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: 24
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z Also, look closely at this photo from inside the area looking out. It looks like the area around the center beam that is shored up with wood is surrounded by poured concrete with a gap between the concrete and the wood. To me this looks like the put the wood in place to shore up the building, and then poured the concrete slab, boxing in an area around the wood shoring.


Gee, and people talk about CT's reaching for any theory.

But since the FBI will not release any photos or videos we wont know if your theory is right or not.



Well then what do you think it looks like?

I think it's pretty obvious that they poured concrete around the wood supports.




posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


In this photo you can see two things:

1) the right edge of the concrete appears raised compared to the area to the right of it where the orange painted support beams are set. Notice that the ground behind these beams is not smooth concrete, and

2) a continuous line along the right edge of the concrete indicates where the concrete might have been poured.




And here is something obvious in this photo that I overlooked before. Why would the foundation or floor slab protrude out westward past the edge of the building?

And why would they excavate the concrete in front of building, digging down through the concrete but stopping right at the top of the dirt? HOW could they even have done that?





And it is not my claim to prove, Craig. You are the one who began this thread claiming lack of foundation damage ends the 757 debate. This means you probably should prove that a) this is the foundation, and b) there was no damage anywhere.

You have done neither.

Also, try addressing the points I brought up rather than dismissing them as unsubstantiated claims by an anonymous internet poster. Just because you put your name on the posts fails to make your claims any better.

So where in these photos are the beams that would have been in line with the other beams shown being shored up? Where are the holes where these beams would have been?

And by the way, the floor slab cross-section drawing is on page 7 of the NIST report.

www.fire.nist.gov...



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
I think it's pretty obvious that they poured concrete around the wood supports.


Sorry but i deal in facts and evidence, show me reports, a photo or video of a cement truck being there and then i will believe it.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
The images are from 9/21.

You will not find anyone credible or any hard evidence to support your ludicrous claim.

It's actually quite comical and I hope you continue to blindly make this laughable assertion because it demonstrates how desperate you are to refute the solid point I have made with this thread.

Have a fun Saturday night!



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The images are from 9/21.

You will not find anyone credible or any hard evidence to support your ludicrous claim.

It's actually quite comical and I hope you continue to blindly make this laughable assertion because it demonstrates how desperate you are to refute the solid point I have made with this thread.

Have a fun Saturday night!



What the hell are you talking about, he just murdered your argument and this is how you respond?

That picture proves without a doubt that the concrete was poured, thats why it's piled up on the edges.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


If you look closely you can see bits of charred debris and what appear to be pebbles or something similar.
It also looks like there is way too much water for freshly poured concrete.If it was fresh concrete the floor would be smooth and the area would be cordoned off with signs warning of fresh cement.
Why would they leave old rebar sticking out if they went to all that work of pouring concrete?
The bottom right hand corner shows the foundation/slab/floor below grade.I'm talking about the picture shown from outside the building.
It's extremely unlikely this would be a skim coat either as that would be completely pointless.
I'm merely pointing out what I see.
Edited to add: If this was freshly poured concrete I would expect to see the cribbing in place as well.The site is too messy and it looks like it has rained or the last bits of debris were washed out with a hose or this could be water from putting out the fire.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by citizen truth]

[edit on 21-10-2007 by citizen truth]



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
That picture proves without a doubt that the concrete was poured, thats why it's piled up on the edges.


Well i have to debate you that the picture does not prove it. Also you have no other evidence or report to verify this.

I would also like to see someone tell families that the search and rescue for thier famly members was held up so they could pour concrete.

And the FBI let thier crime scene be completley destroyed.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by drannno
I agree with Craig, I don't see Robert pointing out any logical fallacies in his initial evidence.
[...] 100% there is no possible way that plane was anywhere near the lightpoles which were broken. I'm new to his material,
[...]
and I am brand new to this forum and his material.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by drannno]


Last post except to welcome Avenger (?) to the forum.
and to note all the frantic energy evidenced by so many new pages appeearing here. My god, it's monstrous! Y'all keep it up till someone keels over.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ccaihc
That picture proves without a doubt that the concrete was poured, thats why it's piled up on the edges.


Well i have to debate you that the picture does not prove it. Also you have no other evidence or report to verify this.

I would also like to see someone tell families that the search and rescue for thier famly members was held up so they could pour concrete.

And the FBI let thier crime scene be completley destroyed.


Um, ok. Your debating it. Sweet, want to tell me why, what else could that possibly be?

I'd imagine they had all the bodies out by 9 days, so they poured the concrete, and then the pictures were taken the next day when the concrete was dry.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT




To suggest they poured concrete to replace the first floor within 10 days before completing the clean up effort is quite comical.

You can still see a ton of dirt and debris!

Are you really holding on to this absurd assumption without any evidence?

For you to assert something so ridiculous only demonstrates how compelling you really think this evidence is that no boeing hit the building.

You are searching for ANY explanation no matter how ridiculous out of desperation!

You really ought to drop this one dude.

Concede or continue to look as silly as robertz.

At least he was smart enough to disappear from the thread!



Concede? Is that what your looking for? You my friend are the desperate one HOPING that only your minions will post on this thread.


Did I say that the new concrete was a fact???? NO! Read my posts! All I stated was that it's a possibility.

There is ZERO proof that it is newly poured. I believe I stated that as well. I will look into this further...and share any evidence that MAY be there.

Why is it not possible to pour a floor in a few days?

Tomorrow is Monday Craig, are you and your counterpart going to continue your investigation into Masonry Art? Let me know if you need any more information on any other contractors you would like to invesitgate. I'm pretty sure I can get you their information.

Oh, and Robert didn't disappear, some of us have lives.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
I'd imagine they had all the bodies out by 9 days, so they poured the concrete, and then the pictures were taken the next day when the concrete was dry.


Well the first 10 days was search and rescue operations. Then on the 10th day the FBI took it over as crime scene, and for the next 5 days it was a crime scene.

When did the pour the concrete?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima? Look at the pictures...there was OBVIOUS construction going on prior to the 10 days.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You came back!

Taking a break from you Letting It Happen articles to chime in with another irrelevant conspiracy theory?

So what do you have to say about robertz's assertion that it was newly poured concrete?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Putting up temporary supports is not construction.

Keep it up fellas!

This has been good for a laugh.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The fact that any of you guys could continue asserting that it is even remotely POSSIBLE this was freshly poured the day before, 9 days after the event, baffles me:



But not when I realize how damning this evidence is to the official story.

Then I understand why you would go to such lengths to live in denial.

It's a hard realization to come to and I feel for you.

I remember when I first started realizing it.

It was absolutely horrible.

I feel your pain.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Plus....did they put all of the temporary supports up while the concrete was still wet?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima? Look at the pictures...there was OBVIOUS construction going on prior to the 10 days.


Constuction on the building was ongoing, but for 10 days it was search and rescue, and then FBI crime scene. No concrete was going to be poured then.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I Never said the concrete was wet due to "just being poured". DON'T put words in my mouth. Your PATHETIC attempt to make us agree with your unfounded claims is just that!

The latest photo does indeed make it more unlikely that there was new concrete poured. Does not 100% rule it out though.

Installation of temporary supports is not construction??? What is it? Playing Jenga?

Ultima / Craig ~ Operation Phoenix Rising was started in the middle of September and continued on. Termed this for the Rebuilding of the Pentagon. Look it up.


Here is what I don't understand. As we look at the west face of wedge 1 (the impact zone) it appears 20 columns were sheared off in the collapse area alone. As Craig has posted, you can see the rebar coming out of the concrete . Where is the rebar from the other many other colums? IF they were pulled out or removed, were are the "scars" where they were removed from?

Im also wondering why ocer 10,000 pounds of debris that was removed from the Pentagon had ZERO impact on the floor.

These are just some questions.


Oh, by the way Craig...since you have no doubt that the outside contractors were in on it. I feel compelled to give you the information for the Electrical contractors that were working at the Pentagon on 911. I'm sure if you ask, they will be able to tell you if they saw any detonation cords or monkey bombs near their electrical equipment.

Jack Singleton - President
Singleton Electric Co. Inc
7860 Cessna Ave
Gaithersburg MD

Mickey Bell was the job foreman for this company.

You should add mechanical subcontractor John J. Kirlin Inc., to your list.

Wayne T. Day - President
Mechanical Contractors
www.johnjkirlin-inc.com...
www.johnjkirlin-inc.com...


One of his own men was at a window and watched the planes impact. Do some of the"no stone unturned" investigation and ask HIM what he saw!

I don't have the name of that employee but the gentleman that was with him was Matt Hahr Senior Project manager at the renovation project. He saw the witness with Jet fuel on him. I'm quite certain you have heard of him.

I though I would add AMEC to the list of contractors that were hired...seeing they could have been in on it too:

www.amec.com...

There you will find several ways to contact them. You can start with Lee Benish. He was vice president of the company at the time.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The latest photo does indeed make it more unlikely that there was new concrete poured. Does not 100% rule it out though.

Ultima / Craig ~ Operation Phoenix Rising was started in the middle of September and continued on. Termed this for the Rebuilding of the Pentagon. Look it up.



So you agree that the concrete is not new?

If you read my post i stated construction was on-going.

Have you e-mailed any of the contractors working there to find oout if and when concrete was poured? I have e-mailed contractors at ground zero.

What are you going to do if we e-mail these companies and they disagree with you?


[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Ultima ~

like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured. The last photo Craig posted makes me lean toward it not being a fresh pour. This however does NOT provide any credence to the ridiculous claims that Craig has posted in here that he has no doubt that the contractors were in on it.

I also find it hard to believe that with a multi ton collapse, there was zero damage done to the floor.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join