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.

 

911 Firemen Demand Investigation

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
External Source:
www.angelfire.com...

Why so many dead firemen?
The reason so many firemen died in the World Trade Center is that they had no idea that a steel building could collapse from a fire. They ran into the towers just like they ran into other steel buildings on fire. No steel building had ever fallen apart from a fire before, so these firemen had no reason to worry.
Also, there was no sign that the building was about to come down. There were no creaking noises, and no parts of the building falling off.

When the collapse started, the building came down so incredibly fast that none of them had a chance to react. Has anybody ever seen a building collapse so suddenly and so rapidly? (Aside from demolition companies who destroy buildings with explosives.) What kind of fire does that to a steel building?



Firemen are begging for an investigation
Some people point out to me that the investigators would have noticed if these buildings had been blown up with explosives. However, there was no investigation. If you think this is just my opinion, take a look at this page at "Fire Engineering", which is a magazine for firemen. They are demanding a real investigation. Here is one quote from the editor in chief:
"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."

Also look at this page where some other firemen are pleading with the readers to send e-mail to President Bush and other officials to start an investigation.

Why would firemen be demanding an investigation if there already was one? Because there was no investigation! What kind of nation is America when firemen make accusations like that? What kind of nation is America when firemen have to beg people to send e-mail to President Bush to hold a real investigation? Is this your idea of a government that we can be proud of?

Or, do you suggest we accuse the firemen of being so stupid and/or ignorant that they just cannot understand the official investigation? Do you think these dumb firemen are stirring up trouble over nothing?

America spent tens of millions of tax dollars a few years ago investigating the sexual activities of President Clinton, but our nation refuses to investigate the WTC collapse even when firemen beg for one!




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Dude, the first article was dated January 4, 2002.

The second is from the same time frame. It asks you to send e-mail to “FEMA Director: Joe M. Allbaugh”

He hasn’t been the head of FEMA since March 2003.




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Dude, the first article was dated January 4, 2002.

The second is from the same time frame. It asks you to send e-mail to “FEMA Director: Joe M. Allbaugh”

He hasn’t been the head of FEMA since March 2003.






So, the point wasn't about the time frame or the e-mail. Guess the firemen will now be called conspiracy nuts.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The articles are out of date. NIST has conducted the investigations that those articles were calling for.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The articles are out of date. NIST has conducted the investigations that those articles were calling for.


NIST just blamed the collapses of WTC1 and 2 on failed trusses, and failed to offer any substantial evidence of it. A few bent exterior columns isn't going to bring a tower down.

More columns were knocked out completely by the impacts than are allegedly buckled from heat as presented in those pictures, and yet the impacts only took out less than 15% of the perimeter columns in either building. So what gives? Not even built to withstand 2x its own weight?


The photos they show alleging buckling from heat don't show anything even near equivalent to the structural loss that would've been required to initiate a collapse. Then they show photos of crooked perimeter columns from after WTC2 had already started to collapse? Wtf is up with that? :shk:

If anything they should be asking even more questions by now.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Dude, the first article was dated January 4, 2002.


So, even back then the firemen knew something was wrong with the way the buildings collapsed. Says alot in my book. I hear you guys all the time talking about this floor and that floor was collapsing way before the buildings collapsed. But isn't it strange that we have reports of only needing two hoses to put out the fire? Yes, that was from the first floor that they got to but wouldn't they be hearing these suppossed floors collapsing also?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Dude, the first article was dated January 4, 2002.


So, even back then the firemen knew something was wrong with the way the buildings collapsed.




If you bothered to actually read the first article mentioned in the first post, you would have read this:


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.


and the second article has this to say:


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.


It seems that the authors intuitively knew what the NIST reports confirmed.

Damage to the building's fireproofing caused the lightweight trusses to fail, with the subsequent collapse of the building.

No where in those articles is there any suggestion that there was anything "wrong*" with the way that the buildings collapsed.

(* in the paranoid, conspiracy driven, Bush did it, sense)

What the articles suggested as the probable cause of the collapses was eventually born out by subsequent investigations. That is, due to the unique construction and the materials used, the buildings were vulnerable to the forces at work that day. i.e. an airplane impact followed by a major, multi floor fire.

The articles are specifically questioning the design and materials used in the construction and do not in any way support a conspiracy theory.

You are really reaching if you read that into it.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The articles are out of date. NIST has conducted the investigations that those articles were calling for.


If any Firefighter knew NIST was going to be part of the cover-up not one brother would have accepted it.

Howard we station ourselves in a high rise at the stairwells to fight the fires, do you know why?

Because the stairwell is fireproof and we can fight a fire on a floor with that entire floor fully involved and we are safe in that stairwell. In fact we take a charged hose-line past the fire-floor up the stairs loop around back to the fire-floor so it is easier to advance the hoseline.

We DONT figh fire if there is any chance of collapse!! Dang thats why we have safety officers constanly updating the scene.

P.S. I would have posted this a while ago but I got toned out for a structure fire.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You do reaize that the stairwell enclosures for the WTC towers were made of drywall, not the more common cinderblock.

The drywall was breached by the impact.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Howard I dont have time right now to check your claim that the stairwell had drywall for the walls instead of cinderblock. I have a hard time believing it was regular drywall, I am sure it was a firewall.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts (carrying supply and return air), elevator hoistways, and utility shafts were all contained within the building core of the WTC towers, and were enclosed by gypsum planking similar to fire separations commonly used today in single-family attached housing. These gypsum planks were 2 in. thick and 2 ft wide, reportedly with metal tongue and groove channels attached to the long sides. These were likely two 1 in. panels held together by the metal channels. Their length in WTC 1 and WTC 2 is unknown, but similar panels today are available in 8 to 14 foot lengths. The planks were placed into metal H-channels at the top and bottom and secured by drywall screws.


wtc.nist.gov...

I believe in one case that some firemen trapped in an elevator were able to climb out and hack their way through the drywall to escape.

This is what the inside of the elevator shafts looked like




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts (carrying supply and return air), elevator hoistways, and utility shafts were all contained within the building core of the WTC towers, and were enclosed by gypsum planking similar to fire separations commonly used today in single-family attached housing. These gypsum planks were 2 in. thick and 2 ft wide, reportedly with metal tongue and groove channels attached to the long sides. These were likely two 1 in. panels held together by the metal channels. Their length in WTC 1 and WTC 2 is unknown, but similar panels today are available in 8 to 14 foot lengths. The planks were placed into metal H-channels at the top and bottom and secured by drywall screws.


wtc.nist.gov...




Emphasis mine. Thanks for posting this Howard. But, as you see gypsum is used as a firebarrier. And even at the suppossed temperatures that were in the towers, they still would have remained firebarriers. Also, what's with all the "I don't knows" in that statement? Either NIST has the construction documents or they don't. How could they do a thorough investigation if they don't? Also how can we trust anything in their report if they don't even have an answer as to how long the gypsum panels were?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
But, as you see gypsum is used as a firebarrier. And even at the suppossed temperatures that were in the towers, they still would have remained firebarriers.


Not if you have an airplane crashing into it.

If it remained a fire barrier, then how come the people above the impact zones were trapped?



Originally posted by Griff
Also, what's with all the "I don't knows" in that statement? Either NIST has the construction documents or they don't. How could they do a thorough investigation if they don't? Also how can we trust anything in their report if they don't even have an answer as to how long the gypsum panels were?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]


They have the design criteria and similar documents related to the structural design, but, those are the types of details that were probably lost with the “as-builts” when the buildings came down.

Besides, you are missing an important point here.

These were not the only buildings built using similar materials. Granted, they are not exactly the same as the WTC, but it is still a cause for concern.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If you want to know what the firefighters went through, read "102 minutes".

Many of them were to the point of exhaustion and stopped in one of the skylobbies, not more than 20 flights up. There were other first responders along with PA personnel who were rescuing people.

Many who had reached the top floors could not be recalled after the NYPD helicopter pilots observed the shifting of the upper floors of the WTC just prior to the collpase. The radios did not work. This was something that if you work for FDNY n high rises you will know. They have repeaters for the signal, but they do not always work, and on 9/11 they did not work properly for the firefighters and it caused alot of confusion.

The FDNY is also a very proud bunch, and I equate this to Marines that come home and complain about killing. Those heroes knew when they went that day into that building that they man not come out, and they went in anyways. That is a true hero.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not if you have an airplane crashing into it.

If it remained a fire barrier, then how come the people above the impact zones were trapped?


Good point. i didn't think of it that way.


They have the design criteria and similar documents related to the structural design, but, those are the types of details that were probably lost with the “as-builts” when the buildings came down.


The Port Authority, I can assure you still has "as-built' drawings. Actually, the "as-builts" become the main drawings after a building has been built. Or are you saying that there was only one copy of the "as-builts" and were destroyed in the buildings?


Besides, you are missing an important point here.

These were not the only buildings built using similar materials. Granted, they are not exactly the same as the WTC, but it is still a cause for concern.


Actually, you are missing my point. Going back to my research about the discrepency of the drawings that NIST has put out (how they show the trusses at a different scale as the columns as to make the trusses look alot smaller and weaker than they were compared to the columns) plus being not sure of this or that, doesn't make for a believable Engineering report by my book. My reports that I put out are extremely accurate in ALL that is stated and or drawn. That's my point.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Many who had reached the top floors could not be recalled after the NYPD helicopter pilots observed the shifting of the upper floors of the WTC just prior to the collpase. The radios did not work. This was something that if you work for FDNY n high rises you will know. They have repeaters for the signal, but they do not always work, and on 9/11 they did not work properly for the firefighters and it caused alot of confusion.


So you're saying that we have TOY walkie talkies that can go 5 miles but the fire department couldn't communicate? I don't believe that at all.


The FDNY is also a very proud bunch, and I equate this to Marines that come home and complain about killing. Those heroes knew when they went that day into that building that they man not come out, and they went in anyways. That is a true hero.



I agree with all you say here except that they knew they might not come out. I thought firefighters don't enter a building that has the potential of collapse? So, why would they think they might not return? But yes, they are true heros in my book also.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   


Going back to my research about the discrepency of the drawings that NIST has put out (how they show the trusses at a different scale as the columns as to make the trusses look alot smaller and weaker than they were compared to the columns)


Can you please post a link to what you are talking about?
In my experience the trusses are generally much smaller and weaker than the columns.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The Port Authority, I can assure you still has "as-built' drawings. Actually, the "as-builts" become the main drawings after a building has been built. Or are you saying that there was only one copy of the "as-builts" and were destroyed in the buildings?


Actually, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

They usually keep the drawings in the building where they could be looked at if needed. While many major organizations try to set up central repositories for drawings, they are rarely complete. After 20 years, those drawing sets get pretty abused. Pages go missing, torn, etc.

Also, the drawings would not have shown the details like how long the planks were. [shrug]

How often do you see a note to use 4’ x 8’ sheets of plywood or drywall in a drawing? You don’t. The plans will show a drywall enclosure around the shaft with a specific thickness. Sometimes the spec will list the acceptable products to use other times it will just list the performance criteria for the product. The means and methods of building that enclosure are generally up to the contractor.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

How often do you see a note to use 4’ x 8’ sheets of plywood or drywall in a drawing? You don’t. The plans will show a drywall enclosure around the shaft with a specific thickness. Sometimes the spec will list the acceptable products to use other times it will just list the performance criteria for the product. The means and methods of building that enclosure are generally up to the contractor.




I don't know, but in my drawings and specs, something like that would have been stated. The specs are actually where most of the meat and potatoes of things of this sort are. So, I would assume it was stated in the spec somewhere. Not sure how they did things back then but every tiny detail of materials are given in the specs that I write. It's only up to the contractor to pick the manufacturer not the material used. Also, the means and methods are up to the contractor? I tell you what, I'd shut down a project if the contractor went against what I specified and designed....and I've come close to doing it in the past. So, no, the means and methods are not up to the contractor.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Can you please post a link to what you are talking about?
In my experience the trusses are generally much smaller and weaker than the columns.


I'll try and find the post and if it's not linked anymore, I'll repost it. I'm not saying that the trusses were not smaller or weaker than the columns. I'm saying NIST shows them unporportional to each other in one of their drawings so as to make it look like the trusses were far smaller than they were as compared to the columns. When I post my drawings, you'll see what I mean. This leads me to deduce that NIST manipulated it in a way as to make it look like their failing truss theory is more probable IMO.

Edit: I'll start a new thread about this subject so as to not highjack this thread. Just give me a little bit of time to put it all together.

New thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join