smoke indicates soot, which is uncombusted hydrocarbons: unspent fuel. Healthy fires won't display this behavior, and that's why you won't find much soot in healthy hydrocarbon fires.

Also, hydrocarbon fires don't have a tendency to be very hot without special conditions like pressurization or pre-heating the air. On the contrary to both conditions, however, air is less dense in higher altitudes, and there's of course wind up there too that doesn't exactly serve to heat the fires even more. Rather, it would've served to cool the outer columns.

Without special conditions, the absolute max hydocarbon fires can reach is usually around 800 degrees Celsius from what I understand. If you have evidence of otherwise, I'm open to it, but it's not of my understanding that hydrocarbon fires get much hotter without special conditions that were not present at the WTC.

Yeah... there was no fire buring in those buildings alright...

Do you two guys even watch the videos of the buildings? You can clearly see fires on multiple floors covering ACRES of area (floor space) right up to when the buildings fell. I have no idea why anyone would try to say there were no fires... To say there were no fires is just ludicrous.


Yup, no fire...

Hey, again no fire!

Again, no fire...

Wonder what all those orange and red flames are? They seem to cover about 5 or 6 acres of area (well what do you know... a single floor of the WTC towers contained over 1 acres of office space). Have you ever seen an acre burn? It's not a small fire, and it sure isn't "no fire". . .

Yeah, uh CatHerder,

I think we said the blackening smoke indicated the fires were dying.

We didn't say there were no fires.

PS - Nice attempt at a straw-man tactic, though. A bit too obvious maybe, but nice try.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, uh CatHerder,

I think we said the blackening smoke indicated the fires were dying.

We didn't say there were no fires.

PS - Nice attempt at a straw-man tactic, though. A bit too obvious maybe, but nice try.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Balony.



Yet another photo of a "dying fire". . .

Another photo of the North tower moments before it collapsed.



What's with all the light gray and dark gray smoke? And why are there all those huge flames coming out the left side of it?

[edit on 25-8-2005 by CatHerder]

So your response to the fact that darkening smoke means weakening hydrocarbon fire is "Oh, look at these horrible raging fires!"

Btw, the smoke from the North Tower somehow quickened its pace and livened up its color just prior to its collapse, but before then had darkened and greatly slackened its output, suggesting the fires had weakened considerably.

The South Tower produced no such increase in smoke productivity before its collapsed.

The South Tower fires continued to die up until collapse, as this video attests. You'll see how the smoke from the North Tower is obscuring a view of the South Tower's smoke at this point, but this video from below shows that the South Tower wasn't putting off much if you look towards the sky. You can also see the demolition charges going off in rows if you're man enough to accept it.

Also - the fact that you just used a straw man tactic to put words in our mouths (ie, the ridiculous "no fires" that no one here has claimed) has not changed, you sly dog you.

THe fires were not dying, they were buring on the inside like i pointed out in point 5. I will refrain from name calling, however this was nota show to debunk anything, it gave the truth. If you truly want to say that NAtional Geographic is 'biased media', then you must think the Enquirer is a local newspaper.

The facts are there, the fires were buring inside the building, thousands of gallons of jet fuel, from planes picked because they were transcontinental flights. The explosions that are reported to have been heard are talked of in the show, They show the people who lept from that building. It showed the people who lost love ones that day.

I am sorry, but I am very defensive when it comes to this subject .I can't watch the tower strikes without losing my breath and then a tear welling up. I am not denying ignorance, I am wading through the bull#. It is not like I am stating that there were no mistakes, but you need to see this show for an 'unbiased' and heavily researched 4 hour show. Listen to the American airlines rep when the call comes through from the stewardess on the first hijacked flight. It will stun you. They had NO idea what to do. By the time the planes were up, the 1st plane was less then a few minutes out.

Stop baming our goverment and start to blame the Radical Islmaic movement that is attempting to sway the global power struggle in their favor. Don't hate the group (Islam), hate the messager (Al Qeada).

Do you remember how long the footprints from the towers burned, or have you forgotten that so fast? This arguement about the filre is ridiculous, 10,000 of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. It was found that the inital blast burned the firproffing from the inner structure of the towers, and the weight of hte towers coupled with the relaxation of the steel, led to the collapse.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by esdad71]

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
First of all I severely dislike any program that attempts to "debunk" anything - because you have your bias right there.

I suggest you watch some of Alex Jones documentaries as well if you want to have an informed opinion - please know that these main stream media releases wouldn't be allowed if they didn't support the offical story.

Deny Ignorance! (and don't jump to conclusions so quickly young padwan)

Oh, the irony.

You're asking us to believe Alex Jones, who has a very blatant and obvious bias....yet you're asking us to forego National Geographic for what you're saying is the same thing?

Who are we to believe?

Once again though...having "read the book" (yes, that book), watched the Jones material, sifted through a gazillion websites and spent more time researching this than I care to mention...it's still my conclusion that the US government did not plan this attack, or carry it out.

Of course, that's not touching on how much they knew before the event...

Esdad,

The fires were definitely burning inside the building; there's no question there.

But you see, when fires like that burn, they give off smoke.

For example:



You can use the color, and even amount of smoke to judge how well a fire's doing when you can't see it. It's a pretty accurate method. Dark smoke indicates soot in the smoke from an unhealthy burn. Unhealthy burn = unhealthy fire. When a fire becomes unhealthy, you can say that it's dying. So soot in the smoke is not exactly an indication of strength. It's an indication of an unhealthy, dying fire.

For example:



Darkening smoke = fire burning fuel less efficiently (poor burn) = dying fires. There's no way you can maintain the fires were still raging the same as they were earlier, or especially that they were getting worse. There's no evidence for either claim in the least, and yet the smoke output is indication enough of a weakening in the fires.

Now that I've repeated the whole argument for you, hopefully you understand it a little better. I won't criticize you for having me repeat it for you, because you apparently are too emotionally charged towards the event to evaluate it in an unbiased fashion.

Edited to make the pics more comparable.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Tinkleflower,

Like your avatar pic - its fairly hypnotic!

But as you can seen I said "as well" as in watch both so you can have a greater balance of the facts...

Alex Jones is bias and a showman - that is for sure - but he has his core audience like me because he presents real, documented facts to support his assertions - and then he gives his editorial opinion of where we are headed as a nation/world.

So after one watches ALL the evidence I cotend that the following must occur for us to believe the "offical" explanation of how the buildings fell.

1) All firefighter material (tapes/calls/transcripts) must be made 100% available to the public, and the fire fighters involved must be legally free to be interviewed.

2) All or any metal from the wreckage (including the Airplane black boxes they undoubtably found) must be open to independant U.S. and foreign forensic investigators

3) All tran.communications from the flights must be made available to the public

4) All Video from the Pentagon attack must be made public (or at least available to an independant multi-national panel) for study

The fact that none of these 4 things will happen is a clear indication of cover-up, there is no National Security reason to keep them form the citizenry.

You know 5 years ago I was so niave as to believe our Govt. wouldn't ever pull something like this on us - and that an Orwellian Dsytopia would never be a real danger.

Now I see Fatherland Security "Police" Cars driving on our streets.

5 Years before that I was so niave as to believe we had a real two party system and an effective system of checks and balances in place.

What it took for me to learn teh truth after the last 10 years was to stop watching TV news and to start really utilizing books, magazines, and the Internet to find the real truth behind current events.

And the more I looked, the more disillusioned I became about America and the ability of Humans to Govern themselves.

I know that it is hard for many of you to get past the propaganda and the emotional investment you have put into believing in Democracy (tm) but the sad truth is all nations become completely corrupt over time - and history repeats itself over and over again.

If you can't explain why they won't release all the evidence to the public, then don't prtetnd your an expert on building fires because you watched national geographic while resting your couch potato.

If you want to know the real truth - it will require you to take action and verify the facts yourself.

Thats what many of us at ATS do every day around here - and that's why the truth will eventually come out on all of this.

It is interesting how hostile people can get when the word "Conspiracy" arises, especially involving 911.

National Geographic "Inside 911" ???? Lets take a look at who owns National Geographic shall we.
www.google.com...

WTC
www.prisonplanet.com...

Oh gracious me...prisonplanet.com is a kooky conspiracy theory website run by a lunatic named Alex Jones.....we cant belive this crazy man, he isn't Fox Murdoch approved

Come on folks.....the Conspiracy is no longer slapping you in the face,,its pounding you hard in the head like an Ultimate Fighting Championship match

If they were that capable and evil and had those intentions, don't you think Jones would be silenced? emm?
If they are so capable of pulling off something of this magnitude, then people like him would be shut down before they even thought of saying anything. They wouldn't want to risk anyone alerting people and ruining their 'plan' would they.

Think it would cause an uproar? nope. Hardly anyone knows who he is, only other conspiracy nuts like us do really, and most would dismiss it if he 'disappeared' or had a medical condition/accident.

And if it was true and it did happen, you'd have to be nuts to cry about it anyway..

But he's still here and still blabbing on becasue it's all worthless, I guess someone is bound to respond with it being some sort of 'double bluff' or 'too many people would know it's true' - rubbish.

OH and yet another link to the WTC 7 thing.. God that must be how many today? 20 ? uh.. what a revelation...

*snore*



[edit on 26-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by CatHerder

No there isn't. There is absolutely no evidence that the fires were almost out in the WTC towers

No CH. There is absolutely NO evidence that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel.

That's ALL you can say from looking at those pictures.
All the other conclusions you draw should be from the obvious clues the pictures and videos give us, not from what the government tells you.

But as long as you see flames where there's just smoke, this discussion is going nowhere.
And don't believe those firemen who said the fire was almost out .. (2 pockets of fire).

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Tinkleflower,
Like your avatar pic - its fairly hypnotic!

Why thank you! The all-wondrous JAK did the graphic.

Alex Jones is bias and a showman - that is for sure - but he has his core audience like me because he presents real, documented facts to support his assertions - and then he gives his editorial opinion of where we are headed as a nation/world.

See...this is where we basically disagree. I see Jones doing a better spin job than Hoffman did in Wag The Dog. Similar to Michael Moore and Ann Coulter (and that's a celebrity death match I'd pay to see...), Jones has a tendency to use facts out of context and sensationalise the bits he wants to keep whilst disgarding the rest of the material (which is often vital in understanding the bigger picture).

So after one watches ALL the evidence I cotend that the following must occur for us to believe the "offical" explanation of how the buildings fell.

1) All firefighter material (tapes/calls/transcripts) must be made 100% available to the public, and the fire fighters involved must be legally free to be interviewed.

Right, couldn't agree more

2) All or any metal from the wreckage (including the Airplane black boxes they undoubtably found) must be open to independant U.S. and foreign forensic investigators

(I thought this was in the pipeline?)

Yes, again I agree. Are you expecting anything in particular from such an analysis?

3) All tran.communications from the flights must be made available to the public

Afaik there are only the ATC recordings and CVRs remaining...and they'll be made public soon enough, in all likelihood; the families (I believe) have already had access to these recordings.

4) All Video from the Pentagon attack must be made public (or at least available to an independant multi-national panel) for study

That would be handy, yes.

The fact that none of these 4 things will happen is a clear indication of cover-up, there is no National Security reason to keep them form the citizenry.

Not to me. It's more than possible (more likely, even) that certainly the last two would have no useful information at all - the fact that we lesser mortals haven't had access yet doesn't convince me that there's a coverup. The families of the victims have heard these recordings; would they be lying about things?

What it took for me to learn teh truth after the last 10 years was to stop watching TV news and to start really utilizing books, magazines, and the Internet to find the real truth behind current events.

I haven't owned a TV in forever.

I still miss the BBC though

I know that it is hard for many of you to get past the propaganda and the emotional investment you have put into believing in Democracy (tm) but the sad truth is all nations become completely corrupt over time - and history repeats itself over and over again.

I have nothing to gain; I'm not a US citizen (I don't even play one on TV). I'm not sure all the disbelievers/debunkers/label du jour are also automatically assuming that the government just wouldn't do this. We (as a society) are aware that most (if not all) governments are open to corruption and shady dealings. But that in itself isn't proof that it's happening right now.

If you can't explain why they won't release all the evidence to the public, then don't prtetnd your an expert on building fires because you watched national geographic while resting your couch potato.

Again, there could be valid reasons why this info hasn't been released.

If you want to know the real truth - it will require you to take action and verify the facts yourself.
Thats what many of us at ATS do every day around here - and that's why the truth will eventually come out on all of this.

Absolutely. And sadly, for me, Alex Jones doesn't quite cut it as being one of those sources I can trust.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Absolutely. And sadly, for me, Alex Jones doesn't quite cut it as being one of those sources I can trust.

Although he obviously is a bit rough on the edges, the people that are on his show to speak up are most of the time very reputable people.
Alex Jones gives me a headache to be honest but I listened to some of his shows to hear what those people had to say. It definately pays off to be honest.

Take a look at this docu (torrent), not about the crashes this time :
GNN - Aftermath - Unanswered Questions of 9-11
imdb.com...


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]

I don't need a lesson in how a fire burns, or the type of smoke that is created. If tha is what you base your whole "it is a conspriacy" on, you are very dilussional.

Who owns National Geographic? Obviously you have not seen the special, there is no debunking, just a playing of hte events. Open your eyes people and realize that we are at war. If our own country wanted to take over, 9/11 would have been a nuclear disaster. I think many of you give big business and our own government too much credit. They may pull alot of strings, but they are also things they cannot control.

This is not like taking a lighter and putting it to a spoon. 1000's of degrees of heat, softening the steel that was used, as the weight of the 40 floors aboe it were pushing down...This is as simple as the explanation for the smoke....

Originally posted by esdad71
I don't need a lesson in how a fire burns, or the type of smoke that is created. If tha is what you base your whole "it is a conspriacy" on, you are very dilussional.

Who owns National Geographic? Obviously you have not seen the special, there is no debunking, just a playing of hte events. Open your eyes people and realize that we are at war. If our own country wanted to take over, 9/11 would have been a nuclear disaster. I think many of you give big business and our own government too much credit. They may pull alot of strings, but they are also things they cannot control.

This is not like taking a lighter and putting it to a spoon. 1000's of degrees of heat, softening the steel that was used, as the weight of the 40 floors aboe it were pushing down...This is as simple as the explanation for the smoke....

the maximum temp you can get to in a pure oxygen environment without being in a blast furnace is 1000C. Steel melts at 1688C. Most of the fuel exploded in a huge fireball, leaving conservativly 30-40% of the fuel to burn within the building.

there are more extensive threads at

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by esdad71
I don't need a lesson in how a fire burns, or the type of smoke that is created. If tha is what you base your whole "it is a conspriacy" on, you are very dilussional.

Well, if you don't need to use science to come to a conclusion on an issue like this, then I don't need your faulty logic, either.

But rest assured that this aspect of 9/11 is only a small bit, and not what we "base [our] whole 'it is a conspiracy' on."

This is not like taking a lighter and putting it to a spoon. 1000's of degrees of heat, softening the steel that was used, as the weight of the 40 floors aboe it were pushing down...This is as simple as the explanation for the smoke....

But unfortunately a lot more faulty. You know you're kidding yourself when you compare the steel columns in the WTC to a spoon under "1000's of degrees of heat." In reality, it was probably more along the lines of 800 - 900 degrees for short periods of time at its very hottest, and more like 600 or so degrees sustained. And of course, steel skyscraper columns are not spoons.

I can see, though, how if there was, by some miraculous chance, a conspiracy, you would never buy it anyway, short of the government coming out and telling you themselves.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Here's a good paper on the 'Integrity of Structural Steel after exposure to fire'.
I havn't read it properly yet, so it might even prove me wrong, but here you go! I have grabbed some bits that caught my attention.
Note that temperatures are in Farenheit and not Celsius.

Oh and you might be right about the fires dying down towards the end and the firefighters winning, in fact you might have accidently found a contributary factor to the collapse!!

www.steelstructures.com...

It is common to see fractured connections at the ends of buckled beams. As the buckled beam cools and shortens, the connection material, bolts or welds, will be torn apart similar to the connection of Figure 10. This type of bracket failure behavior occurs because the AISC Specifications contain a higher safety factor or reliability for bolts and welds than plain steel.

Water from fire hoses actually applies a temporary, non-symmetrical cooling pattern that can precipitate or contribute to buckling.

Structural steel exposed to temperatures above 1200 degrees F (649 deg C) will develop a coarse, eroded surface markedly different from the appearance produced by mill rolling, Dill (1960).

www.fema.gov...

Definately a far cry from the 250 degrees someone quoted in a thread on here the other day I think.

And it didn't need to melt, it just needed to lose integrity, particularly at the joins, enough for the collapse to initiate.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]