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.

 

Fire breaks out at Vegas' Monte Carlo - Will it collapse?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   


LAS VEGAS (AP) — Authorities say a three-alarm fire has broken out on the roof of the Monte Carlo hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip.
Flames and plumes of black smoke could be seen on what appeared to a west-facing rooftop of the resort.

The fire was spreading from the center section of the hotel across the roof line.

Las Vegas fire spokesman Tim Szymanski says city and county firefighters were on the scene. The fire was reported just before 11 a.m.

A dispatcher at American Medical Response said ambulances were being dispatched to the scene, but said there were no immediate reports of injuries.


www.usatoday.com...


Im taking bets.

Ill bet collapse... the debunkers are running out of time...they need more ammo.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
If it's a steel structure,then I bet no it wont.
Fire dosent bring down buildings,expolsives do.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
You'll be told that you can't compare any other building fires to the towers. Even though we can calculate the damage done by the planes and know it still wasn't enough to collapse them, people STILL won't compare other buildings to the towers.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
If Larry pulls it , it will...

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
If the fire was lower( i.e. lots of weight above the area taking damage)..and no one had the water to try and control the fire......who knows?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
If Larry pulls it , it will...

watchZEITGEISTnow


Love it. You are not wrong about that. If it belonged to Larry Silverstein and was financed by David Rockefeller.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
By the looks of that"raging inferno" the whole building ought to turn into dust any minute now - if we are to believe the official 9/11 "story"....



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The fire has been contained for about 3.5 hours now. LV Fire Dept. got the alarm around 11:00 AM Pacific, responded, and had the fire contained by about 12:30 PM Pacific.
Only took them about 1.5 hours. Pretty impressive I though.

Note:
witnesses within the building say they heard alarms and notifications since about 10 AM, but the alarms were followed by "We are investigating the fire alarms..."
I guess they were not sure they had an uncontrolled event until an hour later?

The fire looks to have been started on the roof... There were supposedly some welders up there doing some work.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



Im taking bets.

Ill bet collapse... the debunkers are running out of time...they need more ammo.


I didn't hear of any plane being intentionally flown into it. I also watched firefighters using water to contain the blaze.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If it belonged to Larry Silverstein and was financed by David Rockefeller.


I'm confused. Didn't you just tell me in another thread that the project wasn't actually financed by the Rockefellers? I still haven't bothered to look into it myself, but now I'm confused as to what exactly you're telling me.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Well looks like next time I'll have to stay at the Montecito. Maybe I'll see Danny handling security and get his autograph.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
If it's a steel structure,then I bet no it wont.
Fire dosent bring down buildings,expolsives do.

and I bet they won't find any molten metal either
nor do I see any running down the side of the building
nor do I see it squirting out the side of it

oh yea, right .... there's no airplane crash
in this video

I'd be curious to find out what the cause of the
fire is gonna be .....



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm confused. Didn't you just tell me in another thread that the project wasn't actually financed by the Rockefellers? I still haven't bothered to look into it myself, but now I'm confused as to what exactly you're telling me.


David Rockefeller is behind the big money financing of anything with big money involved, particularly New York City and the State of New York.

He financed the Port Authority for WTC complex. Then Larry Silverstein cut a sweet deal, at taxpayer and bond holder expense, with the Port Authority to take possession of WTC 7, for which he was the sole developer and contractor. He then leased the land, which the New York Port Authority held in trust for the taxpayers and bond holders. Silverstein completely controlled WTC 7, with Rockefeller at the financial helm of the entire WTC complex.

The following article may interest you. I found it exceptionally interesting and highly informative:

findarticles.com...

"In the period immediately following the end of the second World War, it was uncertain whether New York City would remain a viable business center in the face of an increasingly globalized commercial realm.1 The original World Trade Center project was developed in response to this concern, principally by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and his brother, Chase Manhattan Bank Chair David Rockefeller.2 The Port of New York Authority3 was brought into the World Trade Center project for two main reasons: (1) as a state agency-indeed as a bi-state agency-the Port Authority possessed bonding power-that is, it could finance the project by selling bonds;4 and (2) the Port Authority had eminent domain power to condemn private lots in order to clear land for the towers and other related construction.5"



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I read they had welders working on the roof. It may have been a water leak on some water supply system. They probably have a tar roof. I definitely would not want to be in Las Vegas right now.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Hmmmmm, I checked with the FAA and they have no reports of a 767 impacting the hotel so im not sure how this fire and potential collapse relates?

I mean is every structure fire going to be trotted out here and pasted with a 'why did'nt it collapse"?

Different structure, no multiton aircraft with jet fuel hitting the structure, you can try to comapre that apple to an orange all you want but.......



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
From my perspective, since Eagar's PM article became the Bush administration's "official" reason for twin tower destruction, perhaps people are providing more validation, that fires do not collapse steel and concrete buildings.

I have no idea why people are throwing out claims of "....but planes did not hit other burning steel and concrete buildings ........" or "....other buildings did not burn from jet fuel......"

Since the "official" reports attribute twin tower collapses to fire not alleged planes, inserting anything, concerning mandatory planes and/or jet fuel as reason for denying correct comparison, is completely irrelevant. There are other fuel sources which burn a great deal hotter and provide far thermal energy than jet fuel.

Never in the history of steel and concrete buidlings has any fire completely collapsed and skeletal steel frames, even when burning hotter and far longer, than any jet fuel alleged to be burning in either twin tower. They, too, had been furnished with a great deal of flammable material. Some far more flammable and numerous in number, than what existed inside either twin tower.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Wow. I thought before that I had seen the depths of the troothers desparation. But this is a new low, even for them. Almost feel sorry for them trying to justify their sad store after so many years and no proof.

I heard yesterday an airplane took of from Boston and did'nt crash. This is the smoking gun that the 9/11 planes from Boston were holograms. This the type of logic being dealt with here.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirtonwater
I heard yesterday an airplane took of from Boston and did'nt crash. This is the smoking gun that the 9/11 planes from Boston were holograms. This the type of logic being dealt with here.


But, then a pancake head sinks to even deeper depths of despair in trying to prove a point.

Oh the irony!

Personally, I just wanna know when commercial airliners started to carry military grade thermate on board. Oh that's right they don't. Demolitionists use that stuff, silly me.

Open your eyes.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Nola213]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Thermite ? Are some people still sticking to that story ? Its been over 7 years and there is no evidence at all for you troofers. Sorry you invested so much time and money in your dillusions, but time to give it up, don't you think.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Hmmmmm, I checked with the FAA and they have no reports of a 767 impacting the hotel so im not sure how this fire and potential collapse relates?

I mean is every structure fire going to be trotted out here and pasted with a 'why did'nt it collapse"?

Different structure, no multiton aircraft with jet fuel hitting the structure, you can try to comapre that apple to an orange all you want but.......


Wait, wait. Don't question this.

I want to trot out thr bridge in San Francisco collapsing last year after that puny, black smoke indicating a cool fire, oxygen starved, and fire can't weaken steel, thing.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join