It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WTC Challenge

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
agreed 'we come in peace' which is why it is not worth challenging or even paying attention to imo. until at least it is no longer 'draft' form, when maybe some restrictions might be lifted.
In which case great because it can be used to make someone accountable, even if it is just American Airlines security people.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by AdamJ]




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Why should the security people be held accountable? They followed the rules as put forth by the FAA prior to 9/11. Any blade of less than four inches was perfectly legal to be carried into the cabin of an airliner, provided that it was not considered illegal in that part of the US (double edged, nasty looking, big serrated edges, throwing knives etc). Box cutters, and razor blades were less than four inches, and provided that they were not carried in a concealed method, they were allowed on the plane.

If you want to hold someone accountable that isn't the Gov't, hold the AIRLINES responsible. They were supposed to be providing security, but wanted the cheapest they could possibly get away with. With the exception of a couple of airports, on 9/11 security screening was a minimum wage job, but guess who got blamed if something happened. If we failed a test, our company got fined $10,000. The airlines refused to pay for maintenance contracts that would cost them $3,000 per machine and would have provided us with parts to keep them running, or new x-ray machines that were better than we had, or the better walk through metal detectors etc. They only bought new equipment if it was forced down their throats. I was responsible for maintaining a lot of the equipment we use out here, and was trying to do it with a company that was in Chapter 11 protection, and airlines that refused to pay for parts, and FAA regulators that couldn't or wouldn't do anything to try to make them pay for the parts/contract to keep things running. It would take us up to a month in some cases to get simple parts unless it was something that could shut down the checkpoint. If it might delay a flight THEN the airlines were in a hurry to pay for it. Otherwise, it could be fixed whenever my company could get the money to pay for the parts.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
As I stated earlier in the thread, the opening of this report to public comment is a great way to get a handle on all the debunking angles. If NIST corrects their little mistake about "flash fires in the lobby", the smoke quality issue brought up by bsbray11, and all the other issues raised by other members, we'll know that either they hang out on ATS, or people that work for the same bosses do.


However, as billybob stated, I don't think they will ever address the potential energy issue, because it is the Achilles heel of the government's entire case, and goes beyond mere "prior knowledge" theories to actually proving direct planning and execution.

Scum. Pure inhuman scum. But no worries, ole J.C.'s coming back to set it all straight again...and real soon by the look of it.


[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why should the security people be held accountable? They followed the rules as put forth by the FAA prior to 9/11. Any blade of less than four inches was perfectly legal to be carried into the cabin of an airliner, provided that it was not considered illegal in that part of the US (double edged, nasty looking, big serrated edges, throwing knives etc). Box cutters, and razor blades were less than four inches, and provided that they were not carried in a concealed method, they were allowed on the plane.

If you want to hold someone accountable that isn't the Gov't, hold the AIRLINES responsible. They were supposed to be providing security, but wanted the cheapest they could possibly get away with. With the exception of a couple of airports, on 9/11 security screening was a minimum wage job, but guess who got blamed if something happened. If we failed a test, our company got fined $10,000. The airlines refused to pay for maintenance contracts that would cost them $3,000 per machine and would have provided us with parts to keep them running, or new x-ray machines that were better than we had, or the better walk through metal detectors etc. They only bought new equipment if it was forced down their throats. I was responsible for maintaining a lot of the equipment we use out here, and was trying to do it with a company that was in Chapter 11 protection, and airlines that refused to pay for parts, and FAA regulators that couldn't or wouldn't do anything to try to make them pay for the parts/contract to keep things running. It would take us up to a month in some cases to get simple parts unless it was something that could shut down the checkpoint. If it might delay a flight THEN the airlines were in a hurry to pay for it. Otherwise, it could be fixed whenever my company could get the money to pay for the parts.


dont worry i didnt say they should, im not an expert, i just picked at random.

Surely this is such a major event there should be proper investigation into what went wrong and who is accountable and whether there were any screw ups or anything could have been done better. And its progression should be public knowledge and its findings offical and accountable, then alot of this doubt/conspiracy would go away.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Well there was one person who was fired from his job involving 911, though he was just a truck driver hauling the scrap away, his crime, he took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch.
These rigs were being tracked by GPS, what made the scrap so valuable while it was being hauled away then only to be sold as scrap?
www.lewrockwell.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Wecomeinpeace,

"Scum. Pure inhuman scum. But no worries, ole J.C.'s coming back to set it all straight again...and real soon by the look of it."

You got that right my friend.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, the caloric value (or fuel load) of office furnishings, paper, etc. is in the same range as jet fuel.

Can you provide any third-source information to confirm that office furnishings and jet fuel will produce fires of similar outputs of heat energy? That is to say, that a fire fed by the contents of the WTC offices would produce as much heat as a fire fed by jet fuel? I tried looking this up on Google but couldn't find anything to verify it.


Pretty sure the modern office is decked out with furniture and equipment which doesn't burn easily if at all, let alone intensly.

Think about it, your an office furniture and supply company and your trying to sell furniture, carpeting, desks, tables, lamps, chairs etc etc to a high rise office. Do you think they'll opt for the flammable furniture or the non-flammable variety?? Plastic chairs don't melt steel. Laminated chipboard tables/desks dont melt steel, office carpet doesn't melt steel, photocopiers/fax machines/computers/TVs don't melt steel, Fireproof filing cabnits don't melt steel. In fact non of this stuff would even create an intense fire because they are designed not too for obvious reasons.

Yes there would be a lot of paper in these offices but paper can not burn at a tempurature to melt steel in any scenario imaginable. Also, a lot of offices would have their files in fireproof filing cabnits to begin with for the off chance of an office fire, they won't have lost everything.

So what is in the offices can not be a factor to the heat for melting steel. The smoke coming out of those towers before collapse don't show burning jet fuel, they show smoldering offices which don't collapse steel frame buildings.

An intense but short burst of jet fuel which still rates well below the melting/pliability levels of heated steel will not be enough to bring down these buildings. The force of the planes hitting the buildings didn't out rate what hurricance force the building was rated for so it can't be that either.

Well, the firemen did hear, feel, smell, report bombs and bombs would explain how the buildings fell so....

It's only conjecture to assume it was jet fuel as much as it is to assume it was bombs but we have witnesses for bombs from people in the buildings but only have 1 sided government reports for the fire theory. Pity they destroyed the evidence of that crime scene, which is a crime in itself.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I think this will be TOO MUCH to deney for those who think the Gov had nothing to do with WTC-9/11 www.911wasalie.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
CatHerder,


Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

Originally posted by CatHerder
Well the answer is about 32.6 feet per second (which translates into about 22.2 mph).


According to your "handy graphic calculator" it is not 32.6 f/s but 32.6 m/s

This therefore throws out the rest of your assumptions by a factor of three.

Therefore you should be asking why was debris not found much further away than it actually was?

I guess therefore we are back to the controlled explosion theory since in one of these events great care is taken to limit the radius of debris.

Cheers

BHR


Sorry, no you're mistaken. You must be confusing the m/s box with the f/s box. If it were 32 m/s it would travel 962feet (293.2m).

And even if that were the case, and I had mistakenly put f/s instead of m/s in my post, what it would imply is that the initial velocity of an object at 1350 feet high would be slower than 32f/s and therefore not require much speed to land 300 feet away.


I used your figures and entered them into the calculator provided by you and it came out at 32.6 METRES PER SECOND.

This means that they would travel as you say over 900 feet.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. You seem to say that if the initial speed was 32.6 m/s and not f/s then to reach 300feet away it would not even have to be 32.6f/s.

Makes no sense, mate.

Now I am not sure as to what was the cause for the tower collapses on 911 but your attempt to show that was as the US government states does not work by the criteria you set yourself.

Nice try but no cigar.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
WOW Here some more proof that the planes were remote controlled tell me you guys think www.rense.com...


Flip up any image of a United Airlines 767 over at airliners.net - heck, I'll even give you a direct link to a photo of the very same plane, taken more than a year earlier:

www.airliners.net...

You can see the two antennas on the underside of the aircraft. The apparent larger size of the antennas on the WTC photo is due to a photographic effect known as blooming, where very bright objects "spill" over to the surrounding areas. As for the "planar antenna" on the tailfin - that's the United Airlines logo (also affected by blooming).



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
WOW Here some more proof that the planes were remote controlled tell me you guys think www.rense.com...


About Rense, as I assume you put stock in it as you are linking to it for "proof". I am the farthest from "the gov wasn't involved", so as not to think I am trying to put off any place for info. But Rense, well, a wise conspiracy believer needs to be skeptical of that site (and other similars). For instance, the page linked about the antennae, the header says the fact of RC antennae has been"verified". How can one VERIFY something from a still photo of a very fast moving jet (in a slight bank and a bit of yaw no less) of which the resulting photos are crap for zoom and investigate?

It seems everything coming out of Rense is "proven", if that were the case, this fiasco of post-9/11 would not exist as it does. Also ironic is, many many bits of "proof" are found only at Rense, and has always been only at Rense - real proof propegates quickly.

Just some caution at ya :=]

Misfit



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I think this will be TOO MUCH to deney for those who think the Gov had nothing to do with WTC-9/11 www.911wasalie.com...


interesting picures of the flash. But they are trying to say it is a missle, so its clear these people have done no research into it. im afraid it is not a missile.
all missiles i know of, are attached to the aircraft, released through the cockpit weapons arm system. When you press launch, the missile drops clear from the aircraft for about 2 seconds then fires up.
this is clearly not a missile 'launching just before impact.'
At least not something in use commonly enough to be describe as a 'missile'



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ

interesting picures of the flash. But they are trying to say it is a missle, so its clear these people have done no research into it. im afraid it is not a missile.

[snip]



I also consider this of the flash : steel + aluminum + nose/cockpit jammed with wires & electronics @ [apx] 500/mph = one hell of a flash !!

That thought has been brought up repeatedly since 9/11, but most revert to "missle".

Wanna test it? Take a sledge hammer and swing as hard as you can into the breaker box of your house, you'll see flash - same principle.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
[Wanna test it? Take a sledge hammer and swing as hard as you can into the breaker box of your house, you'll see flash - same principle.

Misfit


Damn! Why didn't you warn me that I would get shocked.

Don't anybody else try this it's a trick! He wants you to get shocked.


Of couse I'm j/k



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
what made the scrap so valuable while it was being hauled away then only to be sold as scrap?


Evidence against the government.

This was the only case I ever heard where they used GPS to track then scrap evidence. So another first for the history of 9/11



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Give up the crazy ideas that the buildings w'r brought down by TNT......

It's simple....Planes crashed into the buildings and basicly torr d'a crap out of it.....

Then the "fire" effected the compromised building in ways we will never know...this has never been studied before because this has never happened before 9/11 (esp. on a "un-typical" structural design like those buildings). And not t'a mention.....possible they "cheated" the design a bit during construction (but that's never gon'a come out...esp. since they got' rid of the stuff to China).

And the fire is def. gon'a effect the building regardless of the temperature....you don't need the "melting" point to have the building fail....and not to mention the building Fire system (sprinklers) would be gone.

And there is NO standards to follow (CODES) for all the "stuff" in an office...we have standards for "smoke and fire control" for everything that is built into the building...but when it comes to furniture (finnishing etc.) no standards required, and yes all this stuff will burn. And can't see anyone making sure the furniture is "non-flamable" because it does not exist.

And this expert (in the video) who states all this stuff......man he's only an electrical guy (and only 8 years)...and if he so good and such an expert.....why can't he find a pair of glasses that fit his head.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
...and if he so good and such an expert.....why can't he find a pair of glasses that fit his head.



Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." An argument is called non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
It's simple....Planes crashed into the buildings and basicly torr d'a crap out of it.....


thread over then huh?

youd make a great dectective extra in a columbo movie, the kind he always shows up

[edit on 7-7-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ

Originally posted by svenglezz
It's simple....Planes crashed into the buildings and basicly torr d'a crap out of it.....


thread over then huh?

youd make a great dectective extra in a columbo movie, the kind he always shows up

[edit on 7-7-2005 by AdamJ]


hey, you're supposed to look at svengali's hypnotic avatar before you read his stuff. try it again WITH hypnotism.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ NOW @ THE @ TOWER @ FELL@ BECAUSE @ PLANES @ TORE @ THE @ CRAP @ UP@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

feel better? now, let's all go 'rock the vote' and 'make a difference'.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
And the fire is def. gon'a effect the building regardless of the temperature....you don't need the "melting" point to have the building fail....


So, how then does a steel structured building fall if the steel does not reach that point, the point that it is no longer rigid steel?

I can read in your comment that you actually just reinforced the idea that it did not fall "because" of structural weakness due to fire .......... no melting point - no failing steel structure. The outer shell isn't going to bring down the steel assets that building was built with.

Misfit




top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join