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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Here's a U.S. official saying 9/11 was an "inside job" so this should realy show doubters who don't think THE gOV CARRIED OUT 9/11 www.infowars.com...

[edit on 2-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Here's a U.S. official saying 9/11 was an "inside job" so this should realy show doubters who don't think THE gOV CARRIED OUT 9/11 www.infowars.com...

[edit on 2-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]


No. Morgan Reynolds was a guy that use to polish the cabinets at the White House and he happened to come across some goverment stationary and wrote a letter and thats why he was fired.

Am I right HR?

What about the firemen with the use of the term pull? No comment?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
My only question is that if all of the eyewitnesses heard so many explosions going off in the buildings, why did it take so long for them to come down?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis


"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

- Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "

You should get a job at UL Howard because you obviously know more than those running the place!




Well it is pretty obvious that Kevin Ryan doesn't even understand the parameters of the tests that he is referring to. No wonder they canned him.



ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours.

www.pima.org...



The first two tests, conducted earlier this month at the UL facility in Toronto, Canada, looked at the fire performance of 11-meter (35-foot) floor systems coated with a near-uniform 19-millimeter-thick (0.75-inch) layer of fireproofing material. This is representative of the span size and as-applied average fireproofing thickness of the floor systems in the WTC towers.



For the two experiments at UL in Illinois, 5-meter (17-foot) truss spans – the standard size used in U.S. fire resistance tests – were built. Both were restrained. The test on Aug. 19, 2004, was conducted on a floor system with a fireproofing thickness of 19 millimeters (0.75 inch), the same as the 11-meter assemblies tested in Canada. Yesterday’s final fire test used a 5-meter truss with a fireproofing thickness of 13 millimeters (0.5 inch). This was the thickness of the truss fireproofing originally specified when the WTC towers were built. Therefore, if an ASTM E119 fire resistance test had been conducted on the WTC floor system prior to construction, these would have been the test conditions. NIST has no evidence or record indicating that such a test was ever done.

firechief.com...


As you can see, the standard doesn't apply just to the steel, it applies to the whole assembly, including the fireproofing.

Therefore, if the fireproofing was damaged or knocked off by the shock of the impact, the fire resistance rating as determined by ASTM E119 would no longer be valid.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   


Nice, link to NIST to disprove a someone at UL who wrote to NIST about their report being flawed.

Howard, seriously if you don't work for the government in some way, you should because they waste money on much less important things than someone that can do their dirty work for them on one of the nets most popular conspiracy sites. If you need a reference for the Pentagon to start giving you some cheques for all this then i'll happily write one up for you because i think you deserve it, personal opinions on the topic aside, you still work hard for them.

What conspracies do you believe in by the way?
JFK?
UFOs?

Is there anything out there in your seemingly black & white world that equals gray, just out of curiosity?

We have the Northwoods documents which suggest using Terrorism to influence Americans and it's pretty obvious today that JFK was killed via an inside job because he was about to upset the banking empires and the government has been telling a lie about that since, so why is 9/11 so hard to accept as being partially inside if not full?

Your so sure of yourself about defending the official story of 9/11 that it just seems personal rather than anything else. Are you defending this governments name? Is that your mission here?

I just don't understand the stubborness about 9/11 and don't really see you post anywhere else so i'm curious as to why this one is so important to you.




posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
i dont know what to think, its all very confusing. if only i knew my stuff, id be able to spot which bozo is talking rubbish and which smart ass is dead on.
If you want something done properly, you have got to do it yourself



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Therefore, if the fireproofing was damaged or knocked off by the shock of the impact, the fire resistance rating as determined by ASTM E119 would no longer be valid.


"IMHO" Anybody who still believes the fireproofing story is either stupid, asleep, or a liar...Which one are you Howard?


Even IF the fireproofing was "knocked off" temperatures, according to Underwriters Laboratories, could not have reached any higher than 500F (250C).

www.propagandamatrix.com...

www.ul.com...

IF fire did heat up and cause the steel to buckle then that fire was NOT caused by aircraft fuel. So again we have more unanswered questions that ultimately point to a major cover up....(unless you're asleep?)

AP&F...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
shroud of memphis, logic does not apply in the tower collapses. it is strictly a case of majic. you just have to close your eyes and clap your hands three times while saying "melt" over and over, and a building will collapse.
it's called a 'typical runaway collapse'. it is the same majic that makes the grill on your BBQ melt everytime you use it, and also melts your frying pan when you cook with fire.
i know 'cause nist told me so.

and then there's the other majic that makes 'experts' disappear off the face of the earth if they disagree with the stacked deck, uh, i mean, nist report. it's all wonderfully scientific.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Howard,

In past threads I have respected your viewpoint as being both intelligent and informed but I feel that you've let yourself down with this one.

Any 'evidence' that has been presented to you on this and other WTC threads is simply batted away, and not treated with respect. While I applaud the fact that you stick to your guns and cannot be swayed by any 'evidence', this is not always the best road to the truth. Is their not anything in the official WTC evidence that has made you think 'hmmm...that doesn't seem right, I'll look into it myself'?

If we were discussing Human Rights abuses in Zimbabwe would you assume that everything is OK because Robert Mugabe says so?
Your standpoint here is the same. The NIST report has a set of parameters with which to fit 'cause' and 'effect' and the result would be beleivable if it were not for the barrage of conflicting 'evidence'. As I said before, the main points that we are arguing about here on this thread are outside the scope of the NIST report as it is not even looking for other plausible causes for collapse.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Your so sure of yourself about defending the official story of 9/11 that it just seems personal rather than anything else. Are you defending this governments name? Is that your mission here?

I just don't understand the stubborness about 9/11 and don't really see you post anywhere else so i'm curious as to why this one is so important to you.


Ironic, the day of his last post (subsequently yours also, but before it) I told the wife I am adamant that Howard is "The Man". His mission is to defend the government story about 9/11 no matter what. Stick to the story, if someone catches something, deny it, deny it with everything he is worth. No matter what is said, no matter what is brought forth, stick to the gov story. Lie, twist, dispell.

Seems to be working hard at that paycheck; er, your tax dollars?

Just my 'imo'.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   


These reports are being issued in draft form with a six-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing June 23rd and ending at 5 p.m. EDT on August 4th.
[...]
To ensure that your comments are properly considered, it is important that they be submitted in the appropriate format to facilitate review and disposition by the report authors. NIST will prepare a public summary of the comments received and their disposition in September when the final report is issued.


I find it amusing that NIST released a draft and then is asking for comments. SOP or not, it's a great way to get a handle on all the debunking angles so that you can plug up the gaps in the final report.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
As I understand it, all he's asking for is any piece of evidence that disputes the NIST report. Post it here or post it on their website.

I haven't seen anyone do that, just a lot of silly attacks on Howard for starting the topic. I think the buildings fell down because huge commercial airliners flew into each of them at several hundred miles per hour and damaged the structures. Engineers and architects all over the world have examined the events, the forces and stresses on the buildings, and accept the report's findings.

If nobody has any evidence to disprove that, where's the conspiracy?



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I think Howard has a point, I mean when Popular Mechanics wrote an article about it we ripped it to piece (Eric Hufschmid and others)

I think we should indeed prove the documentation wrong, To be honest I would give it ago but I am far too lazy.....

The WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition (I Believe) it shouldn't be too hard for us to prove it.

Come on guys, stop being lazy and do something....you know I'm disabled (lazy)



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury. Please gaze upon these moving pictures.

Moving Pictures 1

Moving Pictures 2

Moving Pictures 3

Moving Pictures 4

Moving Pictures 5

For the entire "Moving Pictures" collection (scroll to second post)

Now LOOK at the Silly Monkey!


[edit on 7-3-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis


Nice, link to NIST to disprove a someone at UL who wrote to NIST about their report being flawed.




Ok, I'm going to ignore your attempts to change the subject.

Let me repeat this one more time.

Kevin Ryan's statement

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.


There are a number of errors, and misconceptions evidenced in the above statement. If U.L. didn't fire him for misrepresenting the organization, they should have fired him for gross incompetence, since it is obvious from the above, that he really doesn't understand the standard that he is alluding to.

Based on his statement, one gets the impression that ASTM E119 is a standard that was applied to a specific steel "sample."

Thus his statement: "And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.," is incorrect in that the standard was no applied to the steel itself, and no we don't all agree that the steel met the standard, because the standard was not applicable to just the steel alone.

As I posted above, ASTM E119 is a standard that is applied to complete systems, or subassemblies. That is, it is a test for fire resistance that is applied to a system as a whole. This means that a fire resistance classification based on ASTM E119 is only valid for that system. If you change any aspect of the tested system, then the certification based on that standard is no longer valid.

Thus if you were to change the design of the trusses, maybe make them a little longer, shorter, deeper, thicker, etc. you would have to retest the entire assembly. If you were to change the fireproofing, maybe you wanted to use a different method of fireproofing, or you wanted to fireproof the bottom of the floor deck, not just the trusses. These all would represent changes to the basic assembly.

Taking this further, if the impact of the airplane knocked fireproofing off, and caused physical damage to the structure, then the fire resistive rating as determined by the standard would no longer be valid.

You can not deny this. You can try to change the subject or call me a paid disinfo agent, but that will not change the fact that the Ryan letter is B.S. and that he either deliberately misrepresents the ASTM standard, or he is unfamiliar with it.

Since I would imagine that a passing familiarity with the standard would have been, at the very least, a minimum qualification for working at U.L., I can only surmise that he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

On a further note, In perusing a copy of the letter, you have to admit that there are some problems with the way it is written. If Mr. Ryan, were indeed qualified to make such statements, why are there so many gramatical errors in it?



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
good research howard.
I still refuse to pay any attention to that report until it is released as a final and it can be used in court to make someone accountable, otherwise it is not offical.

Here is an interesting article, concluding, unfortunately without a direct quote, that;
'The tests strongly suggest the airplane strikes did not bring the towers down. And it wasn't the thousands of gallons of jet fuel the planes carried'

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I don't know how you can say the planes hit the fireproofing off, because the buildings didn't even shake when they were struck (so we could notice anyway)

And with the South Tower the fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building, so the plane would NOT of knocked off the fire proofing on the other side of the Tower, and for a pancake demolition you would need the whole floor to give way, not just half.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
I don't know how you can say the planes hit the fireproofing off, because the buildings didn't even shake when they were struck (so we could notice anyway)


Not according to this survivor:


"I continued on to the west side near my office. I was fairly near the windows talking with two or three people, including especially Bobby Coll. I was looking him in the eye having a conversation with him when at apparently 9:03 -- I didn't check my watch -- the second plane hit the south side of our building at approximately the 78th, 79th, and 80th floors. Our room fell apart at that moment, a complete destruction without an explosion -- very strange things. The lights went out, but we were near the window so there was daylight. Again, there was this sort of thump, this explosion without fire and flame, a very strange sensation.

There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather then up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.

For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over. That's what it felt like. Now, on windy days prior to that there was a little bit of a sway to the building. You got used to it; you didn't notice it. The window blinds would go clack clack as they swung. As I said, for a good seven to ten seconds I thought it was over -- horrible feeling -- but then the building righted itself. It didn't sway back and forth; it just went one way, it seemed, and then back, and we were stable again.
"

www.pbs.org...




Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
And with the South Tower the fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building, so the plane would NOT of knocked off the fire proofing on the other side of the Tower, and for a pancake demolition you would need the whole floor to give way, not just half.



WTF are you talking about?


BTW, have you ever worked an asbestos abatment project scraping sprayon from a beam?

Just curious.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not according to this survivor: ....



So why are your quotes and witnesses valid arguement but the fire fighters in the building that reported bombs via radio or via video statements are NOT valid?

When that was presented, you denied their views by presenting fire fighters who didn't mention bombs as proof that there were none and therefor your presentation has been correct all along.

Your quotes are worthy, others aren't and no matter what is presented you always have the 'where's the proof' comment knowing full well the 'proof' has been melted in China or classified by Bush and only speculation can be used by anyone not reporting from government files.

Nice.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
There is so much evidence and analysis out there, plastered across every medium except the MSM, to show that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. "WTC Challenge" my hairy, white butt. On the contrary, that challenge goes out to the government to prove that they WEREN'T demolished. And the thing is, they keep failing...miserably. So now they bring out yet another report that is simply a case of attempting to fit the facts around a preconceived conclusion and hope that no one has the motivation left to battle the propaganda. Reports like these certainly don't deserve 7 pages of replies. In fact, the first 3 replies summed up neatly why this report is meaningless.

If people were saying that aliens from Planet X made the towers collapse using invisible plasma beams, do you think the U.S. government would waste millions of dollars trying to debunk those claims? One of the greatest indicators of guilt here regarding the government's role in destroying the towers is the fact that they keep going out of their way to deny it. If you ask who took the last cookie from the jar and someone jumps up and nervously yells, "I didn't do it!", and then keeps harping on about their innocence for days, you can be pretty sure of who the guilty party is...never mind the fact that they have pulverised cookie dust on their chin and their greasy CIA fingerprints are all over the jar.

The controlled demolition of the towers has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only question now is what to do about it, and how to get these criminals out of office and into the electric chair before they do it again on a much larger scale.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join