Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by motionknight


I have serious doubts how objective these investigations and reports are.



Given that the reports will be pored over by thousands of engineers and scientists responsible for designing new and safer buildings, how do you suppose that any non-objectivity would not be noticed and commented on?



Well all the evidence of the buildings are either destroyed or kept behind, they can say anything that rings plausible in the ears of scientists and engineers arround the globe (although there are alot that have said its impossible for those buildings to fall down as they did!!.)

Objectivity in the US can easily be bought, its naive to think otherwise
Many things dont add up




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
How exactly did they come to these conclusions when all the evidence was removed and shipped for recycling to Asia and the Middle East, while engineers were suing to get access to the evidence for observation and study?


here is some info on the metal samples collected.

www.metallurgy.nist.gov...



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Here's an enclosed fire for ya: A Webber Grill. Put the top on, heat stays in.
Funny how they don't melt, huh?

Wood, paper, plastic, do not burn hot enough to melt steel. Kerosine (jet fuel) does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel does not even burn hot enough to run a jet's turbine engine. That's why there's a comprssor. Steel has to be melted in a blast furnace. It not only needs alot of O2, it needs pressurized O2.

Now I personally am a scientist, I understand these concepts. I am surprised that the majority of people don't: aren't children still required to take rudimentary physics in high school?

I bring up the above points again, because they are glaring proof as to why all the evidence was destroyed: The government knows some people have half a brain, they don't want people poking around. And the technical arguments they have come up with thus far are absolutely ridiculous. Plus they keep changing their story as well as 'adding angles' to bolster their arguments. In scientific circles, this usually means a theory is false.

I watched that show last night; What would be interesting to research is the background of some of these so-called 'experts': My guess is that a good majority of them are in the pay of the government. Another point: Whenever a company 'commissions' a study, the study usually 'turns out' the way the company wants it too. Look at this biz about eating 3 servings of dairy per day to loose weight. Know who paid for that? The Dairy Council.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Niki
Here's an enclosed fire for ya: A Webber Grill. Put the top on, heat stays in.
Funny how they don't melt, huh?


not really, The heat doesn't really stay in, can you put your hand on the top? No? then I guess the heat isn't staying in, then is it. Try lining you weber with refractory cement.

In addition, no one has yet provided conclusive proof that there were "pools of molten steel" in the basement of the building. The only evidence to this is one (1) person's testimony.

What I do believe is that what was in the basement was pools of molten aluminum from the airplane and the building facade.


BTW, here is a guy with a home made furnace in his back yard that gets hot enough to melt metals.

another one that runs on propane.

Given the HUGE amount of fuel present, and the fact that the debris pile was an excellent insulation blanket, I have no doubt that the fires under that pile got upwards of 2000 C.

BTW, this is a really good article on how a conventional fire effects metals and glass.



Oh, and one more thing, Maybe there was pressurized O2 in the building. It is entirely possible that there was some welding equipment in the basement engineer's shops. You certainly can not discount it.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
How do YOU know that there was pressurized O2 in the building?

Again, I stay away from the scientific explanations (even though I'm a science person
) because you can't prove it one way or the other. BUT, the other aspects are damning to the official story.

Hey, believe it if you want to, that's fine. One thing that CAN'T be denied is that the steel was sold as scrap. Again, why SELL the evidence of a crime scene? Maybe cops should start doing this to make a fast buck...



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
How do YOU know that there was pressurized O2 in the building?


I didn't say there was, I just said it was possible. Welding/ torch rigs are common in many buildings.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I just found this

The EPA recovered 1852 pressurized gas cylinders (of various types) from Ground Zero. Some of them were empty.

edit: damn dyslectic keyboard


[edit on 9-4-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Ah, the old "recycling of the steel" argument again. A couple of points worth mentioning, maybe.

#1, the usual story you read says that all the steel was speedily removed before it could be investigated. Sounds suspect, doesn't it? Until you check the facts and find steel was being cut down from ground zero until May 29th of the following year (www.wndu.com...), so perhaps they weren't quite in such a hurry after all.

And #2, for some reason no-one ever bothers quoting what Gene Corley said in testimony about this (he lead the investigating team). He has complaints to make, for example about speed of access to Ground Zero, and not getting the WTC engineering plans until January 2002, but says this about the steel:



"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures"

www.house.gov...



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Oh, and maybe there was no need for the WTC temperatures to get that high, either. This guy thinks 500 degrees C would be enough.

"Dr Usmani has concluded that the interconnecting beams could have expanded by around 9cm at 500 degrees centigrade, causing the floors above to buckle.

And he says a fire far smaller than the one on September 11 could have caused the building to collapse.

He said: “These are tentative conclusions but the indication is that the building could have collapsed without any damage from the planes if there had been a fire which had engulfed 2 or 3 floors.”
news.scotsman.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Legalizer
How exactly did they come to these conclusions when all the evidence was removed and shipped for recycling to Asia and the Middle East, while engineers were suing to get access to the evidence for observation and study?


Exactly, Legalizer. Any examination of the steel wreckage would have put to rest all arguments concerning whether it melted or didn't. Then again, the same thing would have happened with the Pentagon had the Feds not confiscated the tapes from surrounding gas stations and such...


I thought that you leave all evidence just as it is as much as possible when examining a crime scene. Imagine if the po po started extracting bullets and taking knives/guns/bats/crowbars from crime scenes. It would be REALLY hard to solve the crime, wouldn't it?? "Um, this guy was clearly shot by a Blood from Texas, even though we have no murder weapon or bullets..."


Will someone PLEASE tell me why this was the FIRST time in history that a steel building collapsed from fire???
I'd be willing to bet that you can't without refuting the "official" story.



well, first and foremost this isnt the first time a steel building has collapsed as a result of fire. i can tell you that with 100% assurity. hell, lets Google It. strange, i see 6 structural steel construction buildings have been recorded collapsed due to fire, between 1970 and 2002. takes all the proverbial 'steam' from your argument, no?

my second irrefutable point is: even IF you were correct in your assumption the WTC collapse was the first fire-collapse of a steel-frame building, this is also the first time said fire was caused by thousands of gallons of jet fuel . truthfully, with such obviously knowledgeable research done by people like howard, these threads are beginning to turn into the kind of ignorance festering garbage piles that are the "OMG WE NEVER MAKE IT TO MOON!!@#! hax!@!@!" threads.

listen to the evidence. which is strangely the one thing you are lacking. and thats the 'official' story.




edits: for spelling and effect

[edit on 4-10-2005 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niki
Here's an enclosed fire for ya: A Webber Grill. Put the top on, heat stays in.
Funny how they don't melt, huh?

Wood, paper, plastic, do not burn hot enough to melt steel. Kerosine (jet fuel) does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel does not even burn hot enough to run a jet's turbine engine. That's why there's a comprssor. Steel has to be melted in a blast furnace. It not only needs alot of O2, it needs pressurized O2.

Now I personally am a scientist, I understand these concepts. I am surprised that the majority of people don't: aren't children still required to take rudimentary physics in high school?

I bring up the above points again, because they are glaring proof as to why all the evidence was destroyed: The government knows some people have half a brain, they don't want people poking around. And the technical arguments they have come up with thus far are absolutely ridiculous. Plus they keep changing their story as well as 'adding angles' to bolster their arguments. In scientific circles, this usually means a theory is false.

I watched that show last night; What would be interesting to research is the background of some of these so-called 'experts': My guess is that a good majority of them are in the pay of the government. Another point: Whenever a company 'commissions' a study, the study usually 'turns out' the way the company wants it too. Look at this biz about eating 3 servings of dairy per day to loose weight. Know who paid for that? The Dairy Council.



im guessing youve never soldered a pipe in your life, nor ever played with fire when you were young(er). steel doesnt need to get -remotely- near its melting point to buckle under stress. im positive blacksmiths of yester-year did NOT have their furnaces churning out a hellish 2000+ degrees just to beat metal into shape. beyond that, each floor supports a fraction of the remaining dead weight above it. common sense when the frame is mainly on the outside of the building and again half of that frame was blown away in the initial 300+mph impact. so, when metal is heated enough to deform, but not melt. when said metal has to support completely unforseen stresses, what is going to happen? is it going to happily stand, and throw the laws of physics to the winds? just for sh1ts'n'giggles, right?

[edit on 4-10-2005 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ineffective fireproofing and a shortage of staircases are highlighted in a preliminary federal safety report into the attacks on the World Trade Center, issued by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on Tuesday. The study is likely to have a significant effect on the future design of skyscrapers and on building regulations in the US.

The NIST report concludes that a combination of factors caused both buildings to collapse shortly after terrorists flew hijacked commercial airliners into them on 11 September 2001. "

www.newscientist.com...

This article has some video of computer simulations. Looks pretty good. Always knew about the lack o fireproofing issue. There was none about the 64th floors due to the enviro-nuts back during construction. Anti-asbestos thingy.


1. The NIST is a goverment agency.

2. The Bush family was in charge of security for the Twin Towers.

3. The Bush family was in charge of security for the airport where the planes were "highjacked".

4. Steel needs to reach a temperature of 1,500 degrees before it starts to weaken. Steel needs to reach 2,500 degrees before it starts to melt. There were live, human, people, standing in the point of impact, after the planes hit. And not a single one of them were getting burned alive!

5. And... why did WTC 7 fall? Do you know about any 3rd plane that hit?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Legalizer
How exactly did they come to these conclusions when all the evidence was removed and shipped for recycling to Asia and the Middle East, while engineers were suing to get access to the evidence for observation and study?


Exactly, Legalizer. Any examination of the steel wreckage would have put to rest all arguments concerning whether it melted or didn't. Then again, the same thing would have happened with the Pentagon had the Feds not confiscated the tapes from surrounding gas stations and such...


I thought that you leave all evidence just as it is as much as possible when examining a crime scene. Imagine if the po po started extracting bullets and taking knives/guns/bats/crowbars from crime scenes. It would be REALLY hard to solve the crime, wouldn't it?? "Um, this guy was clearly shot by a Blood from Texas, even though we have no murder weapon or bullets..."


Will someone PLEASE tell me why this was the FIRST time in history that a steel building collapsed from fire???
I'd be willing to bet that you can't without refuting the "official" story.



well, first and foremost this isnt the first time a steel building has collapsed as a result of fire. i can tell you that with 100% assurity. hell, lets Google It. strange, i see 6 structural steel construction buildings have been recorded collapsed due to fire, between 1970 and 2002. takes all the proverbial 'steam' from your argument, no?


Ummm.... how about you read your own info that you link to? LOL! You'll find out it's 100% garbage!

1. 60% of the examples are for buildings 6-8 stories tall. Oh yeah, those are skyscrapers alright! LOL!

2. Of the remaining examples, half happened during construction and/or renovations. Some of the buildings weren't even finnished being built!!!

2b. 9 of the examples (almost half) were buildings made out of... WOOD!
And brick, none of them even made out of steel LOL!!!

3. Oh and the best part of all! Of the remaining half of the examples, they cite the WTC dissaster itself as an example!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!! What the freeek are these people smoking!
Oh I forgot to call attention to the fact that this example you point to was prepared for the NIST, which is... yeah... a goverment agency. LOL!



Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
my second irrefutable point is: even IF you were correct in your assumption the WTC collapse was the first fire-collapse of a steel-frame building, this is also the first time said fire was caused by thousands of gallons of jet fuel . truthfully, with such obviously knowledgeable research done by people like howard, these threads are beginning to turn into the kind of ignorance festering garbage piles that are the "OMG WE NEVER MAKE IT TO MOON!!@#! hax!@!@!" threads.

listen to the evidence. which is strangely the one thing you are lacking. and thats the 'official' story.




edits: for spelling and effect

[edit on 4-10-2005 by forsakenwayfarer]


Ready for the irrefutable point that crushes your irrefutable point? After the impact of the 2 planes, there were live people standing in, and around the point of impact. Kinda hard to do if it's 1,500 to 2,500 degrees!
99% of all the Jet fuel instantly burned and vaporized on impact. (*ahem* when the fuel pods attached to the planes were detonated heheh.)

And of course there's the people who were remote controlling both airplanes, who got caught by the police in New Jersey, after a looooooong police chase along the Hudson River. The NJ cops confiscated all their computer equipment and remote control devices. Oh you haven't heard about this?


Maybe it's cuz only 1 major American newspaper had the balls to cover it!
The Bergen Record, headquartered in Hackensack, NJ. You can even go there and look it up yourself on microfilm. Or go to their homesite, become a member, and read their archives.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
It would help the integrity of these millions of 9/11 threads if people would please stop assuming their personal theories to be fact.

Unless you have firsthand knowledge of the issue you are bringing to the table it is hardly fair for you to consider it fact simply because you read it somewhere.

There are two things that can be accomplished with threads like these. One is a discussion to allow people to vent. Two is to accomplish some real research and perhaps gain a better understanding of what actually happened. If you're out to do the second goal, like I wish for daily, then please do it the right way. If you have a theory on something, that's your theory, and you can't criticize others for not buying into it. You have yours, they have theirs.

Personally, I don't believe that someone with a R/C device was taking care of everything. I don't care if a single newspaper said it, because as an emergency responder who nearly lost his head on the scene I'm a lot more aware than most of you about the half a million things that were said that day in panic that weren't true. Example? We were initially told about 6 planes, suicide bombers, a dirty bomb, and a possible explosion at the White House. People were panicked in case you weren't aware.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Ha ha ha, that is EXACTLY why I stay away from the scientific explanations. It's really a shame, since I like science. The problem is, you can't prove it one way or the other. Each side can find experts that support their view. One side finds people at Ground Zero who say we didn't need to examine the steel, the other side finds people in NYC during the attack who heard explosions go off.

Now, what I go on is what is admitted and what I see with my own eyes. I have seen, with my own eyes, funny-looking charges that ran up the buildings as they were beginning to fall. Not sure what it was, but I never heard this addressed. Fine. I know that govt officials were warned not to go to NYC that day. I know there were war games going on DURING the attack, and to make things worse, one of these was a simulated PLANE HIJACKING!!! But we weren't able to stop it...


I know that they have been able to remote control planes for 20 years, yet this "conspiracy theory" wasn't attacked by the Pop Mech piece. Sounds as crazy as the pods, but oh, well, pick and choose. I know that the govt has nice things like Operation Northwoods and PNAC documents. I know that prior knowledge has been thrown in our faces BEFORE the attack, and I don't give a damn what you say, there is NO way that I'll believe the official story when this attack was being shown in the fake world of entertainment.

By the way, I reserve the right to believe there was a cover-up and govt involvement in 9/11. After all, this is a CONSPIRACY related website. Or maybe it isn't...



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
this will be my final post, considering once again people are refuting fact with lies, and violating the TOS with no effect. granted it is a grey area, but the scales can only tip so far before it becomes obvious. beyond that, truthseeka will soon insist that the families of these people were also bought out, or threatened, or maybe even the reptiles gave them an offer they "couldnt refuse".



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
this will be my final post, considering once again people are refuting fact with lies, and violating the TOS with no effect. granted it is a grey area, but the scales can only tip so far before it becomes obvious. beyond that, truthseeka will soon insist that the families of these people were also bought out, or threatened, or maybe even the reptiles gave them an offer they "couldnt refuse".


Whatever, just because I believe what I do doesn't mean I think reptilians are real. Thanks, though, you just showed me how weak your arguments are. All I said in my last post is documented, so oh well, don't believe it. Can you please point out the lies? Oh, you won't because you're not posting anymore. NOW whose refuting fact with lies? Pitiful.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
He did now, so go back to your cottage and eat your pottage!

The way our government handles information makes me think about the Twilight Zone with Billy Mummy playing the role of a child with awesome powers who wishes people into the corn field when they do not go along with his every whim.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Ya know, this thread rekindled a scorching grievance I, others (& definitely families of Cantor Fitzgerald, Windows on the World restaurant employees) have had since watching the heart-wrenching coverage on 9/11, NOT in hindsight. The reports & 'findings' from Port Authority (PANYNJ), FDNY, & NYPD I've read thus far excusing this unforgivable dereliction remains gravely lacking at best.

NYPD aviation bureau, with six helicopters, became the main air-sea rescue unit for the New York area in 1998, when the Coast Guard moved its nearest chopper base from Brooklyn to Atlantic City, N.J. On Sept. 11, a total of four police helicopters ultimately flew to the burning trade center, darting from one side of the buildings to the other, scanning for signs of anyone on the roof.

At 8:46 AM, AA Flight 11 crashes into the northeast face of the WTC north tower, creating an impact hole that extended from the 92nd to 98th floors

At 8:50, the Aviation Unit of the NYPD dispatched two helicopters to the WTC to report on conditions and assess the feasibility of a rooftop landing or of special rescue operations. En route, the two helicopters communicated with air traffic controllers at the area's three major airports and informed them of the commercial airplane crash at the World Trade Center. The air traffic controllers had been unaware of the incident. [page 291] link

At 8:56, an NYPD ESU team asked to be picked up at the Wall Street heliport to initiate rooftop rescues.

At 8:58, however, after assessing the North Tower roof, a helicopter pilot advised the ESU team that they could not land on the roof, because "it is too engulfed in flames and heavy smoke condition."

At 9:03 AM, UA Flight 175, crashes into the southwest face WTC south tower, creating an impact hole that extended from the 78th to 84th floors

Responding to 9/11, one Bell 412 chopper, piloted by Det. Pat Walsh, was so close to the towers that it was nearly hit by the second hijacked plane. Police estimate that the United jet came within 200 feet of the helicopter before slamming into the south tower.

At 9:06 AM, three minutes after the second tower was struck, the police Chief of Department gave an order "that no units were to land on the roof of either tower"


James Ciccone, Police Officer, NYPD Aviation Unit:
"On the morning of September 11th, as I arrived at World Trade Tower 1, I was accessing the damage on the north side of the building, and the rooftop area for the possibility of rooftop extraction from one of our heavier lift helicopter. And at that point, a few passes, and slow passes, we made a determination that we didn’t see anybody up on the roof, but more so we had problems with the heat and the smoke from the building. The heat actually made it difficult for us to hold the helicopters because it would interfere with the rotor system."

When the police pilots saw no one on the north-tower roof, they called off other rescue helicopters that were en route from Long Island. A short time later, the south tower collapsed.


So 2 NYPD choppers arrived within 5 minutes of the plane crash, (one being a Bell 412 with a 3 man crew specially trained for rooftop rescues & equipped with a 250-foot hoist capable of carrying as many as 10 survivors at a time), hovering just a few hundred feet away, observing hundreds of workers trapped above the inferno.

Doors leading to the roof were locked.There was no rooftop evacuation plan.Thanks to petty Port Authority concerns of vandals or would-be daredevils and probably FDNY requests.

A number of people did attempt to reach the roof of the south tower, according to recipients of cellphone calls they made desperately trying to escape. People were still alive on the top floors seeking help at least until 10:12 AM, one hour and 24 minutes after the strike. With fire raging on the floors below them, they had no hope of walking down to safety.The doors to the roof there were also kept locked, except when that building's observation deck was open. The deck hadn't opened yet the morning of Sept. 11.

Civilians were not informed that rooftop evacuations were not part of the evacuation plan, or that doors to the roof were kept locked.

According to the NYPD pilots, helicopters couldn't have saved anyone from the top of the south tower. That building's roof was completely obscured by a 100-foot layer of dense smoke blown from the north tower by wind from the northwest.

Too bad for WTC upper floor victims these pilots & chief didn't possess balls of magnitude, such as displayed by Chernobyl pilots.


About 1800 helicopter flights were carried out to dump materials onto the reactor; During the first flights, the helicopter remained stationary over the reactor while dumping materials. As the dose rates received by the helicopter pilots during this procedure were too high, it was decide that the materials should be dumped while the helicopters travelled over the reactor.


www.nea.fr...

Further:
The Port Authority acknowledges that it had no protocol for rescuing people trapped above a fire in the towers.

WHY?, especially after the 1993 attempt, the result of prior wounded FDNY pride over the NYPD aerial roof rescue (Top fire commanders, who had never authorized the 1993 helicopter rescue, were furious at the time)? Incompetence? Deliberate negligence?

New York City's fire code requires roof doors to be unlocked or to have devices that allow someone to open a locked door from the inside
But the Port Authority's Twin Towers had the status of state government property and therefore were legally exempt from the fire code, according to both the Port Authority and the city's building department, which oversees enforcement of the fire code.

Giuliani told the commission that he asked fire Chief of Department Peter Ganci at some point whether a helicopter rescue was feasible.

"And Pete pointed to a big flame that was shooting out of the north tower at the time. And he said to me, 'My guys can save everybody below the fire. But I can't put a helicopter above the fire,'" Giuliani told the commission.

Alan Reiss, the director of the World Trade Center on 9/11 concedes that tenants had never specifically been told to avoid the roof, but that doors to the roofs were locked that day. People who needed access to the roof, such as window washers and technicians who serviced the antennas, were issued electronic-key cards and also had to be buzzed through by security guards who monitored the doors by closed-circuit television from a 22nd-floor office

Building managers had no plan to rescue people from the rooftops, and no aerial rescue efforts were ever seriously considered.

Former Port Authority Police Chief Joseph Morris said the tops of the 1,368-foot buildings always had strong winds blowing across them, and both were studded with antennas that would make landing helicopters impractical.

NYPD Deputy Commissioner Thomas Antenen, a spokesman for the department, confirms that the police helicopters were on the scene. But he says whether they could have rescued anyone "is a moot issue."

This guy's compassion seems to be the moot issue.

Then we get limp-wristed dismissive disinfo BS such as this:
The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards, making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. Although the South Tower roof had a helipad, it did not meet 1994 Federal Aviation Administration guidelines.

Listening to their impotent excuses, with leaders like these who needs enemies.

Some beg to differ:

The day of the 1993 WTC attack, NYPD chopper pilot Greg Semendinger, despite the antennas on the roof of the same north tower (albeit no obscuring smoke plumes as 9/11 and 10 hours after the '93 explosion), decided to try to land his Bell 412 on that building. Semendinger lowered two of his crew members by rope to the roof, who then cut down antennas and dismantled rooftop floodlights to clear a landing area, police Sgt. Timothy Farrell was able to use tools he brought with him to break open the doors and get down the stairs, successfully airlifting 28 people to safety from the roof of that same north tower. This 1993 rescue angered top officials of FDNY who chose to see it as an upstaged grandstanding by NYPD on fire department pride with New York City Fire Chiefs Association sending a letter to then-Mayor David N. Dinkins, denouncing the police-helicopter rescue as "a cheap publicity stunt.

On Sept. 11, a rescue from the north tower would have been difficult but possible, Semendinger and other veteran helicopter-rescue pilots say.

Semendinger says the wind that morning did leave a corner of the tower relatively clear of smoke, almost until the building collapsed. Using a hoist with folding seats, rescuers could have saved as many as a few dozen people, he estimates.

Richard Wright, director of safety and flight operations for the Helicopter Association International says that as he watched on live TV that morning, he recalled rescues he had made during his 25 years as a helicopter pilot for the Coast Guard and Marine Corps. In 1988, he helped lift oil-rig workers from the burning sea around the Piper Alpha rig, after an explosion destroyed the North Sea facility, Wright says. Such oil-rig rescues have been made in the middle of fierce storms and at night, he says.

Source

IMO, without foreknowlege of potential collapse, it's understandable why no initial rescue attempts were made just following north tower impact at 8:46 AM,
However, the fact that not 1 chopper rescue attempt was made during the crucial 29 minutes between the 9:59 AM south tower collapse and the 10:28 AM north tower collapse, despite the pilots concerns of engulfing smoke fumes, protruding wreckage, airborne debris & antennae is shameful if not an act of cowardice. Speaking honesty & personally, that day I would have risked a crash course in chopper avionics to save those poor people and hear what they had to say.






.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
It would help the integrity of these millions of 9/11 threads if people would please stop assuming their personal theories to be fact.


I agree. That's why I've never ever never posted any personal theories.
I only post stuff that other people can look up. Then they can have the same choice as me - to decide what to make of the sources, and info.


Originally posted by Djarums
Unless you have firsthand knowledge of the issue you are bringing to the table it is hardly fair for you to consider it fact simply because you read it somewhere.


OK, I'll bite. I do have first hand knowledge of the issue of the car chase by New Jersey police, of a truck. After they pulled it over, they found equipment in it used to remote control the airplanes.
I would have mentioned before that I live in New Jersey, and the area where the police chase happened. But I thought it was, should be, irrelivant, since the entire police force made statements in the Bergen Record newspaper. The car chase happened in broad daylight. In perfect weather. Along the Hudson river, on the New Jersey side. Hundreds to thousands of onlookers watched the entire chase.


Originally posted by Djarums
There are two things that can be accomplished with threads like these. One is a discussion to allow people to vent. Two is to accomplish some real research and perhaps gain a better understanding of what actually happened.


I'm for your two goals. Though I personally don't visit this site for the first thing you seek to accomplish. I do enjoy the 2nd thing you seek to accomplish. Others have helped me research other topics.
Right now in this thread, which is about the WTC possibly falling down because of the steel frame reaching 1,500 to 2,500 degrees. Some say it did fall because the steel reached those insane temperatures. Some say it didn't fall because of heat since live people were standing around in the point of impact.

I'm adding fuel to the fire *pun might've been intended* by putting forth evidence that there's no "maybe the WTC fell", "maybe the WTC was sabatoged". There's no 'maybe'. There's YES it was 100% brought down on purpose. Osama, and tne Taliban were patsies, fall guys, scapegoats.
Anyone intrested in seeing the "larger Russian Doll that's holding the smaller Russian doll" or "the even bigger picture" ...... then aim their research in this area. Why? Cuz it can't be disproven. The US Goverment can't even attempt to come up with an answer to this one!.


Originally posted by Djarums
If you're out to do the second goal, like I wish for daily, then please do it the right way. If you have a theory on something, that's your theory, and you can't criticize others for not buying into it. You have yours, they have theirs.


I have no theory. A theory is something not yet 100% proven.
It's a hardcore proven fact there was a loooong police chase in New Jersey. It's a fact the cops finally caught the suspects in their vehicle. It's a fact the cops confiscated, and inventoried the equipment the cops found in the vehicle. As well as inprisoned the suspects. It's a fact the cops in charge, (the captain, chief, bomb squad, SWAT, on and on) have enough on job training to identify what type of electronic devices they confiscated from the suspects.

And it's a hardcore fact other countries have criticized the USA for making American planes too easy to remote control. Some countries, like Germany, have stopped allowing America to make planes for them soley for this one reason.



Originally posted by Djarums
Personally, I don't believe that someone with a R/C device was taking care of everything. I don't care if a single newspaper said it,


Your opinion. Up against the findings of an entire police force of seasoned cops, high ranking officers, bomb squad officers, the entire police station.

Up against what the rest of the world knew and knows

www.chicagotribune.com...

www.911-strike.com...

www.911-strike.com...



"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline.


Some say "IF the American planes were being remote controled, why didn't the Americans try to use the remote control to steer the planes away from the WTC?"

The answer is soooo simple.
George Bush's youngest brother Marvin Bush was in charge of security for the WTC, and in charge of security at the airport where the planes were "highjacked".
This also explains why none of the 4 major airports within a 1-5 mile radious of the WTC noticed 2 stray planes. Both which made 400 mile long U-Turns over the entire state of New Jersey! Before going into Manhattan, NYC. The WTC airspace, along with the surrounding NYC, NJ, CT, VT, and PA airspace, is the most scanned, probed, constantly watched, airspace in the entire USA. 4 major airports have radar, armies of traffic controllers, and more, overlapping that airspace.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Originally posted by Djarums
because as an emergency responder who nearly lost his head on the scene I'm a lot more aware than most of you about the half a million things that were said that day in panic that weren't true. Example? We were initially told about 6 planes, suicide bombers, a dirty bomb, and a possible explosion at the White House. People were panicked in case you weren't aware.


Thank you soo much for playing the "Internet Special Olympics." In case you don't know what this phrase means, it's about how no one can tell what anyone else posting on the internet actually does in real life. And no one should have to resort to being forced to prove what they do in real life.
Cuz if you want to go there, you got no chance on me:

I was there before you arrived at the scene. I was on 42nd Street and 8th Ave at 6am at the PABT. Relaxing. Taking in the NYC scene. As soon as the 1st plane hit, me and guys I was with made a beeline straight down there... we instantly knew this was BIG!

I was there 5 mins after the first plane hit. I have friends who live and hang out in lower manhattan. They were in the Barnes & Noble bookstore that used to be there. 2 of my friends know the guy who rode a motocross motorcycle past the police barricades, into the heart of the site, with his video camera. Some of his tape he sold to major news agencies. I could care less about the "1 million things that were said on that day". I freeekin saw with my own eyes things.

After the buildings went down, they closed down mass transit leaving New York City.
(Lucky me knew about the private owner-operator "mini-buses" that stop a few blocks away from the PABT.)
Litterally trapping everyone in Manhattan. Riot cops chained the PABT doors shut. Businessmen in their buisness suits and ties were punching out the riot gear cops!. So were the buisnesswomen getting into it too. "I want to fu--- go home!" they yelled and cursed and spit over and over. The streets were soo packed with people it was 100% impossible for a single car to move.

Scenes of buisnessmen in suits and ties on purpose looking for the stinkiest, bummiest looking bum, they could find so they could give them a big loooooong hug. It was the wildest, funniest, funnest, scene the guys with me and I've ever seen in my life.

The guys with me were laughing "they're on purpose hugging every stinky bum they can find cuz they think they're gonna die at any moment!"

F--- the "millions of things said that day" cuz I freeekin saw with my own freekin eyes the police chase along the Hudson river after I got off the bus near Weehawken, NJ. No theory my man. It's a hardcore fact.




Have fun reading the official watered down version



When they were arrested in September, it was believed they were Arabs connected with the terror in New York.”




No terrorism charges were ever filed, according to their lawyer, Steven Gordon. A spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said flatly: “We were told specifically that they are not suspects” in the terror attacks.


LOLOL! Hey, I thought a group of Arabs were suppose to be easy to spot? Black shiny hair, darkish, swarthy, skin, dark eyes? Jews are suppose to look like white men? eh? So how come this group of guys were "mistaken" for Arab terrorists? How come they led cops on a looong police chase along the Hudson River?

How come this sounds exactly like what the British survivors of the staged attack on that Hotel, (which led to Britian withdrawing from Israel)? When the "arab terrorists" at first dressed, and looked like, "Arabs" but later on British survivors said they were "white men"?

Here's a bit of NJ law for ya. If your in a car, and cops chase you, and you don't stop. Technically it's a felony crime. It used to be a missdemeanor, but the carjacking in Newark, NJ got soo outta control they upgraded the offence of not stopping for a cop. But if you have connections, look "All-American enough", the cop'll make a judgement call and let you go!

On Route 80 in NJ is a popular spot where every gearhead drag races. There's 4 lanes on both sides, divided by 2-4 center lanes known as "express lanes" which have almost no entrace or exits. Doing 80mph to 225mph! Every kid in a corvette, mustang, every kind of motorcycle, and once awhile a few ferarri's. Even saw 2 lambourghini's. (1 lambourghini is owned by a famous garage/car towing/truck towing company, in Ridgefield Park, NJ)
Once I got caught by a cop, a very high ranking cop. I was doing 125mph when he finally caught up to me after chasing me for 15 mins LOL! A lotta us guys don't pay car insurance in order to save $$$$ for souping up our cars. He asked me for my papers. Took a look at them, saw I was using papers outdated by more than 2 years, then gave em back to me, and drove off!

In order for those "Arab looking guys" to have gotten arrested by those NJ cops, it means those cops were 500% convinced by something that they had terrorists on their hands. You don't f--- with NJ cops! They regularly use black people as target practice every single day and night! For every 1 story that makes the news, there's 8 that never make the news. (NJ is the only state that got charged the most, and worse, with cops pulling over blacks for DWB. The Republican Gov. C. Whitman kept denying it, until the evidence became tooo much LOL!)

If it'd been obvious those "arab looking guys" were Jewish, those cops would've made the same judgement call they make with me and my friends. Those cops saw their ID after pulling them over LOL! Even IF the cops decided to go ahead with the charge of "failing to stop for a cop" only the driver would've been charged. Not all the passengers!



“We called immigration and for a month they said there are no names like this in the computer,” said Kayea, who lives in Charlotte, N.C.




“My brothers are tall with blue eyes and brown hair. They look like Europeans,” Kayea said.


Heheheh! More proof those white "redneck, good ole boy" NJ cops found something serious enough to arrest em allllll.



You won't find a single article on the internet saying exactly what the cops charged all of them, driver, and passengers with when the cops arrested them LOL! (If you can even find articles on the internet.) Cuz they've all been watered down.
So ask yourself:

1. Did a loooong police chace really happen on 9/11 in New Jersey, USA?

2. Did the cops finally pull over the suspect vehicle?

3. Is it a felony in NJ to not stop for a cop who tells you to pull over?

3b. So... OK maybe the driver gets arrested. Now why the freeekin freeek did the cops see fit to arrest all the other passengers?

4. Yes or no, were the rest of the passengers in the vehicle all also arrested?

5. What the (bleeeep) were the rest of the passengers in the vehicle charged with when the cops also arrested them?
*the silence is deafening*

How about we let all the posters, lurkers, readers, decide for theirselves, after looking at the sources, what they think and believe?

(Well, more like source, since there's only 1 non-watered down source... the Bergen Record newspaper. HQ in Hackensack, NJ, on River Road. It's the biggest, most major Newspaper in New Jersey
)

P.S.
Maybe in a few weeks I'll make a trip to the Bergen Record HQ in Hackensack, NJ (It's on River Street, if anyone here has the free time to go and see the original story on microfilm.) and make copies of the actual, original, story that's now stored on microfilm. Then I'll scan it and post it...... heheh.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860


[edit on 11-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join