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: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mthgs602
Frankly, the second tower should havestarted to tilt on account of the plane never hit dead center.


Just a wild guess, you are unable to back this assertion up with any study that includes the actual physics, and it is based either on a conspiracy website or your gut feeling?
edit on 7-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I can imagine this would be a factor that is taken in consideration during design. I don't know if it ever happens in practice.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.


God, you sound like my dad and he LOVES fox news. Listen man, go to youtube......type in WTC, or WTC7 or 9/11 or BIG BUILDING FALL GO BOOM! Im willing to bet youll get some good results.

So in other words, you're wrong....YOU ARE WRONG. Not yelling, just putting them in all caps so you can clearly make out that im telling you (as a fact) that you are wrong.

But hey what do i know, im just a crazy activist!!!!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mthgs602
Frankly, the second tower should havestarted to tilt on account of the plane never hit dead center.


Just a wild guess, you are unable to back this assertion up with any study that includes the actual physics, and it is based either on a conspiracy website or your gut feeling?
edit on 7-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Noooo.......lol....its pretty well explained through many studys.....damn really wish i could give you a source directly but im not at the right area. I mean, do you really not know this? Im not just saying it because thats what i think through no research, but through the opinions of actual pros in the field. Go to a 9/11 forum or something man. Jesus


Wow this is weird actually.....you sound like a disinfo agent.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mthgs602
 


Don't need to youtube or anything else. Saw the photos. Those buildings did not collapse into their own footprints.

Besides, you got to love it. Half the truthers claim it was inside job because all the debris was "ejected' so far from the building lines - obvious (to them at least) sign of controlled demolition and the other half claims that because all the material "fell into its own footprint" that its an obvious sign of controlled demolition. Its a conspiracy win-win.

Also, there are only three speeds - faster than free fall, free fall, and slower than free fall. Can't go faster unless its under power, didn't go free fall so we are therefore left with the last and final option - slower than free fall. That's "almost' free fall to you.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mthgs602
 


Don't need to youtube or anything else. Saw the photos. Those buildings did not collapse into their own footprints.

Besides, you got to love it. Half the truthers claim it was inside job because all the debris was "ejected' so far from the building lines - obvious (to them at least) sign of controlled demolition and the other half claims that because all the material "fell into its own footprint" that its an obvious sign of controlled demolition. Its a conspiracy win-win.

Also, there are only three speeds - faster than free fall, free fall, and slower than free fall. Can't go faster unless its under power, didn't go free fall so we are therefore left with the last and final option - slower than free fall. That's "almost' free fall to you.


So.....you have told me thus far that there are three speeds. Ok cool cool ill check into it later. But what does it have to do with anything?

You are rambling. Quit using straw man tactics.

You do realise that people that worked for the bush admin have come out and publicly stated that it was an inside job.....but that doesnt matter i guess. In fact, there is a thread on one of those men RIGHT now in the new topics lists.

Activists are always liars



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Heres the link to the page.....please direct any other questions to the forum. Im sure that there are many that can answer some of your questions



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You are correct on the towers, they never collapsed at all but just blew up and tossed there contents to the side somehow, while also apparently turning into pure dust.

It is pretty safe too say that no buildings collapsed on that day, these words are true, not one of them collapsed at all, not even building seven which got its legs cut off suddenly and just turned into a strange looking pile.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mthgs602
 


I have heard the claim, but never seen an actual published peer reviewed study. Don't worry, I don't expect you to post one.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



You are correct on the towers, they never collapsed at all but just blew up and tossed there contents to the side somehow, while also apparently turning into pure dust.

No wait, I thought everything collapsed into its own footprint? Now they were turned into pure dust? You realize, of course, we are not talking about some abstract event in ancient history? We all saw what happened. They were not turned into pure dust and they did not fall into their own footprints.

It is pretty safe too say that no buildings collapsed on that day, these words are true, not one of them collapsed at all, not even building seven which got its legs cut off suddenly and just turned into a strange looking pile.


Call it what you will, but you're not going to convince anyone that anything happened that did not actually happen.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Truthers on this thread should give hooper and me a break.

Professional conspirators like he and I spend all day pulling the wool down over the eyes of judges, cops, and newspaper reporters; let me tell you; it is hard work. Sometimes after a hard day, or during our lunchbreak we like to do a little debunking and wool-pulling, and argument shredding in a low-pressure internet environment populated by an assortment of nuts. Not unlike how a fireman might tap a hydrant on a hot day to watch the neighborhood kids play and cavort in the cool stream. It is a great way to blow off some steam.

But to tell you the truth, its getting a little too easy. 9/11 truth has become the bush leagues of conspiracism. All the good arguments are used up and worn out. Former A-listers like Steven E. Jones have moved on to other things such as free energy (There is nothing fun about trying to explain the laws of thermodynamics to an audience of high school dropouts and schizos, so don't even suggest it).

Anyway, we're left with material like this or Judy Wood. It basically debunks itself. It's like spraying a drunk hobo with your garden hose when you can see he's about to walk into traffic anyway: somewhat unsatisfying. It's almost enough to turn you into a truther, just to get some decent opposition.

So the next time one of you mooks thinks he's caught us demolishing a straw man, remember this: it just might be because we are so desperate for an argument that we have to make one up ourselves. If your side would hold up its end, this would never have to happen!

So remember this: There are two sides to any good argument, and you need to hold up your end.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Same way dismantled Deutsche Bank building (130 Liberty St) which was heavily damaged and had to
be demolished

That is floor by floor using cranes, torches and lot of sweat



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


What a waste of time and money, they could have just set jet-fuel fires in the buildings and lightly damaged some core columns... didn't they realize this ??

The best fastest way to ever take a building down and it gets ignored ???

Building 7 is surely in its own footprint, but any idiot can see that the two towers are exploding in every direction and debris is being turned into small chunks far before it hits the ground, does not a cloud like a Volcanic eruption or a nuclear bomb not trigger anything in your heads ???

How about just find these reports so we can see them, like the OP says.


Ahh I just read about the fire that went on in Deutsche Bank in 2007, some massive fire that killed 2 firefighters and injured 150+ more...seems to me these guys are half-nuts to decide to fight a fire in a WTC damaged building and not expect it to collapse, they must have been amazed to find that none of the steel had weakened at all and it still took them almost 4 more years to take it down, in fact they must have wondered why they were taking it down at ALL.
edit on 7-6-2011 by GrinchNoMore because: more



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Because Sherlock objective was to demolish one building - not trash an entire block

Even then contractor screwed up and building caught fire killing 2 FDNY firefighters



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



Building 7 is surely in its own footprint, but any idiot can see that the two towers are exploding in every direction and debris is being turned into small chunks far before it hits the ground, does not a cloud like a Volcanic eruption or a nuclear bomb not trigger anything in your heads ???



Small chunks?

Some small chunks sticking out of the Verizon Building


Because of its close proximity and the devastating nature of the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2, the south face of 140 West Street was extensively damaged, with entire column bays destroyed as high as the 13th story.









posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



How about just find these reports so we can see them, like the OP says.


BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST!

There are not, repeat - not demolition plans on file for every building in NYC. It is a ridiculous proposition. Totally irrational. Completely nonsensical.

But its a moot point now.

No one well immersed in their search for the "truth" will no ever accept the idea that these plans are non-existant, they are now the thing of legend and myth.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:15 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.

How about designing the Towers to be easily rigged with explosives (at a later date) and at the same time designing them to collapse straight down (like they did) to minimize property damage to the surrounding area? This obviously would have been the most cost effective way to get rid of those unwanted asbestos filled decrepit pieces of glass and steel.

A few explosions later, and you're playing Pin the (Fairy) Tale on the Turban and satisfying your globalist and domestic fascist ambitions.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Because if real explosives were used, not just a couple of delusional truthers would see them, but everyone would see them. If you were to mastermind a conspiracy, would you create an unnecessary complex plot involving secretly rigging several buildings with charges, at least one with no apparent reason, or would you come up with a more clever plan that would have a much lower chance of being discovered? From an inside job conspiracy point of view controlled demolition makes no sense. There are much more efficient and cunning ways if your goal is to "satisfy your globalist and domestic fascist ambitions".



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

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...

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



Just wanted to preserve this exchange for posterity. Truther compares wiring an occupied building with explosives to taking the precaution of wearing a condom when paying for anonymous sex.

WTF.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



I 100% think all 9/11 truthers are out of their mind, I do think this idea of yours is brilliant...... I really do... This is the "outside the box" type of idea I like to see.


BUT, your mention of "pull it" in reference to pulling a file..... Is beyond outrageous and silly.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join