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.
Originally posted by Sauron
Iv'e posted this before, dosen't anyone here have an opinion on what these Firefighter have said?
New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition
Click to play
New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition Windows media 0:29 sec.
or Right click and save it who knows how long this will stay on line.
[edit on 25/10/2004 by Sauron]
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Yeah, not only firefighters but the FDNY Chief of Safety, reporters on the scene, eyewitnesses of every type all report multiple explosions. Or as one firefighter said "Boom boom booom booom booom it just came down."
And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:
"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting." [edit on 25-10-2004 by taibunsuu]
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Yeah, not only firefighters but the FDNY Chief of Safety, reporters on the scene, eyewitnesses of every type all report multiple explosions. Or as one firefighter said "Boom boom booom booom booom it just came down."
And just what kind of sound do you think the building would make when the top of the building started smacking down on the lower floors? Personally, I think it would sound like �Boom boom booom booom booom.�
And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:
"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting." [edit on 25-10-2004 by taibunsuu]
Well, of course since they had so many examples of jetliners impacting large building to base their assumptions on, their design was 100% accurate and the building performed exactly as they expected it to.
NOT.
large aircraft have hit buildings before, such as the B-25 running into the Empire State Building.
Originally posted by Djarums
large aircraft have hit buildings before, such as the B-25 running into the Empire State Building.
Ignoring both the physical differences of the building, particularly it's composition, and the sizes and loads of the aircraft in question is not the most responsible thing to do.
Taking people's statements out of context and running with them is not responsible either. "They were supposed to withstand a 707". YAY!!! They were "supposed to". Nothing bad is "Supposed to happen". Florida wasn't "Supposed to" get blasted by four hurricanes in a few weeks. We weren't "Supposed to" lose so many soldiers in Iraq, and my Yankees weren't "Supposed to" lose.
Until I am shown concrete evidence that the mostly metal buildings were designed to withstand impact from the aircraft THAT ACTUALLY HIT IT, and the associated issues of fuel-fed fires at high temperatures, I'm really not interested in Tom Dick and Harry Theoretical Engineers deciding what it was "Supposed to" do.
Comments will come every day that say the same thing. Of course the WTC designer is going to say that his crew was careful. I'm sure they were. I'm sure the thought never crossed that man's mind that something like this would happen. But it did. We can't live in his theories or anyone else's theories of what should or should not have gone on. Unless they tested it before construction which such circumstances, there is no way they can even dare to say ANYTHING like that for certain. They did not know. Period.
[edit on 10-26-2004 by Djarums]
Originally posted by ilovepizza
How can we spread the news so justice happens. I have read many articles on this, but i have not come to a solution to this problem.
Is there any law that demands evidence to be gone over again. There must be something we can do. Please justice needs to be served.
Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Originally posted by HowardRoark
And just what kind of sound do you think the building would make when the top of the building started smacking down on the lower floors? Personally, I think it would sound like �Boom boom booom booom booom.�
Well, of course since they had so many examples of jetliners impacting large building to base their assumptions on, their design was 100% accurate and the building performed exactly as they expected it to.
NOT.
Originally posted by taibunsuu
And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:
The guy who built the towers isn't an idiot.
Look at the way explosions ring out around the towers ahead of the collapse in sequence, three clearly visible rings of explosions happening before the dust overtakes the rest of the tower.
There was no way those towers collapsed simply from the planes. The towers were demo'd, just like 7 WTC.
Originally posted by twitchy
Alrighty roark...
Heat corrosion did not cause any collapse, if that were the case what is the source of the sulfides nessecary to induce that kind of reaction.
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Look at the way explosions ring out around the towers ahead of the collapse in sequence, three clearly visible rings of explosions happening before the dust overtakes the rest of the tower.
That is dust pushed out by one floor slamming down on the floor below and so on.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Taibunsuu, have you ever physically witnessed a controlled demolition? I have, seven in fact. I have been as close as a couple of hundred feet and as far as a quarter mile from the implosions, and I can assure you that the sounds and sights of a controlled demolition are quite distinctive.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Taibunsuu, have you ever physically witnessed a controlled demolition? I have, seven in fact. I have been as close as a couple of hundred feet and as far as a quarter mile from the implosions, and I can assure you that the sounds and sights of a controlled demolition are quite distinctive. I have not seen any evidence to support the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
�There could not have been any molten metal at the base of the elevator shafts.� Is rather silly.
Originally posted by twitchy
There were pools of molten steel, not just metal, steel.