Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 30
2
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thier are several families not taking the money who want to know what really happened that day.

newsmine.org...


Ultima? That was over three years ago!! And was discussing that the 2 year statute of limitations was coming. (and passed two years ago for those who didnt file a claim)

If you read my last post you will see that the families have received over 6 BILLION dollars! So, not many have come out refusing the compensation from the government.

Wizard...... Here is the seating plan for flight 11 that the Boston Globe obtained from American Airlines.




[edit on 13-12-2006 by CameronFox]




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
It proves a point that not everyone believes the official story. Even some of the firemen who sirvived 911 demanded a investigation as to why the towers collapsed right afterwards.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It proves a point that not everyone believes the official story. Even some of the firemen who sirvived 911 demanded a investigation as to why the towers collapsed right afterwards.


Ultima..there wasn't an official story "right afterwards." Everyone wanted an investigation to find out what happened. Not just the firefighters.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I think ULTIMA's talking about Fire Engineering criticizing FEMA/BPAT/ASCE's investigation:


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. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It proves a point that not everyone believes the official story. Even some of the firemen who sirvived 911 demanded a investigation as to why the towers collapsed right afterwards.


Ultima..there wasn't an official story "right afterwards." Everyone wanted an investigation to find out what happened. Not just the firefighters.


I was talking about the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. And that none on the fire chiefs on the scene expected the towers to collapse, possibly only the top floors above the fire.

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 Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

I was talking about the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. And that none on the fire chiefs on the scene expected the towers to collapse, possibly only the top floors above the fire.


Not sure when some of you guys are going to remember...there WAS a plane that hit each of those towers.

You're right, I dont think anyone knew they would collapse. Seeing the so many men watched their brothers die... they want to make DAMN sure from now on, that they are "safe" before going into a burning skyscraper.

Just becasue they wanted an investigation, in NO WAY means they thought it was an "Inside Job". ( I wont speak for them though) If you have any quotes from the FDNY that claims they think it was an inside job, I'd like to see them.

thanks.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Not sure when some of you guys are going to remember...there WAS a plane that hit each of those towers.

You're right, I dont think anyone knew they would collapse. Seeing the so many men watched their brothers die... they want to make DAMN sure from now on, that they are "safe" before going into a burning skyscraper.

Just becasue they wanted an investigation, in NO WAY means they thought it was an "Inside Job". ( I wont speak for them though) If you have any quotes from the FDNY that claims they think it was an inside job, I'd like to see them.

thanks.


But the NIST and FEMA reports stated the planes did not cause the builidng to collapse, the buildings withstood the impacts of the planes. It was what happned after the planes hit that caused the towers to collapse.

I am not saying it was in inside job but its strange that no other steel building before or since 911 has collapsed due to fire.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Ultima... Did you read the NIST report!? ( easy Bsbry I know what you think of it)

There is NO WHERE in the NIST report or FEMA that states the FIRE ALONE casued the building to collapse.


Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima... Did you read the NIST report!? ( easy Bsbry I know what you think of it)

There is NO WHERE in the NIST report or FEMA that states the FIRE ALONE casued the building to collapse.


Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
wtc.nist.gov...


NIST - lol...

It's only taken them, what, 5 and a half years to release their conclusions regarding WTC 7? Give me a break. lol.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The NIST report also says that if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged (which they never show that it could have been, on a wide scale), then the towers wouldn't have ever fallen from the impacts and fires.


NIST tested the trusses. Ok? They took WTC truss assemblies (recreations) -- both fireproofed and NAKED -- and exposed them to 2 hours of office fires, in which they piled in more combustables than could be reasonably assumed to have been in any given WTC office.

None of the trusses failed.

There may have been some sagging, not sure, but nothing resembling what they claimed happened, happened. They basically just reinforced everything known about this behavior pre-9/11. This is NIST debunking itself. When they get these results and tell you something else happened, that's not scientific, it's scandalous, and it goes without saying that it's deceitful.

Think about it. Have any of you ever seen anything of NIST's tests that prove their hypothesis? They did tests. They didn't just sit around making guesses and theories, even though their final theories conflicted with their actual tests.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima... Did you read the NIST report!? ( easy Bsbry I know what you think of it)

There is NO WHERE in the NIST report or FEMA that states the FIRE ALONE casued the building to collapse.


Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
wtc.nist.gov...


Well i found this about the FEMA report interesting.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.


Now thier is conflicting statements in the report.


1. A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

2. The temperatures of the fire reached an estimated 2,000 degrees, melting the steel support system and causing the upper floors to collapse onto lower floors, which could not withstand the weight.


If most of the fuel was burned up in the fireballs what was left to cause fires hot enough to melt steel ?



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
We all know the original FEMA report had SEVERAL flaws. The NIST report was supplied with FAR more data,evidence, and MONEY to get come ujp with the results the posted. (weather or not you agree with it)

The fire was NOT burning long enough to "melt" the steel. But to weaken it enough to allow the global collapse that was claimed by NIST.

The collapse per NIST was that it was a combination of:

1. The impact of the plane
2. The fire protection that was blown off during impact
3. The fires that burned post impact.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
We all know the original FEMA report had SEVERAL flaws. The NIST report was supplied with FAR more data,evidence, and MONEY to get come ujp with the results the posted. (weather or not you agree with it)

The fire was NOT burning long enough to "melt" the steel. But to weaken it enough to allow the global collapse that was claimed by NIST.

The collapse per NIST was that it was a combination of:

1. The impact of the plane
2. The fire protection that was blown off during impact
3. The fires that burned post impact.



So we agree that thier are several big holes in the official story ?



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well... Holes? That depends on what you mean by holes. I believe the original FEMA report was as accurate as possible in what they were given to investigate. As time went on and more evidence was gathered, NIST was allowed to do a much deeper investigation.

Was it perfect? I doubt it. Does NIST f- up a couple things...Well according to some people yes, although i cant confirm or deny it as I am not an engineer,CD expert..or whatever..With that being said, NIST's alleged failures do NOT(IMO) confirm or prove that it was "An Inside Job" or that it was a controlled demolition.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Well... Holes? That depends on what you mean by holes. I believe the original FEMA report was as accurate as possible in what they were given to investigate. As time went on and more evidence was gathered, NIST was allowed to do a much deeper investigation.

Was it perfect? I doubt it. Does NIST f- up a couple things...Well according to some people yes, although i cant confirm or deny it as I am not an engineer,CD expert..or whatever..With that being said, NIST's alleged failures do NOT(IMO) confirm or prove that it was "An Inside Job" or that it was a controlled demolition.


I am not saying it was an inide job. But thier too many conflicting reports and no incident reports from the main on site investigators make it seem like thier are things missing or leeft out in the official story.

Also no real answer from NIST on what caused building 7 to collapse.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Well this thread is the "No Planes" ... so I have a feeling we will get hit with a "PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC" post from a Mod.

WTC7?.... I am looking forward to the NIST report that they are supposed to have out soon. I don't but into the controlled demolition theory for this either....just WAY to many witneeses around that building...for a couple hours...just waiting. Again... my opinion.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Well this thread is the "No Planes" ... so I have a feeling we will get hit with a "PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC" post from a Mod.

WTC7?.... I am looking forward to the NIST report that they are supposed to have out soon. I don't but into the controlled demolition theory for this either....just WAY to many witneeses around that building...for a couple hours...just waiting. Again... my opinion.


Well like i said there are no crash scene incident reports from the FBI or NTSB about any of the planes on 911.

Well firemen and news people were pulled well back because of the fire chief making a safety zone, so no witnesses were too close to the building.

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.



[edit on 15-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The fire was NOT burning long enough to "melt" the steel. But to weaken it enough to allow the global collapse that was claimed by NIST.


Yeah, which they never supported, because steel doesn't just fall apart when it's heated and sagging.

Again, they even tested replica truss assemblies, two hours of intense fire, and couldn't get failures. NIST did this themselves. Then they ignored it.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
We all know the original FEMA report had SEVERAL flaws. The NIST report was supplied with FAR more data,evidence, and MONEY to get come ujp with the results the posted. (weather or not you agree with it)

The fire was NOT burning long enough to "melt" the steel. But to weaken it enough to allow the global collapse that was claimed by NIST.


So if the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel where did the molten steel in the basements of the buildings come from.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Again, they even tested replica truss assemblies, two hours of intense fire, and couldn't get failures. NIST did this themselves. Then they ignored it.


but how much weight did they pile on top of their test trusses? im not being argumentative (even though i do like to yank yer chain bsb, you take it better than others
) im actually curious to know. ive never bothered to read the reports because, well, i have my own reasons to think they are going to say only what the administration wants them to say, so why bother?

never claimed to know what brought the towers down, just what i dont think happened.









 
2
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join