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.

 

Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

page: 12
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

If I had the city code (ordinance), I also might have a sample of the steel from the building -- which nobody does because they shipped it all off to China.

Actually, the NIST had some they kept for their investigation. Maybe you could give them a call?



Maybe you can call and ask them about WTC 7's steel?


[edit on 2/4/2009 by Griff]




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Why would an honest government be hiding everything?

They don't act like a group that has nothing to hide. And they have ignored the 9/11 Widows for Truth. The Bush government got sued by NY Firefighters, First Responders (most of them are dead now from what they breathed in), and other nations -- just to name a few. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and they don't have any support for people who were involved in the 9/11 cleanup.


Here here!!. This is about the only thing that makes sense in this bizzaro world we now live in.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Nice that everyone avoids the fact that the Building Codes were destroyed in the Ports Authority building.

So are you saying that every copy of the building codes were destroyed?
Just curious.


Since it has been stated by NIST et al that the towers did not have to be built to any certain code because it was co-owned by the New York & New Jersey (i.e. 2 different states) Port Authority, then I don't know why codes are being brought into the discussion?

Talk about jedi mind tricks.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's where permits and clearance comes in. Not only is it not hard to walk around unchecked by people, it's also not hard to have someone "in on it" .


Oh my god ! Even more people are now involved.

If we add up all the people truthers claim are involved in the conspiracy....Well almost everyone would be in on it.


So you are saying that if the top guy signs for something, everyone in that company also knows exactly what this person signed for? Really?

Again, I'll say it: Ignorant, unintelligent, nonobservant people. Yes.

In on it: No. They're too dumb.


Yes, I'm saying that if one person signed to have explosives installed in the 3 WTC's, the people installing said explosives would know they were installing explosives thus requiring that we add them to the supposed conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Nice that everyone avoids the fact that the Building Codes were destroyed in the Ports Authority building.

So are you saying that every copy of the building codes were destroyed?
Just curious.


Since it has been stated by NIST et al that the towers did not have to be built to any certain code because it was co-owned by the New York & New Jersey (i.e. 2 different states) Port Authority, then I don't know why codes are being brought into the discussion?

Talk about jedi mind tricks.

VA claimed that the building codes were destroyed. My questions is, how could they have destroyed every copy of the city/state building codes as there would be literally 10's of thousands of copies of them scattered about the country.

Can you post where the NIST specifically stated that the towers were not built to any building/construction codes?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Since it has been stated by NIST et al that the towers did not have to be built to any certain code because it was co-owned by the New York & New Jersey (i.e. 2 different states) Port Authority, then I don't know why codes are being brought into the discussion?


Can you post where the NIST specifically stated that the towers were not built to any building/construction codes?


I didn't say they "were not built to any code". I said they did not have to be built by any code.


The Port of New York Authority (whose name was changed to the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey in 1972 and which will be referred to as “the Port Authority”) is not required to comply with the
local building code.
As an interstate compact created under a clause of the U.S. Constitution, it is not
bound by the authority having jurisdiction, which in the case of the World Trade Center (WTC) would be
the New York City Department of Buildings. In 1963, the Port of New York Authority, however,
instructed the architect and consulting engineers to prepare their designs for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to
comply with the New York City Building Code.1 Although it is not explicitly stated in the 1963 letter, the
1938 edition of the Code was in effect at the time. In areas where the Code was not explicit or where
technological advances made portions of it obsolete, the Port Authority directed the consultants to
propose designs “based on acceptable engineering practice,” and required them to inform the WTC
Planning Division when such situations occurred.


wtc.nist.gov...

Now, there is a difference as the PA asked that the towers be designed to the NYBC, but they were not required to do so.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, I'm saying that if one person signed to have explosives installed in the 3 WTC's, the people installing said explosives would know they were installing explosives thus requiring that we add them to the supposed conspiracy.


What if those workers were fanatical Muslims? Would they still be (in your eyes) "added to the conspiracy"? Or would they be "part of the terror plot"?

You assume that this was accomplished by Americans with no other ties to any other countries. I can state that I don't believe any American would do this either. Too bad the world isn't made up of Americans.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Since it has been stated by NIST et al that the towers did not have to be built to any certain code because it was co-owned by the New York & New Jersey (i.e. 2 different states) Port Authority, then I don't know why codes are being brought into the discussion?



To VaA:

Griff just short-circuited your entire train of thought regarding your claim that they HAD to be designed to survive 3 SIMULTANEOUS strikes from aircraft.

Care to keep trying, or do you admit that you were wrong?

Will you admit NOW that the garbage that the TM believes in is wrong?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fleabit
Here is an article about how the "man dead for 5 days" is a hoax:

www.snopes.com...

Another prime example of how people use not even factual data to try and backup their claims that apparently, no one notices what is going on.


Turned out to be an example of how little people pay attention anyway, didn't it?



Um.. no?

This is what I am talking about.

Truther: "See, this story proves I am right!"
Non-Truther: "Um.. that story is a hoax. Why are you using it to try and prove a point?"
Truther: "... See! The fact that someone thought this fake story was true, PROVES my point!"
Non-Truther: ... /givesup

It's rather ironic that while truthers are quite willing to attack all the reported and recorded facts and statements and eyewitnesses of that day, they won't for a moment accept any retaliatory questioning of their own theories. Everyone else is 100% wrong, they are 100% right.

I myself HAVE said on more than one occasion: I DO think our government is hiding some facts from us on that day. I do think it's plausible that our own planes shot down a passenger jet if they felt there hijackers that might attack another important target. I think they may not be telling us all the facts. I DON'T think they themselves would bother to even attempt to carry out such an elaborate plan, in the hopes that it would all work, all for such little gain. That is, I feel that they could have done a great number of other things that did not require this much planning and murder, and gotten the same desired results.

Pity not everyone can be as unbiased, open-minded and approach research on this subject without a foregone conclusion already decided on in their head. All I mostly see in regards to all the 9/11 claims is a LOT of bad, sloppy, biased research.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
This is what I am talking about.

Truther: "See, this story proves I am right!"


Only one problem: I never said that. I just laughed at the story, and reposted the image. I didn't make a big deal about it, because I don't really care.

But, I didn't check to see if it was a hoax or not. Because I wasn't paying attention, and was apathetic.


So you can go blow steam out of your ears, it was still an example of people not paying attention, nothing more.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, I'm saying that if one person signed to have explosives installed in the 3 WTC's, the people installing said explosives would know they were installing explosives thus requiring that we add them to the supposed conspiracy.


What if those workers were fanatical Muslims? Would they still be (in your eyes) "added to the conspiracy"? Or would they be "part of the terror plot"?

I'm saying that if one person signed to have explosives installed in the 3 WTC's, the people installing said explosives would know they were installing explosives thus requiring that we add them to the supposed conspiracy.


You assume that this was accomplished by Americans with no other ties to any other countries.

No I don't assume that but thanks for assuming that I was assuming that
Actually, based on all the available evidence, I believe 9/11 to be the result of 2 things:

1. 19 nutjob muslim extremists backed by a bunch of other nutjob muslim extremists.
2. Massive incompetence within the US intelligence community. Heh.. Intelligence community-that's a laugh.


[edit on 5-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Here is an article about how the "man dead for 5 days" is a hoax:

www.snopes.com...

Another prime example of how people use not even factual data to try and backup their claims that apparently, no one notices what is going on.


A couple of genuine one's:

A tax office official in Finland who died at his desk was not found by his colleagues for two days, BBC, 19 January, 2004


According to the Finnish tabloid newspaper Ilta-Sanomat on Monday, co-workers had assumed the dead man - a tax auditor - was silently poring over returns...
There were about 100 other staff in the auditing department on the same floor the dead tax official worked on.




Speight was found in railway office, police say
, Times, April 14, 2008


An investigation has been launched into how the body of the children’s television presenter Mark Speight went undiscovered for six days at a London railway station...
Rail staff rarely visit the largely-deserted building, with most of its offices currently empty or undergoing refurbishment.


At any one time there would have been many areas within the WTC that were "empty or undergoing refurbishment".



[edit on 5-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1. 19 nutjob muslim extremists backed by a bunch of other nutjob muslim extremists.
2. Massive incompetence within the US intelligence community. Heh.. Intelligence community-that's a laugh.


Could the muslim extremists plant explosives?

We know they were well backed with money. So, what's to say that the muslim extremists didn't set up a fake company on a total floor of the towers and hire a muslim extremist construction team to plant explosives?

And the conspiracy would be that the government doesn't want us to know how easy it is to rig a building when you have the money, will and manpower to do it and there is no way they actually keep us safe.

That's what I think happened.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jfj123
1. 19 nutjob muslim extremists backed by a bunch of other nutjob muslim extremists.
2. Massive incompetence within the US intelligence community. Heh.. Intelligence community-that's a laugh.



Could the muslim extremists plant explosives?

Hypothetically I'm sure they could if they had years of extensive training in large building demolitions.
I'm sure that klingons and romulans could too



We know they were well backed with money. So, what's to say that the muslim extremists didn't set up a fake company on a total floor of the towers and hire a muslim extremist construction team to plant explosives?

And what's to say that The borg didn't send a cube ship back in time through a modified trans-warp conduit, then set up a dummy company and planted nano-quantum explosives to bring down the towers so that future earth would be thrown into turmoil and couldn't defend itself against a borg invasion



And the conspiracy would be that the government doesn't want us to know how easy it is to rig a building when you have the money, will and manpower to do it and there is no way they actually keep us safe.

That's what I think happened.


I prefer the borg hypothesis. It seems more reasonable.

Seriously though, has anyone even contacted a demolitions company and asked what would be required to drop a building the size of the WTC towers? You should contact a company and ask them. Mention how easy you think it would be
Let me know what they say.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I'm slightly confused about all this. If you were going to make what seem like terrorists fly aircraft into buildings then why on earth would you then bother to demolish the buildings through explosives at the same time. It doesn't make any sense. The aircraft fuel exploding on impact, together with the impact would destroy any evidence that it was an inside job that could be in the plane. The building would have to be demolished afterwards anyway, so why take the risk of leaving evidence of explosive residue at the scene to fell the buildings?

As for the original article about this buildings design faults, could that not also possibly indicate that the structure of the building was maybe not as robust as it could have been, and all the vibrations from the collapse of the twin towers, together with debris falling on it took advantage of this?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Seriously though, has anyone even contacted a demolitions company and asked what would be required to drop a building the size of the WTC towers? You should contact a company and ask them. Mention how easy you think it would be
Let me know what they say.


Maybe you could.

Also, you might want to mention the whole plane thing too.

Go ahead and ask them. See if they come up with anything more than zero which is what you believe.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Seriously though, has anyone even contacted a demolitions company and asked what would be required to drop a building the size of the WTC towers? You should contact a company and ask them. Mention how easy you think it would be
Let me know what they say.


Maybe you could.

Also, you might want to mention the whole plane thing too.

Go ahead and ask them. See if they come up with anything more than zero which is what you believe.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Griff]

Why do you think a professional demolitions company would come up with zero if it's really as easy as you say it is? Surely a professional demo company could tell you how easy it might be and re-enforce your hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why do you think a professional demolitions company would come up with zero if it's really as easy as you say it is?


I'm not the one saying that a loss of structural support to 1 story would cause a complete global collapse. That would be you and NIST.

Now, really, who is the one saying "how easy it would be"?


Surely a professional demo company could tell you how easy it might be and re-enforce your hypothesis.


Surely a professional demo company could tell you how hard it might be and cause you to rethink your theory that zero was used?

[edit on 2/6/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Could the muslim extremists plant explosives?

We know they were well backed with money. So, what's to say that the muslim extremists didn't set up a fake company on a total floor of the towers and hire a muslim extremist construction team to plant explosives?

And the conspiracy would be that the government doesn't want us to know how easy it is to rig a building when you have the money, will and manpower to do it and there is no way they actually keep us safe.

That's what I think happened.



Wow.

Why do people think that making their fantasies about 9/11 MORE complicated also makes them more probable.

Why doesn't the simple explanation make sense to the TM?



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join