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: 30
4
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:
dh

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I would suggest Howard get over to a 777 thread. There are new battles to be fought
the 7/7 might prove the wakening of a significant number of people
Don't let any area out of control


[edit on 16-7-2005 by dh]




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
I’m sure this has been posted before but I think it needs to remembered it’s not just us here at ATS that feel the FEMA is a load of bull

Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce


Snip~~
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.”

- - - -
I love it. Every time someone brings up an article by Christopher Bollyn, all I have to do is to find the source article to quickly demonstrate Bollyn's selective and biased presentation of the facts.

From the editorial by Bill Manning, referenced in Bollyn's article:



However, 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. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the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. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.



Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like the conclusions reached in the NIST report.

Furthermore, in another article, Manning points out:


* 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?


All of these are very valid points, which are addressed in the NIST report, which Bollyn is free to comment on.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Black indicates that the window is open, blue that it is not visible (or undetermined)

Clearly, the fires burned through the windows over time.


Howard, what's important here is not how the fires "opened" windows. That could have happened from any number of things fire does to a window panel when it's burning right up next to it.


like what? Throw a rock through it?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
cherry picking again ey Howard

by Howard Roark
I love it. Every time someone brings up an article by Christopher Bollyn, all I have to do is to find the source article to quickly demonstrate Bollyn's selective and biased presentation of the facts.

No offence meant here Howard but I will take his and the fire chiefs word over yours any day



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.”

On Christmas Day, The New York Times reported that structural engineers have demanded a completely new investigation because the decision to quickly recycle the tower’s steel columns, beams and trusses had resulted in the wholesale destruction of critical evidence.

The engineers said that the “serious mistake” to recycle the structural steel deprived investigators of the most important direct physical evidence required when trying to piece together what caused the towers to collapse.

In the United States there are thousands of similar lightweight, center-core construction high-rise buildings with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing, according to Manning.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is reported to be studying “some aspects of the collapse,” but not all, according to Manning and others. The engineers’ investigation, they say, has not looked into all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence.

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.

In an article about the mysterious explosion and collapse of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, also known as 7 World Trade Center, which burned and collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, The New York Times reported on Dec. 20 that the New York City Fire Department had repeatedly warned city officials “that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor’s $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center” could result in a “disaster” if it caught fire.

Fire Department officials had warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that the 6,000-gallon diesel tank posed a serious hazard and was a violation of city fire codes. A leak in the tank would result in toxic and flammable fumes being spread throughout the building. Despite the obvious dangers, warnings and fire code violations, the city made only minor changes to address the concerns and the tank remained in place




[edit on 16/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Howard responds to these images by posting the following:

"Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before the collapses started."

The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534450 (post id: 1556343).

Howard thereby implies that for the graphics to be valid, the explosion would have had to have taken place before the start of the collapse (with "before" in bold in his original post).



Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

If you are going to quote me, do it properly and in context. The post in question


Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Firefighters, live news reports and witnesses all reported a bomb blast at the towers base just before the buildings fell.


Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before the collapses started.



As you can see, I was not talking about the images whatsoever, but the comment that "Firefighters, live news reports and witnesses all reported a bomb blast at the towers base just before the buildings fell."

There is no way to prove that these so-called blasts were not the sounds of the actual building collapse already underway.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Sauron, what part of that article proves that the WTC collapses wasn't the result of the impact and subsequent fires?


In addition, the date on that was from Feb '02.




[edit on 16-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sauron, what part of that article proves that the WTC collapses wasn't the result of the impact and subsequent fires?

In addition, the date on that was from Feb '02.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

no You prove to me that the Towers where brought down by the impact of the jets and fires, cause you still haven't done that yet



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
If you don't want to talk about that article, then why did you bring it up?

I'll tel you what, Why don't you e-mail the magazine and ask them if they are reviewing and commenting on the NIST report.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
someone i know really high up along with 2 military officials i know have told this story many times to me. we argue and argue for hours but the truth is: bush paid for the twin towers to be attacked. not only that but a bonus to fund the terrorists if they take out the pentagon as well. so it it wasent for good old bush again this would never have happened.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If you don't want to talk about that article, then why did you bring it up?

I'll tel you what, Why don't you e-mail the magazine and ask them if they are reviewing and commenting on the NIST report.


Howard I did as you asked, good idea. Now I hope they respond I will post there answer if I get one.

[edit on 16/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

like what? Throw a rock through it?


Well, let's take a look at what's holding the glass up.



Sorry, you'll have to click a link for this next pic. It's huge.

www.john-knapton.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

If you are going to quote me, do it properly and in context. The post in question


quote: Originally posted by HowardRoark

quote: Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Firefighters, live news reports and witnesses all reported a bomb blast at the towers base just before the buildings fell.


Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before the collapses started.


As you can see, I was not talking about the images whatsoever, but the comment that "Firefighters, live news reports and witnesses all reported a bomb blast at the towers base just before the buildings fell."

There is no way to prove that these so-called blasts were not the sounds of the actual building collapse already underway.


My apologies. Let me correct the information.

Rather than address the squibs in the pictures posted, you comment on a remark SoM makes that also mentions explosions while leaving the rest of the post totally unmentioned. I suppose that's more selectivity than avoidance, but it seems to me like it may be a sort of mix of the two given my connotations. What do you think, Howard?

Here's another example of avoidance to put in its place: Offering figures for window failures rather than glass shatterings, and expecting me to buy the window failures as if they were glass shatterings. Two very different things you're trying to sleight off as one. That's avoidance, is it not? You're the pro, you tell me.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Again with being selective, Howard. You ignored everything else. I suppose you'll ignore this, too:

guardian.150m.com...


We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).


Again, here:

guardian.150m.com...

The link above goes into great scientific detail, down to the very chemical reactions that would've been behind the fires.

Anybody else interested should take a glance at the link above, as well. It's good stuff!


[edit on 16-7-2005 by bsbray11]


I've addressed that one before. Basicly there are some fundamental errors in his math and in his application of the principles of thermodynamics. I don't really fel like going into it again at this time.

maybe later.




(besides, the link is shut down. :p)

[edit on 17-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Just an FYI

Here are some comments on the NIST report:


security info watch

ASCE

other groups



Do you think that Christopher Bollyn will go to the technical confrence on the NIST report in September?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
That's because they are happy to except the official reports, just like you and they are taught to Howwie.

The only thing the building industry was interested in was whether the WTC collapse was due to it's construction.

I'm sure their minds were already made up (for them) that the "official" story was what happened.

Just like you howwie, to believe anything other than what they are told by "officials" is unthinkable. It would destroy the whole myth of their own importance and public credibility.

Even if they did have doubts, they would dismiss them because of the fear of what their colleagues would think of them.

You see Howward there is more to this than just "official documents" and "professional opinion". Too much involved for any "official" to really risk sticking his neck out and sharing his doubts.

So you're are just wasting your time giving links to statements from organisations, which gain by excepting the "official" story, and lose by admitting to any doubt.

AP&F...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

I've addressed that one before. Basicly there are some fundamental errors in his math and in his application of the principles of thermodynamics. I don't really fel like going into it again at this time.

maybe later.


Would it be too much to even link to it or something?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I've addressed that one before. Basicly there are some fundamental errors in his math and in his application of the principles of thermodynamics. I don't really fel like going into it again at this time.

maybe later.




(besides, the link is shut down. :p)

[edit on 17-7-2005 by HowardRoark]


You say he has a flaw in his maths, yet you also say the link is shut down. So if the link is shut down how can you possibly even know what he's talking about.

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
I am curious of one thing - how do you come to the conclusion of what the specific floor is? [ Of which, I find it awfully funny that, the two of you being the seemingly "know it all" about the WTC's, you each thnk that floor is different - one says it's the SkylLobby, the other says it's the Mech floor. ]. Are there some identifying markings of the buildings? As I don't recall any pics of the collaps, from the ground up as to calculate floor numbers.


While I do not claim, and never have I claimed, to be an expert on the WTC towers, I can see, with my own eyes, that the Mechanical floors and Sky Lobby levels are a different color (due to texture mostly) than the rest of the building. I'm sure you can too but are choosing to ignore this or just haven't paid attention to the hundreds of WTC photos you've probably viewed in the course of becoming expert enough to laugh about the subject?





------- Adding a couple details to WCIP's compressed air questioning -------

CatHerder ......... on the 13th, you replied to my questioning of your Skylobby theory with your comment of the compressed aire jumped those 11-15 floors via the elevator shafts. Unless the WTC elevator doors are unlike any other, in that the electric juice keeps the doors open against a mecahinical closing force [many applications work this way, I just don't see this being applicable to shaft doors] .......... that theory quite laughable.


Well, I'm glad you find it laughable. What I find laughable is your (and others on here) ability to have all these opinions without appearing to do any reading whatsoever from sources other than conspiracy websites. But you certainly have the ability to insult other posters on here who get off their asses and go read the information for you.

If you'd go read anything regarding the elevators in the WTC towers you would find that almost none of the doors can be opened from the outside of the elevator shafts, nor most from inside any elevator. This was a safety measure added to the building (against some of the building engineers voices/opinions, and against the opinions of quite a few NYFD) due to state code changes to prevent accidental falls into elevator shafts.

To comply with building codes, the World Trade Center since 1996 had been adding locks that made it impossible for passengers to force open the doors of stalled elevators. These locks, called "door restrictors," had been added to about half of the 198 elevators in the twin towers. Nobody is known to have escaped from an elevator locked by a door restrictor. The World Trade Center followed a long-established approach to elevator rescues: Leave people inside stalled elevators until professionals can perform rescues. The elevators had three mechanisms, including the restrictors, designed to prevent people from accidentally falling down elevator shafts. An untold number were still trapped when the buildings collapsed. (source)
  • Door restrictors dropped a steel rod, like a deadbolt, into the mechanism that opened the elevator's doors. The lock was activated when a properly working elevator left a landing. If the elevator stopped suddenly or lost power, the restrictor made it impossible to open the inside door more than 4 inches. The lock could be released — and the doors opened fully — only from the elevator car's roof.
  • On all elevators, both those with and those without door restrictors, pressure from the motors kept doors closed until elevator cars were near a landing. Several strong men could overpower these motors. A loss of electrical power also could free the doors.
  • All of the outside or hallway doors had locks called "interlocks" that prevented opening the doors. This made it difficult for bystanders to help people stuck in elevators. But it was possible for people in an elevator to release this lock, if they had been able to open the inside car door first. The release mechanism for the interlocks was on the shaft side of the door.

I'll provide you with some links to read regarding the WTC elevator door mechanisms and hopefully you and a couple others will actually click on the links this time and read the information. People were unable to get out of elevators after the aircraft impacts and some never did manage to get out of the elevators - all because of these added "safety features" installed a few years before. You can read quite a few accounts of people unable to get into, or out of, elevators in the transcripts from the New York Times, released by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. You'll also read more than one account mentioning the restricters and interlocks in the same transcripts. In those transcripts you can read about one building engineer chopping through a wall to get at another engineer trapped inside an elevator, that engineer then slid him out some wire cutters so he could cut the interlock cable and open the outside doors to let the people trapped in the elevator out...

While my opinion on why dirt/dust/etc is exiting on the Sky lobby levels might be incorrect (it might not be from air coming down elevator shafts) - it may very well be from air coming down vent shafts, or a combination of ventilator shafts and elevator shafts - it is still the Sky Lobby levels where the vast majority of these "squibs" are evidenced in the images I keep seeing.

Keep up the laughing though, it's apparently healthy.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Def. see the air/dust/smoke going thru' the air shaft....and would travel right thru' the HVAC machine and to the outside, not to mention the emergency pressurisation ducts to the elevator shafts (th'r w'r a lot of elevators....no?)

We must remember the HVAC & Emerg. press. ducts....are "open to the outside" (louvres on the outside of the building) ....and the air/dust would go thru' the ducts & shafts at a very high velocity and shoot out like in the photos'....and that's for sure.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I dont get it svenglezz,I told you to watch alex jones 9\11 documentary and still you are not believeing that it was an inside job for NWO and the towers were brought doen by explosives and i dont kno wheather your are working for them but let me tell you that by the grace of almighty god the fourth plane didn't hit it target(the heart of democracy) and remember that the the 4th reich would fail just like the other 3 ones.GOOD always wins over EVIL

[edit on 18-7-2005 by warthog911]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join