It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Pootie
Couple of points:
For the love of God, please stop engaging in "gotchas". It's entirely possible that I have not communicated well enough to be understood. You'll notice that I have not engaged in a point by point rebuttal about the information contained in the report (or those opposed to it) for two reasons:
- I am not qualified to talk as a subject matter expert and generate unique opinions, separate from the opinions generated by actual, subject matter experts
- I haven't read all of the report yet
I find the proclamations of fact based on bullet-point contentions to be less than honest. I find a lot of semantic gymnastics going on as well. To skim through a report in 15 minutes flat and then dismiss the report outright is the height of egotism, in my opinion.
How arrogant do you have to be to simply say the report is nonsense without conducting detailed analysis yourself? Do you, the royal you, honestly believe that you’ve figured out something so obvious as to be laughable?
In my opinion, your (the royal you) position requires a couple of things to be plausible:
- You have a greater aptitude for understanding global collapses than the collective, three year effort of hundreds of experts, armed with nothing other an internet connection and skepticism
- The engineers & investigators are utterly incompetent. So incompetent, in fact, that without any real study of the methods or analyses used you’re finding lynch-pin, smoking gun evidence of fraud/incompetence in a report “they” released.
- If this is a giant conspiracy, why would “they” release any information that would lead to more questions? Wouldn’t “they” sanitize the report? Why would “they”, so skilled in creating and covering up a massive conspiracy, miss the opportunity to sanitize the report?
- The entire, three year effort is a sham, perpetrated by 100’s of frauds
How is it the 9-11 CT’er community already formed rock solid opinions, less than 24 hours after release? To truly understand how they got to the conclusions they reached, wouldn’t one need to spend a fairly substantial amount of time researching the methods, math, physics and conclusions?
How is “that doesn’t look right!” a viable, serious rebuttal? How about “it’s never happened before”? So what? Does that mean it can’t ever happen? Does that mean it didn’t happen?
In conclusion, as to your specific “gotcha” claim, concerning my statement that there was massive damage to WTC, caused by falling debris: Stop quote mining me. I didn’t claim anything other than the WTC was physically damaged by the other WTC building collapses. You took my quote out of context and attached meaning I clearly did not intend and have now demanded an answer.
So, don’t take my word for it:
Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years
From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
A picture of the damage, on page 17
So, we have a couple of possibilities:
- The NYFD is “in on it” and everything attributed to them is part of the ‘psy-op’
- The NIST is “in on it”
- There was a lot of damage done to WTC7, from the other collapses. Just as I said.
Last point: 9-11 CT'ers live in inconstancies, voids. Of course, those inconsistencies are ‘smoking gun’ evidence of a cover-up/conspiracy. When those inconsistencies are acknowledged as the body of knowledge grows, the acknowledgment also serves as ‘smoking gun’ evidence of a cover-up/conspiracy, while at the same time you (the royal you) dismiss the newer conclusions.
[edit on 22-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]
Originally posted by BelowGovtThumbs
The best question was the only unanswered question and that was by a reporter from InfoWars.com. He referenced the fact that NIST did no testing for Thermite on the beams, and also kept badgering the spokesman
He was also asked how the building fell in less than 8 seconds due to thermal expansion,
It is my opinion as an average American that they buried this Press Conference for a reason, ...
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
... Emergency responders provided evacuation assistance to occupants. No emergency responders were harmed in the collapse of WTC 7 because the decision to abandon all efforts to save WTC 7 was made nearly three hours before the building fell.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I believe the majority of the United States population did not even know about WTC-7.
Just not THAT newsworthy to everyday people.
Originally posted by Griff
That alone is enough. A braced building's columns will all buckle to the same side unless severed. Period. End of story.
Originally posted by Griff
Let's start at the begining.
Fires in the towers were hot enough to expand the floor trusses and make them sag with their connections being strong enough to pull the exterior facade inward.
But, in WTC 7, fires were hot enough to collapse the connections and cause the floors to fail. Which resulted in Euler's buckling of ONE critical column which then was able to miraculously pull the other structure down with it while it was unconnected to the floors?
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Originally posted by Griff
I'm talking about a column being able to pull it's neighboring columns down when it's not connected to them anymore. And if it is connected to them, they would all fail in the same direction and not straight down. Including the facade.
Originally posted by Dr Love
I've been noticing a certain psychological ploy ... "moon landing hoax" and "Roswell" ..... It's a sure sign of desperation, bet on it!
[edit on 22-8-2008 by Dr Love]