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.

 

Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

page: 7
202
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Actually, John Skilling who was the lead structural engineer for the WTC said the following:

In 1993 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, John Skilling said in an interview to the Seattle Times that according to their studies the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The only thing they were worried about was, in case of an airplane crash, the dumping of all airfuel into the building which would cause a horrendous fire. The building structure would still be there.


The problem with that is was not hit by a 707 traveling at low speed, it was hit by 767's with a empty weight of 60-70 thousand pounds more, they were also heavily loaded with fuel travelling at much higher speed.
www.911myths.com...


Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be. Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires. www.nae.edu... And even the later documents reported by NIST apparently left the issue open to question. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase. "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said www.nytimes.com...


If we're talking cancelling out each others points then I raise you as I've got a problem accepting the speeds the airliners were supposed to be flying at (I'm not the only one):



06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.


911blogger.com...

Btw, is that 9/11truther website you keep throwing at me your bible or something? All I'm getting from it is a bunch of hollow claims with no substance.

I've linked various sources to you now and still you're throwing the same link. Go figure

edit on -180002014-09-11T06:45:35-05:00u3530201435092014Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:45:35 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

please explain to the average truther the wtc7 fall being reported on tv before it actually happened.
time travel #e, mate. government stuff.

your blabling = nonsense.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Can someone not just rebuild the WTC as it was originally designed in the desert then fly a plane into it and see what happens , its the only way to know for sure !
Who has got a spare billion pounds to do this >



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: hellobruce

Can someone not just rebuild the WTC as it was originally designed in the desert then fly a plane into it and see what happens , its the only way to know for sure !
Who has got a spare billion pounds to do this >



May I suggest Larry Silverstein, he made a few billion dollars through his Trade Center investments already



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Thank You!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Here, Let me explain through these video's;



edit on 11-9-2014 by SyxPak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I fear what would happen if it did come out that 9/11 was an inside job. People are not currently pleased with how things are being run by the gov' already. If evidence came out that proved to a degree that no one could question it and still be counted as sane. The ripple effect from it, I just can't imagine what would all happen. But in the short term of it it wouldn't be good for many people.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

can you please explain to me how this got hot enough to melt steel and concrete together..?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum



May I suggest Larry Silverstein, he made a few billion dollars through his Trade Center investments already

Another myth.
The insurance didn't even cover his losses.
Plus he doesn't even own the new WTC.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

May I interject here?;
So Silverstein made about 7 billion dollars from insurance claims, from about a 500 million dollar initial investment, and he didn't make enough to cover his losses? Wow......
edit on 11-9-2014 by SyxPak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



can you please explain to me how this got hot enough to melt steel and concrete together..?

Can you show where one expert involved in the investigation said the fire melted steel?

What they said was the fire weakened the steel.

If you have torch with mapp gas you can heat and bend an old screwdriver in no time.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Zcustosmorum



May I suggest Larry Silverstein, he made a few billion dollars through his Trade Center investments already

Another myth.
The insurance didn't even cover his losses.
Plus he doesn't even own the new WTC.



Link? Or is the same one that's already been chucked my way numerous times now




In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[




All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, 2001. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007




The insurance policies for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies




The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[26] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[27] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



can you please explain to me how this got hot enough to melt steel and concrete together..?

Can you show where one expert involved in the investigation said the fire melted steel?

What they said was the fire weakened the steel.

If you have torch with mapp gas you can heat and bend an old screwdriver in no time.






some of these beams are 8 tonnes,6 inches thick....that is pretty damn big screw driver.....try again



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
As per government agenda, Terrorism is well and alive," ISIS the new al-Qaida "after the Obama administration killed Osama, the sheeple needs to be reminded that they need to watch over their shoulders because danger is all over

Let the pony show start and give the sheeple a yearly infusion of 9/11 repeat and consequences.
edit on 11-9-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak

Thanks for adding the FOXNY video. That one doesn't get shown as often as the BBC one, and I think it's a lot more interesting. The lack of surprise from both anchors when it actually does fall ("There it goes") is really odd. Like a 47-story building suddenly dropping straight down is a totally normal thing.

To be clear, I'm not making any claim that they had foreknowledge. I'm simply saying it's weird, and warrants further thought.

edit on 09am7202014-09-11T07:20:59-05:00Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:20:59 -0500am30 by magicrat because: ocd



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak



So Silverstein made about 7 billion dollars from insurance claims, from about a 500 million dollar initial investment, and he didn't make enough to cover his losses? Wow......

He paid $3.2B
Insurance paid $4.577B
He has not received any rent since 911 but he is stil paying the port authority on the lease.

So you tell me how he came out on top that day.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Just star it and ignore the comments in which there is no proof, no proper arguments and only ad hominem attacks.

The case is pretty obvious. We don't know what exactly happened (with 100% certainty), but the official explanation is physically impossible.

It is possible to deny opinions, but it is impossible to deny the laws of physics (at least so far, until proven otherwise) :-)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



some of these beams are 8 tonnes,6 inches thick....that is pretty damn big screw driver.....try again

It all came down to the floor trusses not the core beams or the exterior steel.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Ok so I should not have said what I did.
If those figures are correct.
I can admit when I am wrong.

Guess I am just getting tired of all the ignorant people arguing for the sake of just arguing.
Evidence stares them in the face, and they just don't see it.
Whether they are paid to ignore it, or just plain, too,
well, not smart enough to see it, is the question I suppose......



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Pathaka

Great response to all this B.S.!!!

This sums it up, in a nut shell!! Whether it is about the planes hitting the WTC's resulting in a fire hot enough to drop those buildings or not, Whether one hit the pentagon or not, whether one WENT INTO THE GROUND COMPLETELY, or not......

" The case is pretty obvious. We don't know what exactly happened (with 100% certainty),
but the official explanation is physically impossible. "

edit on 11-9-2014 by SyxPak because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
202
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join