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: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
490+ Engineers and Architects!



Lets do one at a time... that way you may actually respond.

490 Engineers and Architects.

Hmmm...



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

American Institute of Architects membership is 83,500+.
www.aia.org...

Ok...lets do the math.

141,000 +
83,500 =

224,500.

Your claim (I assume from Richard Gage's website) is 490.

So let see... that comes out to:

0.21%

Who is wrong???



So Now you are saying Maybe Not all 224,55 (American Society of Civil Engineers) might not all suport the Government findings or thier report?

First you say all of them, now you say just some of mine dont agree with the Government version WICH IS IT.

YOU ARE TRIPING ALL OVER YOUR SELF!




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Care to back up that NIST is in possession of WTC 7 steel.

But, what they could do is spray on some fireproofing onto an I beam (H beam) and set a fire to see how hot it needs to get before the fireproofing melts.

But NIST doesn't even need to do this as the fireproofing industry has already performed these tests. Hence why they list melting point as "not applicabale".



at 5.3.3 in the FEMA document is says the fireproofing is "monokote" and that it was sprayed at the NY Port Authority Codes at a 2-hour rating for beams, girders and trusses and a 3-hour rating for columns. surely you will agree WTC7 was on fire for more than 2-3 hours. not to mention known damage to the fireproofing. your "not applicable" is not applicable there.





[edit on 4-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


To say that all these Firemen are liers www.nytimes.com...

To total think all these Firmen are lieing is a slap in thier face HOW DARE YOU!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


To say that all these Firemen are liers www.nytimes.com...

To total think all these Firmen are lieing is a slap in thier face HOW DARE YOU!



i don't see any quotes that back anything you are saying up. they are just describing the events of that morning, is there a particular quote you are talking about?



[edit on 4-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


FASTFINGERSFUNK YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED to the lies that you are spewing.

I really think, you have offended many posters in here, with your BELITTLEING and one sided Conspiracies. you have repeatly ridicudle every ones version that wanted to join in on your thread.

Not to mention you ran off everone that dosent agree with YOU!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


my one sided conspiracies? how many sides does your conspiracy have?

so i take it that list of firefighters has not said anything to back up your claims of an inside job? i read a bunch and they say nothing of an inside job.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of
occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this
issue.

Ya, I just wanted to add this because this is what (SEI/ASCE) had to say in thier report a for WTC7.

That really dosent solve what really happened to WTC7 dose it.

That came from Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
Skokie, IL

That was from his research report.

A hypothesis is also a theroy it dose "NOT" mean its true!

[edit on 7/4/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 



That might be true because, no one has ASK them Hmmmm...

Maybe they want to keep thier "JOBS" Hmmmmm.....

BUT they said "EXPLOSIONS"

I have one version that is THRUTH! how many do you have?



[edit on 7/4/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


Oh I am sure you havent YET, thats because YOU havent read thier interview.

Again YOU have not read what I sent you. You need to go back and read what I have sent you.

You could not have read all those reports in 3 min.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


You could not have read all those reports in 3 min.




you said "ALL THESE FIREMEN". i've read about 20 of them and not one says anything about an inside job. HOW DARE YOU.

"To total think all these Firmen are lieing is a slap in thier face HOW DARE YOU!" is what you said.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Cash,

If you are lighting off any fireworks today... USE CAUTION!

Your pitiful attempt at twisting my words... THEN appealing to emotion is a joke.

You know EXACTLY what I posted and EXACTLY what it means.

If not... your are not operating on all cylinders.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


FASTFINERSFUNK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIVES HERE !

I said it was an inside job!

Explosives, is what we are talking about are these men LIEING?

I never said the Fire men said it was an inside jod SHAME ON YOU!

HOW DARE YOU!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I made my point with YOU early on.

You made it very clear that there is nothing to debate on 911 but your DELUSIONAL Conspiracies that are one side , only your side!

That is not Debating!

That dose not get to any Truth.
Belittle everone who dosent agree with you is NOT DEBATING anything.

You made it very clear YOU, have all the answers on 911, so really thier is not anything to really discuss is there.

Oh and (twisting my words...) thats your thing....

I dont play your games of Pseudoskeptics!




[edit on 7/4/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Have you even posted ONE fact in this entire forum?

You are shown how incredibly wrong you are and you start your Alex Jones chant. "911 Was An Inside Job."

When are you going to supply anyone with evidence that backs up that statement?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a block and 1/2 away from WTC7 when it fell. not a single explosion or pre-charge can be heard. interestingly, i've never seen a "truther" use this video.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Hey I still am still waiting for my answers, I ask you early in this thread.

You refused to respond to my Answers and others in this thread when You have been point out that you are WRONG!

You have Failed MISERABLY to prove your Arguments.

You Just keep Belittling everyone.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Heres a Fact that I believe You and I can agree on that (SEI/ASCE) did a report about 911.

There is a Fact for you that is Proof!

Answer this question for me ok, am I wrong about this Fact?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Please explain to me where I am wrong. It's tough to read your posts since they barely even contain formidable sentences.

Perhaps I should be a little more direct with my questions.

What evidence do you have Cash that proves that "911 Was An Inside Job?"

In my statement about the Engineers and Architects; you posted a figure that I assumed was from Richard Gages website. You boasted about this number of members that have joined. I pointed out to you that the amount of people in that group represents less than 1 percent of the professionals from the ASCE and the AIA.

Oh, just to let you know. Richard Gage was asked to remove the AIA symbol from his website. Why don't you ask him why that happened.

Now, involving WTC-7. We ALL know that NIST has not released their final report on the collapse. I am not really too sure we will be seeing it anytime soon. People like you will use this as kindling to keep your CT fire somewhat ablaze.

However, it has been pointed out on a few occasions in this thread, a paper that has been published that shows the possibility of the cause of the collapse. Our in house Engineer Griff even found it interesting. Truthers that understand it, will more than likely dismiss it as rubbish or that it was written and reviewed by the NWO.

You want there to be a conspiracy. Your mind has been made up. But you have nothing but opinion and hearsay. You have not shown any evidence to back it up.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I would also like to point out this video of WTC-7 collapsing. This was live on TV.

Two things I would like to point out.

1. Explosions: We have all seen the CD videos. We know what they sound like.
Notice there are none prior to the collapse.
2. Reporter: States. "What we have feared all afternoon appears to have happened."




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Thanks for that nice post.

I know that my grammer is somthing to talk about, but I think I can get my point across.

For you to keep Belittling me, about my writing is a little petty but that says alot about you dosent it.

There is two sides to the 911 Conspiracies, the Government version, and the Science version.

We the truth movement, only want to get to the truth.

We have to wade through a Mountain, of Lies and, cover ups.

At this time, only Both sides can only offer "Hypothesis".

I am not going to "continue" argueing with you.
The Government version of 911 WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 thier reports and thier "Hypothesis". dose "NOT" stand up to real Science.
Thats a Fact, there is no disputing it.

Every time some one in the Truth movement wants to present Some good finding or a diffrent Hypothesis base on Science and Physic We are RIDDICULE, BELITTLE, called names, ATTACK, AND Laugh at!

I see two, maybe, three of theses Attackers team up againce some one persenting a diffrent side of the Government version.

The only thing I do see in this thread is You showing the same videos the same Hypothesis that have been viewed by thousands and been hash to no end.

The real problem in this thread, is the Host who started this thread is only intrested in his side. The rest of us, who do not agree, with him are consider Tin-foil hats and are Delusional who have no clue what Reality is.

Wich he has made very clear.

As far as showing you proof, If you are an engineer of Science and Physic
Please explain what is wrong with Steven E. Jones "Hypothesis".

I am leaning towards Steven E. Jones "Hypothesis".
I find it very SCIENTIFIC and credible.
physics911.net...

Without "Slandering" Pro Steven Jones Please show me and the rest of the world where he is wrong!















[edit on 7/4/2008 by cashlink]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join