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: 24
4
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
"While it might not be true, i can imagine why they wouldn't want to go with a fact like the terrorists having guns because that would open up a whole other can of worms for airport security."

First off, airport security wasn't the problem. The AIRLINES were responsible for security...


Well Bush's brother was involved in both airport AND the Airlines involved so either way really, if a gun was smuggled on board it wouldn't be hard to do when you control the security of both the airport and the airline used.
Of course i'm not stating that as fact, just a window that is still open.



"A gun is a bit different than a small blade that couldn't harm you that much even if they did cut you with it."

Yeah a gun is, but a razor blade will cut a persons throat just as well as a knife will, and all the reports I have heard about 9/11 say that's exactly what happened. One pilot, and passenger for sure were killed by having their throats cut.


Your not cutting anyones throat with a box cutter without making A LOT of commotion which is my main problem with the box cutter theory. If you saw a struggle on board a plane, there would be SOMEONE who would jump in to break up the fight. You'd have more luck with your Mothers 'good' scissors and just jaming it into someone's neck but official story claims it was a 'box cutter'.
A gun thou can catch anyone by surprise, it just doesn't add up unless it was already on board.

Not trying to squash your post at all because as it stands with 'official story' it's correct.

I'm positive thou i saw a TV report that mentioned a gun that day and i'm sure i've read it somewhere too but it seems to be a detail which has been lost in the folk lore already.



[edit on 13-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I remember hearing that too, but there were so many confused reports that day that I kinda threw that one out with some of the others. I was working security that day. It would have had to have been someone taking the gun and passing it through a secured door, and giving it to someone on the other side. And that would have to be a badged person that had gone through a background check. I'm not saying it's NOT possible, but it would be a lot harder to get a gun through than razor blades, and knives, since they were perfectly legal to take on the plane. The chances of a gun being caught at the checkpoint are pretty high, even pre 9/11. We caught several of them here, and the FAA tests that were performed monthly were pretty difficult to catch, but we caught most of them. It was a one day suspension, a week of retraining, and a $10,000 fine to the company if we didn't. heh.

The way I heard it was done, they just suddenly grabbed one passenger in the front of the plane from behind, and slit his throat. The same for at least one pilot. If they did that, then stood up and said they had bombs on board as was reported, people would be so stunned, and surprised that they would have probably frozen for long enough they could take control. By the time they were in control, the "Don't provoke them, we'll be ok" attitude would have taken over.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
YOu guys need to wake up
Watch this 3hr documentary by alex jones
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
One other thing you won't see much mention of is the fly by wire systems that were installed on commercial aircraft in the eighties which allowed planes which had been hijacked to be controlled from land or from other aircraft like the Awacs. Explain to me how box cutter weilding, flight school flunky terrorists disabled the fly by wire systems which to my understanding even commercial pilots cannot disable. Especially when over half the list of those terrorists turned out to be dead for years or alive and well in other countries wanting to know why they were being called dead terrorists.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
You won't hear about them because until the 777 Boeing didn't BUILD a fly by wire airliner. Airbus did, but Boeing didn't. They built fly by wire FIGHTERS, but not commercial planes.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It's not fly by wire, that's a way to control the aircraft from the cockpit using computers instead of the old direct muscular force method...

"Home Run" I think is what you're refering to.

www.911-strike.com...

www.geocities.com...


[edit on 13/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
If there was a system like that in place already, we should have seen at least some abuse of it, and more accidents, or at least close calls using it. I've heard the talk about a system like that for years, off and on, but it always gets shot down because of the potential for abuse, and disasters.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
Hey screw you pal. PROVE TO ME that my gridlines are manipulative or conceptually flawed. Far as I am concered, it's just another photograph that doesn't fit in nicely with your theories.


Cool off man. The only thing I said specifically in regards to your graphic was that it was "questionable in [its] accuracy as well." I never specificlaly said that yours were the ones that were conceptually flawed or manipulative. The one's Howard posted were the ones that were pure BS, because as I've said there's no evidence anyone could have possibly based them on. Whoever made them was just using a vivid imagination. I clicked your image, and still can't see how you found each floor. To say they may have been a few inches off in terms of the building itself seems like a bit of a stretch to myself.


The 1000+ pages of radio and telephone call transcripts also don't fit in neatly with your conspiracy theories so you guys discount them as if they didn't exist.


As far as I know, saying "man there's a lot of smoke over here" or "gosh look at this big fire!" are not only generalization and unscientific but also do not take away from the fact that the fires, based on science, and not just what people were saying as they were under stress during a national emergency, show that the fires were not enough to bring the buildings down. You can't refute the science for demo with firefighter transcripts unless the firefighters get scientific on us. How do they prove the fires were at the alleged temperatures? Do they whip out some heavy duty thermometers?


I continaually see fact filled posts by members on this forum berated and insulted by tiny minded people who are either too stupid to do the work for themselves or by people who are too ignorant to be able to even form an opinion on a topic. It gets old quickly. The moment you post anything of value to counter my post I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.


Where have you been? Read my posts. One of the last ones had something to the extent of this:


No one here is yet to refute the fires being no hotter than 600 degrees Celsius. Again, the evidence behind this is threefold:

A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen. 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.

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. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.

Until those things are refuted, there isn't even a case for fire-caused collapse, because the fires were simply not hot enough. It's impossible for 600-degree fires to bring down a steel skyscraper by themselves, and yet there's no evidence that the fires were ever otherwise. I've also shown that the fires cooled, as is apparent when you watch the smoke coming from either building on 9/11.


And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors gave almost absolutely no resistance. Is that not good enough for you to come down from heaven to try to refute? Or can you just not account for those things? I don't understand.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

1. Bush's reaction (what's that got 2 do with it)
2. Insider trading (again stretching it)
3. "Pull-It" quote ( that was WTC no. 7 not 1 and 2)
4. People heard bombs (my Mom would'a said a nuke went off)
5. Fire not hot enough (what fire is not hot..plus Planes remember)
6. Free fall towers (free fall...fell from the Top down...not like TNT)
7. Penta-lawn (what's the lawn thousands of miles away got to do with it)
8. Beltway witnesses hearing"whoosh"(uhm..."whoosh" prob.my Moms sister)
9. Pentagon Line photo (again not the WTC buildings wrong thread)
10. Small fires in WTC 7 (duh...fires all over plus...lot of M&E stuff)
11. "Missle" slips by Rumsfield (ok that's not the WTC they def. shot it)
12. Bush security work towers (Oh y'a Bush was there..more reason to hit it)
13. Power outages week prior (Uhm....got to Mexico..power out...daily)
14. GPS tracking of metal (GPS tracking...omg...never hear that before)
15. Quick disposal of evidence, er metal (You know Chinese they want in a hurry...they don' mess around....lol...what they gon'a do with it...re build it..image laying it all out making a study....to fing out...yup they fell due to the planes)
16. Whitewash of 9/11 probe (duh again...why would y'a)
17. Refusal to release all video evidence (why would they...plus would prob. help d'a terrorist...why give em everything)
18. NORAD stand down (They did not have time to stop it)
19. Saudi flights out of country (duh...would you stay)
20. Hijackers found alive in Egypt ( found a couple...good CIA work NOT)
21. Unburned passports (you can always get copies)
22. Extremist Muslims going to strip club (sure why not they sin also)
23. Bad pilots - skilled execution (who say they bad....plus BF2 I can fly a fighter get
24. Instant Messages warning of attacks (what was the exact "text")
25. Normal Tuesday 40 - 50,000 > only 3,000 killed (many got out)
26. Roof door locked (that's just good Bush security)
27. Firefighter report only a few fires (uhmm...look at the video agian)
28. Second tower hit falls first (funny how things work some times)

Just thought you may want to add the other side of it.


Sven, I am now ignoring you, because not only are you unwilling to accept even the possibility of an inside job, but you can't even make an argument as to why. This is a serious issue, and those explanations are beyond pathetic.

How are these even counter-statements?


23. Bad pilots - skilled execution (who say they bad....plus BF2 I can fly a fighter get
24. Instant Messages warning of attacks (what was the exact "text")


x.x

No, wait, I have new favorites now!


5. Fire not hot enough (what fire is not hot..plus Planes remember)
...
8. Beltway witnesses hearing"whoosh"(uhm..."whoosh" prob.my Moms sister)


Both priceless.


The counter to the evidence that the fires were never beyond 600 degrees? Why, it's simply this: what fire is not hot..plus planes, remember?


stick to facts




And Anok, you got a way above from me as well.
Sorry if I quoted here a bit excessively. :-/

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
okay, you're just supposed to agree with me, catherder. the grid is not accurate. the perspective is off. you need to find the vanishing points to accurately draw the floors. just admit it. it's no big deal to be a little bit wrong once in a while.


You know, because I was so offended by your, and other responses to my pretty darn accurate floor grid. I went and re-did the work (must have rocks in my head to spend all this time redoing something that was obviously correct the first time) and used 3 origins on each building. You can CLEARLY SEE the the representation for the floors in the original grid was very very close to bang on (+/- 2% like I said to begin with - I'd still say these floor grids are accurate +/-2% in my updated version below).

Left side vanishing point determined. Click image to view (HUGE) original.

(9000x1800 -- 90 dpi 439kb Compression 8)

Right side vanishing point determined. Click image to view (HUGE) original.

(3845x2055 -- 90dpi 410kb Compression 8)

Here is the building remapped using vanishing points.

Click here to view HUGE original.
(11785x1963 -- 90 dpi 810kb Compression 3)
I've decided to RAR this image since it's of considerable size and it's not worth the bandwidth to me... RAR size (300kb)


How can I claim those are the actual floors, and how can I claim that the lines visible on the building represent the actual floors? Well, I can look at hundreds and hundreds of other images of the WTC towers and yes indeed, those lines are indeed the "breaks" (joints) between each floor. For example this image of WTC2 burning early after impact clearly shows the floors. The only floors where a slightly different "break" pattern is apparent are on the Skylobby levels where there are elevator lobbies and a floor or two of engineering (air conditioning, water pumps, electrical, etc.). There are (were) sky lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors, with escalators providing 2 way service to the floors directly above and below the 44th and 78th floors.

Now, I recall from memory that somebody in the past has done a similar grid on one of the WTC tower photos and used a vanishing point (which by the way is how you draw a building from scratch, yes I did take Art and Drafting in high school, boys and girls). What is disconcerting is to have a clearly correct image/graphic disputed by a few posters because they had nothing else to counter it with other than their sole point of knowledge being based on the work of another single person/image in the past that chose to use vanishing points to provide evidence that his floor lines were correct...

However, the FLOORS STILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IN MY ORIGINAL EXAMPLE AND THE FIRE ON FLOOR 78 IS STILL IN THE SAME POSITION. Go figure.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I'm glad that now, after all this arguing, we may agree that the firefighters that said they only needed two lines meant for floor 78. And now we also know where floor 78 is.


Now we can get back to how the fires in general could not have brought those buildings down, lol.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

wecomeinpeace wrote:
A firefighting battalion chief was on the 78th floor of WTC2, on the south side, which is precisely where the plane hit.


CatHerder wrote:
78 was the bottom floor not the middle floor of the impact...
[...]
...tiny minded people who are either too stupid...
[...]
...people who are too ignorant...
[...]
...The moment you post anything of value to counter my post...
[...]
You know, because I was so offended by your, and other responses to my pretty darn accurate floor grid.
[...]
However, the FLOORS STILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IN MY ORIGINAL EXAMPLE AND THE FIRE ON FLOOR 78 IS STILL IN THE SAME POSITION.


Wait, wait, wait.... I was reading back trying to figure out what all this fuss was for. Are you telling me that all this redrawing grids, finding vanishing points, ego-stroking, childish insults, and two pages of wasted bandwidth...was to clarify that the 78th floor was the bottom of the damage?! When nobody claimed otherwise?! Or was it simply an ego thing over 2 pixels of perspective?? OMG you need to get a grip, babe.


Got it out of your system? Good. Can we get back to the fires not being hot enough to do what it's claimed they did now?

[edit on 2005-7-13 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Anomolies 101

1. Bush's reaction (what's that got 2 do with it)
2. Insider trading (again stretching it)
3. "Pull-It" quote ( that was WTC no. 7 not 1 and 2)
4. People heard bombs (my Mom would'a said a nuke went off)
5. Fire not hot enough (what fire is not hot..plus Planes remember)
6. Free fall towers (free fall...fell from the Top down...not like TNT)
7. Penta-lawn (what's the lawn thousands of miles away got to do with it)
8. Beltway witnesses hearing"whoosh"(uhm..."whoosh" prob.my Moms sister)
9. Pentagon Line photo (again not the WTC buildings wrong thread)
10. Small fires in WTC 7 (duh...fires all over plus...lot of M&E stuff)
11. "Missle" slips by Rumsfield (ok that's not the WTC they def. shot it)
12. Bush security work towers (Oh y'a Bush was there..more reason to hit it)
13. Power outages week prior (Uhm....got to Mexico..power out...daily)
14. GPS tracking of metal (GPS tracking...omg...never hear that before)
15. Quick disposal of evidence, er metal (You know Chinese they want in a hurry...they don' mess around....lol...what they gon'a do with it...re build it..image laying it all out making a study....to fing out...yup they fell due to the planes)
16. Whitewash of 9/11 probe (duh again...why would y'a)
17. Refusal to release all video evidence (why would they...plus would prob. help d'a terrorist...why give em everything)
18. NORAD stand down (They did not have time to stop it)
19. Saudi flights out of country (duh...would you stay)
20. Hijackers found alive in Egypt ( found a couple...good CIA work NOT)
21. Unburned passports (you can always get copies)
22. Extremist Muslims going to strip club (sure why not they sin also)
23. Bad pilots - skilled execution (who say they bad....plus BF2 I can fly a fighter get

24. Instant Messages warning of attacks (what was the exact "text")
25. Normal Tuesday 40 - 50,000 > only 3,000 killed (many got out)
26. Roof door locked (that's just good Bush security)
27. Firefighter report only a few fires (uhmm...look at the video agian)
28. Second tower hit falls first (funny how things work some times)

Just thought you may want to add the other side of it.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

PS plus I'm gon'a prase when I see fit.....no matter who's side of the team...if you produce something that good..me'z be the first to say so...and if it's bad....well then I just laugh...and try t'a help.


you know what just watch this 9\11 documentary by alex jones and then answer.YOu have all answered blindly
radio.indymedia.org...

radio.indymedia.org...

radio.indymedia.org...



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I tell you what.

You think the government is way too innocent to pull such nasty crimes like putting explosives in buildings. Yet they continue to pollute and deform the people of Iraq with Depleted Uranium.

Take a look (Warning extreme pictures)

I know I am off topic but I am proving a point. The government(s) don't care how many they kill.

From Ground Zero

Watch and learn.

Peace



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
For air to blow out that violently through untouched windows it would have to be highly compressed. I'm not sure how compressed we're talking, but those windows were pretty tough for the high winds at that altitude, and the increase in air pressure of a few levels packed into one level in a few seconds wouldn't do anything to the windows.

The floors were not pancacking in big, homogenous pieces anyway. Cracks that allowed air to rush up through them would inevitably be created, and air will always take the path of least resistance.

For me, the idea of compressed air blowing out windows as the building falls is not realistic.


Well since the floors were over 90% air, I'm not sure that your dismissal of the increase in the air pressure is all that valid. Also, you have to remember that the windows are fitted in between the vertical rise of the exterior columns. If those columns started to move, twist and shift as a result of the collapse, then the windows would not have been firmly fastened in place.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Well since the floors were over 90% air, I'm not sure that your dismissal of the increase in the air pressure is all that valid. Also, you have to remember that the windows are fitted in between the vertical rise of the exterior columns. If those columns started to move, twist and shift as a result of the collapse, then the windows would not have been firmly fastened in place.


I, for one, won't doubt that the air could have knocked out a window or two as floors from above crushed down onto the floors in question. But so many floors down from the collapsing area? Such singularly random windows? Really, Howard. Unless you chalk this up to some freak occurence via quantum physics, there's really no reason such random windows should blow out.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I think there has been enough unrefuted evidence posted here to conclude that there are huge unresolved issues in the NIST report, to say the least. Most importantly among them, I think, is the fact that NIST's case relies upon the fact that the fires were hot enough to bring the buildings down, and yet there is no evidence that either fire ever went far beyond 600 degrees Celsius. At any rate, no one here has yet to refute the evidence supporting this. That is nowhere near hot enough to even begin bringing any steel building down.

So I submit to you HR, that the NIST's draft report is, as someone mentioned on the first page of this thread, "bull#e."

Proven simply by the fact that the fires were not hot enough to comply with NIST theory.


No one here is yet to refute the fires being no hotter than 600 degrees Celsius. Again, the evidence behind this is threefold:

A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen [and 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.

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. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.

Until those things are refuted, there isn't even a case for fire-caused collapse, because the fires were simply not hot enough. It's impossible for 600-degree fires to bring down a steel skyscraper by themselves, and yet there's no evidence that the fires were ever otherwise. I've also shown that the fires cooled, as is apparent when you watch the smoke coming from either building on 9/11.


That goes along with the mound of other problems, not least of which including the unprecedented rate of collapse and symmetry of both collapses, that could only occur from such alleged structural damage in the most freak of chance occurences.

So again, I submit that the NIST report has been unrefutedly shown as bunk on a fundamental level. Shouldn't be surprising considering this is a government report.

I suspect now that I'm posting this, Howard will finally make a half-butted attempt to appear to rebutt each, but it won't happen beyond his rhetoric and disinfo. Each of those three points are extremely well established and are not really a matter of debate.


I would very much like to see the specific, technical reasons why you do not think that the draft reports are correct.


And there you have it. The fires were not hot enough. End of story - the report is crap.

The windows remained intact, the fires stayed on the same floors they originated on, and not a single piece of steel glowed red. All inconsistent with the alleged temperatures, and consistent with a temperature of around 600 degrees Celsius or cooler.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Is it not possible that the force.....of the air (would be lots' thats for sure...a lot of c.f.m.
....more th'n a laptop fan that's for sure I check'd in a physics book


Still feel the building w'r brought down (even after the video posts)...and feel that the force of the air....would def. go down many floors.....the air will always go w'r th'Rzzzzz "least resistance" thus blow out w'r it can.....(the window they installed after a liquid lunch)....but seriouse...can see it blow many floor below.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
On the theme of blown windows, I have yet to hear anything of debunking what I have brought up several times, and posted pics to twice for clarification.

Why will no debunker resolve this instance? ...............

In the pic, below the line of collapse, why is this half+ floor having a massive outburst?
Ya can't say it is ANYTHING to do with air, unless of course compression can bypass about 11 floors.



Misfit



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
OK...I don't believe either..... "theorys" or the report that say'z how it knows how hot it was burning......if w'r "all" such experts ...then we would know.....as per the "book" the only way to realy know the temerature of the fire would be to have the equipment to measure the temp. at the time, otherwise we realy don't know, we can only estamite...but realy don't know that there be many many other factors that we may not see, that also played a role in bringing the towers down.

But feel with an office super structure with Jet fuel to get it going.....after most of the structural coloums are gone.....that's gon'a bring it down...that's how I see it and that's just my humble opionion....you can knock me all you want' but It does not bother me....it's my right...and I am truly being sinsere that I don't mean any harm and if I did to others, please excuse me....and I know I'm not the most articulate person (so thanx if y'r still reading). Just trying to "contribute" and I'm not trying to brag.....(and not the best at expressing myself..prob. takes me 5 times longer to write this all, then most people esp. on this thread)....but I have been involved in construction my hole life and worked with drawings and plans...so just trying to give my getto' engineering esperiance....hope it helps.

Oh...one more thing.....would it not make sence to start "lobbing" the Structural Engineers in the USA and other countries....structural engineers are realy the only ones that I would listen 2....would it not make sence that they....slowly would start to come out and say something...is it not poss. to try to email these people...maybe get that junk mail working for us...instead of in my Bulk mail folder? Just an idea.

As always, y'r Canadian Friend,
Sven




top topics



 
4
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join