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 Stateofgrace
1. Evidence?
2 Evidence?
3. NIST will release a final report this year.
4. Nonsense, the are many reports and eye witness statements that confirm flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
5. Incorrect. The FDR shows the exact path that flight 77 took, straight into the Pentagon. This is verified by all the physical evidence.
I would like to debate right here, proceed.
The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Originally posted by esdad71
here is the explanation as to why you cannot find the documents.
You mean it took you a year to not find this?
Though the term was originally coined to describe the journalistic practices of Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst proved himself worthy of the title. Today, it is his name that is synonymous with "yellow journalism." The Sensational Beginnings of Yellow Journalism
... where "yellow journalism" got its start. In a classic example of the power of ownership, Hearst responded to illustrator Frederic Remington's request to return from a Havana that was quiet, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." --Spanish--American War of 1898
When an explosion sank the Maine and killed hundreds of sailors in the Havana Harbor on 15 February 1898, journalists, including those from the Journal, recommended caution in speculating the cause of the disaster. Hearst had other ideas. When he learned of the explosion, he called the Journal city desk and asked the editor on duty what other stories were to be played on the front page. When the editor replied “just the other big news,” Hearst exploded that there was no other big news and the sinking of the Maine meant war. Two days later the Journal was banging the war drum with such headlines as “War? Sure!” Coverage of the Spanish-American War, soon to become the Journal’s war, established a template for the next century of how journalists were to cover significant events. After thirty-five years of this type of journalism, newsmen and women at competing papers were amused when Hearst issued a bulletin in 1933 that established editorial guidelines for his newsrooms across the country: - Introduction, Red Ink, White Lies: The Rise and Fall of Los Angeles Newspapers 1920-1962 by Rob Wagner, Robert Leicester Wagner [amazon]
Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."
And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
Originally posted by thedigirati
as a former Foundry worker, I can say that steel is in liquid form at 2780 F, when we would do a cold empty start of the furnace it would take 15 hours to get one ton of liquid steel to get the 1st quarter ton would take 8 hours, it would take 6 hours just to get any liquid steel, now I remind you this is a device FOR liquid steel. saying that fire cause steel to get soft in any time less then 4 hours in those circumstances is laughable. this is why I find it to be ludicrous that a "blast" of jet fuel caused steel to get soft in one hour or less.
a continuous feeding of jet fuel ( as in blow torch ) would do it but only one plane hit each tower
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This subject is being broached www.abovetopsecret.com...">here where I post a link demonstrating the effect of introducing O2 into a fire and its effect.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Are you suggesting that the massive static weight above each crash sight was simply going to stay exactly where it was?
Are you suggesting that the planes that slammed into each tower caused perfectly uniform damage and thus enabled the massive weight above to redistribute itself in a perfectly uniform manner?
I am curious, could you tell me exactly why the fires would not contribute to the collapse of each tower.
Originally posted by billybob
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This subject is being broached www.abovetopsecret.com...">here where I post a link demonstrating the effect of introducing O2 into a fire and its effect.
the 'fire triangle' is fuel, spark and oxygen.
you can't have a fire without 'introducing O2'.
why don't you post a link to an oxygenless fire, instead, now, THAT would be impressive.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Click on the word www.abovetopsecret.com...">"here" to go to the link. For some reason it's not highlighted.
I'm talking about the 100% O2 that was on the aircraft. In the link I provide (the Valujet crash) the test that shows the oxygen generators, after first igniting the fire, casued the temps to reach 3000 degrees F. The temperature at which steel melts is 2700 Degrees F.
Did you even bother to check it out?
Originally posted by thedigirati
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Are you suggesting that the massive static weight above each crash sight was simply going to stay exactly where it was?
not in the least, most likely it would have tipped the top OVER
Are you suggesting that the planes that slammed into each tower caused perfectly uniform damage and thus enabled the massive weight above to redistribute itself in a perfectly uniform manner?
Nope, see above it should not have caused it to fall STRAIGHT down but it did
I am curious, could you tell me exactly why the fires would not contribute to the collapse of each tower.
Never said they could not, I said they could not after only one hour
as an engineer have you seen the blueprints to the towers?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(notice who posted it)
can you explain how a UNIFORM collapse happened? you said yourself that the crash DIDN'T cause uniform damage, Can you tell me at what temperature plastic and carpet burns? I didn't think it was in the 1000's F range so please enlighten me. If it burns at less they how can it cause steel to get soft in less then one hour let alone 2 or three.
[edit on 31-3-2007 by thedigirati]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams.
Since when is Popular Mechanics a certified investigating agency? What certifications and qualifications do they to do anything dealing with 911 ? Their would be more things wrong with thier investgation then the official story.
Originally posted by esdad71
God forbid anyone makes money, it must be illegal. Are you guys jealous?
Originally posted by RedDragon
You're right. Rosie O'Donnel is a certified investigation agency. Well, at least she eats the amount of food that an entire agency would eat.
Originally posted by billybob
but, i am familiar with the oxygen bottle theory. usually, it is used to explain the molten metal pouring from the side of the building.
i'm not sure, but if you are saying that one or a few oxygen bottles on the plane were responsible for the collapse, then the holy, vaunted NIST skipped another beat.