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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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.


Who cares? The UN building was built a quarter of a century before the towers. It's totally different. It was probably a fairly standard 'official' building in terms of design and strength. There were most likely subterranean fall-out shelters for Officials.

The Towers were of extraordinary design, and building Seven was no pushover either. What, you think in a state of Emergency the Mayor, or whoever, would run New York from the U.N building? Come off it. You would have us believe that a strong gust of wind would just up and snap the Towers in half, if you could. That's BS. Take a look around you. Only the Archaic are paying any mind to your 'Theories,' here. Your remark about me being closed-minded was an absolute classic, Smith. I will cherish that for years to come.

Thanks.



[edit on 15-6-2006 by Communication_Burger]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

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.




Debunkers 1, CT's Nil



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth

Debunkers 1, CT's Nil


No. If anything it's Debunkers 1 - Alienanderson 0.

He is an independent member of this public forum, and his view doesn't represent that of all 'CT's.' Just because a guy who doesn't believe in the Official story gets something slightly wrong, it doesn't mean that Conspiracy theorists everywhere have conceded some kind of score, at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Hey, I was only informing Mouth of a similar incident that he may not have been aware of:


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.



Oh I see my mistake - a B52 is not a jetliner. Well I guess that's true and I can't really add to that


[edit on 15/6/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Nope..because ya know what...we can't compare anything with 9/11 with anything...haven't you heard yet?

Edit: unless of course you are talking about the connection of Sadam and Bin Lden...then it's ALL truth....

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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.


Unbelievable..I was gonna post exactly the same opinion but I find it almost impossible to get any data on the construction..Plans etc..

Like you said it..This seems to be the biggest conspiracy..

Ok Not exactly the most scientific point of reference but did you see the episode of ''The simpsons'' where Sideshow Bob gets out of Prison to assist his brother build a dam and it it completely hollow..??

I was thinking maybe this was the same kind of case..

Builder gets a budget to work to of x millions dollars...cheapest quote going..
He then thinks...''man i sold myself short'' so ''how can i make a few more bills for myself''?

Easy.. cut corners...!!

Is this the real reason why no-one can get the original blueprints??I think so



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T

Is this the real reason why no-one can get the original blueprints??I think so


The construction documents wouldn't contain any information on how the contractor cut corners. Construction documents are there to instruct the contractor how to build it. Possibly as-builts, but if the contractor is crooked enough to do that, he'd be crooked enough to fake the as-builts also.

Plus, it's very hard to "cut corners" and not get caught. You have to realize that there are inspectors inspecting the work every step of the way. I should know, I inspect my designs when in construction. Or are you telling me that the structural engineer, mechanical engineer and architect are in on this also? Because, for this to happen, they'd have to be.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

Oh I see my mistake - a B52 is not a jetliner. Well I guess that's true and I can't really add to that





Source: en.wikipedia.org...
It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber, cruise speed 200 knots, MTOW 19 tons, twin engined propeller driven WW2 vintage....


On topic: While deficiencies in construction would certainly play a role, the utmost pulverisation of three buildings, along with probably hundreds of inconsistencies and 'coincidences' make mebelieve that there are more interesting and pressing issues to be solved first. just $0.02.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
As a rule, buildings built before WWII are over built structurally. In many cases I have seen older buildings that are 80 to 90 years old that are in better shape then newer buildings build in the 50’s and 60’s.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
True Howard. Hence the phrase "they don't build em like they used to".



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Plus, it's very hard to "cut corners" and not get caught. You have to realize that there are inspectors inspecting the work every step of the way. I should know, I inspect my designs when in construction. Or are you telling me that the structural engineer, mechanical engineer and architect are in on this also? Because, for this to happen, they'd have to be.


Hard but not impossible, especially back before the public medium of the Internet.
Even now it's an issue, it's a minor example but still one. The details available online appear to be scare but I have been informed it was due to poor quality sand being used to cut costs..



A £200m out-of-town shopping centre in Dorset may remain closed over Christmas - with stores losing out on trade - because of car park safety fears.
The 3,000-space car park at the Castlepoint Centre in Bournemouth was closed on Thursday morning for a third time since it opened two years ago.

Managers said they were working to resolve the situation but were unable to confirm how long it would be closed.

The centre is one of the largest UK shopping centres recently built.

In May, the lower level of the car park was closed for three weeks when concrete fell from the roof, and in 2003 concerns about the car park closed the B&Q store.
news.bbc.co.uk...



9 May 2006
Centre car park 'must be rebuilt'

The centre was closed over concerns about the car park's safety
The managers of a shopping centre that had to shut because of safety fears over its parking area have been told the entire car park should be rebuilt.
Shops at Bournemouth's Castlepoint closed in December because of fears the car park's concrete was unsafe.

Engineers have now advised management "the only sensible way of sorting it [the problem] out is to dismantle and rebuild the structure".
news.bbc.co.uk...


Like most things it has pretty much been hushed up, of course with modern communications like the Internet it is more difficult, but even with some coverage in the media it's still pretty much unknown unless you know to look and even then the info is limited.. The sand issue was published in the press yet it's impossible to find any record of it online. Unless you're a newspaper hoarder it's a vague rumour.

And just as a reminder, this is not a comparison of structures

It's a demonstration of the cost cutting, safety sacrificing bs that goes on behind all the glittery, balloon laden hype behind most major construction projects.
It's all down to $$$ or £££ at the end of the day, funnily enough one would expect the majority of people here to actually acknowledge that.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
This thread just reminded me of a show I saw on either TLC or the discovery channel.

Bear with me it was a number of years ago that I saw it, possibly even before 9/11.

Anyway, part of the show was about hurricaines and skyscrapers.

For some reason I recall it being about the towers, however it could be a different building.

After construction of the building/s (wtc possibly) it was discovered that improper techniques were used during the construction of the building, which in the event of hurricaine force winds would have been disastrous.

The problem boiled down to the steel workers not following the engineers guidelines for the connection of the steel, basically from what I remember they bolted the connections and didn't weld them as they were supposed to.

After completion of the building, they ended up having to go through and tear out alot of chases and weld the columns.

Has anyone else seen or have knowledge of this documentary?

Was it the WTC that was the subject of it?

If it was, could some part of a cover up be due to trying to suppress evidence of "improper fixes" of known building defects?



Just throwing that out there, I could be totally wrong, it could have been about a totally different building (Though I am pretty certain it was a skyscraper) in a totally different city/state even country.

The only thing I'm pretty sure about is them having to go back to correct the problem.

I would have researched it a little more than I tried to, but I'm already running late for the family outing and I just wanted to get that thought out before I totally forgot about it.

[edit on 16/6/06 by Skibum]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Why would the government and military cover up mistakes or bad construction by civilian contractors?

If it was bad construction the government would be all over it...Anything to take the blame off themselves, right?

And Smith your example is in the U.K., I have lived in both the U.K. (24yrs) and the U.S. (18 yrs) and from what I've observed the U.S. is far more anal about safety.
I used to laugh at how overly concerned Americans seemed to be about safety.

Every step of a building construction is inspected, especially a building like the WTC towers in a city like NY. Big diff than a 'car park'.

I find it hard to believe they would miss welds and stuff, they would have been inspected as they were done, and definitely before the walls were built around them.

The WTC was a huge and unique project, many many eyes were on this 24/7. Would have been pretty tough to slip anything passed anyone imo.

Why is it you guys want to put blame on anything but the government?
What happened to the planes and fires bought them down? You all finally realizing it couldn't have been that? But refuse to admit the obvious, so you try to blame the construction?
There is only a couple of reasons you would do this, you work for the administration, or you have some personal interest in keeping the true events a secret.
I find it hard to believe anyone on ATS, with all the info we have, could be that naive to think the gov wouldn't have done this, or at least allowed it to happen...

[edit on 16/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   


What happened to the planes and fires bought them down? You all finally realizing it couldn't have been that? But refuse to admit the obvious, so you try to blame the construction?


No, not at all. I'm not blaming the construction. It may or may not have been a factor as to why the towers fell they way they did, I was just relaying info that reading this thread reminded me of,which seemed relevant at the time.

However in the end, I will admit, I still believe that it was the fire and planes that brought the towers down.







There is only a couple of reasons you would do this, you work for the administration, or you have some personal interest in keeping the true events a secret.


Only 2 choices?

Why not add a third, how about, I'm not paranoid enough to buy into the conspiracy du jour, yet I still feel there could be some sort of conspiracy there and am exploring those avenues.




I find it hard to believe they would miss welds and stuff, they would have been inspected as they were done, and definitely before the walls were built around them.


You would be surprised at how much is missed, or how lax (or even corrupt) inspectors can be.
My personal favorites are the drive by inspectors, they pull up to the curb roll the window down far enough to hand you the passed sticker/paperwork and then drive off.



[edit on 17/6/06 by Skibum]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Yeah Skibum I could have given more choices but paranoia is not one of them.
To see the obvious and question it is not paranoia.

Maybe you are one who is paranoid and are in denial? You are the one who bought it up


Yeah I know inspectors might not be that detailed, but missing welds on a 110 story building is hard to believe. Oh wait, missing welds on three buildings, are you including WTC 7 in this theory?

But having said that I will say this again...

It makes NO difference if the welds and the bolts were missing, buildings don't fall neatly straight down without controlled help. Natural collapses are chaotic, unpredictable, asymmetrical. We have 3 buildings fall in the same day in a predictable, symmetrical way, and we have WTC 6 with more damage than 7 and it didn't collapse.
If that doesn't make you think, nothing will....



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
i dont see why it cant be a combo of both these theories.

of course inspectors can be bought, or just suck. in my city every building prior to the mid 90's leaks water heavily. and there have been major problems with people purchasing thier drivers licsence without ever taking a test


but what if it was a know even back during construction that these buildings were meant to come down, for what ever reason. just a thought, whatever


building 7 was certainly a controlled demolition, if it wasn't enough just to watch it... Larry told me so and i believe him


building 1 and 2 were different, there was a lot of extra blast outward that was not in 7. there was a lot more explosives. so it was unprecidented like a natural collapse would require. Iv'e been told it was the collapse preasure that made this explosive outward blast, but it doesn't work for me.

when 1 and 2 came down i saw exactly what hollywood would want me to see, when they film a building blowing up.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

It's a demonstration of the cost cutting, safety sacrificing bs that goes on behind all the glittery, balloon laden hype behind most major construction projects.
It's all down to $$$ or £££ at the end of the day, funnily enough one would expect the majority of people here to actually acknowledge that.


Could it be that the contractor that bought the sand wasn't trying to cut corners but wasn't informed that they needed a certain type of sand? I see this all the time. Specifiers forgetting to include this or that in their specs. But, in every construction job I've designed, the contractor has to submit samples of work and material specs for the job. So, if this contractor used the wrong sand and submitted his sand specs to the engineer, it is the engineer's fault for not catching it.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Everything is speculation, on both sides...


Finally someone admits that the governemt's story is nothing but speculation.

This thread is many things, but above all it is pointless and totally irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
Debunkers 1, CT's Nil


The fact that you identify yourself as a "debunker" tells a lot about you and how much creedence should be given to your posts.

I was unaware that we were on teams here.

I was also unaware that you have successfully "debunked" anything. Link?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join