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.

 

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

page: 22
22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



The witnesses claim to have seen the North Side...

The same witnesses claim to have seen the plane strike the Pentagon.

Keep on going Craig.... you have nothing.




I have proof of a military DECEPTION.

Perhaps you should look up the word "deception" so you can understand why they would all still believe the plane hit the building even though their testimony proves it could not have.

Also please look up "circular logic" under "logical fallacies" because you continue to refuse to adhere to critical thinking principles in this discussion.

Pseudo-skeptics.



[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by robert z

It just seems odd that a building that large would not have sub-levels below the impact point.


How would that affect the amount of damage a 90 ton jet aircraft would have on the concrete?

Do you have a point that counters my argument with this or are you simply regurgitating irrelevant information spewed in desperation by jrefers?



Well, yeah, Craig, I actually do have a point.

OOPS...

The concrete you reference in the photos is NOT the Pentagon foundation.

The Pentagon has 2 sub-floors beneath the five above-ground floors. The foundation is probably about 20 feet underground.

See, Craig, when buildings are constructed in areas where the temperature goes below freezing, the foundation has to be poured below the frost line. Otherwise the foundation, which carries the entire load of the building, will crack and the building will shift. The frost line in Washington D.C. is about 3 feet below the surface.

Conversely, the concrete that your OP references is ABOVE the surface.

But even more obvious is that fact that this concrete that you claim is the foundation has NO SIGN OF ANY VERTICAL COLUMNS!

The first floor of the Pentagon was built with steel columns ten feet on center. Remember the Purdue animation showing all the columns that the plane took out? Well the concrete that you claim to be the foundation has no remnants of said columns. It is perfectly smooth with not even a mark where the dozens of columns would have been.

This means that the concrete in your photos was poured after 9/11, probably to provide a temporary pad for the heavy equipment needed to shore up the remaining structure.

Look at this photo:



Notice that the concrete is poured on top of dirt. Foundations are not poured on top of dirt, Craig. Notice also that there are no marks in the freshly poured concrete showing where the original steel columns would have been. The first floor had steel columns every 10 feet.

And your argument that the debris on top of this concrete proves it is the original foundation is also wrong. The debris on this concrete could have just as easily fallen there during the clean-up process when they were dragging pieces out with the heavy machinery.

Oh... and before you start typing that this concrete is the first floor slab, take a look at the photos again. The floor slabs were about 4 inches thick. Look at the 2nd floor. The concrete that was poured above grade on the first floor is not a floor slab.

Seriously, Craig, did you really think that buildings are constructed the the foundation above ground?

I expect that in order to preserve any credibility that you might have left, you will edit the title of your post and promptly refund all seven stars.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


I have proof of a military DECEPTION.

Perhaps you should look up the word "deception" so you can understand why they would all still believe the plane hit the building even though their testimony proves it could not have.

Also please look up "circular logic" under "logical fallacies" because you continue to refuse to adhere to critical thinking principles in this discussion.

Pseudo-skeptics.


The sexy terms you use like Pseudo-skeptics, logical fallacies, etc etc. mean NOTHING to me. Some in here may like it and gasp at the way you use the terms it really sounds cool! Standing in front of our flag with the unions intentionally placed upside down makes it all the more compelling.

The proof is in the pudding and you have none. If you did and you were confident with it, you would have presented it to the media like you planned on doing. That grand jury investigation you talked about would have been happening by now.

I will ask you this. Who were the contractors that did the renovations to wedge one. These are the ones you accused of planting the explosives.
Have you spoken to them?

Here, I will hlep you out a little...but then your on your own. A true investigator will look at all evdience prior to jumpping to the conclusion you have.

Contact Rich Bartram of Masonry Arts. They did all the steel back up in the blast wall system and the blast windows for Wedge 1 where the September 11 impact occurred. He was and I believe still is supervisor for the PenRen project. (he has been since 2000)

Ask him if he noticed any bombs planted in the wall system he installed!

Oh... if you do in fact need their infomation, here it is:

Mason Contractors Association of America
33 South Roselle Road
Schaumburg, IL 60193
P: 800-536-2225
F: 847-301-1110

Let me know how you make out !!


[edit on 20-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Dealing with you official story apologists is like swatting flies.

You always come back.

Show me a thread you have made that has 12 stars, 21 pages long, 400 replies, and almost 8,000 views.


Craig, as somebody who professes knowledge of critical thinking, but who fails to display much proclivity for it, you should realize that 400 replies to this thread is evidence that you have not put an end to the debate as your thread title claims.

Sorry, Craig, this has not been one of your better moments. When you have to start citing stars and thread views on ATS to boost your ego and perceived credibility, it pretty much means the substance of your argument is seriously lacking.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z


Craig, as somebody who professes knowledge of critical thinking, but who fails to display much proclivity for it, you should realize that 400 replies to this thread is evidence that you have not put an end to the debate as your thread title claims.


AMEN!!


Originally posted by robert z
Sorry, Craig, this has not been one of your better moments. When you have to start citing stars and thread views on ATS to boost your ego and perceived credibility, it pretty much means the substance of your argument is seriously lacking.


I couldn't have said it better myself! Robert, do you think Craig will be contacing Masonry Art's supervisors to see if they happen to see any planted explosives in their walls??



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


Although you provided no sources for any of your claims they are all completely irrelevant to the point.

You have no way of telling how much of the area has in front of this has been excavated to say whether this concrete was below or above ground before the attack:


Whether or not you call it "foundation" or "first-floor slab" or "ground-floor slab" or if you refuse to call it anything because you wish it would simply go away..........this is the concrete that he ASCE Report states a 90 to jet slammed into with it's left engine burrowed right into it.

Concrete by any other name is still concrete.

So if "foundation" isn't the proper terminology for it, what is?

And where is your proof that it would be impervious to a 90 ton jet traveling over 500 mph slamming directly into it?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


The sexy terms you use like Pseudo-skeptics, logical fallacies, etc etc.


Logical fallacy is a "sexy term"?

Wow.

That is all I read.

You are clearly not a critical thinker or one who discusses information based on logic and reason.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Logical fallacy is a "sexy term"?

Wow.

That is all I read.

You are clearly not a critical thinker or one who discusses information based on logic and reason.



Bold is mine....

now go walk away Crraig by IGNORING the information I gave you. Your claim was that the contractors placed the explosives. I give you the contractors names and information.... you will do NOTHING with it.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Contact Rich Bartram of Masonry Arts.

Ask him if he noticed any bombs planted in the wall system he installed!



Ok I went back and read it.

You are a joker.

Sure.......I'll get right on that.

And while I'm at at I'll call Bush and Cheney and ask them if 9/11 was an inside job as well.

You should really forget about this cyberbullying stuff and become a detective.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Craig:

Here is the company that installed the walls in wedge #1:

Contact Rich Bartram of Masonry Arts. They did all the steel back up in the blast wall system and the blast windows for Wedge 1 where the September 11 impact occurred. He was and I believe still is supervisor for the PenRen project. (he has been since 2000)

Ask him if he noticed any bombs planted in the wall system he installed!

Oh... if you do in fact need their infomation, here it is:

Masonry Arts
Roy Swindal - President
Rich Bartram - Masonry Arts supervisor for the PenRen project

Mason Contractors Association of America
33 South Roselle Road
Schaumburg, IL 60193
P: 800-536-2225
F: 847-301-1110



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Ok called him.

He said......

As a matter of fact I did Craig! Pretty crazy. I called Bush and Cheney about it but nothing happened.

Can you give them a call for me? He're's their info:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461



So I called but they're closed today so I'm going to give it a shot on Monday.

Thanks for the awesome lead C. Oblivious!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Ok I went back and read it.

You are a joker.

Sure.......I'll get right on that.

And while I'm at at I'll call Bush and Cheney and ask them if 9/11 was an inside job as well.

You should really forget about this cyberbullying stuff and become a detective.


Now I'm a bully. Thats fresh!

Why don't you do what you claim to do:


Because we are ruthless investigators/researchers who leave no stone unturned and tirelessly fight to uncover this heinous crime of mass murder that is being used for a permanent global war and justification for virtually all policy decisions foreign and domestic.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have the contractors names.... be "ruthless" and leave no stone unturned and find out how they planted the explosives.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, you seriously need to rethink this one.

The concrete slab would have never been poured for the original construction because it is above ground, would freeze, crack, and the building would fall in. Do some research.

The slab appears to something that was poured after 9/11 to provide a solid base for the heavy equipment needed to shore up the building. If you look at the pic you posted you can see that the concrete still appears to have some moisture in the cross-section.

The concrete was apparently poured right over the rebar coming out. It could not be any other way.

Ask yourself this...

The foundation is poured first, right? Then what is the rebar attached to beneath the concrete? The steel beams are set ON the foundation.

Sorry, Craig, but this theory fails to hold up. The concrete is not the foundation or the first floor slab.

I would suggest sticking to your witnesses. Distractions like this flawed foundation argument can only make you look less credible and take away from what your witnesses said. If you want to have any hope of being taken seriously you can NOT give your detractors any opening to make you look foolish.


[edit on 20-10-2007 by robert z]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok called him.


Thanks for the awesome lead C. Oblivious!



Wow... name calling now... a bully and now Oblivious.... shows where your heading... showing your true colors sir. You will do NOTHING with the information I gave you!!

You have the names of the perps Craig... and you have the evidence to get them thrown in jail.... QUICK! Go to the papers and give them all your info!

[edit on 20-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
reply to [/url]
 


The slab appears to something that was poured after 9/11 to provide a solid bas e for the heavy equipment needed to shore up the building.



You don't even realize how absurd this is do you?

ALL of the images were taken on 9/21.

That is 10 days after the attack.

The clean up process is clearly not complete.

The notion that the entire floor was repoured by 9/21 when there is clearly still dirt and debris everywhere is a joke.

Here are all of the images officially hosted......

FEMA Photo Library

Please show me evidence that this concrete was poured within 10 days of 9/11.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Oh sorry I really thought that was your name.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Caustic Logic implied the same thing but quickly said that is not what he meant.

He knew the notion that the concrete in the images was poured AFTER 9/11 is ridiculous given the fact that the images were taken on 9/21.

It does say a lot though that you have to go that far in order to reconcile this extremely strong physical evidence that no Boeing hit the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Yes ... it was no Boeing.. it was Masonry Art Co. planting bombs in their walls!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by robert z

Please show me evidence that this concrete was poured within 10 days of 9/11.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]


I will look at photos later.

The rebar coming up through slab is evidence that it was attached to something below the concrete. What?

The foundation is poured first, and is poured below the frost line. That is evidence that this concrete is NOT the foundation.

The debris could have fallen on it from the upper floors during the shoring up process.

Do you have evidence this IS the original foundation? 10 days is plenty of time to move debris and pour concrete, btw.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


robertz,

I do not care what you want to call that concrete.....it was there on 9/21 when the clean-up process was not finished therefore it was there on 9/11 when the ASCE report claims a 90 ton jet slammed directly into it.

Hell I doubt they were finished looking for human remains on 9/21.

The notion that they had poured concrete before that is plain old absurd.

Concede or continue to look silly.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join