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: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
maybe I'm missing something here
but I just don't understand why this
is being mostly ignored.

think about it:

at one time in a NY Building Inspections
Office, there was indeed a pre-approved
plan to demolish WTC 1, 2 & 7.
If there wasn't, a building permit never would
have been issued for it's construction.

Why would this demo plan not be of importance
to the very investigation of the same buildings
falling down ???

I'm at a loss for words why this is irrelevant
for discussion.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Dude, you are on it-again.

I hear you flustrations.

These type of threads are hit and miss. You get the ATS building experts going on this and watch out.

I wish I knew more about the topic, but sadly I don't.

However, I can see from what you wrote that the idea is a good one and most likely not thought of before-publically anyway.

Be sure to check under you car in the mornings........

S&F



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Be sure to check under you car in the mornings........


lol

I can just see that phone call happening to the nearest
Sheriff's Office.

me: Hey I got a bomb under my vehicle cuz I discovered
a plot to demolish the twin towers.

them:
(click)

real subtle boondock !!!

thanks for stopping by



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
maybe I'm missing something here
but I just don't understand why this
is being mostly ignored.

think about it:

at one time in a NY Building Inspections
Office, there was indeed a pre-approved
plan to demolish WTC 1, 2 & 7.
If there wasn't, a building permit never would
have been issued for it's construction.

Why would this demo plan not be of importance
to the very investigation of the same buildings
falling down ???

I'm at a loss for words why this is irrelevant
for discussion.


I think you may be reading something into the form. New buildings do not require a pre-approved demolition plan. That's pretty silly. Construction and demolition may be separated by decades and must therefore see into the future and predict what kind of structures will be around the applicants structure when demolition is considered. The form you are looking at is asking for the application, if demolition is required before construction. Been in the building construction and demolition business now for decades. There is no such thing as a pre-construction demolition plane unless, like I said, some other structure needs to be demolished before construction can begin on the applican't structure. Dead end.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I think you may be reading something into the form. New buildings do not require a pre-approved demolition plan. That's pretty silly. Construction and demolition may be separated by decades and must therefore see into the future and predict what kind of structures will be around the applicants structure when demolition is considered. The form you are looking at is asking for the application, if demolition is required before construction. Been in the building construction and demolition business now for decades. There is no such thing as a pre-construction demolition plane unless, like I said, some other structure needs to be demolished before construction can begin on the applican't structure. Dead end.


so you mean to tell me that there are hundreds
of skyscrapers in Manhattan with no emergency safety
procedures to follow if that building's structure
becomes unstable ???

I'm sorry, but I do not believe NY to be
that dumb or reckless.

And I also believe your idea of an old structure being demolished
would come under that buildings previous demo plan,
not an entire new one.

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



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper has nailed it. The demolition permit referenced on the application refers to buildings or other structures that are already on the site and must be demolished to make way for new construction. There is no requirement to have a "demolition plan" for a newly constructed building.

If there were such a thing, there would surely be some evidence of it in the New York city building code, or we could find references to demolition plans for some other buildings.

As it is, filing a FOIA would at least get an official statement that there is no such document, I think. So go ahead and file.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
so you mean to tell me that there are hundreds
of skyscrapers in Manhattan with no emergency safety
procedures to follow if that building's structure
becomes unstable ???

In the event that a skyscraper's structure became unstable, it would collapse. There have been times when skyscrapers have been built that might have collapsed Citigroup Center. The solution is to resolve the structural problems, not to demolish the buildings (that would be counterproductive, don't you think?).



And I also believe your idea of an old structure being demolished
would come under that buildings previous demo plan,
not an entire new one.


Since there's no evidence that such demo plans exist, why would there be one for the old structures in the first place? Can you link to one of these demo plans for a building that is not yet slated for demolition?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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 ???
...
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.

...


Sorry didn't realize this was a joke thread. I'll butt out.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Sorry didn't realize this was a joke thread. I'll butt out.


it's not a joke thread
but I don't mind at all
if u butt out.

you do realize old chap that every time a renovation
project was done to the towers that a partial demo permit
had to be obtained so they could strip floors and walls
down in the presence of asbestos ???



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
not to mention it is getting rather
confusing trying to piece this together.
Seems like the building codes for Manhattan
has changed 3 different times since the towers
were built. You just about need an engineering
degree to follow all this crap.

Codes from 1968 were in place when the towers
were initially constructed. Those were updated
again in 1983 and then again in July 2008.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Sorry didn't realize this was a joke thread. I'll butt out.


it's not a joke thread

Sorry, sometimes on the internet it's hard to tell the difference between dry humor and honest goofiness.



you do realize old chap that every time a renovation project was done to the towers that a partial demo permit
had to be obtained so they could strip floors and walls down in the presence of asbestos ???


let alone all the bombs incorporated in the structure LOL. amirite? Talk about some hazard pay, right there. Hooooo! Do you really think that every building in NY and Chicago is wired to blow just in case?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Do you really think that every building in NY and Chicago
is wired to blow just in case?


I don't know.
But to me, an alternate plan to
protect the rest of the dominoes
around you would have been a good idea
especially if you were the tallest 2 dominoes
in NY City. And if they fell directly
over like a tree falls, they would destroy
almost everything within 5-6 city blocks.
Sounds good in theory to be safe
in that way.

Think of it as carrying a condom with ya
to the brothel. Just in case



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


no
what he is talking about is the existence of a plan for safely demolishing a building in case of an emergency such as an imminent collapse, the idea being to minimize, if not eliminate, any damage to the buildings alongside it,being a requirement for building a building/skyscraper in the 1st place.

and obtaining the details of said demolition plans for the towers via FOIA request in order to use that as a baseline
for comparison/investigation/analysis of how the towers came down and whatnot.

demolition of a building that was already on-site to make way for a new one, is a separate event:
different building with it's own set of numbers re permits,etc.

hope that clarifys.

reply to post by boondock-saint
Boondock: S&F great idea [ may even wind up revealing or even creating a few CTs of it' own]

my theory is that micro drones delivered explosives to key points of the 1st 2 towers there are already micro-bots [bug and pigeon sized] that can be used for this:

Air Force Bugbots
Micro Air Vehicle (MAVs) buglike dronesvideo.designworldonline.com...
[check out the video and watch a bugbot blow a terrorists head off animation]

under cover of the plane crashes they homed in on receivers placed during power down incident/asbestos removal? at key points

a study of the demolition points would be very informative !

edit on 7-6-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Instead of rigging those buildings with explosives it makes a lot more sense to me that the buildings were designed in such a way that if they collapse they collapse straight down. Which turned out to be the case, intended or not.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
what he is talking about is the existence of a plan for safely demolishing a building in case of an emergency such as an imminent collapse, the idea being to minimize, if not eliminate, any damage to the buildings alongside it, being a requirement for building a building/skyscraper in the 1st place.

Let's think about this for just a minute, MMKAY?
What kind of situation we are postulating:
1. the building is in danger of immanent collapse.
2. but safe enough to send in a demolition team to wire charges...
3. but NOT safe enough to send in a construction team to repair the damage...
4. and not safe enough to demolish in a normal way.
5. so to alleviate the danger, blow up the building?

This is the stupidest 9/11 theory since Judy Wood.



and obtaining the details of said demolition plans for the towers via FOIA request in order to use that as a baseline for comparison/investigation/analysis of how the towers came down and whatnot.


Well, I guess that would be a good Idea, but we have no reason to believe that such a plan ever existed for any building, much less the ones in question.



demolition of a building that was already on-site to make way for a new one, is a separate event:
different building with it's own set of numbers re permits,etc.

hope that clarifys.


It's clear that you're desperate to believe this stupid, stupid theory with not a shred of evidence.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Engineers do not design buildings to collapse. The only thing I have ever heard of close to that scenario is if you are talking about temporary structures and even then they are designed so that they can be disassembled without collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



so you mean to tell me that there are hundreds
of skyscrapers in Manhattan with no emergency safety
procedures to follow if that building's structure
becomes unstable ???

Yes. Because the cause of the instability will determine the safest means and methods for its demolition.


I'm sorry, but I do not believe NY to be
that dumb or reckless.

Actually, they are just a tad bit smarter than you and don't bother with stuff like pre-disaster demolition planning. I mean really, think about it. If a disaster strikes a building and it needs to be demolished do you think they are just going to stick their hands in the files and pull out some 50 year old demolition plan and follow it to the letter or do you think they are going to require that the building be evaluated and an up to date plan be prepared that includes all improvements to the subject building in the intervening 50 years and also considers all the surrounding environment?


And I also believe your idea of an old structure being demolished
would come under that buildings previous demo plan,
not an entire new one

What previous demo plan? And what if your new construction does not require complete demolition, only partial demolition? Just spent last week preparing a "selective demolition" specification because the footprint of the new building we are designing overlaps with some of the old building, now how could someone have considered that scenario 60 years ago when the original building was constructed.

Again, this is a real dead end. There are no files of pre-disaster demolition plans sitting in files in NYC. But please proceed with your FOIA request.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Hey guys, just thought id let you know that his thread just dropped off the hot topics list where i discovered it. It was at the bottom starting its way up to the top.

It just dissapeared. Yes i realise its still here NOW but im just lettin you know that you're probably being monitored.

Be ANON



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Instead of rigging those buildings with explosives it makes a lot more sense to me that the buildings were designed in such a way that if they collapse they collapse straight down. Which turned out to be the case, intended or not.


collapse from what? You do realise how PERFECT demo has to be to cause the almost free fall into its own foot print?

Frankly, the second tower should havestarted to tilt on account of the plane never hit dead center.

ANyways, ill save it for another thread.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mthgs602
 



collapse from what? You do realise how PERFECT demo has to be to cause the almost free fall into its own foot print?


What does that have to do with 9/11? None of those buildings collapsed at almost free fall and into their own foot prints.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join