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.

 

Big planes cause big damage

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


What alot of us already know, is NIST report on 911, was found to have some disturbing problems.

Whistle blower working for NIST told they never ran any test on anything.
They also said, that they were hired, by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

NIST has not, after 7 years explained how WTC7 fell that day!
No airplane hit that building,I want some real ANSWERS and no one in our Government will give us any.

You see its a big SECRET, and I have to ask WHY?
What is our Government hideing that they dont want us to know.
Maybe they dont want us to know, that explosion, bombs is what really brought all three buildings down.

If the real proof of Demolition ever gets out to the public, then (WE THE PEOPLE) will want to know, who hired the Demolition Company.
So in that case, they are responable for 3000 people death on 911.

Most of us already know this, but we are very close of haveing our proof.

NIST would not even look at Demolition and they will not explain why.

Everone that was at ground zero that day heard explosion befor the building fell (Not one word about it in the 911 report or NIST).

There is a big cover up, and our Govenment is part of the cover up!




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This subject is becoming a joke realy, (holly avoid the facts).

As I said before even if you are a P.Eng.....HAVE YOU EVER DESIGNED a building like WT1 and WT2 ? NO you have not so you in no way can be an expert in this....big different from bridges to WT1 and WT2 just like a concrete building is very different from a wood house.

Please people go to other threads on this site to get the truth and FACTS with discusion with all the math etc. you need. Becuse people who know the events that day are getting very very tired of the false info people on here post.

And yes the people on here (many) are in complete denial of what happened that day and make crazy assumptions then say because they are a P.Eng. they know or throw info that is imposible and/or avoid the question completely.

As always your Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Yes how did building 7 fall that day, building 7 is probably the best evidence of a conspiracy, no plane hit it, just debris, then a fire, while its easier to beleive WTC 1and 2 fell as a plane hit em, building 7 was on fire, theres so many highrise building fires over the last 30 years, with no collapses,something doesn't add up,
9/11 has confused the hell out of the general public when it comes to building fires, building don't fall when they are on fire, even if its an inferno, they stand, with the firefighters already 'KNOWING ITS GOING FALL' HOURS before it did, thats were it becomes a paradox,If the firefighters knew of any secret, besides a fire, it wouldn't be possible 2 keep it a secret, but you dont have firefighters anywhere else knowing a building will fall hours before hand.?
I think 9/11 will never be known in its full.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 


You're absolutely correct except for the mass of the 767s which was closer to 100000kg at the time of impact as they weren't fully loaded at the time and maximum take-off weight for those planes is around 140000kg (140 tonnes).

100 tonnes moving at over 200m/s is a huge force to arrest in under 0.5 sec and any lesser buildings than the WTC towers wouldn't have remained standing like they did allowing most occupants to escape.

Be prepared to hear about how it was a NWO plan for world domination though (I think you already did
)



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 


You keep talking about WTC 1&2, We are talking about WTC 7.

WTC 7 no plane hit that building.

WTC 7 is the smokeing gun plain and simple.

100 of wittness saw, and heard, explosions when WTC7 came down!

Are you saying that all these people are liers, Firer men, police men rescue workers, first responders.

Are you saying, that all these people have a Conspiracies, who dont even know one another.

You do you think, that "WE" are not able to see there is a problem with NIST report, and 911 report, and what the Government has to say .

Do you think Our Government is going to tell us they where part of 911?

Do you think the truth movement is nothing but liers?

Yes 911 was an inside Job!
WTC7 fell in its own foot print that day inless than 8 sec!
And no airplane hit that building.
We see a problem with this, do you?

Forget WTC1 & 2 for now, We want to know why WTC7 fell that day?

As long as I live, I will ask questions to what happen to WTC7

We all need to keep pushing for anwsers, and asking questions from our Government .

By the way, I dont have all the Anwsers to what happened on 911.

But I will never stop asking..

WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANY AIRPLAIN!
So why did that 47 story building, build of steel and concrete fell that day?

Do you know?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
WT7....not 100% sure on that one....
but as noted before there ARE other threads on this site that goes into a lot of detail.

If I'm not mistaken the building 7 was affected from falling items from WT1&2 not to mention the amout of TRANSFER beams and joints etc. etc. in the lowers levels (basement areas) so with falling debri' and structural effects on the ground and lower levels (not to mention the effects from the buildings falling...prob. was like an earthquak) and with fires within the building this is not like any other example in history we should be carefull to compare.

While on the other side...It would not surprise me one bit if at the time for the Fire Chief (etc. etc.) to say "ya' know what enough have died today lets not risk anymore lives and "pulled" the building 7". And if I was there I would support that desicion 100%...risk more lives over what? something we can re-build. But to say it's was planned...not a chance.

I'm sure Griff will see eye to eye that the size of the structural beams at say P-1 ceiling level would have been HUGE and run from one end of the site to the other side of the site (not one piece of course). And would have expansion joints all over the place...when you realy think about it I'm surprised not more buildings fell...but prob. cause we got' great Engineers
in North America.

As always your Canadian friend,
Sven

Oh just something to look into....if you notice in some of the videos on youtube etc. take a look at the Fire Panels in the lobbys' for WT1 &2 (take screen shots
thats what I did).
I wonder if the WT7 sprinkler and fhc's w'r effected? From falling WT1 and 2. What was the incoming services like? Domestic and Fire Lines for the entire complex? This would def. speak volumes to know this information again i'm sure Griff would see the volume of information in knowing this kind of information. I assume that each building would have it's own system? fire pump c/w backup generator etc.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Also more personal note...

for 1 never calling anyone a liar. 2 please DO NOT STOP asking and discussing imagine if we all though the same view...be dam' borings
.

I love and incourage your view and would die for it...it's your view and I will always respect that...we may not always agree but I will always love/respect my fellow brother or sister...just thank g*d we don't have gun's hanging from our hips in here

warm regards,
Sven



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I said he has a very big vested interest. If not, why is he not releasing his structural documentation and would only do so to NIST under subpoena?


1- What vested interest could Robertson have by lying whether or not he did the plane calcs at 180 mph or at 600 mph? Either way, the towers didn't immediately fall over. No matter which calc he did.... what has that changed?

2- We've discussed this before. Am I correct in saying that Robertson doesn't have the authority to release the docs, since they aren't his property? Wouldn't he have to get subpeonaed to stay within the bounds of the law? What would happen to YOUR firm if they were to release docs to the general public at their whim?

3-If I'm correct, why are you pursueing this line of questioning yet AGAIN when you already have the answer?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 


I was just going to let this try at a personal attack go but.

I am more than qualified to analyze this. Or I guess all those years of studying stuctures was for nothing?

Yes, steel, concrete and timber are all different. I can tell you I have taken all three design courses. I have a degree in said study and am well enough qualified to analyze this.

That doesn't mean I'm always correct. But, I haven't met anyone yet who is.

BTW, I am dogding nothing. I can't prove a report wrong when all the data is funneled through said agency and cherrypicked to suit the predetermined conclusions. Give me the raw data. I'm a big boy, I can handle the truth.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3-If I'm correct, why are you pursueing this line of questioning yet AGAIN when you already have the answer?


Well, if I'm correct, the public has every right to demand those documents. The Port Authority is publicly run I believe.


The Port Authority is jointly headed by the governors of New York and New Jersey. Each governor, with the approval of his or her state senate, appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, who serve overlapping six-year terms without pay.[1] Current Commissioners are Virginia Bauer (NJ),Bruce Blakeman (NY), Michael Chasanoff (NY), Anthony Coscia (Chairman, NJ), Christy Ferer (NY), David Mack (NY), Ray Pocino (NJ), Anthony Sartor (NJ), Henry Silverman (NY), David Steiner (NJ), and H. Sidney Homes III (NY). A governor can veto actions by the commissioners from the same state.[1] Meetings of the Board of Commissioners are public. Members of the Board of Commissioners are typically business titans and political power brokers who maintain close relationships with their respective Governors.


en.wikipedia.org...

As such, I believe that when the public is concerned about those building's collapses, the public has every right.

I could be wrong, but I've asked you to prove what you say before and I still haven't seen a law quoted where it states that when a building collapses, the owner and/or architect/engineer can claim personal property on documents.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- What vested interest could Robertson have by lying whether or not he did the plane calcs at 180 mph or at 600 mph?


Robertson's firm did not do those calculations. It was another engineering firm that was working on the towers, and they even published their results in the 1960's as the towers were being constructed.


Edit to add a source:


A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


--City in the Sky, p 131


stj911.org...


Really it's a source within a source, and they give you the book they got it from, even the page number.




PS -- In regard to the OP, "big planes" sever less than 15% of the support columns on the impacted floors. The relevant info on the perimeter columns is in chapter 2 of the FEMA report, and NIST did worst-case-scenario computer modeling on the core columns, even changing Flight 175's impact angle, and the percentages were comparable to FEMA's percentages of severed perimeter columns. Legal codes require an equivalent to 50% of the columns being taken out AT LEAST before the remaining columns become overloaded and begin to slowly deflect/deform. An immediate failure of the steel would require even more damage.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Well if ur information is correct that it was meant to take an airliner at 600mph than thats a big + for the conspiracy movement, but even still we all know that things dont always go as they planned, and planning to take a 600mph hit is a big plan.
In the end its still even for conspiracy vs offical story regarding which impact speed it was able to handle, because everybody makes mistakes, even building engineers of the 1960's.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Robertson's firm did not do those calculations. It was another engineering firm that was working on the towers, and they even published their results in the 1960's as the towers were being constructed.



Yes, I'm aware of that.

My question to Griff was what would ROBERTSON have to gain by lying about whether he did the 180 mph calc or the 600 mph calc because he was implying that Robertson has something to hide (vested interest) by when he says that he only did the 180 mph calc.

None, that I can see.

So I was just wondering why he would make that insinuation, based on which calc R. did.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I could be wrong, but I've asked you to prove what you say before and I still haven't seen a law quoted where it states that when a building collapses, the owner and/or architect/engineer can claim personal property on documents.



In what way do you think that it ISN'T personal property?

What's the diff between buying a car from Toyota, or some plans from your firm?

There's none. Once they're paid for, they are the personal property of the person doing the paying. If you're not sure about your 5th Amendment rights, I suggest you look into it at this time, before you ask any more stupid questions.

We've also agreed that the plans being personal property doesn't mean that the PA/Silverstein can refuse to give up custody of said docs. To do so would be contempt, IMHO. They did in fact give up those docs though.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
My question to Griff was what would ROBERTSON have to gain by lying about whether he did the 180 mph calc or the 600 mph calc because he was implying that Robertson has something to hide (vested interest) by when he says that he only did the 180 mph calc.


First, don't put words in my mouth. I never said he was lying.

I said he has a vested interest in making it known it wasn't his firm that did that study.

Or why would he "snap" back that it wasn't his firm?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What's the diff between buying a car from Toyota, or some plans from your firm?


If those plans are useful in any type of investigation, they don't even need to be bought. Especially if the public owns (through the governor that thry elected) those plans.


There's none. Once they're paid for, they are the personal property of the person doing the paying. If you're not sure about your 5th Amendment rights, I suggest you look into it at this time, before you ask any more stupid questions.


Stupid questions eh? I know for a fact that an investigating body can subpoena those plans. Do you? Again, instead of a law, I get vitriol.


We've also agreed that the plans being personal property doesn't mean that the PA/Silverstein can refuse to give up custody of said docs. To do so would be contempt, IMHO. They did in fact give up those docs though.


Under subpoena.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

First, don't put words in my mouth. I never said he was lying.

I said he has a vested interest in making it known it wasn't his firm that did that study.

Or why would he "snap" back that it wasn't his firm?


Here's what you originally said-

"I said he has a very big vested interest. If not, why is he not releasing his structural documentation and would only do so to NIST under subpoena? "

Where in that statement does it back your current statement that his vested interest is in letting everyone know that his firm didn't do that study?

Because when any rational person reads that, it's pretty clear that there's no reference to that at all. Rather, it reads like your only interest is to discredit Robertson. Of course, you'll deny this....



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If those plans are useful in any type of investigation, they don't even need to be bought. Especially if the public owns (through the governor that thry elected) those plans.

Stupid questions eh?

Under subpoena.


1- They were bought when they were originally done , right? that's my point, and I have no clue how you get from there to having to buy them NOW in order to do an investigation. Strange logic path there. I'm not sure about whether or not your link proves the facts about the PA, nor am I sure about requirements about public entities giving away their property just because they may be publicly funded.

2-Yes, stupid questions, Griff. Sorry if you don't know the facts about your 5th A rights, but that's not my problem. We're in agreement that these docs MUST be surrendered if subpeonaed. TBH, I have no idea what you're asking about, as far as providing a law that says what you're asking for, since I'm not stating this. So don't put words into MY mouth.

3- Prove it. How do you know whether or not they gave up the plans willingly to NIST? We're in agreement that they MUST give them up under a subpeona order, but do you have any facts that it actually went this far?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I'm not trying to discredit Robertson. I admire his design.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be quoting him if we are trying to be impartial here as he does have a vested interest. Sorry you can't see this.

BTW, I'm sick of you people taking everything I say to the extreme. Maybe it's my communication skills on an internet forum but I believe most get what I'm saying.

I, in no way am implying he's lying. He's just not impartial.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- Prove it. How do you know whether or not they gave up the plans willingly to NIST? We're in agreement that they MUST give them up under a subpeona order, but do you have any facts that it actually went this far?


I stand corrected. They didn't have to invoke the subpoena power.


Under the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST was granted subpoena authority. NIST’s experience during the investigation was that it was able to obtain all essential documentary and visual evidence without the need to invoke subpoena authority. The existence of subpoena authority was helpful to NIST in getting access to data.


wtc.nist.gov...




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join