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.

 

Towers Of Lies

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



I had my small wedding reception at Windows of the World in 1977. We were the first 'public' group to use the restaurant.
The building(s) were very empty.

Good for you. I've been there a couple of times, the view was amazing. Pity all the people who will never get to see it now.

Everyone wanted to rent space on the top floors (why else be in a sky scrapper with a panoramic view?) so the bottom floors have almost always stayed unoccupied.
And by the mid 1990's a lot of offices were leaving Manhattan due to the very high rent and were sashaying over to Jersey leaving the towers even more empty.
It is my understanding the two towers were roughly 50-70% vacant at the time of this incident. Regardless if they were 50 or 70 percent empty, that's still a lot of overhead for Silverstein (lights, window washing, elevator maintenance etc) to maintain without revenue/rent.

I believe the occupation rate for the buildings was much higher even during difficult economic periods. It was a very nice address to have if you were in Manhattan.

Especially seeing he was facing millions of dollars in restoration cost---- in order to be in compliance with the dangerous asbestos-removal in the buildings.

You better check on that. I don't believe the lessee was responsible for the abatement of the ACM, that would be the lessor, the Port Authority.

My personal opinion is Silverstein looks, acts and sounds very shady and I don't have a single doubt that he valued money over people.

Sounds good to me - let the investigations begin!!!!




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You dont seem to understand physics.

If an eight story building is hammered by rubble , torn apart by the sheer force of concrete and steel smashing through concrete and steel a high speed , and the building does not collapse.

How can a 47 story building be hit by VERY LITTLE rubble , and collapse into its own footprint at near free fall speed..... ?

Are you even thinking about this ?

I mean , its not like some really crazy top secret agencies were based in those buildings or anything .... is it ?

..... and no , i must not have been looking hard enough , can you please provide me with the footage which shows extensive damage from the debri , compromising the structural integrity of tower 7 ?

I think the whole world would like to see that footage.



If this is your opinion of a building that hasn't collapsed then why am I seeing what looks like street level in the middle of it?



Tell me something first, how many stories does an 8-story building have to support? (If you read closely the question provides the answer).

OK.

How many stories does a 47-story building have to support?

If you can’t understand the relevancy of those questions I’m not wasting any more time with you.

Why do you keep making a point of mentioning how fast a building collapses? Is it supposed to take a tour before gravity is permitted to work? By points you continuously stress upon it is clear you are the one with lesser knowledge in physics than I.

I suspect you recall and only have seen images of the other side of WTC 7 opposite the towers, because access was restricted in the area where the damage was done, and has given you a false impression. The side facing the towers damage can be seen from the roof to the ground.

Anyway, when damage is done near the base of a building (internal fires, likely the backup kerosine storage tanks for the emergency generators in WTC 7 for the entire WTC complex) it will collapse on itself, the footprint, another thing you keep mentioning. Why does it amaze you that heavy things fall straight down? It's like you are reading a prepared script and have little else to add to the punch words you think are topical, but in fact are laughable to use as points of proof of anything other than a lack of understanding of the physical world.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So the steel on the 81st level of the south tower weakened in less than ONE HOUR.

Look up the I580 collapse in CA.
The 'undamaged' steel 'I' beams of the overpass warped and collapsed in 15 minutes with a gasoline fire below it.


I don't see any link to supporting data and I am not looking for it.

That highway did not support 29 stories of building. I pointed that out from the start.

psik
edit on 5-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


To answer your question , no , that is not the result of a collapse , that is the result of concrete and steel smashing through the building ........ do you know the difference between demolished and collapsed ?

Any chance of getting that evidence of severe structural damage in tower 7 ?

And no , i have seen a lot of images , and a lot of footage from various angles , so you really arent getting anywhere with your assumpitons.

----" It's like you are reading a prepared script and have little else to add to the punch words you think are topical, but in fact are laughable to use as points of proof of anything other than a lack of understanding of the physical world "----

I suppose that one swings both ways.
edit on 5-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks for your kind response.


I'm not sure how to find out the occupancy fluctuation in those towers at any given year.

All I remember hearing, as a teenager growing up in Brooklyn Heights was that it was not filling up as expected. The rent was too high and the availability were limited to the lower floors.

Who knows.

But yes, in retrospect I was VERY lucky to be up there when it was first opened.

And...I was also there (I'm guessing) maybe 1976?....as an 'extra' (although thousands of us were 'extras') in the filming of King Kong and it wasn't busy then either.

The towers were a bust and many New Yorkers thought they were very unsightly too. I thought they were cool looking.
Oh well. I guess I was a part of history I s'pose.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


So you are implying that supporting 40 floors has nothing to do with structural failure? This topic is a decade old, by now you should be privy to the construction history of building 7. A comparison with an 8-story building is not applicable. Why should have 6 WTC collapsed?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Cassius666
I think it has to do with the angle. if you are about level with the floors you can see the empty office spaces, if you look at the bottom and top part of the buildings, then the floors do not allowy you anymore to see through the building.


So many 'benefit of the doubts' asked for when it comes to 9/11.
Have you seen the other photographs from the link I posted earlier?

Have you seen this thread?
letsrollforums.com...

Anyone seriously looking into 9/11 should have already come across this information.

But many have been sent to deceive.

rip anok.

(My mistake for giving the date of the photo in the OP as 1978 and not 1972
-but no floors then=no floors later, something the link above goes a long way
towards confirming.)

9/11 was faked.

Hi.

I was reading from link and was thinking (original conspiracy) that the towers were supposed to come down in '93---???

because there would have been less corpses'...???

But since the towers didn't crumble then, might as well move-in a bunch of fictitious 'benefactors' for 01'???

That's not out of normal is it?

It's all a crazy mess by design

The 1993 'bombings' were designed to rid the towers of the then occupants, and
to allow subsequently 'instalment' of their fake occupants (for compensation purposes),
in preperation for the 9/11 scam.

Believe well that they knew well what thet were doing.
9/11 was a 30+ year conspiracy afterall.
letsrollforums.com...

Thanks for taking the time to go thru the links.
It all becomes clear.
www.cluesforum.info



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
It's like you are reading a prepared script and have little else to add to the punch words you think are topical, but in fact are laughable to use as points of proof of anything other than a lack of understanding of the physical world.


Hilarious coming from someone who thinks structural damage can cause a building to completely collapse vertically into its own footprint.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Tell me something first, how many stories does an 8-story building have to support? (If you read closely the question provides the answer).

OK.

How many stories does a 47-story building have to support?

If you can’t understand the relevancy of those questions I’m not wasting any more time with you.


That is also hilarious.

A 47 story building is designed to hold 47 stories with the same factor of safety as an eight story building.

If you don't know what factors of safety are, no one should be wasting any more time with you. Another failed attempt.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What is it with you truthers and this damned "footprint" obsesssion. By the plain facts of the aerial photos of the damage, NONE of the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprint.

What is the point of denying the obvious?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If you don't know what factors of safety are, no one should be wasting any more time with you.


Umm Yeah. Link #1 in my signature is to your post last year completely flubbing the definition, so you shouldn't be so judgemental on factors of safety.

Do you understand them now?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
What is it with you truthers and this damned "footprint" obsesssion. By the plain facts of the aerial photos of the damage, NONE of the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprint.


Very good point, if truthers lie about something that is so obviously just made up and not true, one wonders what else they make up!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ANOK
 


What is it with you truthers and this damned "footprint" obsesssion. By the plain facts of the aerial photos of the damage, NONE of the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprint.

What is the point of denying the obvious?


Anything that is evidence that you don't like becomes a 'truther' 'obsession', or something similar. They don't update your scripts too often do they?

You are the one denying the obvious...













Why do you all keep pretending this hasn't been shown already? Memory problems? I actually do have memory problems and even I can remember they've been posted that often. In fact so often you describe it yourself as an obsession, remember?

Now, if you have any post collapse pics that show building 7 didn't fall mostly in its own footprint, go ahead and post them. That would be adding to the discussion at least, right now you're just acting like you think you're an expert who only has to have his say without showing anything as evidence, and that be the end of it.

Hey ATS Mr.Fixer says WTC 7 didn't land mostly in its own footprint, who believes him? Hands up. No not you Hooper, or you PLB, put your hand back down, no voting for people in your own office.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





I don't see any link to supporting data and I am not looking for it.

That highway did not support 29 stories of building. I pointed that out from the start.

Here is a picture of the collapse.
The point is that a simple fuel fire heated the steel to the point of warping in only 15 minutes.
The steel didn't wick the heat away as some believe the towers core would do.

Here is a link as to the fire resistance of steel buildings published in 2006.
All of which show that the steel on one floor (or more) can fail in short order from a simple fuel fire. Never mind the structural damage from the impact.

You just have to come to grips with the idea that the upper 15% can and did crush the lower 85%.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

mostly in its own footprint


Ah, mostly.

What percentage of the building would have to fall outside the footprint for it to be a plausible collapse from fire and damage? You plainly acknowledge that at a certain point it wouldn't be suspicious anymore, and that not all the debris landed in the footprint. How much more would have to have landed outside for you to accept the official version of the event?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Now, if you have any post collapse pics that show building 7 didn't fall mostly in its own footprint, go ahead and post them. That would be adding to the discussion at least, right now you're just acting like you think you're an expert who only has to have his say without showing anything as evidence, and that be the end of it.


Picture of WTC 7 debris pile -aerial view



This what it did to 30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall)



Debris pile of WTC 7 (ground level) - 30 West West Broadway in background



So how is it that crossing a 4 lane road (Barclay St) and hitting building on opposite side (30 West Broadway)
mean it collapsed in its "footprint" ?

Have no doubt will find some idiotic excuse why this cant be.....



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





I don't see any link to supporting data and I am not looking for it.

That highway did not support 29 stories of building. I pointed that out from the start.

Here is a picture of the collapse.
The point is that a simple fuel fire heated the steel to the point of warping in only 15 minutes.
The steel didn't wick the heat away as some believe the towers core would do.

Here is a link as to the fire resistance of steel buildings published in 2006.
All of which show that the steel on one floor (or more) can fail in short order from a simple fuel fire. Never mind the structural damage from the impact.

You just have to come to grips with the idea that the upper 15% can and did crush the lower 85%.


What I see is that the vertical supports are still standing. I don't see anything specifying that it happened in 15 minutes. And that was only one level falling to the ground. It is not crushing multiple vertical supports beneath it that were unaffected by fire. So I don't see any relevant similarity to the WTC towers.

So why can't an engineering school build a physical model that can imitate the behavior of the north tower if such a structure can crush itself? We can't even get trustworthy data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the WTC.

psik



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So why can't an engineering school build a physical model that can imitate the behavior of the north tower if such a structure can crush itself? We can't even get trustworthy data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the WTC.

Because they don't need the model. Only you do.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So why can't an engineering school build a physical model that can imitate the behavior of the north tower if such a structure can crush itself? We can't even get trustworthy data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the WTC.

Because they don't need the model. Only you do.


Woops! No response about the 15 minutes or multiple levels.


Oh no, that might involve the Conservation of Momentum.

Intellectual Imperialism can't be maintained if Authority has to PROVE what it says.

People with the resources to build a big heavy model can't risk having it not collapse. They would look really silly after TEN YEARS.


psik



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Here is a link with info about your highway fire.

www.nrc.gov...

It still cannot explain anything about the less than 30 second collapse time of over 1000 feet of skyscraper. It is irrelevant.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join