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.

 

I think we need a FOIA Request to the NY Building Inspections Dept.

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Since it is mandatory by law that NY will
NOT grant a building license to a
skyscraper in Manhattan without
an approved demolition plan by
the same dept.

I am requesting that somebody do
a FOIA Request to this dept. to find
out just exactly what was the approved
demolition method of the twin towers
and for WTC 7 which allowed them to get
their original building license.

And let's see how closely that pre-approved
demolition plan resembles the actual
evidence obtained after they fell.

Anybody feel a need for this approach ???




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
basically, the engineers have to show
on blue prints how this building is to
be built

AND ALSO

how it is to be demolished should the
need ever arise to protect other buildings
should the case ever be needed. It is a
safeguard in place by law.

We should all be very interested to see
just what was the original design of
how those engineers designed it to
come down.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Very very very very very good idea.

Nobody thought of this before?

Was this ``law`` passed BEFORE the construction of the WTCs?
edit on 7-6-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
knowing this plan was in effect would make
perfect sense why Silverstein would have
made the comment that they decided to pull it.
Meaning the original demolition plan
on file with the building dept.

This would mean that SOMEBODY had an
existing option to bring those buildings down.

If that option was abused on 9/11
then we have a massive criminal act
instead of a foreign terrorist attack.

edit on 6/7/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Very very very very very good idea.
Nobody thought of this before?
Was this ``law`` passed BEFORE the construction of the WTCs?


I can't say for sure
but I would imagine this law was in effect
just as soon as the Manhattan sprawl
started taking effect. Which would have
been long before the towers were
constructed in the 70's.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
if this were the case that an existing pre-approved
plan of demolition for these buildings was in effect,
then a contractor could have by law rigged the building
for demolition not realizing that the plan could be
abused at a certain future date.

This demolition rigging could have been
implemented any time between when the buildings
were constructed and when they fell.

That power down in the towers the weekend
before would not give them ample time to
rig the entire building, but it would give them
plenty of time just to test the existing demolitions
in the buildings. WHich may have been the reason
for the power down.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Very very very very very good idea.
Nobody thought of this before?


not to my knowledge
but I may be wrong.
I have no knowledge
of this approach being
tried before.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
actually there may have been addendums
to this plan over the years as newer technology
became available. They still would have had
to file these demo plans with the Building
License office.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
gives an entire new meaning
to this video does it not ???
To know they already had an
existing plan to demo the buildings
should the need arise. And Silverstein
admits in this video he was consulted
by the Fire Dept. prior to the pull.
And it was his suggestion to the Fire
Commander that they pull it.



his words in the video were:

"Ya know we've had a terrible loss of life,
maybe the best thing to do is pull it"

however, he was not talking about WTC 7.
There were no deaths reported from that building.
The deaths had come from WTC 1 & 2.
So why the concern to pull WTC 7 ???

edit on 6/7/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

So why don't you do it? You apparently know the law involved, so get to work citing it and requesting the plan.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

So why don't you do it? You apparently know the law involved, so get to work citing it and requesting the plan.


well I was hoping for somebody with
a lot more expertise in NY building codes
to step up. I am just not qualified in
the field.

I just came up with the idea of this
approach



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Since it is mandatory by law that NY will NOT grant a building license to a skyscraper in Manhattan without an approved demolition plan by the same dept.


Can you show us all where this actual law is located on a official NY government site - you claim to know so how about showing us!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Can you show us all where this actual law is located on a official NY government site - you claim to know so how about showing us!


It is part of their

High Rise Initiative

www.nyc.gov...

here is a download of step #2
of getting your Building Permit
for Manhattan, NY

www.nyc.gov...

here is a screenshot of page 1 which includes
a box for your Demolition Application Number.
Meaning you have to file a Demo Application
with your Building Application.



BOTH have to be approved BEFORE you get
your original building permit. Unless I am
mistaken, please point it out



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
so back to my original OP,
what were the pre-approved demolition
plans for WTC 1, 2 & 7 to get their
original building permit?

This is what we need a FOIA for.

edit on 6/7/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
how it is to be demolished should the
need ever arise to protect other buildings
should the case ever be needed. It is a
safeguard in place by law.


I don't see the use really. Either this plan completely failed or they didn't follow it. Other buildings were damaged to the point of collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't see the use really. Either this plan completely failed or they didn't follow it. Other buildings were damaged to the point of collapse.


just because a demolition plan was supplied
in order to get a building permit, doesn't
necessarily mean it would work to perfection.

However, it would show just what type
explosives or other items would have been used.
And this would be the match we would need
to prove the building were demolished
instead of collapsing due to fire from
planes.

That molten metal came from somewhere.
If it could be proved that the original design
of the demo plan included as a by product
this molten metal, We would have a smoking
gun for sabotage. Thusly, a criminal act
instead of a terrorist act.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
this would also mean that every other
high rise building in Manhattan has a demolition
plan in place as well.

Who knows, maybe even the Sears Tower in
Chicago has one also.

think about it:
Would NASA send guys to the moon
without a plan to get them back ???

Would they build a skyscraper without
a plan to destroy it without destroying
the rest of Manhattan in the process.

edit on 6/7/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


The explosives used in demolitions do not produce molten metal. I thought the whole idea of the WTC demolition conspiracy was that a secretive extremely discrete method of demolition was used, using unknown substances never before used in demolitions.

But you can make the request anyhow. I don't think anyone will get any wiser from it but it won't hurt either.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

The explosives used in demolitions do not produce molten metal. I thought the whole idea of the WTC demolition conspiracy was that a secretive extremely discrete method of demolition was used, using unknown substances never before used in demolitions.


that would all depend on what type of elements were
selected by the original designers of the towers.
And also, if there were any upgrades added to the
buildings subsequent to their original filing for
the building permits.

I do know for a fact that certain portions of the towers
were changed once construction commenced.
This also may have altered the demolition plan
as well. But that plan still would have had to be
updated with the building inspections dept.

and yes, there are some type explosives that
can turn existing steel to molten metal. This
would be considered a by-product of it's use.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
look at it from the perspective of NY City.

Would you allow hundreds of skyscrapers to
be built all in the same neighborhood without
a safety plan of action to keep ALL of them
from falling over on each other due to one
causing a domino effect ???

This is common sense !!!!

Having a demo plan for each of them
on file, ready to implement if the need
arose would have been the smart thing to
do.

Did you ever watch the movie "League of
extraordinary gentlemen" with Sean Connery ???

This building domino effect was portrayed in Venice
in one of the scenes in this movie.


Though the League reaches Venice in time, the bombs planted under the city start to detonate, toppling buildings in a domino effect. The League decides that knocking one of the buildings out of the sequence is the only way to stop the mass collapse. Nemo has a missile that can be fired from the Nautilus at the building in question, but only if a beacon can be set in place.


Wiki of film
edit on 6/7/2011 by boondock-saint because: added url



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join