9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
OK show me evidence that my hypothesis is wrong. You won't be able to show any evidence either

See how this works?

But i did not ask for a hypothesis, i asked for evidence. SEE HOW THIS WORKS.

Nope. You said you would answer legit questions and you're not. You did not put restrictions on your statement so I'm holding you to it unless of course you are a lier. You're not a lier, are you??? See how this works??

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Was that running material sampled and analysed?

I will have to see what i can find.

We know that NIST failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing, but we do have the FEMA and other reports on steel recoverd, but i will have to double check about molten samples.



[edit on 25-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What puzzles me is the insistence on a conspiracy associated with post-collapse fires. IE what purpose did they serve?

What conspiracy, since when is wanting to find the truth a conspiracy?

Lets look at some factors.

1. The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel.

Correct. Steel did not need to melt.

2. The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse.

Provide evidence for your claim. Photos show that fires were raging unfought up until the collapses of each tower.

So what other heat source could have casued that much molten metal and steel to melt and stay molten ?

Provide physical evidence of "molten metal" and the source of the fires.

Originally posted by jthomas


2. The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse.

Provide evidence for your claim. Photos show that fires were raging unfought up until the collapses of each tower.
Could you do me a favor and post those photos just to cut out the middle man and give ultima one more excuse not to respond or post??? Thanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
When we come to evidence there is NO evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks and if you're intent on conspiratorial post-collapse fires, what's the point of them?.

Well yes there is photo and video evidence of hot, molten steel in the debis pile for up to 6 weeks.

Video of molten steel weeks later:
www.metacafe.com...

There is no evidence of molten metal in that video. Please provide physical evidence to support your claim of "molten metal."

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
When we come to evidence there is NO evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks and if you're intent on conspiratorial post-collapse fires, what's the point of them?.

Well yes there is photo and video evidence of hot, molten steel in the debis pile for up to 6 weeks.

Video of molten steel weeks later:
www.metacafe.com...

There is no evidence of molten metal in that video. Please provide physical evidence to support your claim of "molten metal."

Here are a few thoughts.
1. How do we know the supposed molten metal was steel?
2. The video mentioned that they found molten "steel" 3,4 and 5 weeks later and not the 6 weeks that Ultima has previously claimed.

Originally posted by jthomas
Provide evidence for your claim. Photos show that fires were raging unfought up until the collapses of each tower.

Well i have reports, several photos and video of the fires buring out before the collapse.

1. Report of fire buring out before collaspe.
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

2. Photos of no visiable flames (only black smoke) showing outside the building before collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

3. Video showing some thermite reaction at corner of building BUT NO LARGE FLAMES SHOWING OUTSIDE THE BUIDLING, ONLY BLACK SMOKE (MEANING OXYGEN STARVED FIRE)

www.youtube.com...

Provide physical evidence of "molten metal"

1. Photos of molten metals and steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

2. Photos of water being sprayed on equipment and debris pile due to fires burning under debris. Also showing the smoke coming form the fires.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

ONLY BLACK SMOKE (MEANING OXYGEN STARVED FIRE)

Now haven't we demolished this one (in regards to 9/11) enough on here, Ultima? Petroleum products will produce black smoke....and that is not just jet fuel, that is all the plastic office furniture, plastic floor mats, certain floor tiling and a few dozen other things...ALL would produce black smoke.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Provide physical evidence of "molten metal"

1. Photos of molten metals and steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

How do we know that the molten metal material is actually steel and not some other metal???

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

ONLY BLACK SMOKE (MEANING OXYGEN STARVED FIRE)

Now haven't we demolished this one (in regards to 9/11) enough on here, Ultima? Petroleum products will produce black smoke....and that is not just jet fuel, that is all the plastic office furniture, plastic floor mats, certain floor tiling and a few dozen other things...ALL would produce black smoke.

Lets not forget that some pockets of fire may have been oxygen starved but other parts may have not.

As example:
Pile a few tires up and poor a little gas on them and light it.
Build a huge wood bonfire and poor a little gas on it and light it.

You have 2 different materials burning next to each other. One is producing black smoke as it burns at a possibly lower temperature and another material burning much hotter. So just because we see black smoke doesn't mean all of the fires in the building were oxygen starved.

Here's a photo example:

At the fire's height, flames jumped from balcony to balcony and windows exploded from the intense heat. Fire and emergency crews struggled to gain control as flames leaped more than 20 metres into the air. A plume of smoke could be seen from several kilometres away.

www.cbc.ca...

Wow look at all that black smoke yet there was "intense heat" and fire and emergency crews "struggled" to gain control of the fire. Doesn't seem all that oxygen starved to me ????

Here's another "oxygen starved" fire
i225.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

ONLY BLACK SMOKE (MEANING OXYGEN STARVED FIRE)

Now haven't we demolished this one (in regards to 9/11) enough on here, Ultima? Petroleum products will produce black smoke....

Damned straight they will. Especially 'petroleum products' such as these -- a common military smoke cartridge. They also come in 55 gallon drum form, in case really big smoke clouds are needed.


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Photos of molten metals and steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

2. Photos of water being sprayed on equipment and debris pile due to fires burning under debris. Also showing the smoke coming form the fires.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Please provide sources for your photos. I would like to see the name(s) of the photographer(s) and when and where the photos were taken.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Now haven't we demolished this one (in regards to 9/11) enough on here, Ultima?

Sorry but i have to go with what the majority of reports state about oxygen starved fires.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sorry but i have to go with what the majority of reports state about oxygen starved fires.

Citations please.

Also a source for your photos.

Originally posted by _Del_
Please provide sources for your photos. I would like to see the name(s) of the photographer(s) and when and where the photos were taken.

If you look at the photos of the towers you will see a time stamp.

I will post more infomratoin on these photos when i get the information i have been asking for from others on thier photos.

Its the fair and adult thing to do.

Originally posted by _Del_
Citations please.

These are very easy to find, but i will post them all later since i have to go to work.

I wil post sources of photos when others post the infomration for the photos they poste, its the fair and adult thing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Please provide sources for your photos. I would like to see the name(s) of the photographer(s) and when and where the photos were taken.

If you look at the photos of the towers you will see a time stamp.

A time stamp does not show where the picture was taken nor does it show who took it.
Do you have this information?

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you have this information?

Yes, will post it when others post the information for the photos they posted.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA....you are playing a game. you will post when others post....Waaaa! Waaaaa!

Be adult, and post!!!!

Please do not post photos until you can provide it. Someone I know said something like that in this thread.

Originally posted by Ultima


Also photos ... are unsourced so therfore cannot be used as real evindence.

But the photos of the wreckage ... are unsourced, so they are not verifiable evidence.

What was the Photograhers name, where and when were the photos taken ?

So again what was the photographers name, where and when were the photos taken, or admit the photos are unsourced?

When you admit that you cannot post a source of the photos. I have asked several times and you and others have failed to post a source of any of the photos taken. So just admit you have no source of the photos.

So how can you still believe in somthing that you cannot provide proof of?

What is the phtos sourec, Photogrpher, date and time time taken?

If you have no sources the photo is not evidnece.

Becasue i am not the one who claimed to have photos, you are.

So if you cannot support your photos with proper sources that they are not evidecne, simple as that.

Please show me the proper source for the photos you posted.

I have asked this several times, so do you have the proper sources for the photos, YES or NO?

No, you failed to show the time, date and location of the photos as i asked.

Do you have the dates, times and locations the photos were taken, YES or NO?

If your next post does not answer the question then we will all know you do not have the sources and you are jsut making statments and opinions.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by _Del_]