Proof we are all lying to ourselves

Originally posted by six
The 78th floor was a mechanical floor. The was not any thing there to burn. Try looking at the floors up above were the majority of the impact occured.

Hmm...mechanical equipment with hoses, fuel lines, hydraulics etc. isn't going to burn? I'd like to see your sources for this. Thanks.

Originally posted by six
I have asked this of him several times and have yet to see a answer yet, other than the fires burned out.

I understand what he's saying. Why is it so hard for you guys? He's saying that the 78th floor had isolated pockets of fire. The fuel was suppossedly dripping (flowing) down to other floors. Then why would the 78th floor (which would be the lowest floor hit almost) not have these fuel fires going on? If I am incorrect, Ultima1, please correct me.

With the fire load in that building, 43,000 + sqaure feet, there is NO way those fires burned out in under a hour. Way too many combutibles.

And yet we are told that the fires mostly started at the same time, which would lead someone to deduce that the fires were running out of combustibles as time went on. With no more combustibles, how does the fire spread? Why do firefighters set controllable fires in front of an uncontrollable fire again? So that the uncontrollable fire has nothing left to burn. Which, IMO, would be the same at the WTC.

Originally posted by six
Again with the 78th floor ehh???? Again..for lets see...the 4th or 5th time...I have lost count.. The 78th floor was a mechanical floor. The was not any thing there to burn. Try looking at the floors up above were the majority of the impact occured.

But where is the large amout of burning fuel everyone keeps talking about ?

If there was no burning jet fuel on the floors directly below the impact area kind of shows that was no large amount of jet fuel.

Originally posted by six
I have asked this of him several times and have yet to see a answer yet, other than the fires burned out. With the fire load in that building, 43,000 + sqaure feet, there is NO way those fires burned out in under a hour. Way too many combutibles.

I have shown photos of the fires burning out well before the towers collapsed. I am sure i can also find a video or 2 that shows the fires were burning out before the towers collapsed.

Where are the videos and photos showing flames comming out of the floors up untill the time it collasped?




[edit on 6-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have shown photos of the fires burning out well before the towers collapsed. I am sure i can also find a video or 2 that shows the fires were burning out before the towers collapsed.

Where are the videos and photos showing flames comming out of the floors up untill the time it collasped?

[edit on 6-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'll show you where. If you did ANY research at all, you would find your answer in the NIST report!

here: wtc.nist.gov...

Page 72. There is a photo taken from a NYPD police helicopter, taken at 10:22:59am...only a few minutes from collapse of WTC1. It shows an inferno burning.

For those that dont want to download the 109mg report, the photo looks very close to this one: www.oilempire.us...


Let me guess....a normal office fire?

Let me preface my post by saying I was getting disgusted at some of the idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was hearing that the planes shown in the videos were "drawings". There were nonsense contradictions like the govt planned the attacks but then they shot down one of the planes which seems pretty self-defeating. Heard that a missile hit the pentagon by the same people who also said a C-130 remotely controlled the plane that hit the pentagon. Huh? Which was it? I could go on and on.

But then I watched the "9/11 Coincidences" 18 part series and learned a hell of a lot I'd never heard before. Even if only 10% of it was accurate, then either the govt was behind it, or the very least, they knew it was coming and intentionally didn't stop it. It's ridiculous for people to argue over this until they've watched the above series in addition to "9/11 Mysteries" and maybe the "Loose Change" videos on Youtube. Likewise the conspiracy people should watch the series called something like "Debunking 9/11 Myths One at a Time" and the BBC "9/11 Conspiracies" and other related stuff. I see two sides which don't seem to want to put in the time learning the strengths and weaknesses of their own arguments and of their opponents. That just leads to a hell of a lot of typing on this forum just restating stuff. You need to learn what facts still stand after watching all the videos and then just those things that can't be explained away can be debated.

And yes, there were lots of other explosions going off with plenty of witnesses stating that and on some videos you can hear some. Some people were warned not to fly on 9/11 which means forehand knowledge of the event. The 6 fold increase in people purchasing put options right before 9/11 also says something. Blacking out parts of the WTC's and keeping people out of certain sections days before the attack doesn't look good. Witnesses claiming the planes that hit the WTC's didn't look like commercial airlines but maybe cargo planes. The bottom of the WTC was blown out and people said it looked like a plane crashed down in the lobby, which was probably from the bomb in the basement some experienced. And the list of things like these goes on and on.

i agree with the guy who made this thread, there is nothing you can do or will ever be able to do, except sit on the sidelines and watch, the reason most people are here (i believe) is because they dont want to be as ignorant as those "normal people" who only care about styles and make up and what others tell them to do.

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'll show you where. If you did ANY research at all, you would find your answer in the NIST report!

Let me guess....a normal office fire?

Oh wow, that is such a big inferno. Its just a closeup of some small flames. Looks just like an office fire to me.

Here are some photos of what an inferno looks like. Please try to do a little more research.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Also if there was such a big inferno hiw was thins woman standing in the hole made by the plane. Where is all the burning jet fuel?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...





[edit on 6-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Oh wow, that is such a big inferno. Its just a closeup of some small flames. Looks just like an office fire to me.

You obviously have no concept of size. I'm sure others see it for what it is.

Also if there was such a big inferno hiw was thins woman standing in the hole made by the plane. Where is all the burning jet fuel?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
[edit on 6-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Again, your lack of research knowledge is amazing. Lets go back to the NIST for your answer:

wtc.nist.gov...

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Again, your lack of research knowledge is amazing. Lets go back to the NIST for your answer:

No, you answer the question. Where is all that burning jet fuel and big inferno you kept bringing up. Were you wrong about the jet fuel and the infrno ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Again, your lack of research knowledge is amazing. Lets go back to the NIST for your answer:

No, you answer the question. Where is all that burning jet fuel and big inferno you kept bringing up. Were you wrong about the jet fuel and the infrno ?

ULTIMA1,

If you would bother to look at the NIST and FEMA reports, you will find the information you are looking for. Every question you have asked has been answered in those reports.

Why is it you are asking questions that are easily found in each of those reports? Please, PLEASE learn to do research before asking your questions.

There is no sense in debating you if you dont even do simple research. Are you saying NSA analyst doesnt know where to find that information?

Originally posted by Disclosed
If you would bother to look at the NIST and FEMA reports, you will find the information you are looking for. Every question you have asked has been answered in those reports.

I have done lots of research. Even to the point of NIST contridicting itself. Also the NIST reports are not peer reviewed.

So do you have any other evidence of the amount of jet fuel that was burning and if the inferno was big enough and lasted long enough to cause the steel to weaken.

Here is evidence from NIST about their not being that much heat in the building.

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have done lots of research. Even to the point of NIST contridicting itself. Also the NIST reports are not peer reviewed.

So do you have any other evidence of the amount of jet fuel that was burning and if the inferno was big enough and lasted long enough to cause the steel to weaken.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Once again, your lack of research skills is unbelievable.

It's obvious you are not serious about debating. When you actually do some research, people will take your debating serious. Until then, I'm not wasting my time....

Originally posted by Disclosed
The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Once again, your lack of research skills is unbelievable.

So you can not do any research? All you have is a couple NIST reports.

Your the one who cannot debate evidnece that i post, i can even use NIST reports to contridict you.



[edit on 6-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you can not do any research? All you have is a couple NIST reports.

Your the one who cannot debate evidnece that i post, i can even use NIST reports to contridict you.

I've shown multiple times where you lie about the NIST and FEMA reports saying one thing, and I provide a link to the actual report showing the truth.

example 1: You stated the FEMA and NIST reports said a majority of the jet fuel was burned up OUTSIDE the building. When in fact, both reports state approximately 30% was burned up in the fireball.

example 2: You stated the fireman saw no jet fuel fires below the 78th floor. When in fact, the NIST report shows there WAS a jet fuel fire on the 51st floor, as well as the concourse level.

example 3: You stated the fires were burning out well before the collapse. When in fact, the NIST has a NYPD photo timestamped appx 5 minutes before the collapse....showing a raging fire on WTC.


You state things as fact, when they are definately not....and can be proven. How can anyone debate you if you continue to lie about your data?

Posting real information is one thing....and is welcome! Just post your facts.....thats all we ask!

It was all going good until the eight "I hate Bush " questions. Why not just run those eight since that is what the OP post was all about. I will be one glad person when Bush leaves office for then we just might see new material on ATS and not a rerun of the same old dry Bush haters of America crap.


[edit on 6-11-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Disclosed
example 2: You stated the fireman saw no jet fuel fires below the 78th floor. When in fact, the NIST report shows there WAS a jet fuel fire on the 51st floor, as well as the concourse level.

example 3: You stated the fires were burning out well before the collapse. When in fact, the NIST has a NYPD photo timestamped appx 5 minutes before the collapse....showing a raging fire on WTC.

Do you have any reports from the firemen that were there that their was a jet fuel fire on the 51st floor and concourse level ?

I have shown several photos with time stamps showing the fires going out before the towers collapsed. You showed 1 photo of a closeup of some flames.

I have also showed many other steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage that did not collapse.

This is an endless loop. Maybe I should just cut/paste it in my sig.

ULTIMA1...just do some simple research, and follow the links I provided. They will answer your questions.

At least admit you lied about your NIST/FEMA statement about the majority of jet fuel burning up outside the building.

If you cannot admit that, there is no sense in debating you.

You should learn to debate like John Lear. His posts are so informative and interesting. They really get you to thinking....and I totally respect the work he does. I may disagree on some things, but his posts are informative, and filled with everything to support his ideas. Always a great read.


[edit on 6-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
At least admit you lied about your NIST/FEMA statement about the majority of jet fuel burning up outside the building.

When you admit you are just spreading media lies and not doing any real research into what really happened that day.

I did not lie. You just need to do some real research for once in your life. Please do some research on the jet fuel and how fast it burned up upon intial explosion and how fast it burned up in the building.

911review.org...

Once most of the the fuel was burnt off in the initial impact and rupture of fuel tanks, the rest would have complied with the laws of gravity leaving paper, carpet, desks, etc... to burn. Not hot enough to melt steel sorry.....

911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.

Please also check out 2.2.1.2 Fire Development in the FEMA report.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
He was merely echoing everyone else's first impression of the first plane's impact. Did that pilot fall asleep? Did he have a heart attack? Was he simply incompetent? We didn't know at that time, and neither did he.

I find those reasons highly unlikely and a little naieve.

It is almost impossible in this day and age, with a modern flight crew aboard a jet airliner, with all of the radar guidance it has, to possibly smash in to a building the size of the Twin Towers due to some type of accident.

'Bad Pilot' = Bad joke to me.

My first thoughts would be that it was a planned attack, nothing less.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
When you admit you are just spreading media lies and not doing any real research into what really happened that day.

I did not lie. You just need to do some real research for once in your life. Please do some research on the jet fuel and how fast it burned up upon intial explosion and how fast it burned up in the building.

But you Did lie. This is your post:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But the point is the majority of the fuel was burned up OUTSIDE the building. What was left burned up quickly. Please check out the NIST and FEMA reports on this issue.

The NIST and FEMA reports did NOT state a majority of the fuel was burned up OUTSIDE the building. They state around 30%. That is a significant amount, but by no means the majority.

Why did you feel you had to lie about that statement?