| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| From a T1 survivor; official story? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 11 2008, 08:25 PM (1,440 Views) | |
| Grit1645 | Aug 14 2008, 04:50 PM Post #76 |
|
It's not in error, but not intended to show ALL of the elevators and shafts (in which case there would only have been 15 elevators instead of 90+). Some of the floor plans show where each set of elevators began and ended. (In fact it seems to have been dissected in a post on this forum sometime last year?) According to them the three in WTC 1 were No. 6, 7 and 50. |
 |
 
|
| SPreston | Aug 14 2008, 04:51 PM Post #77 |
Patriotic American
|
Should this be given weight as well?
|
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Oct 22 2008, 02:29 PM Post #78 |
|
Two months later..... I haven't been back here and decided today to peruse the site again, and here I find someone asked a legitimate set of questions to which I didn't respond. My apologies, Flippy.
NO, quite the contrary, it was not the normal swaying at all. The building swayed in the wind when it was standing--on exceptionally windy days the elevators would be put on slower speed and on those days you could hear the building sway IN the offices, not just the restrooms or the stairs as on less windy days. There was nearly always some kind of sound of the steel groaning--lower Manhattan is continually windy, that's why New York exists where it does (a harbor sheltered from open sea where the moving air currents guaranteed that a ship could get a sail going in any direction). The sound always reminded me of scenes in movies like Ben Hur where the galley slaves rowing in the depths of the ship are accompanied by back and forth groaning sound effects. On September 11, at impact, the building jerked hard to the side--people I knew on 72 and 82 found themselves on the floor, and I, down on 43, found myself staggering sideways because the floor was moving that way. As I've mentioned, I believe, my first impression was that we were going over.
The building "came back" upright, but it didn't feel as though it was all the way upright. The best description I can give you is that my feet didn't feel as though they were hitting the steps quite right. The sound was horrible. Sounds dramatic, but the building was doing a death wail. The steel inside was now groaning LOUDLY in one direction, it wasn't swaying back, and there were clanking noises like things were banging against each other that shouldn't be. And it had nothing to do with wind at that point.
Not sure I understand that question, but I'll try to give you the answer. I was on 43 when the plane hit. I had been rounding a corner heading for the escalator that took me to 44 where I would normally catch the elevator to 72. After I saw everything going on around me--fire and smoke and debris blowing out an elevator, ceiling tiles coming down, the floor moving--without thinking I ran UP the escalator--but the entrance to the stairs was BEHIND me. Anyway, I got in the stairs I'd say within between one and two minutes after impact, dragging my friend by the hand and ran down the first ten flights or so before we saw anyone else start coming in. I stayed in the stairwell until I got out of it approximately 20 minutes later on the mezzanine. OK, hope that answered your questions, which by now you probably forgot you ever even asked.... |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 28 2008, 01:16 AM Post #79 |
|
your reason for coming here then is........................???? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 28 2008, 01:17 AM Post #80 |
|
ahhhhh thanks preston for exposing this troll. |
|
|
|
| Tim Riches | Oct 28 2008, 07:34 PM Post #81 |
By His Noodly Appendage, Ramen.
|
This is an exceptionally good thread. It's going to take a bit to read through it, but after page 1, I'm hooked! One of the best I've seen! |
|
|
|
| Mightyqueen801 | Nov 3 2008, 11:13 AM Post #82 |
|
Is SPreston the little board toady who runs around trying to find other people's information on other sites to "show" everyone how no one else can be trusted? There's no need--I have nothing to hide. Stop it for God's sake with the "Troll" bit. If you can't respond intelligently and must just resort to tired name-calling, don't bother to respond, or do your usual trick and send me to your BANNED list, where anyone goes who doesn't agree with what you say. I'm heartbroken @@. Anyway, the quote WAS funny, and I thought you people on here didn't hold to the "no-planes" thing either, but I guess a sense of humor isn't permitted here, either. I've seen some of you scream at old people who lost their children at Ground Zero on the anniversary, calling them shills for Cheney, so get off your high horse if I happen not to agree with such low-life actions. If you cannot see why such disgusting behavior doesn't put you all in a shining light, then there's no humanity here whatsoever. Clean your own damn house before you start knocking others. As for the person who asked why I was here--I have answered that, and I will give the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read it and are not just ignoring it. I am well aware that those of you who passionately want the CD of the WTC to be true will close your eyes and ears to anything that doesn't support your agenda. But others do read on here, and they have the right to know the facts that you don't allow to be said. As far as I know, I AM the only person on here who was on site, and knows engineers who participated in the investigation who are in no way part of any governmental coverup--quite the contrary, they almost bought it themselves that day. I've been on the site--as a matter of fact I can see it right now. I was in the building, I saw the fire. I saw the plane burning on the Plaza, I know people who were burned to death that day from the fire you say didn't exist. I know Silverstein lost money. For Christ's sake, someone on here even tried to lie and say the fires didn't burn for three months after the attacks--do you think this is going to fool the people in NYC who smelled them burning until after Christmas of 2001???? I came here giving you all the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you REALLY believed what you were saying about the WTC and just had the wrong information. You are basing your entire fairy tale on cartoony videos. I have better information than that. If you don't want it, you don't want it, but don't act like a bunch of whiny teenagers. People reading this are likely not as stupid as you hope. Laurie |
|
|
|
| JFK | Nov 3 2008, 11:32 AM Post #83 |
|
We await your "information" with baited breath. BTW, If you have nothing to hide, why did you not tell us you work for the PA ? Edit to add - You must really tell them to buy you a better monitor and graphics card. 
Edited by JFK, Nov 3 2008, 11:37 AM.
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Nov 4 2008, 04:57 AM Post #84 |
|
no, but that is exactly what happened here. i personally have neither comtempt nor time for someone claiming to be interested in an intellectual discussion and uses words like 'twoofers'.
says the person who refers to individuals like myself as 'twoofers'.
when people as yourself use words like 'twoofers' you're not referring to just no planers and space beams. try not being intellectually dishonest ms "i have nothing to hide".
yes there are plenty of insane people in this world and they come in all colors and all beliefs but none of them reflect their respective groups. i personally wouldn't be surpised if someone like that insane troy from west virginia bought a truth shirt and did it himself. your side has done the same to victims. is it fair to say those people are a fair representation as your side as a whole?
you're here to waste our time. "educating" us. you act as if you come here open minded to examine evidence and claims critically but you have no such intentions and openly state you know what happened and nothing will change your mind.
where did i or anyone else say fire didn't exist? do you think we claim those planes were made of water? you're making up imaginary fanatical claims and attributing to a movement hoping to deceive someone into thinking you're being honest. silverstein came out financially in the end ahead and you know this too. and we all know the epa played ball with the white house to not expose the toxicity levels of the air those people were breathing which ultimately leads to the murders of thousands of more americans. i suppose you support that decision and believe only the epa is capable of being manipulated by the white house for national security purposes, right?
no, we have all the info. you should try examining it all instead of picking and choosing.
you are basing your entire fairy tale on lying politicians, lying media talking heads, and agencies forced to have the white house approve their reports in the interest of national security. i have better information than that. if you don't want it, you don't want it, but don't act like a know it all teenager who watches too much bill o'reilly. people reading this are likely not as stupid as you hope. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Nov 4 2008, 02:05 PM Post #85 |
9/11 Researcher
|
Hello Laurie (Mightyqueen801). My name is Matt and welcome to the forums. I'm a member of both of the professional research organizations listed in my signature and would like to address some of your statements that you've made, if you don't mind. I'm about to give you alot of info at once and try to address most of your statements, so I hope it's not overwhelming.Have you spoken to the hundreds of architects, engineers, scholars and scientists listed on the sites in my signature? It's only fair to hear and speak with scientists and engineers from both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion. Going to school for and learning about structural engineering would have no relation what-so-ever on knowing or working in the WTC towers. Structural engineering is structural engineering. Then you may know or have heard of Frank A. DeMartini? He was the WTC Construction and Project Manager and had this to say about planes hitting the WTC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78 He says mulitple impacts and that the planes would do nothing to the structural integrity of the buildings. Also take note that while the buildings were designed to withstand impacts from a/multiple fully loaded 707's, the 707 is sightly smaller, but goes faster than the 737's that hit the buildings. Once again, if you get a chance to visit the sites in my signature and talk to the many hundreds of respected architects, engineers, scholars and scientists, your information gathering would be more balanced. Just because the organizations listed in my signature have websites, does't make them any less credible. The scholars, scientists, architects and engineers listed in the organizations in my sig are from some of the top schools in this country and around the world. Please don't discount them just because they have a website and talk about 9/11 truth. Going against the official government story doesn't make them any less credible. That's a great question and while we can all speculate, it could have happened slowly over a long period of time. Simply put, no one knows for sure without speculating and we will probably never know until we get a new, independent, international investigation into 9/11. You may have misunderstood him, but what he was saying was that during the power down on the weekend before 9/11, he said all power was shut down including security. There was no security anywhere at all, according to him.
Addressing the above three quotes, this is a common misconception to the lay person who needs an explanation as to why the main lobby was destroyed when the plane hit almost a quarter mile up in the air. Firstly, fire is not an explosive. That's why we have explosives. Fire does not cause concussive blasts, only explosives do. The ignition of thousands of pounds of jet fuel would have a locally small explosive effect due to the spontaneous combustion and shear quantity of jet fuel ignited. However, most, if not all of the jet fuel was ignited and burned up in the initial fireball outside of the buildings. The remaining fires would be office fires only. Any jet fuel that would be left buring in the office fires wouldn't matter as hydrocarbons (jet fuel which is kerosene, diesel, and gasoline) still don't burn any hotter than office fires. Had a real fireball ripped through the lobby, the plants, glass and everything else would be black and burnt from the fire. There was no fire in the lobby, just the concussion from the explosives going off in the sublevels. Those that were near the explosions were the one's that got burnt. Mr. Rodriguez (and several other individuals) were in the basement sublevels and heard/felt the explosion down there before the plane struck up top. Anyone would be able to tell a near-by explosion compared to an explosion almost a quarter mile away up top. Now having said that, it is also known that to bring down most buildings, you have to get at the under-infrastructure of a building to bring it down, and Peter Jennings reported that live as the buildings fell on 9/11. There was an explosion(s) in the sublevels coinciding with the plane impact above to disguise it as happening from the impact. The subsequent explosions thereafter to the point of collapse were explained away as from the fires, according to the official story. Now, with the logic you expressed in the three quotes above, you have to ask yourself: if fires could somehow be explosive and travelled down the elevator shafts, why did it come out the lobby elevators and destroy the lobby? Why not the 49th floor, or 22nd floor? Why did it stop at the lobby and not all the floors in between? Because there was no "fireball" that travelled down the core. There was an explosion(s) in the sublevels that damaged the sublevels, lobby and many people in those areas and none of the floors from the lobby to impact area were damaged by a "fireball" travelling down the core. You're correct, Larry S. did not do 9/11, but he went along with it and did make a killing by becoming a multi-billionaire literally over night. There are very few billionaires in this world and there wouldn't be too many people that would turn down becoming a mulit-billionaire overnight, no matter what the consequences. By becoming a multi-billionaire, you would be one of the few most powerful people in the world with virtually unlimited resources. Do you not see it as coincidence that Larry S. leased the WTC towers and insured them just 6 weeks before 9/11? It would have costed hundreds of millions of dollars to clean the asbestos out of those towers. Would you spend that much money to clean the asbestos out of the towers, or go along with a plan to make sure the towers were destroyed and instead become a multi-billionaire? Larry S. was a direct conspirator to 9/11. If you've been following the 9/11 truth movement, you would also know that 9/11 wouldn't be the first time that our military-industrial complex wanted to kill Americans and blame it on an enemy. If you haven't already, google "Operation Northwoods". Although Operation Northwoods was ultimately turned down by the then President of the U.S., it was approved by and signed by the joint chiefs and Secretary of Defense of the time. It's completely unthinkable that the military-industrial complex of our government would conspire to kill americans with staged terror attacks and blame it on another country to go to war with that country. But now, we get to go to war in several countries in the name of terror. One thing we know as fact, and that is that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fires. Not before 9/11 and not after. If that were possible, we wouldn't need explosives and demo companies. The plane impacts did not cause significant structural damage to either tower. With my knowledge of science and physics, I would tend to believe Mr. DeMartini and the experts/professionals at the organizations in my sig than anyone else. I will now show a few pictures that will demonstrate how WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down with explosives: In this first picture, take note on the left hand side of the collapsing south tower. You will see two massive detonation waves. Buildings do not naturally collapse in massive waves, only timed demoltions can produce these massive waves:  In this next picture, you will see detonations/squibs going up every floor in the right corner causing WTC7 to fall straight down:  And finally, in most controlled demolitions, you see massive explosions/squibs. A natural collapse would have no reason to produce squibs and before you say it was puffs/jets of air, there was nothing in the buildings to create a suction effect to cause puffs/jets of air:  I hope this information was helpful and answered some of your questions and/or gave you a little better understanding of where we're coming from as far as the WTC is concerned. Edited by BoneZ, Nov 4 2008, 02:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Nov 4 2008, 02:59 PM Post #86 |
|
Have YOU spoken with engineers/scientists who are not part of those groups, and do not agree with them in order to get a balanced view yourself, BoneZ? As far as the buildings having been designed to withstand aircraft impacts, we have never seen their design calculations or details in this regard. To my knowledge no one has done a study to see if the buildings actually performed according to the assumptions that were made in the design. Until someone can say "yes, this is what we said would happen and it happened exactly thus", I will remain sceptical on that claim. You state several times that such-and-such would not happen in a "natural collapse". First of all there is no collapse which would not have some cause, and therefore it would not be "natural". Second, where are the videos of these "natural collapses" you know so much about so we can see for ourselves what does or does not happen in them? I remain unwilling to simply take your word for it that you are an expert in "natural collapses of skyscrapers" - an event of which there have not been any. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Nov 4 2008, 03:59 PM Post #87 |
|
9/11 Researcher
|
You're absolutely correct! There have never been any, except for the three on 9/11. That in and of itself should automatically make you skeptical. And you don't have to take my word for it. Go ask some firefighters what a fire-induced collapse looks like. You can go to the A/E website in my sig and they show what a fire-induced collapse should look like and show that the WTC exhibited none of the characteristics of a fire-induced collapse and all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. You can also purchase a firefighters manual in certain book stores. If you don't have any firefighters to talk to in your area, you mght try visiting Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ But for you Grit, I doubt there's anyone you could talk to that will convince you otherwise. I bet Bush could walk right up to a microphone and admit he had a hand in orchestrating 9/11 and you still wouldn't believe it and would just think someone was making him say such malice things. Grit, you've already got your mind made up and we do here. Some of us are still wondering why you're here? Edited by BoneZ, Nov 4 2008, 04:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
12:18 PM Nov 23