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: 35
10
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
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?


It's semantics. The structure I showed you was almost exactly the structure of the WTC Towers. Like I said, it's no secret, you can claim difference on the size of nuts and bolts ultimately, if you really wanted.

The basic idea: a core structure, load-bearing columns on the outside, and trusses strung in-between for open office space. Again, can you tell me what specifically is unusual about that? Ask Griff.


The First Interstate Bank could withstand a similar plane impact, imo. If most NYC skyscrapers could, then certainly this one could also, being one of the strongest skyscrapers built out West. The FIB is probably bigger than about everything besides the Empire State Building and maybe a couple of the WFC buildings in Manhattan.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by bsbray11]




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

Originally posted by Disclosed
Were the buildings constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings?

Did those buildings have jetlines crash into them at over 400mph?
[edit on 29-3-2008 by Disclosed]


Yes, the buildings were all made of steel just like the WTC buildings.

We are talking about fires in the buidlgins since most of the reports state that it was mainly fire that brought down the WTC buildings. Oh and do not forget no plane hit Building 7.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Oh wait, once again, we are only considering the fire


We are only considering fire because most reports state that it was mainily fires that caused the collapse, and maybe you can tell us where a plane hit building 7?

The buidlings i have posted had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.


Originally posted by jfj123
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


If you are going to claim certain planes hit the buidlings you should be able to come up with the evidence that these planes hit the buildings, otherwise its only an opinion and not fact.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, the buildings were all made of steel just like the WTC buildings.


The racks that hold our computers here at work are made of steel. Does that make it constructed the same as the WTC buildings?

We are talking about fires in the buidlgins since most of the reports state that it was mainly fire that brought down the WTC buildings.

Incorrect. The reports state the following: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse. I can show you those quotes again in the released reports, if you like.



The buidlings i have posted had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.


More structural damage? Were they hit by aircraft as well? What caused the structural damage?

If it was just the fire, then it agrees with the official reports that say the fire alone did not bring down the buildings.



If you are going to claim certain planes hit the buidlings you should be able to come up with the evidence that these planes hit the buildings, otherwise its only an opinion and not fact.

So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?
This isnt turning into a "no planes" thread now, is it?




posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?
This isnt turning into a "no planes" thread now, is it?

Here are some conflicting eyewitness reports that dispute what might have allegedly 'hit' the towers.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Incorrect. The reports state the following: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse. I can show you those quotes again in the released reports, if you like.

More structural damage? Were they hit by aircraft as well? What caused the structural damage?

So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?


Most reports state that the main casue of the collapse was the fire.

If you read the infomration i posted and that is on the site you would see that the damage was casued by fire.

Did you not understand the simple statement i made? I will post it again maybe you should read it again so you understand before posting.


If you are going to claim certain planes hit the buidlings you should be able to come up with the evidence that these planes hit the buildings, otherwise its only an opinion and not fact.





[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Most reports state that the main casue of the collapse was the fire.


Those reports would not be the FEMA, NIST or 911 commission reports. Those all state that it was a combination of the plane impacts, and resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.

The official reports from the NTSB and FBI have not been made public.

What reports are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisclosedThose reports would not be the FEMA, NIST or 911 commission reports.


Well see here is where i have to prove you wrong yet again.

The FEMA report does state that the towers withstood the planes impacts and it was the fire that casued the collapse.

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.


Another report.
www.tms.org...

While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.


There are more reports that state the fires were the main cause of the collaspe.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well see here is where i have to prove you wrong yet again.

The FEMA report does state that the towers withstood the planes impacts and it was the fire that casued the collapse.


Actually it does not. It states the cause of collapse exactly as I have stated it. I'm certain anyone that reads the report will see that as well.



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.


Thank you....that also agrees with what I stated: The impact and resulting fires. Although I didnt know firehouse was an official investigating site...what branch of the govt are they?

Thanks for agreeing with my post.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisclosedThanks for agreeing with my post.


I will makes this as simple as i can.

Please read the following lines and please try to understand that they are stating the fire was the main casue of the collapse.

but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not according to FEMA:


The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
Collapse then ensued.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Not according to FEMA:


According to FEMA
but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.


According to another report,
The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

How many more reports do i have to quote before you see that they state the fire was the main cause of the collapse?



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
We also have this quote from the director of NIST in front of Homeland Security.

www.nist.gov...

After the World Trade Center towers survived the initial aircraft impacts, the engineering community was stunned that the towers and other nearby steel frame buildings collapsed due to the effects of fire – that had never happened before to such buildings.


I am just getting started, to be cont.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.


you missed this part:

These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.


I'm sorry, I thought you were looking to post the truth, and not just portions of the truth to support your theories.

The facts and evidence I post speak for themselves.

These facts are also supported by Stephen Push (a board member of the 911 family/survivors)...who agrees with the report....but feels more should have been done to stop t from happening in the 1st place.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The facts and evidence I post speak for themselves.


Yes the facts do speak for themselves even from the Director of NIST when he states,


After the World Trade Center towers survived the initial aircraft impacts, the engineering community was stunned that the towers and other nearby steel frame buildings collapsed due to the effects of fire – that had never happened before to such buildings.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

THEY TOLD US: Buildings "collapse" when subjected to great stresses.
IN FACT: Excepting WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 there has never been a case of a steel-frame highrise totally collapsing because of fires or any other cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The NIST definately knows what its talking about:

wtc.nist.gov...


The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.


Combined effects....impact and resulting fires.

Fact.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST definately knows what its talking about
Combined effects....impact and resulting fires.

Fact.


How can NIST know what they are talking about when they do not do test for chemicals and explosives on the WTC 1 and 2 steel and do not recover any steel at all from WTC 7?

FACT,, Thats not what the Director of NIST stated in front of Homeland Security, was he lying to them?


[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
NIST director states,


the engineering community was stunned that the towers and other nearby steel frame buildings collapsed due to the effects of fire – that had never happened before to such buildings.


Notice he states "DUE TO THE EFECTS OF FIRE" not a combination.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
english.peopledaily.com.cn...

After watching videos experts say that it was not the damages inflicted but the big fire followed in destroying the two towers.

Professor Wu Huanjia from Qinghua University says in an interview that the big fire must be to blame for softening and melting away the steel, paralyzing and destruction of the towers as mere plane crash is not strong enough to topple the two large tower structures.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The statement you are quoting from was dated June 10, 2002.

My facts are from"The Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers", dated September 2005.

Signed by William Jeffery, the Director of NIST.



new topics




 
10
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join