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.

 

Damning Evidence for 9/11 Conspiracy

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Yep. They said they need a new "Pearl Harbor." As far as practicality goes, they certainly got it.

As far as the evidence damning the official report of 9/11, there's on thing that blows it all away in one fatal swoop, and that's that there is no evidence of the fires ever being even near the officially-alleged temperatures.

As I've posted on the WTC Challenge thread, there are three proofs, all based on relatively common knowledge of the WTC events, that prove this:

A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as the alleged temperatures would inevitably cause. This specifically puts the fires at or below 600 degrees Celsius.

B) The fires did not spread to other floors on their own account (ie, after the initial impact, and the elevator shaft doesn't count). Looking at other skyscraper fires that did reach such temperatures, the fires began feeding on various materials and spread throughout the buildings. This did not happen on 9/11. The fires stayed on the floors they started on.

C) There was not a single piece of steel photographed or taped at the WTC that day that was glowing even a dull red, either inside either building during the fires, or during collapse, or after collapse, or at any other point on that day. Coupled with this point is the following chart, clearly showing how steel heated to the alleged temperatures would clearly glow:



www.beautifuliron.com...

If the steel approached the alleged temperatures into 1000 degrees Celsius, don't you think we would've seen some steel glowing a bright orangish at some point throughout the day? Somewhere? At all? Even the smoldering debris?







All that collectively disproves that the fires were even approached 1000 degrees Celsius at any time. They didn't even get close. The shatterless windows by themselves put the fires, as I said, around 600 degrees Celsius or lower. Any higher and the glass would begin shattering all throughout those floors. Fire that is only around 600 degrees will not bring down a steel skyscraper!

Like I said, without this, the whole government argument crumbles. Taking the fire out of the fire explanation really puts a hurting on the official story. It means something other than fire brought those buildings down. Now we can't be thinking that, can we?


[edit on 14-7-2005 by bsbray11]




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
in plain site is missing. As well as some other sites with information. Didn't I hear the other day that we( the us ) were supposed to give up control of the internet but refused?



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Bsbray11 Sorry for taking so long to reply to your post, I've been looking at the images you provided and am unsure as to whether they are good examples considering the argument you put forward, not that I necessarily contest the theory.

So if you could varify a couple of things I would be grateful?



Now, I don't actually know if these are embers or not, what is your explaination?

And regarding the ?, do you have any idea what the red and turquois object is attached to the beam? I thought that maybe they were beacons which may have been attached to the side of the building, any idea?

On the last shot, you say that the fire did not spread on its own account. I don't believe the buildings remained standing long enough for the fire to get a grip. Having said that, this would imply that the fire had not caused enough damage to cause the collapse of the tower(s).

Warpig could you elaborate on your statement please and provide links if possible?

Cyberianhusky if you want to download the video try this link:
Fourwinds

You're right about the site not geing there it appears to be the case with a few of them, maybe the powers that be are cracking down.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Koka]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I just thought that I would post a couple of pictures of the fires











[edit on 15-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Now, I don't actually know if these are embers or not, what is your explaination?


It looks like it's just burning debris on the side there. There was a lot of junk in those towers besides steel and concrete, after all. Hell, all the concrete was pulverized anyway, so you can rule that out from the start.


And regarding the ?, do you have any idea what the red and turquois object is attached to the beam? I thought that maybe they were beacons which may have been attached to the side of the building, any idea?




? = It's not attached to the beam. It's behind it and simply looks like it's attached. How could a flame be burning on the corner of a cool gray beam of steel?


On the last shot, you say that the fire did not spread on its own account. I don't believe the buildings remained standing long enough for the fire to get a grip. Having said that, this would imply that the fire had not caused enough damage to cause the collapse of the tower(s).


The fires were already dying by the time the buildings came down. You can tell by the smoke.

Earlier on in the day, the smoke coming out of the towers was a lighter gray, and there was more of it. As time went on, there was less and less smoke, and it turned dark, almost black. Dark smoke indicates soot, from uncombusted hydrocarbons from a poor burn (lack of oxygen to the fire). Further, black smoke serves to take heat away from the fire it's coming off of, because dark, sooty smoke has a high thermal capacity. Darkening smoke, lacking in oxygen, especially when there's less smoke overall, suggests those fires weren't exactly kicking it up a notch.



Howard - Nice graphics. Check mine out!








My building fires beat yours! And not only do my fires totally own yours, but my building still stood after all of that, too! Ohhh what now, Howard! My building wins, yay!



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Using the color temperature intensity chart bsbray has so kindly provided and HowardRoarks image showing the downwind side of WTC 2 (a view hardly ever shown directly by squibies because it conflicts with theory) the fire at its most intense area can be surmised to be around 1200-1300 degrees C or 2200-2500 degrees F. On columns 353 and 354 if one looks closely at the small area (shaped like an upside down "V") near base of most intense fire area where these columns are located the color temperature seems to be 827-971 C or 1600 to 1700 F, That is indeed much hotter than required to substantially weaken the steel. Notice the burned or melted away outer skin revealing the two columns. You can clearly see the same effect on the rest of the columns going towards #359 even though smoke and flame obscures the view of the actual columns. Weakening an entire corner of a building dependent on exterior columns for support in such a way surely leads to collapse.




Originally posted by bsbray11

As far as the evidence damning the official report of 9/11, there's on thing that blows it all away in one fatal swoop, and that's that there is no evidence of the fires ever being even near the officially-alleged temperatures.



www.beautifuliron.com...


Please compare color chart from bsbray above to photo provide by HowardRoark below


Originally posted by HowardRoark
I just thought that I would post a couple of pictures of the fires






posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

My building fires beat yours! And not only do my fires totally own yours, but my building still stood after all of that, too! Ohhh what now, Howard! My building wins, yay!


Unfortunately, in retrospect, you are right. The lightweight construction techniques which allowed the WTC towers to be so tall and elegant, were not as robust as the standard construction of the Windsor towers. (i.e. beam and column box design with reinforced concrete cores as opposed to the WTC with it's rigid tube design and reliance on floor trusses, large open spaces and drywall column enclosures)



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Please compare color chart from bsbray above to photo provide by HowardRoark below


Are you comparing the chart to the fire, or the actual steel beams? lol.

Flames are coming out of the building there, around the columns. I'd like to see you post an image of a beam that is not covered in fire that is clearly glowing any of those temperatures, because the only colors of steel I see are gray and black. The fact that those beams are facing outwards towards the cool air is pretty ponderous when considering you're claiming the beams are glowing colors suggestive of those extreme temperatures, not to mention that those types of unmixed hydrocarbon fires typically do not reach 800 degrees Celsius at all. At any rate, the only colors of the beams I see are their normal cool gray, and a blackened version around the fires. The only orange/yellow/red I see is from the fires themselves.


Unfortunately, in retrospect, you are right. The lightweight construction techniques which allowed the WTC towers to be so tall and elegant, were not as robust as the standard construction of the Windsor towers. (i.e. beam and column box design with reinforced concrete cores as opposed to the WTC with it's rigid tube design and reliance on floor trusses, large open spaces and drywall column enclosures)


Yes, and it's unfortunate that the Windsor Tower fires were so much more severe, that I wonder as to how anyone can go off over-emphasizing their design parameters.

Interesting that a group of non-government fire experts are disagreeing with you and FEMA, Howard.


Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying,

“Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China,” Manning said, “perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.”

“Such destruction of evidence,” Manning wrote, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.


www.americanfreepress.net...

Thanks to Sauron for the info.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes, and it's unfortunate that the Windsor Tower fires were so much more severe, that I wonder as to how anyone can go off over-emphasizing their design parameters.


Never the less, the windsor tower suffered a partial collapse. The fact that it did not collapse entirely was due to a significant design difference from the WTC. Failure to appreciate the differences in these designs is a critical failure of those who try to compare the two buildings.




Interesting that a group of non-government fire experts are disagreeing with you and FEMA, Howard.


Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying,

“Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China,” Manning said, “perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.”

“Such destruction of evidence,” Manning wrote, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.


www.americanfreepress.net...

Thanks to Sauron for the info.


Why don't you read the entire article




WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION

Never again! In the wake of the World Trade Center, we are left with many thoughts-thoughts of friends lost, thoughts of devastated families, thoughts of the tremendous impact on so many lives for so many years to come. Yet, we-America's fire service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again?

Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.

There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.

* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When was the last time a building code committee called up a "downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the "big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for years?

* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for years about this topic. It has been reported that the World Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?

* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires.

* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions to "stay where you are" are alive today because they self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when should you not?

* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What gives?

There are many more questions, more than we have answers for. What is clear is that things must change. Where do we begin? By putting things in perspective. The World Trade Center disaster was

* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.

Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.

The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive detailed investigation possible. No event in our entire fire service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this incident.

We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.

The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.
fe.pennnet.com...

(feb, 02)
Sorry about the long cut and paste, but you have to register to go to the site.

Now, what part of this indicates that the subsequent NIST investigation is wrong?

What part of this indicates that there were explosives in the building?

Explain to me how this supports your theory and undermines the subsequenst NIST reports?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Never the less, the windsor tower suffered a partial collapse. The fact that it did not collapse entirely was due to a significant design difference from the WTC. Failure to appreciate the differences in these designs is a critical failure of those who try to compare the two buildings.


If the WTC was to collapse, it should have done the same. The WTC was designed, just as the Windsor in this respect, to suffer a partial collapse in case such an event were to occur. Aren't you supposed to be some engineer or something? Or was it an average Joe construction worker? Well anyway, if you're all you try to crack yourself up to be, you'd at least know that much about the way buildings are designed to hold up in emergencies. Some material would have fallen, but would not have been enough to cause the whole damned building to fall, pulverizing all concrete and falling perfectly vertically and symmetrically. The critical flaw is chalking all that up to those petty fires. The whole point of the Windsor Tower is that a steel skyscraper will not come down by fire unless there's a hell of a fire. They never have.


Sorry about the long cut and paste, but you have to register to go to the site.

Now, what part of this indicates that the subsequent NIST investigation is wrong?

What part of this indicates that there were explosives in the building?

Explain to me how this supports your theory and undermines the subsequenst NIST reports?


I got the article mentioned from Sauron. I suppose I shouldn't have relied on him without reading the article first myself, but I nevertheless disagree with the NIST report. It's based on the fact that the fires were hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel, and those fires simply weren't. End of discussion. I've posted a three-point proof of this.

Without that fundamental claim, the whole NIST report is bs. And it is just that. Bs.

If anyone's interested in the real nitty gritty of how the fires could not have been hot enough to damage the steel going by the official report, check out the following link: guardian.150m.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Ok then howard,

1. Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”


2. No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”


3. An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.


4. “Such destruction of evidence,” Manning wrote, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.”


5. In a separate editorial, “WTC Investigation? A Call to Action,” by the magazine’s technical editor, Prof. Glenn Corbett of John Jay University in New York City, and two other expert fire engineers who specialize in high-rise buildings, the FEMA-led investigation was called “uncoordinated” and “superficial.”

6. Given the magnitude of the disaster “you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history,” the editorial says. “You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive ‘Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission.’ No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”


7. The Port Authority has denied charges that the buildings of the World Trade Center lacked fire protection or that construction components were substandard, but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.


8. “Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members—described by one close source as a “tourist trip”—no one’s checking the evidence for anything,” Manning said. “As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”


9. “No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure,” he wrote.


There you go, 9 points to prove there were anomolies with 9/11. It STINKS and you know it.

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
koka, did you know that the us govt let( the people involved), go free. an airline , i forget which one , let the 9/11 people who masterminded it out of the country. they were escorted out by govt officials. there was an actor that day that wasnt allowed on the plane nor anyone else.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Ok then howard,

1. Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”


If you actually read his editiorial from Febuary, 2002, you would have also read statements like this:

"Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description."

and

"The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise."

Nowhere in that editorial is there any support for the theory that the buildings were deliberately demolished.



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
2. No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”


Again, this was in early 2002, well before a number of significant tests were conducted, well before all of the available documents, photographs etc. were examined in detail.


Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
3. An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.


I tend to doubt anything published on APF unless it has been confirmed by a number of reliable, secondary sources, since the AFP, like Rense doesn't bother to vet their own stories.


Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
4. “Such destruction of evidence,” Manning wrote, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.”


Again. this was well before the major investigations were underway. In addition, not everyone agreed with Mr. Manning.

Disagrees with "Call to Action"

Regarding Bill Manning’s "$elling Out the Investigation" (Editor’s Opinion, January 2002), the passion of this caustic diatribe caught my attention, but I was left cold by the vagueness of the accusations leveled at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Manning’s suggestion that the ASCE/FEMA investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is the "official investigation" and that "no one’s checking the evidence for anything" is misleading at best.

In fact, as reported by Structural Engineer magazine (Mercor Media, www.gostructural.com, January 2002), there are several investigations being funded through research grants provided by the National Science Foundation. These investigations include research being done at the University of California at Berkeley on the mechanical and structural properties of the WTC steel affected by heat, fire, and impact, as well as research regarding the performance of WTC fire protection materials and systems being conducted by a University of Maryland professor. These are only two other "official" investigations being performed; there are several more.

Manning's call for "a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation" would most certainly stifle the most valuable facet of independent scientific investigation; that is the truth that is revealed when multiple investigators consistently arrive at similar conclusions through independent analysis. The "blue ribbon panel" already exists in the multiplicity of investigations and investigators. The ASCE/FEMA study includes participation by the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, as well as several other professionals involved with fire/structure interaction.

I do not believe that Manning’s "half-baked farce" accusation merits the "call to action" he is requesting.

David W. Clark P. E.
Member
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute
Training Captain
Pentz Valley Volunteer Fire Department
Butte Valley, California



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
5. In a separate editorial, “WTC Investigation? A Call to Action,” by the magazine’s technical editor, Prof. Glenn Corbett of John Jay University in New York City, and two other expert fire engineers who specialize in high-rise buildings, the FEMA-led investigation was called “uncoordinated” and “superficial.”


It was preliminary, that is why. Again, this was in early 2002, only a few months after the incident itself.


Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
6. Given the magnitude of the disaster “you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history,” the editorial says. “You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive ‘Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission.’ No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”


See the above response from David Clark.


Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
7. The Port Authority has denied charges that the buildings of the World Trade Center lacked fire protection or that construction components were substandard, but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.


"Refused" or unable. a number of documents were destroyed in the attack. Others were made available and are referenced in the NIST report.



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
8. “Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members—described by one close source as a “tourist trip”—no one’s checking the evidence for anything,” Manning said. “As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”


Again, so what. THis was the initial FEMA report, which was preliminary at best. Have you reviewed the NIST report to determine if the quantity and quality of documentation and evidence is lacking or insufficient?



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
9. “No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure,” he wrote.


There you go, 9 points to prove there were anomolies with 9/11. It STINKS and you know it.

Peace


No, not really. Just a bunch of valid concerns that were raised early on in the investigation process.

If you insist on reading between the lines in these editorials, it is clear that the editors of the magazine are concerned that the lightweight construction techniques used plus the sheer size of the buildings were responsible for the collapse, and that there may be other, similar buildings that are similarly vulnerable.

If you insist on looking for a conspiracy, look into why there isn't a greater call to re-evaluate these existing buildings in light of what we now know about the vulnerability of this style of construction to fire.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

If you insist on reading between the lines in these editorials, it is clear that the editors of the magazine are concerned that the lightweight construction techniques used plus the sheer size of the buildings were responsible for the collapse, and that there may be other, similar buildings that are similarly vulnerable.

If you insist on looking for a conspiracy, look into why there isn't a greater call to re-evaluate these existing buildings in light of what we now know about the vulnerability of this style of construction to fire.


If you're so inept at reading between the lines, why is 9/11 so black and white for you when there were so many odd political and business connections and coincidences, Howard? Is it because those events don't figure into your pay check?

I'm sure you've heard all about how the bombsniffing dogs were removed from the WTC complex the Thursday before the attacks, as major media sources have confirmed. And what about the government's initial moves to stop an investigation?

What about Bush saying more than once that he saw the first plane hit the first tower on TV? Is he senile? Was he lying? Or did he actually see it? And why were the Secret Service so slow to get the President out of that school during a national emergency, when his visit there had been widely publicized?

And don't you think it was weird that on 9/11, there were war games going on involved hijacked planes flying into buildings (what a coincidence!) and that Dick Cheney was already in a bunker with direct communications to all sorts of government agencies, including NORAD? Don't you think it's weird that certain Pentagon employees, and even Ariel Sharon, were given advice to cancel their flight plans for around 9/11?

And what about those instant messages those people received warning of the attacks that the FBI said they would look into, but never gave us another word on? Or what about the FBI admitting they didn't really have any paper trail on Osama? And isn't it weird that they found those passports unscorched, and so soon after the attacks?

Or how about the fact that two of the suspected hijackers have been confirmed still alive by the BBC, with many more reported to be still alive or were dead before the attacks? And what about the 9000% and 6000% spikes in put options placed on two airlines in the days preceeding 9/11? What about Rumsfeld slipping and saying that Flight 93 was shot down? Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment? Oh, that's right. You're trying to change the meaning of the words "pull it" now, by taking out "it" and replacing it with "back". Very scientific of you.

Wouldn't you say those types of things were clear indications of a forewarning, if not suggestive of full-on knowledge? You criticize someone for not reading behind the lines properly, and then ignore all of this such information. Like I said Howard, it's probably just because this info doesn't figure into your pay check.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hmm, where to begin?

"on 9/11, there were war games going on involved hijacked planes flying into buildings" -- all that ever gets put forward to support this is a Norad person asked "is this real world or exercise?" when told about the hijacking, and that proves nothing. Certainly not that war games "involved hijacked planes flying into buildings".

"certain Pentagon employees, and even Ariel Sharon, were given advice to cancel their flight plans for around 9/11?" -- if Pentagon employees cancelled their flight plans then isn't there a good chance they'd be at the Pentagon? Not very smart there. And the Ariel Sharon story is false -- he was due to speak in New York on September the 20-something, but the event he was visiting was cancelled on the 12th.

"And what about those instant messages those people received warning of the attacks that the FBI said they would look into" -- all we know of the Odigo message is it didn't mention the WTC as a target, so there's no way of telling how specific it was.

"two of the suspected hijackers have been confirmed still alive by the BBC, with many more reported to be still alive or were dead before the attacks?" -- No-one has been "confirmed" alive. There were some cases of mistaken identity, all of which arose before the FBI published the official list of names and photographs.

"And what about the 9000% and 6000% spikes in put options placed on two airlines in the days preceeding 9/11?" -- ah yes, that's the one where the original fromthewilderness article pretends there was no possible reason why anyone would be short-selling airline stocks. Trouble is, they're entirely wrong.

If they had bothered to research this they'd have found that American Airlines issued a major profits warning on the Friday afternoon before 9/11, amongst other bad news, and that analysts were saying that airline stocks were due another bad quarter, and they expected other airlines to make warnings in the week beginning 9/10. So it would be entirely reasonable to reflect on this news over the weekend, then buy puts on Monday on AMR. Anyone who knew of this or thought UAL would issue a warning would buy puts on them, too. Maybe this isn't quite as mysterious as some people would like to pretend.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

"on 9/11, there were war games going on involved hijacked planes flying into buildings" -- all that ever gets put forward to support this is a Norad person asked "is this real world or exercise?" when told about the hijacking, and that proves nothing. Certainly not that war games "involved hijacked planes flying into buildings".


Bzzt! Sorry! The Pentagon has admitted to four war games being held on 9/11. You can find the transcript of representative Cynthia McKinney's exchange with head Pentagon figures from March 11, 2005, here:

www.wanttoknow.info...

And here:
www.fromthewilderness.com...

And here's an article from the Associated Press, titled "Agency Planned Exercise on Sept. 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building":

www.boston.com...

As you'll read, the article clearly states:


WASHINGTON — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.


So sorry man. Looks like you started on the wrong question, lol. You're just flat-out wrong there.


"certain Pentagon employees, and even Ariel Sharon, were given advice to cancel their flight plans for around 9/11?" -- if Pentagon employees cancelled their flight plans then isn't there a good chance they'd be at the Pentagon? Not very smart there. And the Ariel Sharon story is false -- he was due to speak in New York on September the 20-something, but the event he was visiting was cancelled on the 12th.


Do you remember what section of the Pentagon was hit? Yes, that's right. The least populated section of the whole thing. Of the 27,000 Pentagon employees, there were much less than 200 deaths, even including airline casulties. That section of the Pentagon was virtually empty. It was the section that had been under construction for quite some time and was not yet operational. I don't think it's any coincidence that that's where the plane hit.

If terrorists really wanted to put a hurting on those in the Pentagon, they would've targeted a more important section that the one that wasn't even being used. Couple that with the fact that certain employees were warned ahead of time, and you get a clear picture that not only did someone know it was coming, but they knew where it was going to hit, and that only a few people would be in danger.


"And what about those instant messages those people received warning of the attacks that the FBI said they would look into" -- all we know of the Odigo message is it didn't mention the WTC as a target, so there's no way of telling how specific it was.


Yet it's another brick in the wall, is it not?


"two of the suspected hijackers have been confirmed still alive by the BBC, with many more reported to be still alive or were dead before the attacks?" -- No-one has been "confirmed" alive. There were some cases of mistaken identity, all of which arose before the FBI published the official list of names and photographs.


"Mistaken identities" indeed. They released pictures of the people they said committed the attacks, and those people were still alive. It's that simple. The actual passports that were found, that were supposed to have been found among pieces of debris from the WTC collapses, weren't even scorched.

From the BBC article I'm mentioning, from September 23, 2001:


Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.


The article also mentions two other alleged hijackers that have come forward.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

"Mistaken identity" is just a prettier way of saying he's still alive. There was absolutely no reason to believe the man flew a plane into the WTC complex. The FBI is just covering its disgusting behind, and you bought it.


"And what about the 9000% and 6000% spikes in put options placed on two airlines in the days preceeding 9/11?" -- ah yes, that's the one where the original fromthewilderness article pretends there was no possible reason why anyone would be short-selling airline stocks. Trouble is, they're entirely wrong.

If they had bothered to research this they'd have found that American Airlines issued a major profits warning on the Friday afternoon before 9/11, amongst other bad news, and that analysts were saying that airline stocks were due another bad quarter, and they expected other airlines to make warnings in the week beginning 9/10. So it would be entirely reasonable to reflect on this news over the weekend, then buy puts on Monday on AMR. Anyone who knew of this or thought UAL would issue a warning would buy puts on them, too. Maybe this isn't quite as mysterious as some people would like to pretend.


American Airlines only had a 6000% spike in put options. United Air Lines had the greater 9000% spike, and you're saying it hadn't even released any statements yet? I don't think you can chalk this up to the airlines industry as a whole, because those two companies were the only two to see such dramatic spikes. Coincidental, wouldn't you say?

I think my favorite one is Bush's statement, though, that he had seen the first plane hit the first tower. Really, there is no possible explanation of that statement that could be good. He was either lying, telling the truth (via a specially set up cam), or else he's extremely senile. Neither of those three possible options are very favorable for a US president commenting on his activities during such a controversial event, are they?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
As far as the airline spike, don't you think that Al Qaeda would have seen it as the perfect chance to hit us AND make money for more operations? They knew which two airlines were going to be used, so what would keep them from causing the spikes? We all know that they have front companies they could easily use. I heard this theory put forward, but then it just dissapeared.

As far as the Pentaon hit, it MAKES SENSE that that side was hit. In the thread about whether it was a 757 that hit or not, there were several pictures of the Pentagon put up and there is ONE side of the building that has a nice clear path leading to it. There are parking structures and trees on the other sides.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Al Qaeda being behind the put options would only make sense if there were absolutely any authenticated evidence that al Qaeda was actually behind the attacks. So far, the only evidence there's been are a few fraudulent video tapes that display a "fatty Bin Laden."


As far as the Pentaon hit, it MAKES SENSE that that side was hit. In the thread about whether it was a 757 that hit or not, there were several pictures of the Pentagon put up and there is ONE side of the building that has a nice clear path leading to it. There are parking structures and trees on the other sides.


For these terrorists, that were supposed to have orchestrated this whole huge event, which do you think is a higher priority to them?

(A) Hit the section of the Pentagon that's under construction and hardly kill anyone,

or

(B) Hit the section of the Pentagon that is most crucial to its operation, would kill many people, and take more time to repair.

Also remember that that plane had to lower itself significantly to be able to hit that particular section. It's not like it wasn't a hassle. You're familiar with the fact that the plane had to drop so low that it clipped light posts, right? For the plane to wait until it was off the main road and clear of light posts to lower itself into the other side of the Pentagon would have been just as easy, if not easier. And yet this didn't happen, why? Al Qaeda going easy on us?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
At the time the Pentagon was hit you couldn't TELL that the side hit had just been rebuilt. There was a trailer along side it but no heavy equipment or other signs of construction. It looked just like any other side of the building. There wasn't really any way to tell that it had just been rebuilt, or if it was ABOUT to be worked on.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
But nevertheless that that section of the building was under construction was publicized, right? In the course of planning the events and instructing the supposed hijackers where to go, al Qaeda would surely be aware that there were much better targets on the other side of the building, right?




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join