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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 34
10
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because all buildings designed the same and have had the exact same damage.


But what about buildings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then building 7 and still did not collaspe?


Please stop making this comment unless you're going to back it up. Show us your structural comparison between the supposedly worse fires and the WTC's. Show us exactly how you have determined that these other buildings had worse structural damage.




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please stop making this comment unless you're going to back it up.


Why can't you admit that i have shown facts and evidence?

I have shown a firefighter site that states NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

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.


I have shown several photos of buidlings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then the WTC buildiongs.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please stop making this comment unless you're going to back it up.


Why can't you admit that i have shown facts and evidence?

I have shown a firefighter site that states NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

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.


I have shown several photos of buidlings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then the WTC buildiongs.

A photo isn't really proof unless that photo can show how long the fire burned or perform a structural analysis on the compared buildings. Show me an engineering structural comparison. Can you show me this? YES or NO. You claim to be interested in posting factual evidence so here's your chance.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You claim to be interested in posting factual evidence so here's your chance.


Funny how you keep asking for evidence but cannot post any to support your theory or the official story.

If you bothered to read the site i posted it gives the facts of how long the buildings burned and what damage was done to them. But then you would not want to read that because its factual evidence that supports what i believe.

Also of we go by your logic about photos then the photos of the airlpane parts are not real proof either are they?


[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
You claim to be interested in posting factual evidence so here's your chance.



Funny how you keep asking for evidence but cannot post any to support your theory or the official story.

I have posted evidence but I can't make you read and understand it.


If you bothered to read the site i posted it gives the facts of how long the buildings burned and what damage was done to them.

You haven't posted that info here. The discussion is here, not on this supposed site.


But then you would not want to read that because its factual evidence that supports what i believe.

See above.


Also of we go by your logic about photos then the photos of the airlpane parts are not real proof either are they?

That's not my logic. You obviously are either not reading or understanding what I wrote. You can take a fire of a photo to prove it was a fire.
A photo can not tell you how long a fire burned. It is a photo. As example, if you took a video showing the fire from beginning to end, that would work to show how long a fire burned.

So let me repost this again.

A photo isn't really proof unless that photo can show how long the fire burned or perform a structural analysis on the compared buildings. Show me an engineering structural comparison. Can you show me this? YES or NO.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I have posted evidence but I can't make you read and understand it.

You haven't posted that info here. The discussion is here, not on this supposed site.

A photo can not tell you how long a fire burned. It is a photo.


NO, you have not posted any actual evidnece.

oh, so are you too lazy to look at the site or afraid it will support my statment, which is it?

You mean just like a photo of plane part does not tell where the part is or what plane the part belongs too?



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I have posted evidence but I can't make you read and understand it.

You haven't posted that info here. The discussion is here, not on this supposed site.

A photo can not tell you how long a fire burned. It is a photo.


NO, you have not posted any actual evidnece.

Yes I have. This is the last time I will respond to this statement as it would be pointless continuing arguing back and forth about something you are wrong about and won't admit.


oh, so are you too lazy to look at the site or afraid it will support my statment, which is it?

Like I've said before, the discussion is not happening on that site. Using your logic, you must be too lazy to post it here.


You mean just like a photo of plane part does not tell where the part is or what plane the part belongs too?


Great way to avoid answering my questions.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Like I've said before, the discussion is not happening on that site. Using your logic, you must be too lazy to post it here.

Great way to avoid answering my questions.


I have posted it here and on other threads many times, you just do not want to look at it because it will support my statement. I will post it again but you will not admit that it suports my statement.

The following steel buildings all burned longer then the WTC buildings and had worse structual damage and did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

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.



The point remains that people like you use photos as evidence and then you state that photos are not good evience. Whats that say about people who believe the official story?







[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The following steel buildings all burned longer then the WTC buildings and had worse structual damage and did not collapse.


Were the buildings constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings?

Did those buildings have jetlines crash into them at over 400mph? Causing crucial fireproofing to be dislodges from steel beams,, and cause jet fuel fires to ignite the interior?

Did those buildings have the weight of 40+ floors pushing down on the fire weakened steel core?

Do you have links to the NIST reports for those buildings?

Was the steel tested for explosives at those buildings?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Once again I will post this, except this time for you, Disclosed:


In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.

But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.


ASCE Accused of 9/11 Cover-up


Pay special attention to that emboldened part.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.


Pay special attention to that emboldened part.


Traditional designs.

I believe most architects will agree that the WTC towers were NOT built with traditional designs.

Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Traditional designs.

I believe most architects will agree that the WTC towers were NOT built with traditional designs.

Wouldn't you agree?


No. I can post you floor plans, pictures, everything of another skyscraper right now that used the exact same design: outer columns, an inner core structure, and trusses laid in-between.

The idea that such a design is "unusual" was put forward by the same people who praised the buildings for not collapsing immediately. Ie corrupt engineers that are screwing with your head, from the ASCE, that later went on to FEMA, that later went on to NIST.


First Interstate Bank (also underwent catastrophic fire) :



A floor plan. Notice the numerous and obvious similarities.




Again.. obvious similarities. Especially since you already know what's on the inside from the above floor plan.

Actually, this building was much less robust judging by the relatively small size of the columns, compared to the WTC towers, even though it was over half the height:




And the fire in it was on lower floors, around floors 13-14, burned longer, and completely gutted floors.


All these ways you try to weasel out of being reasonable, that's just what you're doing: trying to weasel your way out of having to accept this information that's being laid right out in front of you.


Griff is a civil engineer. Ask him how "unusual" this design is, I dare you! Tell me what exactly it is about the towers, specifically, that makes them so different, that we can't even compare other structures to them? What exactly is it that makes them so damned different, structurally? That the floors are between columns? That there are load-bearing columns on the outside of the building? What is supposed to be unusual?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, I don't even have to post that much.

The whole point of comparison, is to illustrate that the towers should not have fallen so easily.

In the article I just posted, the structural engineer tells you himself that he modeled the very WTC towers and found them able to withstand the impacts. Thus the basis for his whole complaint against the ASCE, for suggesting otherwise in their reports, trying to down-play the strength of the towers.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Im sorry bsbray...just where did the airliner hit the building in your picture? I mean I can see where the fires were.....but im not seeing a gaping hole from an airliner impact.......

Oh wait, once again, we are only considering the fire, instead of understanding that it was the fire, plus the damage, that led to the collapse of the towers and the fire, plus the damage from WTC1 hitting it, that caused WTC 7 to collapse......



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im sorry bsbray...just where did the airliner hit the building in your picture?


I think you missed the article I just posted:


Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.


I would remind you that "most New York skyscrapers" are not half as tall or ultimately strong as the WTC Towers were.


That much really isn't debatable. It should be common sense.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Did those buildings have jetlines crash into them at over 400mph?

Please provide proof that shows which specific jetliners allegedly hit the towers.

Until the alleged planes are positively identified, you are only working with a theory that jetliners did hit at 400mph.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No. I can post you floor plans, pictures, everything of another skyscraper right now that used the exact same design: outer columns, an inner core structure, and trusses laid in-between.


But the quote said "most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs". So you only can show plans for 1 building?? Thats most skyscrapers? That is now considered the traditional design?



And the fire in it was on lower floors, around floors 13-14, burned longer, and completely gutted floors.


Which floor did the airliner crash into? I'm only seeing fires....no impact damage from a plane. Hell, even the official reports so far state the buildings would had withstood the firs alone. The impacts played a key roll in the chain of events....as reported.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Disclosed
Did those buildings have jetlines crash into them at over 400mph?

Please provide proof that shows which specific jetliners allegedly hit the towers.

Until the alleged planes are positively identified, you are only working with a theory that jetliners did hit at 400mph.



No it's not just a hypothesis, some type of large planes hit the buildings. I really don't know how many times we need to go over this. Unless you can prove that NO airplanes hit the buildings, I really suggest you drop it as it's never going to go anywhere and is in no way productive. We don't need to positively identify the flights to know that large jet airplanes hit the buildings as we have eyewitness accounts, videos, pictures, etc.. showing at the very least, some type of big jet planes.

Either some type of planes hit or they didn't. If they didn't, then what did everyone see, what was on the videos and in the pictures? Oh no here comes the silly hologram idea again about ready to rear it's fairy tale head.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No it's not just a hypothesis, some type of large planes hit the buildings. I really don't know how many times we need to go over this. Unless you can prove that NO airplanes hit the buildings, I really suggest you drop it as it's never going to go anywhere and is in no way productive.

It's not productive to continue with the theory that some type of large planes hit the towers, unless you can positively identify the large planes.

I know you can't do this, so once more, I'll continue to read the thread rather than press you for evidence that you can't provide.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
No it's not just a hypothesis, some type of large planes hit the buildings. I really don't know how many times we need to go over this. Unless you can prove that NO airplanes hit the buildings, I really suggest you drop it as it's never going to go anywhere and is in no way productive.

It's not productive to continue with the theory that some type of large planes hit the towers, unless you can positively identify the large planes.

That statement is completely illogical. As example, if someone is run over by a car and they cannot identify the car, we don't know if they were really hit by the car??? Come on !


I know you can't do this, so once more, I'll continue to read the thread rather than press you for evidence that you can't provide.

Pointless comment.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join