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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
all of these people were there to see WTC7 collapse but none of them have come forward to say they heard explosives similar to a demolition when WTC7 fell? i found this on a "truther site" so surprisingly, there is no audio.

also, massive plumes of smoke coming out near the 5-7 floors where the transfer supports were. none of the fireman that we see in videos saying it's going to fail structurally have come forward to say they heard a controlled demolition, and we have proof on video that they were there.

all of these eyewitnesses and only one or two people have come forward to say they heard explosions when WTC7 collapsed? malarky. there were no explosions when WTC7 fell.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...




[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, you are wasting your time on those two.
Many members on this tread have shown them facts.

They are trying to Debunk you. It dosnt matter what you show them, they are not going to accept anything from you or anyone else.

I have notice these two have low scores and I have to wonder if they have been removed for doing what they are doing.

I think they might have set up a new account and thier back at it again.

Thats ok the modes will catch them. I have noties these two have a pattern of sticking to the 911 thread and teaming up together trying to railraod the thread.

I am not wasting another min of my time, on those two, who wish to "distort" the truth to fite the Government version.

If they think they have Debunk something,They have not.
What I am seeing here, is the Government is afraid we are to close to the truth.

Because I really believe 911 was an inside job!

I really believe the Government has paid key-board ops working right here on ATS, and I belive I just had a run in with two of them in this thread tonight.

I believe people who have done thier research, in paid Key-Board Ops know one, when they incounter them.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
reply to post by jprophet420
 


i don't think he is wrong i know he is wrong. but keep identifying people who provide no evidence to back up their theories. and keep doing the same yourself. you have provided no theory to backup CD's or whatever you believe (i still don't know what you believe). you have only filibustered. your "theory" is that a huge force made the building collapse. great theory, right to the point. lol.


and no accomplished SE has been able to prove that the local collapse of support 79 would not drop the penthouse and ultimately cause a global collapse.

no evidence? An architect with 20 years experience making a presentation with what? no evidence? Here, I'll post another from the same source, I like this one because he went to CMU. (thats a top school btw)

In engineering specialties, Carnegie Mellon was rated second in Computer Engineering - up one spot from last year - ninth in Electrical Engineering, 10th in Materials, 13th in Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering, 14th in Civil Engineering and 15th in Mechanical Engineering.


H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA – Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). Professional photographer.
Letter to American Institute of Architects 11/26/06: "The primary duty of registered professionals is to protect the public safety. Professionals' intelligence, knowledge and experience provide a delicate connection between science and fact. ...

9-11 was a tragic event for our country, quickly “solved” by our government and propagated by our media, leading our country into fear, anguish, anger, war and unrestrained spending.

Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?

As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?

My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers – linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ...

After hundreds of hours of research, and thousands of dollars purchasing materials and information, this letter outlines my most salient, articulate examples of things that architects should investigate. If I err slightly in any single item, that does not discount this letter. On the contrary, even if only part of these accusations are true, they should be investigated."


Why do you keep refering to my theory? You seem upset that I dont have enough information to draw a rocksteady conclusion. thats what the problem is. There should be and theres not.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

according to NIST and 99% of distinguished structural engineers you are wrong.
link your source please. I had the courtesy to quote and link mine.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and i would love to hear your theory on how WTC7 fell since you say you are an SE.


1. I don't claim to be an SE (Structural Engineer). I'm a PE (Professional Engineer). Slight difference but different credentials.

2. I'm learning SAP2000 (on my own time) so that I can start doing as you ask.

3. I don't know what brought it down.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

Griff, you are wasting your time on those two.
Many members on this tread have shown them facts.


You certainly are not one of them.


Originally posted by cashlinkThey are trying to Debunk you. It dosnt matter what you show them, they are not going to accept anything from you or anyone else.


cash.... I listen to Griff..he is right far more often than he is wrong. (and freely admits it) oh... unless he's pouring Rum & Cokes!



Originally posted by cashlinkI have notice these two have low scores and I have to wonder if they have been removed for doing what they are doing.

I think they might have set up a new account and thier back at it again.

Thats ok the modes will catch them. I have noties these two have a pattern of sticking to the 911 thread and teaming up together trying to railraod the thread.


Remember who started this thread? Yes sir me. And I don't railroad them..i point out facts.


Originally posted by cashlinkI am not wasting another min of my time, on those two, who wish to "distort" the truth to fite the Government version.

If they think they have Debunk something,They have not.
What I am seeing here, is the Government is afraid we are to close to the truth.


You can't waste any time on us because you have failed to show ANY proof to the claims you have made.

(any luck on those hundreds of witnesses??)


Originally posted by cashlinkBecause I really believe 911 was an inside job!


Good... now offer some proof and I will chant with you.


Originally posted by cashlinkI really believe the Government has paid key-board ops working right here on ATS, and I belive I just had a run in with two of them in this thread tonight.

I believe people who have done thier research, in paid Key-Board Ops know one, when they incounter them.


Yes sitting here at my desk in Langley pays well.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) membership is 141,000.
www.asce.org...


Nope. 140,999 because you can't count me.


BTW, have you asked the other 140,999 what they believe?



Who is wrong???



Who knows? Since NIST's report can't and will not be able to be peer reviewed and/or reproduced until they disclose all their data.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Griff]


Griff... you are a member of the ASCE and Richard Gages's website. I counted you.

I showed that less than 1% has come out publicly disagreeing with the NIST report. We both know that could be more or less.

I could be wrong but haven't there been a couple papers published that show NIST is correct?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

This thread is about WTC7, as has been well covered here. Since there is no NIST final report on WTC7 no one could possibly produce a report confirming anything other than ... incomplete.

As far as engineers supporting the OS, just because they don't vote no doesen't mean they voted yes either. There have been no facts posted in regards to what SE's and PE's think as a whole.
Only assumptions.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



NIST's decision is complete that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition and that there is no evidence of explosives. so if you are using NIST as your guide, then now you know there was no CD or explosives planted.

and i will be the first person to check with you when they release their final report because as soon as it comes out we all know damn well that the people that use NIST's incompletion as their crutch will then call it a biased report. the irony will be so thick. if you aren't going to agree with NIST why keep bringing it up?

and there is a rock steady conclusion, that support 79 collapsed which caused a local failure at the penthouse which then collapsed the transfer supports located at floors 5 through 7 which resulted in a global collapse. no SE can dispell that. and this is backed up by ramon gilsanz, who is on the NIST team.
www.structuremag.org...





[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
reply to post by jprophet420
 



NIST's decision is complete that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition and that there is no evidence of explosives. so if you are using NIST as your guide, then now you know there was no CD or explosives planted.

and i will be the first person to check with you when they release their final report because as soon as it comes out we all know damn well that the people that use NIST's incompletion as their crutch will then call it a biased report. the irony will be so thick. if you aren't going to agree with NIST why keep bringing it up?

and there is a rock steady conclusion, that support 79 collapsed which caused a local failure at the penthouse which then collapsed the transfer supports located at floors 5 through 7 which resulted in a global collapse. no SE can dispell that.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Well, now that you've made a rocksteady stance, let me present a scenario. Support 79 was oxidized by any number of manmade devices that dont make a report (loud bang). This would completely validate both the NIST report and a sinister CT. I've read the incomplete report and there is nothing in there to say that did not happen.

Also, I have reviewed many accounts from both sides of the fence, and you have not read the reviews I posted by distinguished engineers. You went as far as to discredit the first source I posted, a gentleman with 20 years in the business. When I called you out on that and posted another you neglected to comment altogether.

You have made your decision and you have not used the scientific method to arrive at it. You used the work of others, and only those that you chose.

I am not using NIST for any other reason that people claim NIST supports to OS. Thats fine. Its incomplete and we went to war on that. If you dont have a problem with that thats fine, but most free thinkers do.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and this is backed up by ramon gilsanz, who is on the NIST team.
www.structuremag.org...


It's more than just backed up by Ramon Gilsanz, he authored it.

It would be like me writting a paper and then you say that I back it up as support. Well, no duh that I'd endorse it, I wrote it.

And then we get back to how was this paper peer reviewed without disclosing the data to come to the conclusions.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


right, a manmade device that lasted 8 hours until it was triggered and that doesn't make noise. gotcha. lol. then you go on to tell me i only believe in reports i choose but here you are making scenarios up out of thin air. btw, you would then have to prove that al-qaida members didn't plant it.

btw, the reason i didn't address your engineer with "20 years of experience" is because you didn't link to his report. so what, he said he gave a report. ok. let's see it. and you already said that NOBODY can come to a conclusion since NIST hasn't. contradicting yourself.


Originally posted by jprophet420

Since there is no NIST final report on WTC7 no one could possibly produce a report confirming anything other than ... incomplete.



so then stop telling me about these other people who have reports (which you don't even give the report, just the person saying he has done one) if they can't possibly produce anything other than a confirmation of "incomplete".







[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



what is your conclusion as to how WTC7 fell and what is your data to back it up? you seem to support the controlled demolition theory. do you not?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
reply to post by jprophet420
 


right, a manmade device that lasted 8 hours until it was triggered. gotcha. lol.


Why lol? Is it easier than research? Don't bother to quote the part of the NIST report that shows that support 79 did in fact fail due to the building itself burning, as facts are irrelevant at this point (sic.).



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
reply to post by Griff
 



what is your conclusion as to how WTC7 fell and what is your data to back it up? you seem to support the controlled demolition theory. do you not?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]
\

As I have posted several times now, one does not need their own theory to understand that a seperate one is false or inconclusive. Example:

The sky is green.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why lol? Is it easier than research? Don't bother to quote the part of the NIST report that shows that support 79 did in fact fail due to the building itself burning, as facts are irrelevant at this point (sic.).


i'm laughing because you keep bringing up NIST as the final say but that it's apparent that when they do submit the final report, you and all the other "truthers" are going to dismiss it and instead claim some kind of vaporware such as a non-explosion explosive device as you are stating.

how about this, when you find evidence of any of this let me know. until then, it's "false or inconclusive".

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i'm laughing because you keep bringing up NIST as the final say but that it's apparent that when they do submit the final report, you and all the other "truthers" are going to dismiss it


And you are going to think it finally proves something no matter what it actually happens to say, aren't you?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And you are going to think it finally proves something no matter what it actually happens to say, aren't you?


you shouldn't be asking me, i'm not referencing NIST as the be all and end all, they are.

"you keep bringing up NIST as the final say" is in the exact statement you quoted me on.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why lol? Is it easier than research? Don't bother to quote the part of the NIST report that shows that support 79 did in fact fail due to the building itself burning, as facts are irrelevant at this point (sic.).


i'm laughing because you keep bringing up NIST as the final say but that it's apparent that when they do submit the final report, you and all the other "truthers" are going to dismiss it and instead claim some kind of vaporware such as a non-explosion explosive device as you are stating.

how about this, when you find evidence of any of this let me know. until then, it's "false or inconclusive".

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

you have presented no evidence yourself and have sunk to the level of calling me a 'truther'. You have discredited peoples credentials without posting anything other than your opinion, and you claim NIST's incomplete report as fact when it supports your case and have repeatedly claimed that I would discredit their report when it is completed and released. I have repeatedly explained that the incompleteness of their report after 7 years is the problem i have with the whole scenario. I have also pointed out the fact that the current working hypothesis still allows for foul play and you refuted that wit 'lol'. an lol based on a report that has yet to be released.

GG.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


none of that is true other than the fact that i called you a "truther" and that i laughed at your illogical presentation of how support 79 would have collapsed.

if your conclusion is that WTC7 collapse is inconclusive then that's fine.

imo you are a truther because even though you are pretending to be impartial, you routinely retort anything that has to do with WTC7 collapsing due to damage sustained by WTC1 debris by replying in favor of somebody who thinks there is foul play. you really aren't fooling anyone but yourself on that.





[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



new topics




 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join