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.

 

CNN may have lied about WTC Building 7

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis007
I remember this from a long time ago, googled it and found::::

Mitchell Bomber vs. Empire State Building
© Copyright 1999, Jim Loy

On Saturday, July 28, 1945 (a few days before the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima), a B-25 Mitchell bomber ran into the Empire State Building, then the tallest structure in the world. One of the two engines went through the building and out the other side, and through the roof of a 20-story building on the other side of 34th Street, starting a fire. The other engine, and part of a landing gear entered an elevator shaft and fell to the basement


Have you compared a B-25 to a 767? The B-25 is at BEST half the size of a 767, carries MAYBE 1/3rd the fuel, and travels at about 300mph TOPS. Then you have to compare the construction of the buildings. The Empire State Building is a solid concrete structure on the outside (at least that how it appears) the WTC was concrete with a lot of little openings in it, therefore, not solid. The WTC outer wall was load bearing, and supported some of the weight of the building. The B-25 didn't penetrate all the way into the building only one engine did. There are pictures of it sticking out of the building, the 767 went THROUGH the building......

Need I go on about the differences? You're trying to compare an apple to an orange and say it's two oranges.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


NEW YORK - A federal engineering agency that investigated the World Trade Center collapse recommended Thursday that cities raise the fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings in an inferno.

Engineers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said, for example, that stairwells should be situated apart from each other so that if one is damaged another might still work. They also urged installation of "fire-protected and structurally hardened elevators" designed to function in a blaze.

"Such elevators should be installed for exclusive use by emergency responders during emergencies," NIST said in its draft recommendations on the twin tower collapse.

NIST does not have the authority to alter building codes, but hopes to persuade local authorities to make the changes.

"We believe that the recommendations are realistic and achievable," said Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator. He said the costs would vary, but he did not take issue with reports suggesting that for most new buildings, construction expenses would rise only 2 percent to 5 percent.

The NIST's three-year investigation gathered reams of data on such things as fire tests on steel and office workers' evacuation behavior to determine exactly how the 110-story towers fell after two hijacked jetliners slammed into them on Sept. 11, 2001. A total of 2,749 people were killed.

The analysis does not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers. NIST engineers concluded the towers probably would have remained standing if the impact of the airplanes had not stripped away fireproofing material on steel columns.

Without that fireproofing, fires continued to burn inside offices, weakening the building's skeleton until it collapsed under its own weight.

The NIST report calls for the development of more durable fire-resistant materials and technologies.

The investigation considered a number of what-if scenarios, some hopeful, some terrifying.

NIST determined that if the twin towers had been struck later in the day at full occupancy, some 14,000 people could have died. On the other hand, if the buildings' elevators had been better protected, more people would have escaped.

it shows that fire can take down buildings, the planes crashing took down the fireproof materials. and never use cheap fire resistance materials either i beg of u.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The WTC also didn't have sprinklers in them, believe it or not. The Port Authority saved $50 million dollars by not putting them in.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   


Very very mature, and you being in Ireland what makes you think you know what's going on in America?

I don't sit here and try to insult your intelligence on Castles or how to drink alcohol.


NoJustice I wasn't insulting you, pretty defensive aren't you?
I don't need to be in America to be able to read, and from what I have read you have no case, you barely have evidence.
And to continue the legal theme, as you seem to enjoy it, since you would be the plaintiff you would have to proove beyond a reasonable doubt your accusations, all of them, not just the bits you can't make sense of, you would also have to be able to refute the expert witnesses the defence would call, and if HowardRoark and ThatsJustWeird et al. are able to significantly damage your case, can you imagine what full-time professional investigators would do to it? Because I can, it would sound similar to my previous post, only it would be a judge.

And just so you know, I do believe some strange things happened that day, I just don't believe they indicate a government conspiracy to intentionally let or cause the events on 11/9.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy

And just so you know, I do believe some strange things happened that day, I just don't believe they indicate a government conspiracy to intentionally let or cause the events on 11/9.


I agree with you. SOMETHING weird happened that day, but I don't think that it was caused/done by the government. (the attacks themselves).



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The WTC also didn't have sprinklers in them, believe it or not. The Port Authority saved $50 million dollars by not putting them in.


Someone is soooooooo very wrong:


NIST and the WTC

Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0463, a firm fixed price purchase order has been awarded to Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI).

Established in 1980, HAI is a fire protection engineering, research, and consulting firm whose experience includes fire hazard and risk analysis, fire modeling, fire protection design, code consulting, product development, and litigation support. HAI’s staff has earned an international reputation in the application of advanced technologies to solve both standard and unique fire protection problems.

Specific tasks related to WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7 that the Hughes team will perform include:

1) Document the design and installation of the fire sprinkler system, standpipe system, and pre-connected hoses and compare designs to applicable code and standards requirements.

2) Document the design and capacity of the water supply systems to the fire sprinklers, including provisions for redundancy.

3) Identify and document differences in the design of the water supply, fire sprinkler system, standpipe system, and pre-connected hoses between WTC 1, 2, and 7.

4) Document the normal operation and effect of the fully functional fire sprinkler system, standpipe system, and pre-connected hoses for fire control.

5) Document the performance of the fire sprinkler system, standpipe system, and pre-connected hoses on September 11, 2001.


Yeah there was no sprinkler system in the buildings.


So the building(s) sprinkler system in WTC 1, 2 & 7 just convieniently stopped working on that day......Especially 7 which did not get hit by a plane or debris.......There is no need for WTC 7's sprinkler system not to work........



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hunting Veritas I respect you but these others aren't going to listen to any proof or evidence you attempt to give out. None of them had any answer to my NORAD question yet they still say "nothing has shown me any reason to believe " blah blah blah. It's just the same old stuff again and again.

I'm starting to really question the point of even coming on these Forums, because really has ANYONE ever changed their mind since coming here?
This is like every Political/New World Order/Current Event Thread

"Such and such did such and such to such and such here's a link suchandsuch.com"

"did not, you have no proof. You're an idiot."

"did too, moron"

and then abunch of other people post and take either the "no proof idiot" side or the "did too moron" side.


[edit on 23-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
Hunting Veritas I respect you but these others aren't going to listen to any proof or evidence you attempt to give out. None of them had any answer to my NORAD question



www.norad.mil...

North American Aerospace Defense Command
"Deter, Detect, Defend." That is the motto of the men and women who serve in the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Since 1958, Canadians and Americans have been partners in protecting the airspace of Alaska, Canada and the contiguous 48 United States. The mission has evolved over the years.

Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace. NORAD's mission is truly global.

Prior to Sept. 11, NORAD was a word that was associated predominately with the Cold War. The eyes and ears of NORAD were focused on aerospace threats that may come from sources far away from the shores of Canada and the United States.

Today, the highly skilled men and women of NORAD use ground-based radar, airborne radar, satellites, fighter aircraft, proven command structures and intelligence capabilities to enforce control of the skies over the United States and Canada.


here is the reason why they had problems, they were looking in the wrong direction


as they say we still have Cold War mentality, and never deal with present day threats.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Wow I'm totally shocked that NORAD's website would come up with an excuse to why they failed to act on 9/11. I'm sure if O.J. had a website, he would of admitted he was guilty. I'd also be totally shocked deltaboy if you hadn't typed in their website first thing after reading my post. Because you knew if there was a cover up, they would admit it right on their website.

In other news, I went to www.georgebush.com and it insults Democrats. It amazing the amount of shocking news you can find when you go to someone's website.

Same old crap.






[edit on 23-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
When the WTC was built, it DIDN'T have a sprinkler system. The page I read that on didn't mention that there was a system later added. However, YES the sprinkler system probably DID stop working that day in 1 & 2. A large airplane cutting through the building would PROBABLY cut the pipes for the sprinkler system. Probably the only undamaged things, from the IMMEDIATE impact would have been some of the steel supports.

The explosion also disabled much of the fire protection systems within
the complex, including the fire alarm communication system for the "Twin
Towers," leaving evacuating occupants without emergency instructions
during their prolonged escape.

That was from the 1993 bombing. If a car bomb would do that, what would a massive airplane at 500 mph do?

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
A sprinkler system was added sometime after the '74 fire, but I don't know the exact date.

Sprinkler standpipes are generally run up the stair towers and would have likely have been cut when the plane slammed through the building. Sprinkler pipe is typically only schedule 20, a thin walled pipe.

Furthermore, sprinkler systems are generally designed to fight typical office fires that start small by putting them out before they get too big. If too many sprinkler heads open up at once, the system depresurizes and is useless.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   


My post was just erased for some reason!

I really don't feel like going over everything again so I'll just say:

- Half and NoJustice you can find about NORAD here


NORAD is unusually prepared on 9/11 because it is conducting a weeklong, semi-annual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/02] Deskins is regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise. [ABC News, 9/11/02] The exercise poses “an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide.” [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/02] Accounts by participants vary on whether 9/11 was the second, third, or fourth day of the exercise. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/02; Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02; Code One Magazine, 1/02] NORAD is also running another fighter exercise named Operation Northern Vigilance. NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported. An article later says, “In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02; Bergen Record, 12/5/03] ABC News later reports that because NORAD is “conducting training exercises [it has] extra fighter planes on alert.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NEADS, says, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] However, Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise. There is a National Reconnaissance Office exercise planned to occur as well, involving a scenario of an airplane as a flying weapon. [Associated Press, 8/21/02; UPI, 8/22/02]


- There's no credible evidence about the passport.

- I never said I was living in fear of terrorists. I said I'd like to live in your world where they don't exsist.

- You say I've done a bad job disproving it. What is the "it"?? You haven't given me anything to disprove.
Besides, it's up to YOU to disprove planes crashed into the buildings and up to you to disprove fire and damage brought down the buildings.

- Also there are tons of other ways to fight terrorism besides joining the army, why didn't you mention all those?
Also, why haven't YOU joined the army?


If I get bored and feel like dealing with you all I'll post everything I had before



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Well what has pretty much come to become undebatable fact is that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demotion around 5pm or so, not too long after the attack on september 11th. Everyone from the CIA, Sescret Serivce and other agencies had offices in there. It was fortified, almost bunker like in some parts. Pictures show only a few fires and minimal structural damage. Buildings within mere feet of the WTC1&2 still stood tall after WTC1&2 fell. These are all facts.
As some have said, it's mighty conveinent only Silverstein's buildings fell.
Shame on Moore for never mentioning WTC 7, the warnings so many officials got about not going to NY that day, Marvin Bush's security of WTC7 runnin gout on 9/11, etc.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A sprinkler system was added sometime after the '74 fire, but I don't know the exact date.

Sprinkler standpipes are generally run up the stair towers and would have likely have been cut when the plane slammed through the building. Sprinkler pipe is typically only schedule 20, a thin walled pipe.

Furthermore, sprinkler systems are generally designed to fight typical office fires that start small by putting them out before they get too big. If too many sprinkler heads open up at once, the system depresurizes and is useless.


Howard, isn't it though that in an office building there would have been an open system, with water filled in all the pipes? Had the pipes been cut, wouldn't that trigger the fire alarm, as don't they have back up battery suppllies.

ALso something like that I would think would need much larger piping. Schd20 maybe for run offs of the main, but the mains themself's I would guess would be a significantly higher gauge of pipe.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Also, why haven't YOU joined the army?


This is the only thing worth responding to. Although it should be pretty obvious. If I don't trust the Government, why would I want them to control me in the Military? Sure there's a good chance one day they'll control me as a free citizen anyway but why rush the issue?


But if I don't believe the terrorism is coming from abroad and I feel it's coming from right here in good old U.S. of A. Why would I want to go fight in absurd War A (Iraq) or Absurb War B which will be coming up soon (Iran) Which even if I'm proved wrong about the Government being behind 9/11, I'm even more confident Iraq had nothing to do with it, this is common knowledge. They only have Oil of Mass Production, not a war I feel worth dying for sorry. And if/when the Draft comes (don't be surprised) I think I'll take the jail time instead.

But I just meant if you want to fight the War on Terror since you believe in all that, wouldn't it make more sense for you to join?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
it is so easy to lie.
everyone does it.
there is no need to tell the truth when you have authority and control.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
there is no pilot alive or dead who could navigate a plane of any size wihtout tower guidance now or then, just imagine comandeering an airliner and flying it the first time in your life, using your "visual" landmarks to guide you over upstate NY!
NO WAY could the 9/11 event happened in the way portrayed.
its easy to lie......
imagine what the capabilities, skill, knowledge of the path to target....at 30,000 feet when the 165 degree turn was alledgey made....with only landmark guidance----sorry-I FLY ALOT
american pilots
american prisoners

they love these CONSPIRACY sitSe cause they are off the charts and their off the chartness is blantantly a lie/media/mosquito thing---
if anyone plays golf-------.............its in the "lie"



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rimabo29
there is no pilot alive or dead who could navigate a plane of any size wihtout tower guidance now or then, just imagine comandeering an airliner and flying it the first time in your life, using your "visual" landmarks to guide you over upstate NY!
NO WAY could the 9/11 event happened in the way portrayed.
its easy to lie......
i


You're kidding right? Ever hear of this newfangled invention called GPS? Not only tells you where you are, it ties into autopilot and flies you to where you want to go too. A handheld GPS unit got a KC-135 from California, to within 10 miles of the Honolulu International Airport. That was when it was still brand new. The tower and control centers are there to keep seperation between planes. There was no "landmark navigation" going on until they got near the towers. They used INS and GPS to tell the plane where they wanted to go and let the autopilot get them close enough to SEE the towers, then took over and flew them into them.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
When the WTC was built, it DIDN'T have a sprinkler system. The page I read that on didn't mention that there was a system later added. However, YES the sprinkler system probably DID stop working that day in 1 & 2. A large airplane cutting through the building would PROBABLY cut the pipes for the sprinkler system. Probably the only undamaged things, from the IMMEDIATE impact would have been some of the steel supports.


Stilll........You ignore the fact the CIA/SS HQ did have a sprinkler system as do ALL modern buildings (its the law, regardless wether it was fitted at a later date or not. IT WAS THERE!). So how did this one become all broken and stopped working..................Uh oh This is a can of worms thats going to be difficult to disprove....


No plane, no debris and the only that buildings that fell belonged to silverstein, even though others were closer and smaller........

peace


[edit on 24/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
It's not that hard. I never mentioned WTC 7. I mentioned WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 DID take damage during the collapse, I've seen and posted links to pics of it. As far as the sprinkler in WTC 1 & 2 a 767 travelling at 500mph, slamming into the building, throwing debris throughout several floors and NOT damaging the sprinkler system would be pretty impressive. Especially considering the car bomb in the basement in 93 took out the sprinklers in the building.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join