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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


There is also indications that explosives were placed in the elevator shafts, particularly 2 that were down for "maintenance", if memory serves.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Does it bother you at all that this guy is in his forties and would therefore have been in grade school when the WTC was built? I don't think this is the CM for the construction of the towers, he may have been the CM during some of the renovations, but not during the construction. His knowledge of the original design parameters for the towers would be based on review of the construcion documents and design documents at best, not on direct knowledge during construction.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.

Yeah, a human being who helped design the WTC towers.



Another lie from a truther!

Frank De Martini was born in about 1952, the WTC was designed in the early 60's, so they let a 10-12 year old design the WTC?

he started in 1993 at the WTC, and he was simply "the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing"



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


You are right, my first question to the engineer that stated only fire brought down the Towers would be..."Did you miss the airplanes that crashed into them?"



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   


Had explosives not been used to bring the buildings down, both towers would still be standing today.


The sad part is that you truly believe this. From the moment the towers were hit, they were coming down as a result. No bombs, no super duper top secret thermite nothing.

And even when it is posted that according to the recorded radio transmissions that day, Mr DeMartini was saying that there was a danger of collapse....you argue....

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 





Versus placing our faith in the words of professional debunker Swampy?


I have always said to do the research yourself, rather than believe everything that comes from Loose Change, DRG, Craig and Aldo etc.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Really? They produced a 1200 page analysis dealing solely with the results of a 757 impacting the building at 600mph and the analysis said that nothing catastrophic would happen? Where can I get a copy of this 1200 page analysis?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to believe that two of the tallest buildings in the world...just happened to collapse uniformly and symmetrically due to airliner impact and a subsequent approximate one hour fire.


To extend on this further, the impacts damaged the buildings differently, different angles, different amount of damage, yet they both collapsed in the same fashion? Without even getting into the physics, this is highly improbable.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I have always said to do the research yourself, rather than believe everything that comes from Loose Change, DRG, Craig and Aldo etc.


As apposed to believing everything your government tells you?

Tell me Swampy how do you, in your 'own words' from your own 'research' (that means no link to Greening), explain how WTC2 acted so differently (Tilting top) to WTC1 yet ended up with the exact same result, global collapse?
(and that includes why it tilted, and how it's angular momentum turned into vertical momentum and fell through the path of most resistance).

BTW I don't actually expect an answer, it's off topic and I know you don't have an answer anyway, I'm just making a point for you Swampy...
Kettles and pots etc...

[edit on 12/4/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Another lie from a truther!


Another lie?

So what are the others?

And just in case you've lived under a rock all your life...

Government Lies

And guess what you're doing? You are supporting, and spreading, government lies. Who do you relate to in this world, lying government hacks or your fellow Human Beings? I don't understand this blind support you fellows have.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Exactly how many different ways are there to fall other than down? And exactly why is it improbable when two virtually identical buildings suffer damage in virtually identical manner to then finally react in virtually the same manner. What would be improbable is if one building eventually failed and one did not.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
How many different ways can one fall?
Quite a few actually.
google 'pictures of building collapses' and you start to get an idea of the way buildings usually fall on days that werenot 9/11/01.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finalized


To extend on this further, the impacts damaged the buildings differently, different angles, different amount of damage, yet they both collapsed in the same fashion? Without even getting into the physics, this is highly improbable.


so what? both buildings were built the same (one was taller to accomodate the radio tower). After a certain point, they are going to look the same while collapsing (actually, WTC 2 was slight different due to the tilt and twist of the top section before collapse).

Other than, no the collapses wouldn't be extremely different.

Read the reports. they explain the collapse mechanisms very well.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Had explosives not been used to bring the buildings down, both towers would still be standing today.


The sad part is that you truly believe this. From the moment the towers were hit, they were coming down as a result.

Yep, even a tower that wasn't hit or severely damaged was guaranteed to come down, thanks to Larry "Pull It" Silverstein.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
How many different ways can one fall?
Quite a few actually.
google 'pictures of building collapses' and you start to get an idea of the way buildings usually fall on days that werenot 9/11/01.


Nope. Sorry. They all fell down. Not up. Down. And its funny, they all kind of look the same when they do.

Buildings fall down, without regard to the cause. Down.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Yep, even a tower that wasn't hit or severely damaged was guaranteed to come down, thanks to Larry "Pull It" Silverstein.


WTC 7 was hit by the falling debris and collapse of WTC 1. Fires raged withing the building and Firefighters called the building FULLY engulfed. Firefighters were recorded as saying there was no way they were going to save the building and that it was going to collapse. the FDNY was not surprised. They were expecting the building to collapse.

Pull it in that instance was to remove all Firefighters from the area since there was NO chance that anyone was going to save the building.

Way to go on bringing up a 2006 long debunked claims.

Why are you stuck in 2006?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Finalized
 


Exactly how many different ways are there to fall other than down? And exactly why is it improbable when two virtually identical buildings suffer damage in virtually identical manner to then finally react in virtually the same manner. What would be improbable is if one building eventually failed and one did not.


That is a great question! After hundreds or even thousands of similar buildings have suffered far worse fires, far worse impacts, and not collapsed, and after buildings (even in controlled demolitions) have collapsed in much more chaotic and unpredictable fashions, and after hundreds of videos of the top portions of buildings collapsing and failing to create a "pancake" collapse, but rather tilting and falling off and leaving lower sections still intact.............then how improbable is it for two buildings to suffer two predictable impacts for which they were built to withstand, but then collapse in identical fashion, in a uniform pancake style collapses, the first of their kind?

The answer is very very improbable, so improbable as to be called impossible even for one, and out of the wildest realm of possibility for two on the same day!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready



That is a great question! After hundreds or even thousands of similar buildings have suffered far worse fires, far worse impacts, and not collapsed, and after buildings (even in controlled demolitions) have collapsed in much more chaotic and unpredictable fashions, and after hundreds of videos of the top portions of buildings collapsing and failing to create a "pancake" collapse, but rather tilting and falling off and leaving lower sections still intact.............then how improbable is it for two buildings to suffer two predictable impacts for which they were built to withstand, but then collapse in identical fashion, in a uniform pancake style collapses, the first of their kind?



sorry, but what similar buildings existed to the WTC towers and WTC 7. Can you provide a list of "similar" buildings and also provide If they:
1) were hit by nearly fully fueled commercial jets hitting at 500 mph
2) where there was no firefighting efforts during that time

No the buildings were not BUILT to withstand the impacts of planes equivalent to the force of 150 tons of TNT. That was an opinion by an engineer; an opinion is not based in fact.

Please provide the study that he conducted to support this claim.




The answer is very very improbable, so improbable as to be called impossible even for one, and out of the wildest realm of possibility for two on the same day!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by getreadyalready]


please provide your calculations as how you came to arrive at that probability.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
 


And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.


so just because the gov says something is true that makes it true then ?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
 


And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.


so just because the gov says something is true that makes it true then ?


when that statement is supported by research, evidence and facts, yes it does.

All we have from the truthers are ignorance, misinformation, and lies.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join