|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
teisto14:
Which is it the net is full of facts or full of bunk? |
I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat.
Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree? |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat.
Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree? |
:stongue: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat.
Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree? |
You have a short attention span:
| quote: | | quote: |
- How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?
- Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.
- Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition
- Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?
- Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?
|
Avoiding the hard questions (A Miami Herald dot com article) |
| quote: | Motassadeq was first found guilty in February 2003 and jailed for the maximum 15 years on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization in the world's first conviction in connection with September 11.
But a retrial was ordered when a federal court in 2004 quashed the verdict on the grounds that US authorities had refused to allow the court to question top suspects from Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network in American custody.
During the new trial, the court found there was no evidence to show that Motassadeq had been directly involved in the attacks in New York and Washington
World's first Sept 11 convict released in Germany (Yahoo) |
| quote: | NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.
Bin Laden comes home to roost His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story (MSNBC)
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.
Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account.
(1993) World Trade Center bombing (Wikipedia Article)
The story begins in November 1990 when an Egyptian fundamentalist, El Sayid Nosair, shot and killed Meir Kahane, an extreme right-wing Israeli-American, in Manhattan. A year later, in November 1991, Nosair's trial became a cause celebre among local fundamentalists, who turned out in force to support their "martyr." Planted among them was an Egyptian, Emad Salem, working as an FBI informant, even as he maintained ties to Egyptian intelligence. In December, the jury returned a bizarre verdict, acquitting Nosair of murder and finding him guilty on lesser charges. An outraged judge gave Nosair a maximum sentence on those lesser charges, and sent him to Attica....
....On June 21, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, Abdul Rahman Yasin (subsequently an indicted fugitive in the Trade Center bombing) appeared at the U.S. embassy in Amman asking for a U.S. passport. Born in America, Abdul Rahman received his passport, which he soon used to travel to this country.
Just at this crucial point, unfortunately, the FBI lost track of the Nosair-Salameh conspiracy. It did not fully trust its informant, Emad Salem, and Salem's ties to Egyptian intelligence; the Bureau severed relations with him in early July when he refused to follow its procedures relating to criminal investigations.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters (Federation of American Scientists) |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psygnosis
If your little brain is so confident about this, show me some links thats proves this point or even slightly backs your dumbass ideas up? |
You never really answered this guys' question. You did the very same thing you accused me and others of: avoiding the question without answering it:
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
Why must i show a link?
It is common sense...orchestrate 9.11 a massive domestic attack to plant yourself in Iraq but only to make yourself hated by most of the world by not finding WMD...if that is such a hard concept for you to even consider then u have issues.
Do you understand what i am saying....seriously think about it objectivly before you respond. |
On with reliable sources but you never bothered to see where the links lead to when you hovered on them:
| quote: | 06/04/2002 - Updated 08:12 AM ET
U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group, but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur, according to U.S. officials. The disclosures add to a growing body of evidence to be examined in congressional hearings that open today into how the CIA, FBI and other agencies failed to seize on intelligence pointing to the deadliest terror attack in U.S. history.
- Dispatches from agents who infiltrated al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The operatives could not crack the tightly held secret of the Sept. 11 plot but helped underscore the lengths al-Qaeda was willing to go to inflict pain on the United States.
U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda (USA Today)
CIA official says agents have infiltrated Al Qaeda
By Walter Pincus, Washington Post | July 24, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The CIA has intelligence agents inside Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network -- as it did before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- but they are not within the terrorist leader's inner circle where key information about any future attack would be discussed, a senior intelligence official said yesterday.
CIA official says agents have infiltrated Al Qaeda (Boston dot com)
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July
French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital
Anthony Sampson
Thursday November 1, 2001
Guardian
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.
The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".
The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.
Washington last night also denied the story.
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July (Guardian dot co dot uk)
|
Look theres a blizzard that going to keep you indoors at the pc for a few days. I suggest that you do some reading. |
|
|
| Psygnosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
You never really answered this guys' question. You did the very same thing you accused me and others of: avoiding the question without answering it:
|
Which question? And when did i do this to you?
I might have not seen it, i dunno. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
OK so where are you getting your proof that Al Qeada did it? |
Um, do you not read newspapers? Watch International News outlets like the BBC and CNN? , even Al Jazeera probabaly never disputed Bin Laden's role in 9-11.
Dude, come on, you must just be doing this as a gag or something now...nobody can be THIS deaf, dumb and blind.:eyespop: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat. |
:haha: :haha: :haha:
Ouch. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psygnosis
Which question? And when did i do this to you?
I might have not seen it, i dunno. |
Not you but teisto14.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Um, do you not read newspapers? Watch International News outlets like the BBC and CNN? , even Al Jazeera probabaly never disputed Bin Laden's role in 9-11.
Dude, come on, you must just be doing this as a gag or something now...nobody can be THIS deaf, dumb and blind.:eyespop: |
So you believe everything the media tells you?
They told you that Saddam had WMDs. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes? |
Imagine the perps sitting around the planning table.
“We’ll have planes fly into the WTC towers,” one of them says. “We’ll make it look like fires brought the buildings down.”
“No good!” another one cries. “Steel buildings have never been brought down by fires. People would see this anomaly, & we’d be busted.”
End of conspiracy. You see? The plan as you imagine it would never have gotten off the drawing board.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? |
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition |
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft? |
Disgraceful to say the least. On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted NORAD of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...html?page=3&c=y
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Look theres a blizzard that going to keep you indoors at the pc for a few days. I suggest that you do some reading. |
i answered enough...time for you to answer mine....
1. Why would 9.11 be an inside job?
2. What would they gain from doing 9.11?
I refuse to answer anything else without the above questions answered...because without a motive u have no case...and if you say oil in Iraq becareful with the planted evidence question i will asking you....because again if it was for oil then why not plany evidence to make it rock solid. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
So you believe everything the media tells you?
They told you that Saddam had WMDs. |
The media didnt tell me that...i knew that since the 1990s...but George Bush and John Kerry reminded me of it.
And look at you slapping me in the face with the new internet debaters jargon "u beleive everything the medis tells me" crap...come on such a lame attack. You do realize you are using the internet right? and EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE you get your information from, be it pro or con your cause, is all MEDIA you twit. Every website with information on a topic is MEDIA. Another typical attack my conspiracy theorists...a lame one at that. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
So what? On any given day there are countless helicopters over NYC...that is not uncommen at all. I see no explosion after the helicopters are flying around.
Are you suggesting helicopters were dropiing bombs or something?
I was in lower Manhattan that day, not too far from WTC and i heard no explosions before the towers fell...only ones i heard was the planes hitting and then when they collapsed.
The video then goes to the dust cloud coming from the bottom of the WTC...that was probally smoke coming down the elevator shafts and billowing out of the building...which has been seen in many other documentraries of 9.11...or it could of been debry that fell from the top of the towers that was on fire in the courtyard between the 2 towers...again the movie proves nothing.
Then he goe sback to the helicopters...not sure why...there was countless helicopters in the air that day...be it news copters or emergency service helicopters...nothing weird about that.
Are you really sugesting that the helicopters, in broad daylight over NYC with billions of people glued to the television watching this unfold live and knowing it would be recorded by hundreds of people made the towers collapse...surely u can be serious...that it so sad if you beleive that.
The guy at 18minutes says black smoke in indicative of a fire going out...that is not true...black smoke means the fire is bad....white smoke means a fire is dying out.
Then they go on about military helicopters...which i dont recall seeing with my own eyes that day nor have i ever seen of any reports of any in the area. There was many news and police copters though. As far as the bright flashes they could of been the sun reflecting off the metal sides of the copters...nothing really strange about that...not too mention whos to say that video hasnt been edited and those were put in? But i would bet it was the sun and water reflections of the metal sides.
at 27:20 he talks about 6 explosions...i dont see them or hear them in this video at all...not sure what he is meaning.
This is when i stopped watching...at 46minutes into he has proven nothing to me...he talks of explosions heard on the street...well i was down there and can say there wasnt any...so i dismiss the video as nonsense muddraking. |
I'm not suggesting that the helis bombed the bldgs, but there were explosions in that video. Maybe if you had your subwoofer off, you probably wouldn't hear them. At each point where there are times listed down to the second, an explosion goes off. You should've watched the whole thing, as he goes off on another bit of analysis. (Gravity not being able to take WTC7 down in as little as 4.5 seconds and shows why.) Watch it all before you dismiss it. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
(Gravity not being able to take WTC7 down in as little as 4.5 seconds and shows why.) |
WTF? That rate of collapse is EXACTLY right according to the laws of gravity.
The buildings was designed to be exoskeleton; Once they started imploding it was easy for them to come apart from the inside out.
God, you guys are just plane retarded! Didn't you ever go to school and learn anything about basic laws of nature and science? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
The evidence is in the steel right? Where is it? Where did it go? If one were to agree with experts they all say the same thing; that fire melted the columns that pancaked into the street below. But without the steel to be examined there is no proof just the "experts agree" angle with the pancake or truss failure theories.
You're entertaining conspiracy theories.
What is the temperature and DURATION for the WTC steel to bend or buckle? Without THAT particular steel to examine you and others have NO PROOF otherwise. Without knowing the particular chemical content of that steel to examine no one can say fire did this or that to the steel in those buildings.
But you're just going to cite some other person saying something because he is an expert when you have no actual hard evidence. Just posing for the cameras does not make one an expert. All you're going to do is cut and paste and mock me. You still would have no scientific evidence or proof that the buildings came down because of fire from a jetliner.
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
1. Why would 9.11 be an inside job? |
The ends justify the means. If they can kill thousands of people to prove a point, they will. Wait until they kill millions.
The Iraq war is an example. No one was killed with Saddams WMD's because it is official that he had none. The only deaths that have occured are from our WMD's in Iraq. This is the ends justifying the means. This is their worldview. They're up there playing king of the hill and they love people like you. Uneducated and misinformed. If I had money and power I wouldn't give a damn about you, this board or the entire Eastern seaboard.
| quote: | | 2. What would they gain from doing 9.11? |
Patriot Act.
*gets ready to hear the "thats BS they can never do that, you have no proof" blah blah blah with all of his grammatical errors*
Examples of fires not bringing down office buildings:
En las labores de extinción del incendio, que duraron más de 16 horas...
In the efforts to extinguish the fire, whose duration was more than 16 hours...
El incendio del Edificio Windsor de Madrid
The Windsor Building fire of Madrid
Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was declared on the 21st floor, spreading quickly through the entire building. Firemen needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it. No one died, although seven firemen were injured. Most of the building didn't collapse, and it is being demolished at present.
Windsor Tower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At about 8 p.m. on Saturday, 23 February 1991, linseed oil-soaked rags left behind by a cleaning crew burst into flames on the 22nd floor of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza in downtown Philadelphia. The fire quickly spread, unimpeded by fire sprinklers, throughout the 22nd floor and then upward. Sprinklers were not required by the City's building code at the time of construction and were being added to the building only as opportunity presented itself.
The twelve-alarm fire burned for 18 hours. The extreme heat caused window glass and frames to melt and concrete floor slabs and steel beams to buckle and sag dramatically. Large shards of window glass fell from the facade, cutting through fire hoses on the ground around the building. Three firefighters were trapped on a fully engulfed floor, and efforts to rescue them failed.
The fire would not yield and there were increasing concerns about the stability of the structure. Fire officials called off the attack and allowed the fire to "free burn," concentrating their efforts on containing the fire to this building. When the fire reached the 30th floor, a tenant-installed fire-sprinkler system was activated, and the worst high-rise fire in U.S. history was finally brought under control.
Efforts to stabilize the structure and the facade began immediately and continued for six months. Over 2,000 steel poles were installed to shore the burned-out floors and to brace the steel girders supporting the concrete slab. During the night of the fire, one granite panel had fallen from the facade of the damaged middle section and other panels were suspect. Emergency belting was installed to lash the granite to the building until it could be safely detached and lifted down. Fabric netting covered the building to prevent debris from raining down on City Hall Plaza, the heart of Philadelphia's business and tourist activity.
One Meridien Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Wayback Machine at archive.org)
The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark.
Towering Inferno In Caracas
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 could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management
From an interview about the WTC recorded by the History Channel on January 25th, 2001.
WTC:
| quote: | The media didnt tell me that...i knew that since the 1990s...but George Bush and John Kerry reminded me of it.
And look at you slapping me in the face with the new internet debaters jargon "u beleive everything the medis tells me" crap...come on such a lame attack. You do realize you are using the internet right? and EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE you get your information from, be it pro or con your cause, is all MEDIA you twit. Every website with information on a topic is MEDIA. Another typical attack my conspiracy theorists...a lame one at that. |
You're admitting you get your information the same way I get mine but you deny getting it fom the internet or media sources.
Sit down and read something, from credible sources, I and others have shown you. Stop with the name calling and childish remarks. You're not helping anyone for your cause.
The poll still stands as a testament that people agree/disagree that there was a cover up.
Thank you for bumping my thread and keeping it alive instead of just ignoring it and letting it die. You've actually made people vote on it.
Thanks to all of you that voted. |
|
|
|
|
