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.

 

Pull IT

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Don't forget about the fire in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and casued no damage to steel beams.

Yet we are to believe that isolated fires burning for less then an hour weakened several steel beams.



And of course those were just fires with no structural damage, and the fire protection systems were not destroyed as well. But then the whole argument depends on separating all the evidence and analyzing it all as separate pieces rather than using it all together. Because to do so would not make for good sensationalism.

I haven't read through this redundant thread all the way but is it safe to guess that someone already tried to use the hotel in Madrid as well? Have we covered all the cliche arguments?

I suppose if the same argument is rehashed over and over enough times we can convince ourselves that what we want to believe is really true.




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
And of course those were just fires with no structural damage, and the fire protection systems were not destroyed as well. But then the whole argument depends on separating all the evidence and analyzing it all as separate pieces rather than using it all together. Because to do so would not make for good sensationalism.


So, we can't compare the towers or 7 with other buildings. Now, we can't even compare the towers to themselves? How telling.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If "all the evidence one should need to see" consists of the collapse "looking like" something, and common sense, then your standard of evidence has to be very low.


I guess that includes NIST as well? Let's see how they came to the conclusion that there wasn't a CD.


2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.


Source: wtc.nist.gov...

A couple of things here. Notice that they NEVER mention testing the steel for various types of "explosives". I say explosives here meaning any type of controlled demolition (i.e. tests for thermite).

Also notice that their evidence against a CD is video evidence. Hmmm...I guess NIST is allowed to use video evidence but we aren't.

The main point is that the NIST DIDN'T test the steel for evidence of explosives. They only looked at videos and concluded (since they didn't see explosions) that there were no CD's going on. Very telling.

Also, the whole thing doesn't read well.


the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;


This is easily explained. Where else would it start to collapse? The weakest link maybe?


the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.


Let's think about this for moment. So, are they saying that the time it took the fires to weaken the supporting structure or are they saying the time it took for the fires to weaken the structure so that it gave no resistance? I'm confused on that statement.

In summary, why don't they include a statement that the steel was tested if in fact (as you official people state) it was? Was the steel tested for explosives, thermite etc. or not? That is the real question.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
And of course those were just fires with no structural damage, and the fire protection systems were not destroyed as well. But then the whole argument depends on separating all the evidence and analyzing it all as separate pieces rather than using it all together. Because to do so would not make for good sensationalism.

I haven't read through this redundant thread all the way but is it safe to guess that someone already tried to use the hotel in Madrid as well? Have we covered all the cliche arguments?

I suppose if the same argument is rehashed over and over enough times we can convince ourselves that what we want to believe is really true.


Gee you should really look at more steel buildings then just Madrid hotel. Thier are at least 4-6 different steel buildings that i can bring up that burned several hours some for over a day and had structural damage due to the fires and did not collapse like the towers or building 7.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.





[edit on 26-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Maybe he meant effort when he said it.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Yeah. Why else would the "conspirator" be concerned about civilians around the building. Blow it and inflict more casualties which means more anger against the enemy.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by somethingsomething
Maybe he meant effort when he said it.


The only reason the fire chief was calling Silverstien was to let him know they could not save the building (after the firemen had been pulled away)

Silverstien had no authority to tell the fire chief what to do with the firemen or really what to do with the building, the fire chief was just giving him a courtesy call to say they could not save the building and then decided to PULL the building. "And we watched the building collapse"

[edit on 27-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by somethingsomething
Maybe he meant effort when he said it.


What effort? The firemen were already out of the building before 11:30am. Silverstiens call was at around 12:10am. The majority of the firefighters were out of WTC7 at around 10:00am, and only a few went back in to help a few last people that were there.

There was zero casualties in WTC7 because they knew it was going to be controlled demolished. The people in the building didn't know, but the person's controlling the people in it knew.

Funny how even with a jet crashed inside the WTC buildings, the officials told everyone to stay at their desk. Yet with only a few office fires, WTC7 was completely evacuated.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Funny also about thier being a nice big hardened control bunker inside buidling 7 for the mayor, police, and fire but they did not use it they instead used the unprotected control centers.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 28/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, we can't compare the towers or 7 with other buildings. Now, we can't even compare the towers to themselves? How telling.


You aren't comparing anything. you are trying to mislead people by comparing apples and oranges. The scenarios had nothing in common. How telling is it that you feel the need to mislead people with faulty comparisons?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Gee you should really look at more steel buildings then just Madrid hotel. Thier are at least 4-6 different steel buildings that i can bring up that burned several hours some for over a day and had structural damage due to the fires and did not collapse like the towers or building 7.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.





[edit on 26-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I so hope you are kidding. Your article includes the madrid building. But you forget to mention that it was mostly concrete and that the steel part of the building DID collapse from the fire.

And you consider broken windows to be structural damage?

Who are you guys trying to kid here????

None of those examples is anywhere remotely close to what happened to the WTC.

Show me an example of a 100+ skyscraper that had extensive structural damage, was a tube in a tube design, burned unaided, lost its fire protection, lost its sprinklers, was made of steel, and remained standing. You won't be able to find one.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I just wanted to add some things here, I find myself personally going back and forth on what Silverstein said, but I think I am more convinced of a 3rd alternative.

I believe he was being vague on purpose, he was playing for that money he wanted to collect, he was making it look like there was *no* choice either way.

Its interesting in the Silverstein clip, he never indicates any amazment that the Building collapsed, he just talks about them watching it collapsing almost stoic in his way of telling it.

But here are some interesting things to look at.

Stacey Loizeaux interview prior to 9/11, look for some key things and phrases and also a better understanding about the demolition business.
Stacey Loizeaux



NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?


Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down





MORE ON PULL



"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.



Now these interviews are prior to 9/11, but....







And MORE PULL



One of the more amusing mythologies of the 9/11 denial movement is the claim that the phrase "pull it" is an industry term for demolishing a building with explosives.


We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with


Something just doesn't add up, for one thing, I can see by the first two interviews how someone could use the term 'pull it', a slang type of saying, since they are 'pulling' the building, but now after 9/11 the term doesn't mean this.

The "EXPERT" explains why WTC1&2 are not controlled demolished bldg's and neither is Bldg WTC 7

The Following is a PDF FILE where he explains his take on all the collapses
www.jod911.com...

He says that owners never are consulted this way by fire crews or emergency crews, I find this hard to believe. I know for example in Toronto they can be.

Interestingly here is some things from the CITY OF TORONTO (someone might want to check the city files of NEW YORK to see if similar laws apply and terms)

CITY OF TORONTO



(2) The Fire Department may pull down or demolish any building or structure

when considered necessary to prevent the spread of fire.


So a Fire crew can 'Demolish' a building. Apart from 'pulling down'.

Silverstein, played with words, and purposely was vague in my view to cover himself either way.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathDoesntExist
Larry Silverstein


9/11 was an inside job,
[edit on 14-1-2007 by DeathDoesntExist]


How can people say this????

I do beileve they [The American Government] turned a blind eye to the threat and then took advantage of the situation, but to say 9/11 was an inside job is BS.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
You aren't comparing anything. you are trying to mislead people by comparing apples and oranges. The scenarios had nothing in common. How telling is it that you feel the need to mislead people with faulty comparisons?


First of all, it is not a faulty comparison to compare a fire in the towers to another fire in the towers. Disregarding the plane impacts, the official story says that fire weekened the steel enough for it to collapse. If that was the case, we would have seen much more damage in the other fire, but we didn't. I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm comparing a granny smith to a red delicious. Point is, if an office fire was able to sag trusses and pull in outer columns, then a much more powerful office fire in the same building should have done the same thing. It didn't.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
I so hope you are kidding. Your article includes the madrid building. But you forget to mention that it was mostly concrete and that the steel part of the building DID collapse from the fire.


You forget to mention that concrete buildings are made with steel connections. If a fire can weaken the steel connections in the towers in less than an hour, I'm pretty certain that the Madrid hotel's connections should have been weakened. BTW, they don't fire proof steel connections in concrete buildings as far as I know.

Who's comparing apples to oranges now Snoopy? The steel part of the building did collapse? First, it collapsed as it should have...i.e. partially, not globally. Second, the steel in the Madrid fire was a needle compared to the steel in the towers.

Here's a few pics from a project I'm working on.







Notice that the connections are steel. Also notice that the connections have no fire proofing on them. This is a government building that is in operation, so it is definately up to code and was built in 1988.

[edit on 1/29/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove something.

As far as the CD theorists go, the burden is on them to prove their theory as well.

If you want people to believe your theory, then present some solid positive evidence in favor of the theory.

There is no evidence that bombs were even in Building 7, just as there is no evidence that elephants were in the building.

So, enough dodging, does anyone have positive evidence for the existence or use of explosive devices at Building 7 that day?

Or is it as I said, that there is no positive evidence for bombs?


LeftBehind,

With all due respect, the "positive evidence" that may or may not exist to definitively prove or disprove the CD theory was gathered up and destroyed by the government.

To continue to challenge individual citizens to come up with "positive evidence" to support the CD theory is a bit disingenuous, imo. We all know that the agencies that investigated the crime scene controlled all of the evidence. In fact, they even failed to make the evidence available for FEMA or NIST to examine.

Further, it is even more disengenuous to challenge posters on an internet forum while giving the elected and appointed officials within the U.S. goverment a free pass. It was these officials who had the fundamental responsibility of protecting our citizens from the 9/11 attacks in the first place. They failed in this responsibility.

It was also this same administration which was responsible for "investigating" the thousands of deaths directly caused by their own failures. The administration failed to perform the investigation much in the same way they failed to protect the citizens of their country.

So perhaps one's energies would be better spent castigating those whose derelictions of duties resulted in 9/11, not those who fail to make reference to "positive evidence", all of which was destroyed over 5 years ago by the government.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
I so hope you are kidding. Your article includes the madrid building. But you forget to mention that it was mostly concrete and that the steel part of the building DID collapse from the fire.

And you consider broken windows to be structural damage?

Who are you guys trying to kid here????


You might to read the post a little more, thier was more then just broken windows.

Plus the towers did not even burn for an hour, some of these buildings burned for a full day.

I did not bring up the Madrid buidling because it was concrete, i brought up the buidlings that were steel.

I am still waiting for anyone to show me any steel buidlings before or since 911 that have collapsed due to fire.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Nick, thank you for proving my point.

As you said, there is no evidence.

I don't know why people continue to believe these theories with not one scrap of evidence pointing definitively to the use of bombs.

However your case falls apart when you claim that the evidence was somehow hidden or destroyed by the government.

One way we could tell that explosives were used is by looking at the contents of the dust spread all over the city, and see if any nitrates were present.


pubs.usgs.gov...

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.


No mention of any nitrates or other elements which would indicate the presence of explosives on the level most of these theories require.

What is disingenuous, is to accuse firefighters, and numerous government, including a supporting cast of thousands, of mass murder based on speculation and not one bit of credible evidence.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
sorry double post

[edit on 29-1-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
There may be no evidence of bombs (even though there are the squibs and eye witness reports), but it still doesn't dispute the fact that the physics of the collapses shows that the official story cannot be true.

Please explain the 'South Tower tilt', if you can. I have yet to find an official report that even mentions it, let alone tries to explain it. Don't you find that even a bit suspicious? I don't know how you couldn't.



new topics




 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join