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.

 

NY UN building a craphole, were the WTCs really that good?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I think one of the biggest conspiracies regarding the WTC buildings is that they were no where near as capable of resisting attack as some people would like to think and (more importantly) as the constructors and Government would like us to believe.
The medical issues we hear about now I believe are connected to the ancient materials used in construction, the collapses down to poor materials, construction and upkeep.
Let's look at the UN building, much smaller and one would help a secure and up to date facilty.... Maybe not...
Let's look at this article from 1999:


United Nations - At first glance, the headquarters of the United Nations look nearly as new as the day they were built. The black and white tile floors sparkle. Fresh paint adorns the walls. The paneled chambers of the General Assembly and the Security Council still glow with the elegance of the dreams that inspired them.

But half a century after the cornerstone was laid on Oct. 24, 1949, a closer look reveals that the most prestigious symbol of New York City's claim to international stature is deteriorating at its core, beset by hundreds of millions of dollars in structural and environmental problems and without the money to fix them. In fact, if the United Nations had to abide by city building regulations -- diplomatic immunity spares it -- it might well be shuttered.

Roofs leak. A marble wall in the Dag Hammarskjold Library has threatened to collapse. Asbestos insulation needs to be replaced. Plastic sheeting was installed to protect library desks and computers from dripping water. And some motors and water pumps that keep the building running are so antiquated that spare parts are no longer made.

Perhaps more alarming is that among New York City's high-rise office buildings, the 39-story United Nations Secretariat is singularly without a sprinkler system, which the city's fire code normally requires. One of the emergency exits available to delegates in case of fire is the third-floor roof of the Conference Building, which "has deteriorated beyond repair and needs to be replaced," according to a proposed new budget.
www.globalpolicy.org...


Yes it's 50 years old, but the WTC wasn't exactly new. We know that various mafia families were invovled in it's construction, we all know how all these people like maximum profit through minimum expenditure and maximum revenue..
I honestly think the main angle we should be looking at and exposing are the lies in the capabilities of the buiings and thei complete lack of concern for modern fire regulations.
I've worked in Government sponsored facilities in this country and we always had problems in these areas, not exactly publicised - you just pray nothing ever happens and frankly it never really does.
Contractors always try and cut corners on costs, even a massive carpark near where I live which is part of a shopping centre is falling apart from when it was built due to poor quailty sand being used in order to maximise profit.
I think the truth is probably more 'boring' (as it doesn't involve movie quality fantasy) but equally or more damning. It's something which threatens to expose the darkside of the way the world works in all corners of the globe, in many countries at many levels. Frankly the crappy ideas involving fantasy theories are are beautiful diversion for the people involved.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Some people just can't let go, can they? There is no relevance here, in my opinion, Smith.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Again Smith regardless of all these posts you're making designed to distract the search for truth...

No matter what the buildings condition or construction, the amount of damage or fire, it would not have fallen in such a neat clean vertical fashion without controled help.

Why are you trying so hard to come up with any laim theory you can as long as it takes the heat off the government, Agent?

I mean you are obviously under the impression, or you actualy know, that it wasn't just a natural collapse or else you wouldn't be making these posts. Is it because your official story is comming apart at the seams? Are you testing theories to see if you can get one to stick?

Anything to distract us from the real truth eh? Your methods are rather transparent.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Anok... Please...

Give me an example where a huge jetliner crashed into a 100+ story building and it didn't collapse, and maybe I MIGHT follow your thinking.

Everything is speculation, on both sides, no matter if you like it or not. and honestly, if you dont want to be "distracted," by threads like these, then why post, or read?

I think this info is pretty relevant...



edit: grammar

[edit on 14/6/06 by Mouth]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Eh, yes there is. Problem is people don't really think out the box.. Look at this way:
So called 'Al-Qaeda' attack the WTC, maybe allowed by the US Government who look at it as a good keystone to their success in their various campaigns both around the world and within their on country. In the past the construction was done poorly leading to maximum profit for the various companies involved, knowing that the circumstances required to expose their crimes are 'never' likely to happen, at least not in their lifetimes and always with the opportunities to cover up their actions.
There are likely to be people in high enough positions across the spectrum to cover up each others 'mistakes' anyway, including the most important medium - the media, meaning that it's basically only ever going to be a minor hurdle.
People think their open minded, but they always point the fingure at one source when in reality it is more likely to be a combination of culprits spread across the spectrum with no connection in some cases and enough in others to create confusion and disorder in trying to find the answer while enabling the guilt parties to carry on as before.
In reality, the 'culprits' are unlikely to solely be 'Al-Qaeda' or 'The Government' or even the mafia familes involved in the construction. In reality it is probably a combination of all the above in various different aspects.

Anyone that feels they can't keep up, please feel free to bail out now.

Sad truth is, the truth is never simple.
When people talk about explosives being used, quoting Occams Razor because it's the simplest answer to the collapse, they are completely wrong. It sounds simple because on the outset without thinking of the practicalities it seems like the simple solution. But when you look at the bigger picture it really isn't, a truly simpler solution is that the buildings were not up to spec and the fireproofing had deteriorated, which we already know for instance.
Maybe there were explosives, but looking at some testimonies there were peopel in the vicinity at the time who were behaving suspiciously yet released by the police when the aircraft struck, and also at least one operative involved in the final strike present months before assessing the target in a rather specific manner irrelevant to the aircraft strike.
The car park I was talking about is a good example, advertised as being the dogs danglies with bells ringing, but couldn't even stand up a few weeks without falling apart simply because the contractor bought crap sand to maximise their profit.
Being in a small business myself I know all to well how these things work and they are magnified across the board sadly. I am simply offering a solution to the reason behind why they collapsed and it's not the first time, it is actually a known theory, it is also quite likely if you are someone with any knowledge of 'how the world works' so to speak. Welcome to Capitalism

I haven't seen any decent theories to be honest, they're all one sided without any consideration for the much wider picture, you're all going to have to work a hell of a lot harder than that to find the answer. But pointing the fingure at one source is not it, I can assure you


[edit on 14-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Anok... Please...

Give me another example where a huge jetliner crashed into a 100+ story building and it didn't collapse, and maybe I MIGHT follow your thinking.


It doesn't matter, buildings that fall from an accident , don't fall neatly in a controlled demo style, it should have been chaotic. Especially WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane.

It's simple physics. Look at building 2, when the top started to topple, physics would have caused the top to continue it's inertia, but it didn't. The building suddenly collapse beneath it. Impossible without help.
The argument is that the weight of the top cause the bottom to collapse all the way to the ground with no resistance. Once the top started to topple, it's weight was no longer on the rest of the building but on the pivot point of the topple. So how does it's weight cause a collapse of columns it was not even resting on anymore?
It's weight should have caused it to continue to topple off the side, what reversed this precess?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
If the evidence of WTC 7 is so damning, why do you guys always avoid the pictures and video showing the hugely extensive fires only visible from the opposite side you choose to show?
With regards to the tilting top, you seem to think of it and the rest of the WTC as solid structures, which they weren't. Just because you can't snap it with your hands doesn't mean it's unbreakable. They were made of component parts with weakpoints at the joins consisting of welds and bolts, pretty fragile in the circumstances.
One the pivot failed it will have dropped crushing the floors beneath, there's is no way they could ever be designed to support forces like that. The pivot was not a designed hinge, and the WTC was not a solid block of metal either.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Always remember too that things are built by the lowest bidder. I think AgentSmith does have a point.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Like I said, welcome to the beautiful world of Capitalism, where the sheen is a mirage and quality is an illusion. Not that I have any other alternative, and I don't mind it much on a personal level, I enjoy my capitalist lifestyle. I just have the ability to cast a critical eye over the whole thing.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Eh, yes there is. Problem is people don't really think out the box..


If this was different, and the UN building had been hit with a Boeng, and didn't fall down, and we used it as an example of why the Towers hadn't fallen, you would immediately pull the 'Apples and Oranges' Card. You know you would, don't even try and deny it.


Originally posted by AgentSmith
I haven't seen any decent theories to be honest, they're all one sided without any consideration for the much wider picture, you're all going to have to work a hell of a lot harder than that to find the answer. But pointing the fingure at one source is not it, I can assure you


[edit on 14-6-2006 by AgentSmith]


My God! That's rich, Smith. You present some pretty lame theory, disregarding about a million very, very, important factors, and then try and slam us for not considering 'the much wider picture?' Your audacity is off the scale, and not in a good way. If you think pointing out that other buildings in NY are of shoddy construction, whilst prematurely concluding that's probably what happened with the WTC is in line with the much bigger picture, you've got another thing coming.

We're all going to work a hell of a lot harder to find the answer? Speak for yourself! Look how inconsiderate your theory is, it's a disgrace. Mate, Look at the state of your presentation! You are going to have to work a hell of a lot harder, not us.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Not really buddy, the UN building would be one of the best, you think? The building which regularly holds some of the most important people in the world, right? You'd think it would have 'secret missile defence systems' yet it doesn't even have sprinklers. I'm just using it as an example of what a lot of us already know, the whole world is corrupt, on many levels, and the idea that the WTC was actually built to it's published spec is preposterous.
I'm not trying to explain this to myself or quite a lot of people, I'm just using it as an example to those that haven't yet had the misfortune of learning the sad truth.
I'm happy for you you really have no clue how crap everything really is, sad that you can't see it though.... The real sadness is that, as I said, the finger pointing isn't as easy as being at one source you can stamp all over and get yourself rid of. It's many people on all sides, the corporations, the Government, Foreign powers and even your beloved mainstreak theorists (the ones that make money, to cover costs of course).
What's those lyrics again?


I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday
www.lyricsstyle.com...


Lies are all around mate, you'll notice I have no-one on my 'side' really, I just agree with some people some of the time, that's because I don't believe anyones crap. I welcome you to join me.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm one of the last people you needed to say that too. I'm offended and quite angered that you just tried to tell me 'How crap everything is'. You think I don't already know, Smith? You think I don't already know? I don't buy your suggestion that the WTC buildings collapsed 'because they were Crap, and so is everything else' though, at all. I never will, ever. Even if the Designers and Engineers of the WTC who are still alive come out and say the Towers were constructed primarily of reconstituted Goat innards, and bits of wood. Talk about vague.

I guess this is why Carmella couldn't have the spec house for a while, huh, Agent Harris?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Sorry I was trying to put it in a language that everyone could understand, it seems to work when the heroes of the Truth Movement do it... I didn't realise you actually have to lie as well for it to have any effect. If that's what you have to resort to I'll bail out now if it's all the same

Feel free to take over this thread, I'll save the continuation of the discussion for somewhere more serious and open minded.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Mouth
Anok... Please...

Give me another example where a huge jetliner crashed into a 100+ story building and it didn't collapse, and maybe I MIGHT follow your thinking.


It doesn't matter, buildings that fall from an accident , don't fall neatly in a controlled demo style, it should have been chaotic. Especially WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane.

It's simple physics. Look at building 2, when the top started to topple, physics would have caused the top to continue it's inertia, but it didn't. The building suddenly collapse beneath it. Impossible without help.
The argument is that the weight of the top cause the bottom to collapse all the way to the ground with no resistance. Once the top started to topple, it's weight was no longer on the rest of the building but on the pivot point of the topple. So how does it's weight cause a collapse of columns it was not even resting on anymore?
It's weight should have caused it to continue to topple off the side, what reversed this precess?


Weight did cause it to collapse. Look at a video of a controlled demo. It looks NOTHING like the WTC. Controlled demo's are a very delicate process and would have taken years to set up. How would they get the explosives in the building in the first place? Also, controlled demos, the explosions start from the base of the building, not just random floors like many CTs say.

"
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers."
- Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The day the UN Building experiences mild fires on a few floors along with some damage to one corner and the facade, then perfectly implodes on itself at freefall rate and is found to have molten steel in the basement afterwards...I will definitely come back to this thread.


For now, I still prefer the Foot of God Theory. I think I'll stick to that.




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
When people talk about explosives being used, quoting Occams Razor because it's the simplest answer to the collapse, they are completely wrong. It sounds simple because on the outset without thinking of the practicalities it seems like the simple solution. But when you look at the bigger picture it really isn't, a truly simpler solution is that the buildings were not up to spec and the fireproofing had deteriorated, which we already know for instance.


Occam's Razor doesn't make up for physical impossibilities. Simplest ideas don't always win out just because they're simple. Really, those towers should not have come down like that but for there being controlled collapses.

Considering the things had stood one bombing already and daily wind and etc., they weren't so shoddy as for the 13 highest and lightest floors to smash everything below into small debris without so much as slowing down. There would have still been resistance if the things just fell because they were p.o.s.'s as you're suggesting.

That being one of a plethora of legitimate issues to keep in mind here regarding the physics of the collapses.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Anok... Please...

Give me an example where a huge jetliner crashed into a 100+ story building and it didn't collapse, and maybe I MIGHT follow your thinking.


I know you said Anok, but anyway:


At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday, July 28 1945 the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building.

The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high.

The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

history1900s.about.com...


And the Empire State Building is still standing loud and proud



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Please, it's a completely different building

And before you say my comparison is of a completely different building, I was pointing out how bureaucracy and cost cutting seems to affect even a relatively small building which is supposedly deemed highly important and has officials gracing it's halls on a regular basis. I'm not making any comparison based on building performance.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Let's look at this article from 1999:


United Nations - At first glance, the headquarters of the United Nations look nearly as new as the day they were built. The black and white tile floors sparkle. Fresh paint adorns the walls. The paneled chambers of the General Assembly and the Security Council still glow with the elegance of the dreams that inspired them.

But half a century after the cornerstone was laid on Oct. 24, 1949, a closer look reveals that the most prestigious symbol of New York City's claim to international stature is deteriorating at its core, beset by hundreds of millions of dollars in structural and environmental problems and without the money to fix them. In fact, if the United Nations had to abide by city building regulations -- diplomatic immunity spares it -- it might well be shuttered.

Roofs leak. A marble wall in the Dag Hammarskjold Library has threatened to collapse. Asbestos insulation needs to be replaced. Plastic sheeting was installed to protect library desks and computers from dripping water. And some motors and water pumps that keep the building running are so antiquated that spare parts are no longer made.

Perhaps more alarming is that among New York City's high-rise office buildings, the 39-story United Nations Secretariat is singularly without a sprinkler system, which the city's fire code normally requires. One of the emergency exits available to delegates in case of fire is the third-floor roof of the Conference Building, which "has deteriorated beyond repair and needs to be replaced," according to a proposed new budget.
www.globalpolicy.org...



It wasn't up to the required legal health and safety reasons. For what reason is there NOT to bring down the towers?

I would also like to point out that the force of the planes hitting the towers had LESS OF AN IMPACT than a severe NY winter storm, ie there was no reason for those towers to collapse.

I think the NY Port Authority wanted those towers down and when people in Government agencies heard about this potential plan, I suspect they would have instigated an idea that would be of mutual advantage.

Makes sense to me.

I would also mention that, out of the 15 police dogs that were used on 9/11, 7 have since died of cancer.

(can't remember source)

[edit on 15-6-2006 by scubadiver]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
And the Empire State Building is still standing loud and proud


And the huge jetliner is where? Last time I checked the impact occured at less than half the speed and much less weight. Not mentioning the building composition.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join