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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 32
33
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


So what about the hundreds of firefighters who disagree with your guy. Are they all wrong? There is your argument.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 

Provide the evidence.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I don´t see how they could disagree with me. If they do don´t you produce them.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Please substantiate your claim.
edit on 26-8-2011 by galdur because: typo



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by galdur
 


I did. You base your beliefs on flawed information and opinion. You claim the buildings should not have fallen the way they did...and yet, prior to 9/11, there was absolutely NO comparative history to be used in making a judgement. So you rely on your opinion.

You here that a firefighter said there was a small fire on the floor he was on, and yet don't seem to understand that they were several floors below where the photo/video evidence proves there were major fires.


You also ignore that Chief Palmer reported that there were quite a few bodies on the floor he was on.


Actually there have been a couple of other incidents where airplanes hit tall buildings. The worst results in those were that one building around 50 stories tall got hit around the 24th floor as I recall. The floors above were burned and fell in somewhat (but not completely from the pictures shown), but nothing below the 24th floor was harmed, other than some smoke damage. And for sure NONE of the buildings themselves collapsed in a neat little heap in their own foot print. None of them collapsed at all. And it's been years since I did this research so as to the specific websites or whatever, I don't have them on hand.



But there is was that B-25 (68' wing span, 54' length, 10 ton) that hit the side of the empire state building back in July of '45, raging fire included. It hit mostly on the north side of the building at the 79th floor. And interesting to note, the newspaper article discussing it said:


"The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million."


So a 10 ton airplane can hit the side of the empire state building with NO damage to the structual integrity whatsoever, but yet a newer, sturdier building is completely destroyed after being hit by a jet only twice that size?? Huh. Progress must be going backwards, eh?
edit on 26-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Not that i know bugger all about the US CIA agency, other than the odd bit of info here and there that we all hear from time to time..if those quotes are accurate, those men should have been arrested for treason...surely?

That and the CIA disbanded as a rogue agency committing treason against the people it was designed to serve.

I'm not sure routinely lying to the US people, corrupting what is supposed to be a free press, and coordinating a protracted and carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign against US citizens was in the constitution.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 





So a 10 ton airplane can hit the side of the empire state building with NO damage to the structual integrity whatsoever, but yet a newer, sturdier building is completely destroyed after being hit by a jet only twice that size?? Huh. Progress must be going backwards, eh


Ah yes, the apples and oranges again.

1. A B-25 does weigh 10 tons. A B-767 weighs 90 tons....empty. Add a normal load of fuel it weighs 197 tons. What was the comment...oh yes....only TWICE that size. The B-25 hitting the ESB at its relatively SLOW speed, does not even begin to compare to either of the 767s slamming into the Towers at high speed.

2. The ESB, is a much sturdier building than the towers were. Between the stonework, and the interior load bearing walls (which the Towers did not have) its ability to withstand being hit was much greater.

3. Thank God, I never flew on one of the C-141s you crewed. Your lack of attention to the details is scary.






Actually there have been a couple of other incidents where airplanes hit tall buildings


Name another time when an airliner was intentionally crashed at high speed into a building with the Towers design characteristics?
edit on 26-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: forgot something



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 





So a 10 ton airplane can hit the side of the empire state building with NO damage to the structual integrity whatsoever, but yet a newer, sturdier building is completely destroyed after being hit by a jet only twice that size?? Huh. Progress must be going backwards, eh


Ah yes, the apples and oranges again.

1. A B-25 does weigh 10 tons. A B-767 weighs 90 tons....empty. Add a normal load of fuel it weighs 197 tons. What was the comment...oh yes....only TWICE that size. The B-25 hitting the ESB at its relatively SLOW speed, does not even begin to compare to either of the 767s slamming into the Towers at high speed.

2. The ESB, is a much sturdier building than the towers were. Between the stonework, and the interior load bearing walls (which the Towers did not have) its ability to withstand being hit was much greater.

3. Thank God, I never flew on one of the C-141s you crewed. Your lack of attention to the details is scary.


So you are saying that newer buildings aren't safer than the old brick and mortar technology used for building the empire state building?? Bull #. The towers were designed to be much safer. They used much more advanced technology and materials that were stronger and lighter weight. The plans for their building included making sure the buildings could withstand just about anything thrown their way, including being hit by a plane.

They didn't however plan for the whole structure to being able to withstand being hit by a missle and then blown to bits, floor by floor, just like a planned demolition. And since the cost of demolishing those buildings (for which permits had been applied for---several years in a row as previously noted) was heinous, and would only be allowed to be done in a floor by floor manner which would have taken years, well, didn't that just happen to work out awfully conveniently, eh?? Doesn't that in the least make you wonder????

And that 7 billion dollar insurance policy that bone head took out on the trade center just a short while before 9-11, specifically for terrorist acts... If this were any old insurance claim, they'd be so busted. No insurance company that wasn't being arm-twisted to accept what's being given as 'proof' would have allowed that claim to be paid out. My god, those a#holes made a freaking fortune off this event. *shakes head*

Size wise, the dimensions of a 767 are approx. twice the size of the B-25.

Probably the biggest difference here was that nobody was trying to destroy the Empire state building.

And nice personal attack btw. I bet you are one of the 'paid' debunkers.. they must be feeling the need to send in bigger guns than that moron, hooper.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

The plans for their building included making sure the buildings could withstand just about anything thrown their way, including being hit by a plane.

They didn't however plan for the whole structure to being able to withstand being hit by a missle and then blown to bits, floor by floor, just like a planned demolition.


The Buildings were designed to survive a 707 impact at a lower speed but then again, cars are designed to keep passengers safe. Design intentions do not guarantee results.

To explosively demolish the building, floor by floor, one would need explosives that could clear each floor in 150 milliseconds. If this could be done at all, it would require very large charges which would be.....obvious. It just didn't happen. It was gravity.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


Actually I work for the US Air Force. And your post shows that you are still ill-informed about the facts.





And that 7 billion dollar insurance policy that bone head took out on the trade center just a short while before 9-11, specifically for terrorist acts... If this were any old insurance claim, they'd be so busted. No insurance company that wasn't being arm-twisted to accept what's being given as 'proof' would have allowed that claim to be paid out. My god, those a#holes made a freaking fortune off this event. *shakes head*


First, it was a 3.5 billion dollar policy.

www.forbes.com...

Second, it wasn't "specifically for terrorist acts" it was "property damage and business-interruption coverage"

www.forbes.com...

Third, it wasn't the first terrorist attack against the WTC...you DO remember 1993 right? Insurers paid out 510 million after that attack.

www.foxnews.com...

Fourth, he isnt making a profit. His contract with the PA has STILL had him paying his rent payments (120 million a year) on a property that ISNT MAKING ANY MONEY.

www.mindfully.org...

Fifth, the proceeds from the insurance are not going to cover the costs of rebuilding the complex.

Sixth, his insurance policy was not finished by the time the Towers were destroyed. Only the rider existed at that point.

edit on 26-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

The plans for their building included making sure the buildings could withstand just about anything thrown their way, including being hit by a plane.

They didn't however plan for the whole structure to being able to withstand being hit by a missle and then blown to bits, floor by floor, just like a planned demolition.


The Buildings were designed to survive a 707 impact at a lower speed but then again, cars are designed to keep passengers safe. Design intentions do not guarantee results.

To explosively demolish the building, floor by floor, one would need explosives that could clear each floor in 150 milliseconds. If this could be done at all, it would require very large charges which would be.....obvious. It just didn't happen. It was gravity.


Hum.. windows blowing out preceding the fall of each floor wasn't obvious?? The many explosions heard by fire fighters and rescue personal wasn't obvious?? That the buildings landed as neatly and quickly in their own footprints as the Kingdome did after it was professionally demolished isn't obvious? And yah, the professionals can easily drop buildings like that at that rate of speed. It's their JOB.

IF these buildings were so fragile that a fire less than halfway down the building, with some of the support beams damaged or destroyed, could bring them all right straight down in freefall demolition time, how in the world did they stay standing in the first place? The first big wind storm coming thru or the first helicopter landing on the roof would have taken these suckers down, if so.

Please, don't insult my intelligence. Looks like they may have felt this thread needed a couple of pro debunkers.. so, by the way, thanks for stopping by and tell your bosses I said hi.

edit on 26-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


Actually I work for the US Air Force. And your post shows that you are still ill-informed about the facts.

Oh by the way, I was in the Air Force for 8 years (as a loadmaster on the C-141, so I KNOW airplanes from a quite personal perspective) and your posts are strangely out of whack with what even plain old common sense says.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


My posts are only out of whack to people who choose to remain ignorant. Try rereading my edited post.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


And now, its up to you...to figure out how three buildings were wired for demolition over the course of MONTHS without anyone noticing. AND without them leaving ANY signs of demolition equipment.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596



Actually there have been a couple of other incidents where airplanes hit tall buildings


Name another time when an airliner was intentionally crashed at high speed into a building with the Towers design characteristics?
edit on 26-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: forgot something


The 50 story building was build in the 70's as well. It was hit by a smaller commercial plane, but it burned badly and the top BURNT floors did crumble inward but didn't fully collapse. It was in South America somewhere, Brazil maybe, as I recall.

But since I've lost track of where I got that info, I've dug up some other things.

From the 9-11 Research site:


...It is even more interesting that, prior to September 11th, no steel framed building had ever undergone total collapse due to any cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition and severe earthquakes. Such buildings have survived hurricanes, severe fires, earthquakes, and bombings, but none have fallen down of their own weight -- an event that was portrayed as inevitable on September 11th.


(I also found this from a poster over on yahoo: "But then there are the attacks from fighter planes as in when we were attacked by the Japanese fighter planes - full of bombs intended to explode upon suicide missions - even then the whole building did not crumble.")


Further:

Only Demolition and Earthquakes Have Leveled High-Rises

That people would readily embrace the official story that plane impacts and/or fires caused the total collapse of three skyscrapers on September 11th could be predicted from the currency of the concept of building collapse, supported by the periodic reports of thousands dying from collapsing buildings in severe earthquakes. Lost are distinctions between building types, between building standards, and between degrees of collapse.

---Nearly all the buildings that claim earthquake victims are heavy masonry low-rise structures, not steel-framed high-rise structures.
---Collapses of buildings of any type of construction are rare in the developed world, whose building standards anticipate severe stresses.
---Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.

Excepting the 9/11/01 anomaly, the only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In fact there are numerous observed characteristics of the destruction of the Twin Towers that have not been observed in natural collapse events.

The 1985 Mexico City Earthquake (the worst collapse case)

On September 19, 1985, Mexico City was rocked by a massive earthquake measuring 8.1 on the Richter scale, which severely damaged numerous buildings. At least one steel-framed office building experienced total collapse, according to the NOAA website. However, their photograph shows that the remnants of this 21-story building included several apparently intact stories. This contrasts with the pulverized remains of the 110- and 47-story skyscrapers of the World Trade Center.


Some pictures of buildings collapsed by earthquakes.

Gee, don't those buildings know they are supposed to drop neatly in a pile??

But I'll look around some more for those other buildings stuck by airplanes... But like the writer said, NO steel framed building had ever undergone total collapse due to any cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition and severe earthquakes.

edit on 26-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


www.serendipity.li...

So, she thinks they were tipped off, right? Told when a plane (because they always leave on time) would fly by and hit the towers.
Then she goes on to say the poor tourist who filmed it was in on it too.




Google's first hits are not the current version. You might want to read my posts where I keep linking to the full, updated version.

Had you done so, you would also know Leslie is a man.

For the reader who might be genuinely interested in learning the truth about 911, Mr. Raphael's work is really worth reading, but you'll need to apply a little more effort than my opponent. It may take a couple of days, and I recommend having a DVD of the Naudet film on hand to get the full impact.

www.frankresearch.info...








edit on 26-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


And........the design parameters of the building in Brazil are........no where near comparable to the design of the Towers.

Towers, Outer wall, inner core, no interior load bearing walls.

Brazil.... interior load bearing walls (thats an important fact when it comes to making comparisions.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal
Hum.. windows blowing out preceding the fall of each floor wasn't obvious?? The many explosions heard by fire fighters and rescue personal wasn't obvious?? That the buildings landed as neatly and quickly in their own footprints as the Kingdome did after it was professionally demolished isn't obvious? And yah, the professionals can easily drop buildings like that at that rate of speed. It's their JOB.

IF these buildings were so fragile that a fire less than halfway down the building, with some of the support beams damaged or destroyed, could bring them all right straight down in freefall demolition time, how in the world did they stay standing in the first place? The first big wind storm coming thru or the first helicopter landing on the roof would have taken these suckers down, if so.

Please, don't insult my intelligence. Looks like they may have felt this thread needed a couple of pro debunkers.. so, by the way, thanks for stopping by and tell your bosses I said hi.


First, the only missile strikes were the aircraft. The explosives required would be a bit more than would just blow out windows. Read what I wrote; 150 milliseconds per floor. The explosions would have been loud and spaced so close together that they would have been nearly continuous.
The buildings were not fragile; they had survived aircraft impact and uncontrolled fires for some time. The damage, impact plus fire, weakened the building to the point that it finally collapsed. The core survived for seconds after the collapse, until the unbalanced loads caused it to collapse also.
We pro debunkers try not to insult anyone's intelligence because our bosses don't pay us our debunking fees if anyone feels offended.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Not that i know bugger all about the US CIA agency, other than the odd bit of info here and there that we all hear from time to time..if those quotes are accurate, those men should have been arrested for treason...surely?

That and the CIA disbanded as a rogue agency committing treason against the people it was designed to serve.

I'm not sure routinely lying to the US people, corrupting what is supposed to be a free press, and coordinating a protracted and carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign against US citizens was in the constitution.



I know...it's hard to believe but if they did own the media who's going to be running the headlines?

But yeah, they're accurate and real quotes.

If you read my psychos and media threads on my signature you'll get a much bigger surprise. This rabbit hole goes very deep.


edit on 26-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


My posts are only out of whack to people who choose to remain ignorant. Try rereading my edited post.


Well if he didn't get all that money, good. But that doesn't mean that wasn't part of the whole scam.
Yah, "critical thinking" and the ability to see the obvious are pretty ignorant, alright.

Whew, good thing sharp eyed fellows like yourself (who don't seem to notice things like the lack of wreckage in both Shanksville and the Pentagon or that all three WTC buildings came down just like they were being professionally demolished, and who's critical and careful thinking skills are solid enough to cut and paste the party line in response to various assertions and evidence pertaining to how 9-11 was such a criminal sham) are here to help us get and/or keep it all straight.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join