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.

 

WTC designed to survive impact of 707

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 01:42 AM
link   
It's nice people try to argue whether WTC was rigged or not...but face it, they weren't.

As many others probably mentioned before, the WTC could survive most impacts from most things, problem was ONLY the fact that the WTCs were not built to survive such prolonged exposure to extreme heat, which warped the metel, causing the eventual buckling you all saw as the towers fell.

Really now, I must liken the attempts here, at attempting to prove there is a conspiracy, because the planes were not the "direct culprit" of the collapse....just as the Ice Berg was not the direct culprit of the Titanic.

For all those who don't know, the ice berg just popped a crap load of rivets. The actual cause of the sinking was 2 things....they didn't seal the roofs (much like not protecting the upper towers from extreme heat), and they turned rather than hit the ice berg head on, which people have concluded, would have just resulted in flooding the forward compartments, but not resulted further, since the damage would have been extremly less sever.

So you all see the point right? Titanic = WTC, stupid attack, one by nature another by nut bags...and horrible disaster thanks to lack of extreme foresite.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Ugh...Peace, what is with that statement, Steel could not melt in those flames? No, but they could turn to puddy...haven't you watched a black smith fold steel?

Well the black smith is hitting his steel with what...a hundred pounds of force?

An I-bar may be a LOT tougher, but not when the hammer is 100,000 tons.

Too many of you just want to find something, that you fail to use commonsense.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Damn wish I still had that edit


I thought you Peace, were claiming the steel didn't soften, of course it did, but the article is merely saying that that wasn't the only factor, of course it wasn't.

You are venerated, I am shamed for my quick outburst
lol



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
So what? A new car is made to take an impact of a side swipe, doesn't mean they will.

Something can be designed to do something, but won't mean it will. How do you test it? Do you build an exact duplicate then crash a plane into it to see if it survives?

Second, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but if a airplane hits a building, it will be no more building.

Third, fire/explosions. Those kinda probably weren't factored into the equation. I doubt they expected a plane with almost full tanks hitting them.

Fourth, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!!!


Fifth, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sixth..... you get my point.

There have been airplanes that have crashed into buildings. These buildings haven't come tumbling down.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Katie, although Metatus is not open, hicow.com... is open. Article 23 is postponed in Hong Kong, so we can post seditious stuff there (the reason all three sites were shut down). Look for Metatus to open in a week or so. I will send a mass e-mail.



posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 05:28 PM
link   
i think that there was a type of explosion in the building aswell, when i watched the video of the firefighters going in, it was on abc i think, the windows were blown out from the fire that had went down the elevator shafts, and then not 5 minutes later the elevator opens up undamaged with ppl in it, wouldn't an explosion big enough to run all the way down the building and blow out the windows kinda damage the elevator? thats my thought



posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   
What are you talking about banjoe, the eleveators are no where near the windows, in fact they are as far away from them as possible.

The windows were blown out from the swelling heat in the areas, but not all windows were blown out.

As for other planes hitting buildings, the only other such disaster as this, was when a B-29 flew into the Empire state building.

It blew out the whole 43 floor if I remember right.

It opperating on a deisel base fuel was no where near the fire hazard as today's modern jets are.

Nor explosive hazard.



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 12:00 PM
link   
FM, don't forget, that plane was going slower to. And probably alot smaller compared to the 747 and didn't carry a full tank of fuel.

PEOPLE
A airplane hit it, a 747 Jumbo Jet hit it. Not a tiny cessna, or a slow somewhat bigger than cessna plan with diesel fuel, but a 747 Passenger Jumbo Jet!!!
!!!

Sorry, it like well, I built that house of cards to take a hammer that is on fire, but doesn't mean it will. I can design anything to do anything, doesn't mean it will.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join