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.
The History of High Rise Collapses
page: 13share:
They tried when they bombed the WTC, and it didnt rile the country up enough, then the USS Cole...nope we're still not wanting to go to war....4 planes, 4 targets 3000+/- killed, YAH, that gets our attention, and THAT gets TPTB what they need
I don’t buy that line of reasoning.
What did N Vietnam do to us? Even you must agree it was a war.
All it takes is Congress and the President to get us into a war. If you create one small disaster and show the intent to create more/bigger disasters, then both parties will agree on war.
Originally posted by samkent
They tried when they bombed the WTC, and it didnt rile the country up enough, then the USS Cole...nope we're still not wanting to go to war....4 planes, 4 targets 3000+/- killed, YAH, that gets our attention, and THAT gets TPTB what they need
I don’t buy that line of reasoning.
What did N Vietnam do to us? Even you must agree it was a war.
All it takes is Congress and the President to get us into a war. If you create one small disaster and show the intent to create more/bigger disasters, then both parties will agree on war.
I need to get online more often.....
Anyways, theres a lot on this thread i could comment on but since this is the last post i'll just go with this one....What the OP was saying i believe is that the country was in a different mind set during these past events, it took a bigger "shock" to the country to get us angry enough to go to war with "al qaeda" after 9/11. The event you are referring to with the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was yet another false flag event, LBJ spun a yarn about a US Naval Vessel gettin sunk in the Gulf of Tonkin and blamed it on N Vietnam, since JFK (hence the assassination) the american public and congress at the time didnt want to go to war and it took an "attack" for him to convince congress to go to war, i believe his quote to congress was "Our boys are dead in the water over there!!!", though i could be wrong on the exact quote. And you must understand that all these past events, kept getting bigger and bigger til it took something that was absolutely insane in its magnitude to get the country to the point were we were "blinded by rage" and focused on payback to the point that we didnt see what was happening right here at home, civil liberties being stripped, warrantless wire taps, PATRIOT ACT, rise of a police state mentality in TPTB. Which is part of their agenda to conglomerate more power to the president. I read somewhere that Bush was trying to finegle a 3rd term by having one of his puppets introduce a bill circumventing the constitution. That one could be total BS though it sounds like something he would do. I hope i help clear up what the OP was trying to say.
edit on 29-10-2010 by lexlongtin because:
(no reason given)
In all honesty though, it still doesn't support the idea that the plane was a hologram. You can point out as many tiny anomalies as you want, but if
they can be explained by anything simpler than the idea of a hologram, then the simpler answer is probably the better. If I was staging a false flag
attack, I wouldn't risk using a ridiculously beta technology like holographics on a scale like that. I would just provide the resources to allow the
terrorists access to all the training and materials they needed to get on the plane and fly it where I intended.
The buildings coming down may have had some help, but so far all the evidence points to collapse caused by planes and debris and fire.
But seriously. Think about it. What possible reason could the government have for faking planes? They could have easily loaded explosives onto a passenger jet. Why disguise a missile or a military plane? It also seems like going to too much trouble to steal away the passengers and kill them in a separate location, shipping their body parts to the location. Or did they kill them and then just put them on the planes laden with explosives? The conspiracy theory about the planes is just too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
The fact is, it would be a ton easier to just fly the actual planes into the towers than to do all the elaborate hoax stuff implicated here. I'm not attacking anyone, just saying that it seems really ridiculous to fake a plane crash, and then go to the trouble of killing all the passengers and destroying the original plane at another location.
Edit: Ah, I posted this on the wrong thread. It vaguely fits here, but I was intending to put it in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The buildings coming down may have had some help, but so far all the evidence points to collapse caused by planes and debris and fire.
But seriously. Think about it. What possible reason could the government have for faking planes? They could have easily loaded explosives onto a passenger jet. Why disguise a missile or a military plane? It also seems like going to too much trouble to steal away the passengers and kill them in a separate location, shipping their body parts to the location. Or did they kill them and then just put them on the planes laden with explosives? The conspiracy theory about the planes is just too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
The fact is, it would be a ton easier to just fly the actual planes into the towers than to do all the elaborate hoax stuff implicated here. I'm not attacking anyone, just saying that it seems really ridiculous to fake a plane crash, and then go to the trouble of killing all the passengers and destroying the original plane at another location.
Edit: Ah, I posted this on the wrong thread. It vaguely fits here, but I was intending to put it in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 29-10-2010 by Varemia because: oops
reply to post by Varemia
oh man,i refuse to get involved in the fake hologram plane theory....you must be haveing a party in that thread...
oh man,i refuse to get involved in the fake hologram plane theory....you must be haveing a party in that thread...
Originally posted by loveguy
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by loveguy
Prove its molten metal thats falling you cant, what other things could produce that in a burning office have a think about that.!
It's been proven earlier in this thread that steel structures don't burn down to the ground. Sure, they lose alot of their facade, but they remain standing, after long hours which equates to the same heat temperaments/tolerances as jet fuel, what was left-over from the main explosion(s).
Edited a sentence for clarity.
RIGHT here is your challenge in ANY other hi rise building fire in which the building did not collapse were ANY of those fires started by an aircraft crashing into the building at 400+mph.
The building fires you are comparing WTC 1&2 with will
a) Have to be steel framed
b) Impacted by a large passenger aircraft.
You have to compare like with like ,apples with apples.
After you provide your links I will provide links to steel framed buildings destroyed by fire without aircraft I would say thats a fair challenge!
edit on 29-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by loveguy
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by loveguy
Prove its molten metal thats falling you cant, what other things could produce that in a burning office have a think about that.!
It's been proven earlier in this thread that steel structures don't burn down to the ground. Sure, they lose alot of their facade, but they remain standing, after long hours which equates to the same heat temperaments/tolerances as jet fuel, what was left-over from the main explosion(s).
Edited a sentence for clarity.
RIGHT here is your challenge in ANY other hi rise building fire in which the building did not collapse were ANY of those fires started by an aircraft crashing into the building at 400+mph.
The building fires you are comparing WTC 1&2 with will
a) Have to be steel framed
b) Impacted by a large passenger aircraft.
You have to compare like with like ,apples with apples.
After you provide your links I will provide links to steel framed buildings destroyed by fire without aircraft I would say thats a fair challenge!
edit on 29-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Do you realize how weak your argument is? I'm claiming that the water supply to fight these fires was sabotaged. Pick and choose what you want to discuss.
Whatever link you ask me to provide has been revealed throughout this entire forum going-on ten years now. When you enter a forum and links are provided, isn't it customary to study those links? How do you think us truthers know you debunkers post links from the main source(s) of the entire deception? Because we take the time to educate ourselves by studying those weak links. I'm giving "debunkers" a new name; "Debunkees," because the only debunking they accomplish is their own argument.
Now please, if it ain't too much to ask, show me a building that collapsed according to your challenge, and make sure it has no water to supply the fire-fighters to accomplish their task, or the sprinklers to do as they were intended for.
reply to post by loveguy
A hundred stories of steel, concrete, and office supplies, generators, and pipes crashes down to earth and collapses an underground system of tunnels and more. Do the water lines stay intact?
Also, I have SEEN all the truther building examples. NONE of them involved a plane crash, only fire. One did involve an explosion, but it had water to fight it. Bleh.
A hundred stories of steel, concrete, and office supplies, generators, and pipes crashes down to earth and collapses an underground system of tunnels and more. Do the water lines stay intact?
Also, I have SEEN all the truther building examples. NONE of them involved a plane crash, only fire. One did involve an explosion, but it had water to fight it. Bleh.
reply to post by loveguy
Do you realize how weak your argument is? I'm claiming that the water supply to fight these fires was sabotaged. Pick and choose what you want to discuss.[/ex
So do you have any evidence or is this the usual conspiracy loon nonsense.....
The aircraft impacts cut the risers (plumbing) which provided water to the standpipes and sprinklers above the
impact zone in the Towers
When the towers crashed tore up the water mains to the complex which meant WTC 7 no longer had water to
operate the sprinklers. Without sprinklers was nothing to contains the fires
FDNY was able to use fire boats in the Hudson River to pump water, but too time to run the hoses
Even then the standpipe system in WTC 7 had been damaged by debris from Tower 1
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by loveguy
A hundred stories of steel, concrete, and office supplies, generators, and pipes crashes down to earth and collapses an underground system of tunnels and more. Do the water lines stay intact?
Also, I have SEEN all the truther building examples. NONE of them involved a plane crash, only fire. One did involve an explosion, but it had water to fight it. Bleh.
Are the water lines intact and servicing the sprinkler system while the towers are still standing?
See what I mean about debunking your own arguments?
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by loveguy
Do you realize how weak your argument is? I'm claiming that the water supply to fight these fires was sabotaged. Pick and choose what you want to discuss.[/ex
So do you have any evidence or is this the usual conspiracy loon nonsense.....
The aircraft impacts cut the risers (plumbing) which provided water to the standpipes and sprinklers above the
impact zone in the Towers
When the towers crashed tore up the water mains to the complex which meant WTC 7 no longer had water to
operate the sprinklers. Without sprinklers was nothing to contains the fires
FDNY was able to use fire boats in the Hudson River to pump water, but too time to run the hoses
Even then the standpipe system in WTC 7 had been damaged by debris from Tower 1
Try to understand what you're reading here...
One of the towers was hit square. One was not. The one that was not was the one where a part of the fuselage escaped out the other side of the tower. Hence, it did not compromise the core column/risers/elevator shaft(s).
The plane at the pentagon "vaporized/disintegrated" so, one stands to reason that the tower core columns would not be compromised... The one that definitely was not still had water supplied to upper floors, IF the water was not cut-off INTENTIONALLY.
The floors that were damaged would certainly fight the fire with more water due to the damaged sprinklers, wouldn't you think?
But, if there's no water to fight the fires, the fires would burn uncontrollably until they burn themselves out? How else can your idols tell their fairy-tale story of the events, (The steel weakened)?
edit on (10/30/1010 by loveguy because: Spellingedit on (10/30/1010 by loveguy because: Spelling
I forgot to add...
Witnesses who could reveal that they don't recall any water on the scene are all dead. How about Barry Jennings from WTC7? He looks pretty dry in this footage?
He's dusty but not soaked?
Witnesses who could reveal that they don't recall any water on the scene are all dead. How about Barry Jennings from WTC7? He looks pretty dry in this footage?
He's dusty but not soaked?
Originally posted by loveguy
Are the water lines intact and servicing the sprinkler system while the towers are still standing?
See what I mean about debunking your own arguments?
Sigh. Let me try to explain this again. No firefighters could get to the floors that were hit by the planes. They "almost" did, but were trapped on the stairs just before the tower came down. All the elevators were busted on the upper floors, and everything was chaos with the thousands of people trying to survive. It only stands to reason that the sprinkler system was at least "a little" damaged. I mean, it's not like the plane impacted and then went "poof" into smoke. It impacted, shredded, continued to impact with its own debris, and then ignited the fuel that was everywhere, causing a massive explosion.
One of the towers was hit square. One was not. The one that was not was the one where a part of the fuselage escaped out the other side of the tower. Hence, it did not compromise the core column/risers/elevator shaft(s).
Oh yeah, the shafts were ok, but I'm afraid the elevators were indeed out of order that day. I listened to the firefighter radio transmissions (not sure where the video was). It was being used by a truther to attempt to prove that the firefighters had gotten to the damaged floors and should have been able to fight the fire. Unfortunately, it just proved that they made it just below the damaged floors and were unable to get past the stairs.
The plane at the pentagon "vaporized/disintegrated" so, one stands to reason that the tower core columns would not be compromised... The one that definitely was not still had water supplied to upper floors, IF the water was not cut-off INTENTIONALLY.
The pentagon (maybe you'll understand this) was not any kind of similar design to the towers. The pentagon is more comparable to the plane impact from the Empire State Building than the towers. There are images of plane parts at the pentagon (which I know you think were planted). Also, the plane that didn't hit dead center caused the building to fall first, and left part of the core standing for a moment afterward. It had damaged more floors at once. I guess that's just insignificant in your mind isn't it?
The floors that were damaged would certainly fight the fire with more water due to the damaged sprinklers, wouldn't you think?
But, if there's no water to fight the fires, the fires would burn uncontrollably until they burn themselves out? How else can your heroes tell their fairy-tale story of the events, (The steel melted)?
The steel didn't melt.... ugh.
Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by itbenickp
. But I concur that NO steel core cement buildings in history ever collapsed expressly due to fire.
if i recall correctly the 'core' structure of heavy metal columns was covered by 2 (or more) layers of sheetrock not concrete as you seem to state as fact..
With your wording, i get a mental image that the central 'core' of the towers construction was designed as a stand-alone concrete and steel column structure with flimsy office floor platforms floating around the structurally sound concrete vertical tube that was built like a bunker...
kindly clarify... not mislead me
edit on 30-10-2010 by St Udio because: size of type
reply to post by St Udio
Because of failure of the sheetrock walls new designs like the new WTC 7 and the Freedon Tower (WTC1) use
some 2 - 2/12 ft of high strength concrete to line stairs and elevator shafts to protect these structures and
the standpipes and sprinkler risers from damage
At stair and elevator shafts, separation was provided by a wall system constructed of metal studs and two layers of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the exterior and one layer of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the interior. These assemblies provided a 2-hour rating. Horizontal compartmentation varied throughout the complex. Some separating walls ran from slab to slab, while others extended only up to the suspended ceiling.
Because of failure of the sheetrock walls new designs like the new WTC 7 and the Freedon Tower (WTC1) use
some 2 - 2/12 ft of high strength concrete to line stairs and elevator shafts to protect these structures and
the standpipes and sprinkler risers from damage
reply to post by loveguy
Even if one set of risers survived would not have mattered much
The aircraft impact would have ripped out the overhead heads in the ceiling destroying the system. Sprinklers are
fine for controlling or extinguishing small or incipient fires. Not fires extending over an acre. Even if sprinklers had survived the aircraft impacts (which they didn't) tremendous volume of fire would have overwhelmed the
system. Too many heads activated would have depressurized the system Water would have trickled out
rather than spraying in pattern as intended - given size of fires equivalent of pissing on forest fire....
The floors that were damaged would certainly fight the fire with more water due to the damaged sprinklers, wouldn't you think?
Even if one set of risers survived would not have mattered much
The aircraft impact would have ripped out the overhead heads in the ceiling destroying the system. Sprinklers are
fine for controlling or extinguishing small or incipient fires. Not fires extending over an acre. Even if sprinklers had survived the aircraft impacts (which they didn't) tremendous volume of fire would have overwhelmed the
system. Too many heads activated would have depressurized the system Water would have trickled out
rather than spraying in pattern as intended - given size of fires equivalent of pissing on forest fire....
reply to post by loveguy
You are the person that CLAIMS fire cannot make a steel framed building collapse of the examples you look at did any get hit with a passenger aircraft to start the fire its a simple question even you could answer since you wont I will.
NONE its the same when internet IDIOTS say the Empire State Building SURVIVED a plane crash.
Not the same construction as the Towers, HEAVY MASONRY on the out side, small plane, low speed still did some damage.
Have a read three STEEL FRAMED 4 storey buildings collapsed within 2HOURS of the first catching fire!
cut and paste in browser.
sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/kadertoyfactoryfire:structuralsteelquick
You are the person that CLAIMS fire cannot make a steel framed building collapse of the examples you look at did any get hit with a passenger aircraft to start the fire its a simple question even you could answer since you wont I will.
NONE its the same when internet IDIOTS say the Empire State Building SURVIVED a plane crash.
Not the same construction as the Towers, HEAVY MASONRY on the out side, small plane, low speed still did some damage.
Have a read three STEEL FRAMED 4 storey buildings collapsed within 2HOURS of the first catching fire!
cut and paste in browser.
sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/kadertoyfactoryfire:structuralsteelquick
edit on 30-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: link not working
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by loveguy
You are the person that CLAIMS fire cannot make a steel framed building collapse of the examples you look at did any get hit with a passenger aircraft to start the fire its a simple question even you could answer since you wont I will.
NONE its the same when internet IDIOTS say the Empire State Building SURVIVED a plane crash.
Not the same construction as the Towers, HEAVY MASONRY on the out side, small plane, low speed still did some damage.
Have a read three STEEL FRAMED 4 storey buildings collapsed within 2HOURS of the first catching fire!
cut and paste in browser.
sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/kadertoyfactoryfire:structuralsteelquickedit on 30-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: link not working
Can't your supervisor allow you to research a broader range of websites to collect your research? How about bringing something that I haven't found flaws in. To reiterate; WTC7lies.com
Here's a couple links for your reading pleasure; www.journalof911studies.com...
www.journalof911studies.com...
edit on (10/30/1010 by loveguy because: Formula
Originally posted by loveguy
Can't your supervisor allow you to research a broader range of websites to collect your research? How about bringing something that I haven't found flaws in. To reiterate; WTC7lies.com
Here's a couple links for your reading pleasure; www.journalof911studies.com...
www.journalof911studies.com...edit on (10/30/1010 by loveguy because: Formula
Supervisor if thats what you think ah well , you still didn't answer so now you try to divert the question come on the concrete COWBOY
You didn't answer the question HOW MANY of your steelframed building fires started after being hit by a large passenger aircraft.
I gave you a link to the Kader Toy Factory Fires.
Here is another challenge pick your best shot at a steel framed building fire I dont care how long the fire burned give us details of the name of the building and where.
Lets see if you have the GUTS to answer I dont think you will!!!!
edit on 30-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by loveguy
The floors that were damaged would certainly fight the fire with more water due to the damaged sprinklers, wouldn't you think?
Even if one set of risers survived would not have mattered much
The aircraft impact would have ripped out the overhead heads in the ceiling destroying the system. Sprinklers are
fine for controlling or extinguishing small or incipient fires. Not fires extending over an acre. Even if sprinklers had survived the aircraft impacts (which they didn't) tremendous volume of fire would have overwhelmed the
system. Too many heads activated would have depressurized the system Water would have trickled out
rather than spraying in pattern as intended - given size of fires equivalent of pissing on forest fire....
Isn't it obvious to you that if a pipe is no longer containing the back-pressure of a system being fed constant water to service an "acre of sprinklers," where is that back-pressure exhausting its self, if not at the location of its initial breach? A logical hypothesis is that it would spray in the area where breach occurred, where the fires burned? The water will not "trickle," but spray with the full-force of an acre of sprinklers, providing the water is being pumped from it's original underground supply source???
"Even if one set of risers survived would not have mattered much"
You must know where I'm coming from?