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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 11
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
That is an amazing picture. 40 years after the WTC is designed we have a structure that can withstand a blaze of that magnitude. I wonder if they used any of the suggestions set forth by NIST in the construction?

Please realize what NIST is. It is an organization that studies incidents and recommends things to prevent it in the future. Thats it.

Link

They are the ones who find the newest safeguards for bridges, buildings and other structures after a disaster. Take a look at the new WTC 7. It is solid. Also of note, Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind. It was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs.


or maybe the backpack nukes did not go off




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by whatukno
 


You need to look at the subway and the common basement they shared unlike the sturctures you are refering too. I wish you guys would stop bringing crap like this up. I dont suppose you guys even think about the people who lost love ones, and have to sit and listen to the rantings of conspiracy theories blaming the very goverment they live in. Its got to hurt them on some level if not make them mad, that a the death of their loved one is being used as proof for some loony conspiracy theory.


The whole reason for debates of this nature is to find out the truth for the loved ones, have you taken into account how many of those loved ones are actually behind truth movements and discussions of this nature.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by whatukno
 



Remember the "official story" is a conspiracy theory, it has yet to be proved in a court of law who caused 9/11, until that time the "official story" is a conspiracy theory
That is a rediculous theory. Why would they have to prove it in court. That is like me having to prove I have never killed anyone. Besides Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to helping plan the 2001 terrorist attacks. Also
Five of the most prominent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they want to plead guilty to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The defendants include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, his nephew Ali Abd al Aziz, who is also known as Ammar al Baluchi, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Walid Muhammad Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.
The only thing you would possibly be able to bring to court would be if you had any hard evidence that there was some conspiracy. I find it amazing all of you are so sure there was a conspiracy but in 7 years no one has brought the US governement, or whomever you believe was behind it, to trial. I wonder why that is. Maybe it is because there is no proof. All of your evidence is theory.
you would be laughed out of a court room.




This can relate to the JFK oswald situation, there is no proof, but at the end of the day where the heck did the magic bullet come from and why was he murdered before going down, someone else was behind it, there was a conspiracy there but oh no, no proof so piss off forget about it go eat your cheerios.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
That is an amazing picture. 40 years after the WTC is designed we have a structure that can withstand a blaze of that magnitude. I wonder if they used any of the suggestions set forth by NIST in the construction?


#1 NIST suggestion: don't lease buildings to Larry "Pull It" Silverstein!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
...conspiracy board.


COUGH - Discussion board



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

591 architectural and engineering professionals


Which amount to a small fraction of 1% of the total number of architectural and engineering professionals in the US alone.

There are 83,500 members of the American Institute of Architects, and 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. So assuming that number you gave of 591 ONLY includes professional architects and Civil engineers, it would still make up only about 1/4 of 1 percent of all architects & civil engineers.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


My question is, with all this evidence why isnt something being done? This has been going on for 7 years and has gone nowhere. With all those people you think you would have enough money to really bring a case against the US or whomever you believe is behind this.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by Cyprex
Here is a video of the building, the morning after.



And a before the fire piture.
flickr.com...



WoW, it looks like the Trade Towers in the way they constructed the Steel. Very interesting looking building.




Except that it was supported by reinforced concrete, not steel beams.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


My question is, with all this evidence why isnt something being done? This has been going on for 7 years and has gone nowhere. With all those people you think you would have enough money to really bring a case against the US or whomever you believe is behind this.


Thats because evidence or not is treated as speculation, " the goverment already gave an official and final statement".

What would be interesting to find out is how individuals or people could reopen this case, but i guess you would have to have lawyers willing to do that.

plus the goverment could come and kill you.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Honestly guys, the people who believe the official story will continue to believe no matter what evidence is shown..it's surpassed that..they believe in the official story like people believe in god. Ever try to tell a devout christian there is no god? it doesn't go well
plus, even though it's another indicator how bogus the officail story is, too many variables to be really strong evidence in of itself.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Honestly guys, the people who believe the official story will continue to believe no matter what evidence is shown..it's surpassed that..they believe in the official story like people believe in god. Ever try to tell a devout christian there is no god? it doesn't go well
plus, even though it's another indicator how bogus the officail story is, too many variables to be really strong evidence in of itself.

That statement might be true, but it goes both ways. Truthers will never believe anything other then a conspiracy. That is why ever little thing that happens, like a building burning, they compare it to 911. Well this building didnt collapse so 911 was obviously a conspiracy. Look at all the stars and flags. It is quite funny that people are comparing this building and WTC7 like they are the same thing yet no one even knows how the manderin hotel was constucted. Talk about jumping the gun. And if it is so obvious that there was a vast conspiracy why even bring this thread to light. After all, the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of a conspiracy, I am not sure why you all try to keep proving that there was one, being it is so obvious, that is.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


yep sorry
here you go

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I can't believe how much time and effort you spend supporting the official 9/11 story and denying the truth. Don't you understand the meaning and significance of your signature?

Yes I do.

"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both."

Indeed -- thanks to ignorance, gullibility and legislation like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.
[edit on 10-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Actually post some real evidence to suggest it was an inside job, and I'll be more then happy to look at it. The Bush administration is probably the worst and most criminal administration in American history and the patriot act is a complete joke and ILLEGAL. I in no way support the crimes committed by the bush administration. that being said, I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thank you. Do realise that my correction is mearly to correct the fact that I said the NIST report said something it did not, not in any way a validation of said report, which is widely regarded to be worth less than the paper it is written upon. However, that does not excuse me from not being factual.

However this report is a sloppy bit of coverup work, for example this:


As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”


Bold mine. Here we see how they underhandedly imply that the WTC had a higher probability of damage because it was multiple strikes, which is sleezy because it was one aircraft per tower, and, not only this, they fail to bring up the collision resistance data, which could also be used to indicate the towers had enough structural resistance to take a 767 impact, as that door swings both ways. And this was just the first paragraph in your link!

The NIST report is simply terrible and, in my book, is more a proof of the conspiracy, that's how obvious those people are, than indication that the official version (which is itself a shabby conspiracy theory) is legitimate.

Cheers for the link.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Zepherian]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way by retreating to Florida, thence to a schoolroom during the hijackings to listen transfixed by "My Pet Goat" while the rest of the world responded to what was happening.

And then to lie about how he saw the first plane hit the building long before it was televised:



And occasionally threaten to reveal to the world what really happened:

Bush "he told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a higher point... at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."






[edit on 10-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Honestly guys, the people who believe the official story will continue to believe no matter what evidence is shown..it's surpassed that..they believe in the official story like people believe in god. Ever try to tell a devout christian there is no god? it doesn't go well
plus, even though it's another indicator how bogus the officail story is, too many variables to be really strong evidence in of itself.

That statement might be true, but it goes both ways. Truthers will never believe anything other then a conspiracy. That is why ever little thing that happens, like a building burning, they compare it to 911. Well this building didnt collapse so 911 was obviously a conspiracy. Look at all the stars and flags. It is quite funny that people are comparing this building and WTC7 like they are the same thing yet no one even knows how the manderin hotel was constucted. Talk about jumping the gun. And if it is so obvious that there was a vast conspiracy why even bring this thread to light. After all, the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of a conspiracy, I am not sure why you all try to keep proving that there was one, being it is so obvious, that is.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by tide88]


Well I would qualify as a "truther" but my belief that the official story is nonsense comes from a couple things:
1) I grew up in NYC, and, when I worked in lower manhattan as a messenger, had occassion to visit all the WTC buildings multiple, multiple times..you don't know how massive thse buildings really were unless you've been there..and I don't believe any airplane could make them fall, especially at freefall speed, in their own footprint. ain't happenin'.

2) NORAD. The eastern seabord of the USA has got to be the most heavily defended airspace in the world..except on 9/11, no one could find their ass with both hands.. I don't think so. Even with my ex-student pilot limited knowledge of FAA regs and how they do things,i.e when to notify norad to scramble jets, this part stinks. stinks bad.

3) 7WTC. Yeah, cause the shockwave from the other buildings falling made this one fall the same way. in it's own foorprint. at freefall speed. Or, the fires in the basement did it. Uh-huh. I don't need to be an engineer to know that's horse(you know what).

My point is, I didn't get all this off the internet. There are real reasons to disbelieve the official story, and I do. I did almost from jumpstreet, and everyone thought I was bat(you know what) crazy..now, not so much with the crazy..


[edit on 10-2-2009 by dragonseeker]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by dragonseeker]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Building #7 wasn't hit by a plane, and even the buildings that the bigger towers were close enough to fall on didn't completely collapse. Building #7 collapse started at the bottom which wasn't even on fire.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
911 was an inside job info wars .com there was reason for wtcb 7 to collapse other than the plans for 911 were in it which if discovered would have been the downfall of us government and all its corruptness



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
Well this building didnt collapse so 911 was obviously a conspiracy. Look at all the stars and flags. It is quite funny that people are comparing this building and WTC7 like they are the same thing yet no one even knows how the manderin hotel was constucted.


This thread is just trying to show people what usually happens when steel skyscrapers catch fire.

On 9/11 three buildings did something that is not comparable to any other events in recorded history.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian

However this report is a sloppy bit of coverup work, for example this:



As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”


Bold mine. Here we see how they underhandedly imply that the WTC had a higher probability of damage because it was multiple strikes,
Actually that is not what it says at all. All that statement says that although it has been said that the towers should have stood up to a single impact, they could not verify it in writing as they were not able to locate the documentation.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join