It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:56 AM
You are right. The floor slabs were composite slabs. That is what I meant.

These slabs did provide structural (for some reason, my fingers always want to misspell that word) suport in that they transmited the lateral loads from the pereimer columns to each other and to the core columns.

This, however, was not what I was talking about. What I was talking about are concrete columns. There were no concrete columns used in the WTC towers. That includes columns reinforced with rebar, I beams surrounded by concrete or any other type of concrete construction.

Nor were there masonry walls used in the core area.

Traditionally framed high-rise buildings will have the core areas separated from the usable floor space by CMU walls (i.e. "cinderblock").

While cinderblock walls are not that much stronger than drywall, they would have had different dynamics in the impact and fire.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by spliff4020
We dont need to know everysingle detail they do. To many facts ands things get confused. Ask yourself this.

Did Saddam smile when he heard about 9/11 ?

Is the world a better place without him or his sons?

nuff said..

mr. bush? is that you? 'to(o) many facts and(s?) things get confused'? oh, man, if you're not bush, you are the neocon wet dream.

too many facts? hearsay and rhetoric is the way to go, i guess, then, eh? let's let the government tell us what's true and important, eh? you're amusement factor has gone out the roof, buddy. if i was howard roark, i'd have a new quote for my signature.

To many facts ands things get confused.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by billybob]

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:47 PM
No..What I am saying is that there are daily things that go on, that we, the general public do not need to know. Interogations, missions, things of that nature. Loose lips sink ships. We elect people to handle these matters.

Dont underestimate what public opinion can do to a mission. Especially, if that opinion is based on falicies and half truths. I for one, have trust in our government. I've yet to be a "victim" of anything from them. I feel safer here than I would anywhere else in the world. (and Ive been around)

I think all the "they knew" and BS like that was started by anti-american leagues that know how subceptible we are to that crap. Thats the propaganda. The truth is that we were hit by some spineless cowards, and now its time to take action. Plain and simple. No conpsiricy. Just proof.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:54 PM
well, whatever works for you. i have yet to see any 'proof'. or evidence, for that matter. the whole operation has gone on hearsay and rhetoric.
loose lips don't sink ships. industrialists do. if there is no market, you make one. enjoy your slumber.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:32 PM
Well consider this....Everyone of those 9/11 sites have one thing in common. They want you to buy something. That should open all of your eyes. Think about it...

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:27 PM
Quote: "we, the general public do not need to know. Interrogations, missions, things of that nature. Loose lips sink ships. We elect people to handle these matters."

And THAT is how the Tyranny Begins! Anyhow do you really think the Public doesn't know these things already? Do you really think that they are not communicated to the Public Via their Fox "News" Channels? Do you think the Public does Realize that the FBI & CIA are Dysfunctional Agencies that are unable to work together & with each other? To you really honestly believe that "Terror" was not Politicized even BEFORE 9/11? That is a bit Naive don't you think? Do you honestly trust these guys in Washington to Stay Honest if the Public Eye is not Constantly on them? Dream on!

P.S. I guess that IRAQ had something to do with 9/11 too huh (Sarcastic Snicker)!

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:08 PM
Quote: "I think all the "they knew" and BS like that was started by anti-american leagues that know how susceptible we are to that crap. Thats the propaganda. The truth is that we were hit by some spineless cowards, and now its time to take action. Plain and simple. No conspiracy. Just proof."

Anti-American? I think that standing up to the Obvious Corruption in the Government is just about the MOST Patriotic thing that you can do! Now it is time to take action? Don't you think that we have already taken enough action in the Middle East? Plain & Simple? No Conspiracy?

What "Proof" have you offered? I think that it is YOU that has been the Victim of Propaganda my friend!

P.S. Bush/Cheney was "Elected" to the Presidency - Yeah Right - more like they were INSTALLED there by the Money of their Rich - Halliburton, Enron, Exxon-Mobile Republican Buddies! Do we really ever need an excuse to Blow Up the Middle East whenever we want to?

YOU are the one that is Delusional my friend! Open YOUR Eyes - It is TOO EASY just to simply Blame "ISLAM" - that is only PART of the Problem!

[edit on 24-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 12:48 AM

Keeping the tone civil, there were not any "concrete collumns" in the Windsor tower either. They were steel frames surrounded by "stuff".. Here is a quote from one source pertaining to the Windsor tower:

"Fireproofing on the 25-year-old building?s steel framing was the patented CAFCO Blaze-Shield DC/F, consisting primarily of mineral wool and PORTLAND CEMENT. Beam fireproofing was 1 in. thick and deck fireproofing 1Ú2 in. thick. "It was installed by ATA C.A. to U.S. STANDARDS," says Bijou Ganguly, a director of ISOLATEK International, the Stanhope, N.J., supplier.

The sprinkler failure has fueled the debate over passive versus active structural fire protection. "You have to have [and maintain] sprinklers, and you have to have fireproofing,"

Quite simply, the core of BOTH the Windsor tower and World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 were STEEL FRAME. To say that one was structually reinforced with concrete and the other one was not is to err. The "concrete" surrounding the steel in the Windsor tower had nothing to do with supporting weight as you seemed to elude to in an earlier post,,,you have not been very clear to say the least. (With all due respect) The concrete you refer to pertaining to the Windsor tower core was used for FIRE SHIELDING. ALSO, you still have not answered my questions.. What was surrounding the steel beams in the World Trade Center cores? (The ones not part of any composite structure)??? Is it not as good as the "stuff" surrounding the steel in the Windsor core? I will post further depending on responses but I think you will find that the protection of the steel in the World Trade center was FAR superior to the Windsor tower core steel beams.

Hopefully you will see where I'm going with this.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:08 AM
If you have not read this yet this is an EXCELLENT read.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:16 AM
I do feel that there was/is a conspiracy surrounding the attacks, and the events which have followed as a direct or indirect result. I don't believe it with absolute confidence, but I do feel - as of now, atleast - that it's true. What the nature of that conspiracy was/is, who was/is involved in it, and what it's ultimate aims are, I doubt any of us know or can begin to guess.

I say that because I have yet to see anyone point something out, and that is this: Would the conspirators with the power to orchestrate all of the things people are accusing them of have left enough of a trace for us to be debating this in the first place? I don't know (nobody does in truth), but my instincts say no.

It's the same as with the abduction phenomenon and alot of other as yet unexplained and unaccounted for oddities. There is alot of evidence on all sides capable of pursuading one group or the other to pick a position, but not quite enough to ever be conclusive. There are alot of theories to follow, none of which are ever absolutely proven. Even the most logical and fact-driven can be picked apart if people are intent on doing so. Lines get drawn, sides are taken, and the trap of logic versus seemingly foolhearty and paranoid beliefs is set. In the process, the real truth (whatever that even means anymore) can become buried with a minimum of effort on the conspirators' parts.

Question everything, even your (on the one hand) facts, and (on the other) conspiracy theories - particularly if they are popular and seemingly obvious - when it comes to these things. Just remember who wrote the book on psyops and misinformation when debating these kinds of things. Likewise, I have no real opinion. I just feel that something murkier than has been revealed (on either side of the fence) is afoot, and that these debates - if there is a conspiracy - play right into it's hands.

The X-Files had it about right. "Trust no one" indeed. Lol.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by AceWombat04]

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by spliff4020

I think all the "they knew" and BS like that was started by anti-american leagues that know how subceptible we are to that crap. Thats the propaganda. The truth is that we were hit by some spineless cowards, and now its time to take action. Plain and simple. No conpsiricy. Just proof.

anti-american leagues?
would that be all the world and half of America?
spineless cowards?
how much of a spineless coward are you if you are prepared to kill yourself for what you believe is right, even if it isnt?
just proof? what proof? there is no proof of anything.
It seems only people out to take advantage of your emotions for their own profit. that is what happens in capitalism. i have yet to see any proof of anything, just people claiming they know whats right, yet however much they prove their case someone else can always find a flaw. nothing is 'plain and simple' or black and white.

There is evil in the world. As far as i can tell it comes from hate, which usually comes from fear.

I was once a little child
who longed for other worlds
But I am no more a child
for I have known fear,
I have learned to hate…
How tragic, then, is youth
which lives with enemies,
with gallows ropes.
Yet I shall believe
I only sleep today,
that I’ll wake up,
a child again, and
start to laugh
and play.
Hama Herchenberg, 14 years old
died December 18, 1943, Auschwitz Concentration camp.

Its evil that you dont realise is there, unless you have seen it with your own eyes and experienced it directed at you.

The fact is that someone flew aircraft into those twin towers and the twin towers eventually collapsed.
The question of who was responsible and why is a hugely serious one, far bigger than the how. I dont need to know the 'how' though. all I need is an open mind. when i see the results, who benfits, who loses, who reacts it tells me the who, which is all i need to know.

If the framework for proof is 'how' ie:how did the towers collapse? how did they place the charges? how did they cover it up? how did they do this or do that, then the criminals will make it very difficult to prove and will attempt to cover their tracks. As long as this (the how) remains the sole conditions of judgement for people, they will not see the big picture.

Nobody bothers to hide the 'who' though. It is an instant give away to me, even though I cant prove it, I know. The evidence is there for anyone to see who looks close enough, in fact you dont even have to look close, attempts are not even made to hide it. if you can open your mind and ask a different question about what you need for yourself for proof and what you are looking for, then you can find the answer. Its already staring you in the face, the 'how' becomes irrelevant because you already know through the 'who' and you dont really need to bother to prove it through the 'how,' although, any evidence you find is appreciated but it doesnt matter because you already know.

The 'who' is obvious to me, the 'why' a little less clear and the 'how' extremely murky, as always.
But all i need to know is the 'who', for me thats acceptable as long as it remains acceptable for everyone else.
Everyone else is happy with the 'who' and possibly the 'why' and accepts that they dont really need to know the 'how.'

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:58 PM

Windsor Tower.

Notice how the steel columns are buckling and sagging from the heat of the fire.

The Windsor Tower after the fire

Notice how the steel perimeter columns have partially collapsed, yet the concrete columns of the core have not.

Notice that the core columns are concrete.

This is not the same type of structural system as in the WTC towers.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:16 PM

Excellent post HR!

Unfortunately this will do little to convince anybody about the effects of fire in the WTC because no matter what evidence we present, they want to believe and will either ignore it or dig for more ludicris "evidence". They are basing everything on emotion and not logic.

You have voted HowardRoark for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]


posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 05:48 PM
Emotion-free, HR is little more than a conscious or unconscious shill for the USG
Dont be subsumed by his assumed knowledge

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:48 PM
It's a little hard for me to call those pillars concrete collumns. ( I have to be careful because I'm getting conflicting information) I will post a link shortly but according to what I'm reading up on, the Widsor tower had reinforced concrete (along with other stuff) around the STAIRWELLS, ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND CORE (And I do emphasize core.. .STEEL BEAMS) Are those collumns you are pointing us too simply reinforced concrete or steel beams encased in concrete? (Of course does it really matter from a fire's viewpoint) The "concrete" horizontal beams in between the vertical ones HAVE to be composite or encased protected steel beams. Now comparing the core of the Windsor with the WTC towers you will find: The box collumns in the WTC were also encased in concrete of some sort but unlike the Windsor tower, the elevator shafts and stairways of the WTC were only clad with some mix of gypsum. But like I said earlier, the box collumns in WTC, as far as I've gathered it so far, were covered with concrete just like in Windsor tower. (Kind of hard to prove either way now isn't it?) You like to focus on the perimeter of the Windsor tower because some of it collapsed (and of course had some rather unprotected steel in the perimeter) but it really doesn't matter to me because it's the core that was supporting the main gravitational load. (As it also was in the WTC) Of course the steel in the perimeter is not going to be as protected as the core steel in most cases because of weight issues. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Any skyscraper with a core using some concrete in one form or the other can be said to have a "concrete reinforced core" . To stare at a picture and call a collumn a "concrete collumn" just because it looks like one is classic oversimplification. A steel beam covered with concrete of some sort will "look" like a "concrete collumn" One thing I have to admit.. I'm getting some awful conflicting information as to what exactly the WTC box collumns were covered with. (We all know they were covered with something as required by code) One source claims concrete along with some other fibrous stuff, but having a hard time nailing that down empirically. Of course it would have been nice if there was something left standing after WTC "burned"

[edit on 25-4-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 04:03 AM
I got this from another forum, thought it was an interesting bunch of points I wanted to share with you: Also here is a link to something a lot of folks don't know about.

Point 23
Construction on the towers, north and south began september 11 1971. At 1350 feet they were two of the tallest most famous buildings on earth. A fact most people don't know is they were engineered like proverbial brick outhouses. They were overengineered to withstand major winds and hits from large airliners. They were built with 47 enormous steel core columns. Together with 236 large exterior steel columns that were welded and bolted together with steel plates. Further, there were steel trusses which cris-crossed making a mesh that connected every other exterior column. Plus there was diagonal bracing and steel rods connecting the trusses. There were also corrogated pans with poured concrete on every floor and all of this was anchored in a very deep and heavy foundation.

Point 24
The buildings were architechturally designed to absorb energy and to sway in storms. According to witnesses in the buildings near where the planes hit, the towers swayed for a few seconds as intended. Other witnesses in the area said that the noise and blast was significant but the tremor felt at the time of contact was minimal.

Point 25
Fact. No steel structure building in new york, the united states or in the world has ever come down due to fire. In the last 100 years, dozens of steel buildings have caught on fire and burned for long periods of time and not come down. A good example is the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, a 38 story office building that in 1991 had a hot fire. It burned on 8 floors for 19 hours and theee firefighters died but it did not come close to bringing down the building. In contrast, the world trade center north tower fire lasted 1 hour and 43 mintues and the world trade center south tower lasted 56 mintues. They both burned significant portions of rubble, sheat rock, carpet, furniture, etc producing lots of black smoke indicating they were burning in efficiently and were relatively cool fires.

Point 26
A: Steel melts at 2700 degress Farenheit. B: Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with will burn briefly at 1800 degrees farenheit. C: because of the debris, carpeting, sheat rock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc and lack of oxygen, the fire at the world trade center probably burned at 1200 to 1300 degrees farenheit.

Point 27
It must also be remebered that a significant portion of the jet fuel exploded outside of the buildings (i.e.south tower). The exterior columns were exposed to the air on three sides and would dissipate heat at a fast rate. And the beams and columns were coated with fire proofing materials.

Point 28
The official story is the buildings came down at point of contact because the intensity of the fire caused the trusses to push out the columns. Yet, if one views the wholecreated in the north tower by the plane, there are onlyrelatively small fires. And the fires must not be excessive because you can see two people standing and staring out near the opening.

Point 29
The top section of the south tower began to tilt at approx 9:59 am. At this moment, a large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building. The 35 stories of the top section continued to tip to 23 degrees past vertical. At this point, the upper segment was hanging over the edge by approx 65 feet. In frame by fame pictures, one can see the concentric and uniform mushrooming grey cloud rapidly expand to envelp the building. As this is happening, one can see debris being blown away from the building with an extremely powerful blast. The overhanging upper section was then mysteriously shrouded and never seen again. Then the whole building came straight down. With an incredibly fast 10.4 seconds the once might tower was reduced to a pile of totally pulverized remains. Government story is that this building experienced a compression or a pancake demoltion caused by weakened trusses and weight from above. At first this explanation sounds plausible, especially because this is what the television reports have told us time and time again. But common sense would indicate that the center of gravity of the top section was not centered over the lower section. Thus, if there was a compression demolition, it would not be uniform because the center of gravity was considerably off center. Secondly, the severed top section that was tilting very much over the edge would fall somewhat independently. Third, this section would fall at a fast rate than the anchored lower section because it would not meet the resistance of the intact lower section. Fourth, the top and lower sections would break into pieces, they would not pulverize. None of these four things happened.

Point 30
The complete demolition of the North Tower took only 8.1 seconds. The north tower came neatly down and it's remains were equally powdered.

Point 31
Facts are very stubborn things. According to the law of falling bodies as put forth by Galileo, the total distance traveled at the end of any specific time in a total vacuum is calculated by the following formula: Distance equal 32.16 divided by 2 times time in seconds squared. If there is any resistance, then the speed and time of the falling body slows down in relation to this resistance. In the case of the two towers, we know they were 1350 feet tall. Thus you'd have the following equation for the fastest time of total drop in a total vacuum. 1350=32.16 divided by 2 times time in seconds squared. This works out to 9.1627 seconds as the fastest time these buildings could come down. This presents interesting questions because the south tower came down in 10.4 seconds and the north tower came down in 8.1 seconds. Additionally, there was resistence and plenty of it. The resistance was the massive lower sections that were stabalized by over 250 major interior and exterior steel columns and thousands of steel trusses. This defies the laws of gravity. Thus, either the height of the towers is wrong, the time of the falls is wrong, the scientific formula is wrong, or something pulled down these buildings at a faster rate.

Point 32
Remember the grey could that concentrically blasted out and down the imploding buildings and chased thousands of new yorkers down the street while covering the area with a sand like substance? That substance was cement and other material that was crystalized. Could the blast of jet fuel create this crystalization? No. At full blast jet fuel only expands at 208 ft. per second. Could a compression demolition do this? No because there is not enough latent energy. The cement would crack and break but not pulverize. The only way the molecular composition of these materials could be so scrambled is if there were small cacle nuclear devices or there were high tech explosives. Since there is no reading of radioactive activity that can be confirmed, modern explosives are the logical choice. High tech explosives such as rtx or c4 can expand at over 1000 ft per second and create extremely hot temperatures. Modern explosives could cause the crystalization of the building materials, while creating a vacuum that could pull down the buildings at a faster rate than normal speed and leave a residue of extremely high temperatures.

Pont 33
FEMA put forth this hurried and short explanation concerning the collapse of the two towers. "Expansion of floor slabs and faming result in outward deflaction of columns and potentional overload." From this 'expert' opinion, the adminstration and media have promoted the pancake theory which says the floor trusses expanded which caused the columns to buckle, the joints to break and the floors then compressed on themselves. But an objective observer would consider these important points. A: never before has any steel framed building come down because of fire. The fires at the towers burned for short periods of time and at low heat levels. b: for the wtc buildings to react in this way, literally thousands of super heavy duty joints and welds would have to have snappe at exactly the same instant (Remember, these buildings were engineered for expansion and flexibility. There was also the fire retardent sprayed on all of the steel and the burning patterns were inconsistent throughout the floors). c: A pancake collapse could not come down with such speed. d: a pancake collapse would not have the latent engery to crystalize the building materials, to shred aluminum, or blast rubble to such distances. e: a pancake collapse would not create or maintain the asronomical heat patters that were recorded and monitored for weeks afterwards.

Point 34
On September 16, Nasa flew a plane over the site to take measurements and create a thermosurface map. In this time, hundred of truckloads of debris had been carried off and firemen had sprayed millions of gallons of water on the smoking rubble. The results show there were several hot spots with temperatures over 1000 farenheit on the surface with one spot at the south tower recording 1377 degrees (nasa map five days later). Most notice the area smoked for weeks. Since neither tons of jet fuel nor compression demolition have the potential to create this kind of heat, much less maintaining this heat for days afterwards, an impartial detective would have to conclude that there was another source for these extreme temperatures. Chistopher Bollyn of the American free Press has noted that the steel columns at the bast of the foundations, 70 feet underground were melted. That would mean temperatures would have to exceed 2700 degress. Hello? Is anyone in the media, government, or law enforcement listening?

Point 35
WTC 6 is a big part of the puzzle. After wtc 2 was hit, there was a huge explosion that appears to eminate frmo the center section of WTC 6. Only later did it catch on fire. It then burned for hours at a very hot temperature and the fire was eventually put out. An objective investigator would ask a: what caused the building to explode before it caught on fire? b:After the center of the building had been blown apart and had experienced a long and intense fire why did it not come down like WTC 1, 2 and 7?

Point 36
The facts around WTC 7, a 47 story building, are even more bizarre. 7 was built on top of a major electrical substation that housed 10 large transformers. Futher, the landlord let the tenants install diesel fuel tanks with a capacity of over 42000 gallons to take care of emergency power generation in the building. Some of the major tenants were: Mayor Guliani, who made a 13 million dollar control bunker in the building. The CIA, Department of Defense and the Secret Service. It seems odd the mayor would make such an expensive bunker in a building on top of such potentially explosive tanks and transformers. Additionally, 7 was not reported to be on fire until 3 pm. This is 5 hours after 1 and 2 collapsed. These fires were minor and burned for less than 3 hours when the whole thing came down at 5:25. It appears from pictures to be a totally conventional demolition. There were no huge explosions, the building walls fell neatly in on themselves and the rubble was cracked and broken but not pulverized. It is of interest that FEMA nor anyone else made a report or suggestion as to what happened to this building that housed some very interesting tenants.

Point 37
It is said that every picture tells a story. In the case of seismic activity as documented by Columbia Univeristy Seismology group, there are some interesting stories. The south tower registered a tremor of 2.1 and came down in aprox 10.4 seconds. The north tower registered a tremor of 2.3 and came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The pattern registered for 1 and 2 indicates a series of bombs were detonated in cadence with the last explosion being the largest charge. The pattern registered by the fall of WTC 7 is significantly smaller in magnitude and is the signature of a conventional demolition.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:31 AM
Alot of those "points" have already been addressed. Do they ever say what they think brought the buildings down?

Fact. No steel structure building in new york, the united states or in the world has ever come down due to fire.

Fact. No steel structure building in new york, the united states or in the world has ever stayed up after being rammed into by passenger jets.

Also, they say it wasn't hot enough. Yet the remains burned for a long time after it fell. And they even say that NASAs readings show that it was in fact extremely hot. So which is it?

Fact is nothing like this has EVER happened before, so there are NO experts on this kind of stuff. These unscientific (and easily debunked) "points" are nothing more than someone's unsubstantiated opinion.

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 12:18 PM
I have to add that HRs argument is a valid one and I respect it. The point you are making is the core of the WTC and Windsor tower are very different. (But are they really?) The milllion dollar question reguarding this particular argument is what steel was and was not covered with concrete in the WTC core. I don't think any of us can really answer that specifically at this point. I could sit here and post links until I'm blue in the face but I don't think that's going to do any good with one of the reasons being the conflictual information in those links. One interesting bit of information about the Windsor core from one source:

"The reason the collapse of one internal bay on the North side supported by concrete columns is not immediately apparent but could be attributable to any of a number of factors: LESS CONCRETE COVER, more intense heat exposure, and the increased likelihood of concrete spalling this would create and/or momentum of adjacent bay collapse, amongst others."

Less CONCRETE COVER?!? Cover of WHAT???hehe How can a "concrete collumn" be JUST a concrete collumn when it has concrete covering SOMETHING!

One thing is for certain: at this point I'm going to assume (and I have a very good premise for this) that there was fire protection (sprayed on or otherwise) in the WTC cores. Was it as good as the Windsor core construction/fire protection? I'll leave that up to you guys but I'm not buying into this Windor core was more robust than WTC core thing. The WTC had concrete in it's core as well.. to what extent is debatable. There is one major monkey wrench I'm going to throw into all this: (This really makes this whole argument moot anyways) Since alot of you like to call apples and oranges, let's do that shall we?

Fact: (These can't be debated)

The Windsor building burned FURIOUSLY for much of 18+ hours. (A couple of sources state 21 hours!) FAR FAR FAR FAR longer than the any fire burned in either WTC towers before they collapsed. (Completely)

The north tower burned 1 hour and 45 minutes before total collapse.
The south tower burned for ONLY 47 minutes before collapsing.
One interesting thing to note ALSO, the impact on the south tower was "off angle" and somewhat indirect meaning that the impact area and impact direction "avoided" the core of the south tower and the subsequent fire was more confined initially as well.
The fire in WTC was OBVIOUSLY NO WHERE AS INTENSE as the Madrid fire. (Or at least didn't "have the chance" to be.
I have several sources that state that most of the jet fuel from the planes burned up in seconds with any left over in the building burning up in a matter of minutes. This leaves ONLY the building and it's contents to fuel the fire.

And don't forget the 1975 fire in the WTC north tower that burned 6 FLOORS for 3 HOURS and I paraphrase"
A three-alarm fire broke out in the 11th-floor offices of the B.F Goodrich Company in the north tower of the World Trade Center just before midnight last night, and spread through an inner-service core to the ninth and 14th floors. "It was like fighting a BLOW TORCH" according to Capt. Harold Jull of Engine Co. 6 who said all of his men "got their necks and ears burned" trying to get into the 11th floor hall from a stairwell."

Well G-E-E W-A-L-L-Y, there were 70 + floors above the zone of the fire (encompassing 6 floors) but the building didn't collapse then.. and the fire burned like a "blowtorch" for 3 HOURS!

The link is here:

Notice how the story WAS printed in the New York Times dated Feb 14th 1975

Come on guys, am I the only one here with any common sense? (Not trying to insult anyone)
What' gives.. (Besides certain supporting collumns in the WTC during collapse) lol

Am I the only one here with ANY COMMON SENSE???

[edit on 25-4-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 01:36 PM
Some good points have been raised here that seem to steer away from the goverment line and spliff initially had a good point on how Republican haranging of Clinton made it difficult for him to be effective in office. However my concerns don't lie there, those are your internal politics and may be as they are. What concerns me is your international policies and some of the piss poor excuses you use for bringing death and misery to others, like freedom and your war on terror.

The war on terrorism should be a war on war, a war on poverty, a war on resource exploitation, a war on environmental degradation, a war on corporate greed, a war on racism, and a war on imperialism. Without winning those battles, the war on terrorism can never be won. Stop the wheels before they are going, because after that, terrorism is only a matter of time no matter how much security you look for.

Very good point and it's good to see someone see what I've been seeing and saying since 9/11, these organizations run on specific reasons and grievences. Without that you won't get people that motivated to do such things.

Finally - someone else who gets the BIG PICTURE!!!

Ok big boy, you want big picture I'll give it to you 9/11 is nothing but a drop in the bucket, insignifigant compared to the number of people who have died without anyone giving a damn. Rwandan Genocide had twice your 3000 dying per day for 4 months, nobody gave a damn, not the U.S. not the europeans, only token forces and those with financial interests were there. That is evil beyond your wildest dreams.........

Theres just no reason to do it. A bill is a bill. It will get passed.

That bill is power and people will do anything for power, 3000 people is a cheap price to pay for some

if the powers that be thought it was for the greater good of the nation.

Some of the greatest evils of our time have been done under that facade, Stalin's purges, Hitler's Holocaust... Next time you hear someone talking about the greater good know the history of what has been excused for the "greater good". If we need to resort to that for our own actions then something is very wrong.

What if the main reason why we went there was Opium & Heroin Production - not because we Love the Afghanis?

What?? to start it up again? The Taliban didn't approve of such things so if it was to prevent it then we really screwed up there.

Is the world a better place without him or his sons?

nuff said..

No, enough has not been said, if you had killed just him and his sons you might have an argument but many, too many died while you were getting to him.

If the government wanted to destroy WTC7 why not just crash planes into that building...WTC7, come on...

Too short? These are jetliners after all you can't just run them down the streets the WTC towers were ideal targets because they were so much higher then the surrounding towers.

I for one, have trust in our government. I've yet to be a "victim" of anything from them. I feel safer here than I would anywhere else in the world. (and Ive been around

I find this hilarious, obviously you either didn't get around to very many good places or you simply didn't look very close, the fatal murder rate alone should wake you up to the fact that the U.S. is far from the safest.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Amur Tiger]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by TxSecret
Now comparing the core of the Windsor with the WTC towers you will find: The box columns in the WTC were also encased in concrete of some sort but unlike the Windsor tower, the elevator shafts and stairways of the WTC were only clad with some mix of gypsum. But like I said earlier, the box columns in WTC, as far as I've gathered it so far, were covered with concrete just like in Windsor tower.

No, No, No, No.

You are confusing concrete, which is a structural material, with sprayed on fireproofing, which is not.

There was no concrete around the core columns of the WTC towers. (or at least in the high-rise portion.) It is possible that the columns in the subgrade levels were encased in concrete. I don't know what at level the caissons started. But on the upper floors that matter, there was no concrete. The only concrete was in the floor slabs.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in