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: 14
46
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 


I don't understand why you are combining the two unrelated scenarios?

Other than to troll bait. As such, good day and good bye.


Um you made those statements my friend, not me

They are related to the EXACT same subject.

Looks like you got caught making conflicting statements and now you are going in to hiding. Well good luck with reality avoidance




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Question;
If it would have been so easy for a crew to work unnoticed for a period of time, what would have prevented the terrorists from placing the charges in the buildings?

Why do we automatically jump to the conclusion that it was the government who did so?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Looks like you got caught making conflicting statements and now you are going in to hiding. Well good luck with reality avoidance




Show me the conflict and I may respond.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Question;
If it would have been so easy for a crew to work unnoticed for a period of time, what would have prevented the terrorists from placing the charges in the buildings?

Why do we automatically jump to the conclusion that it was the government who did so?


This has been my contention all along.

But some refuse to accept this possibility even though there is no proof either way as no one did any testing for residues.

Let's see: Practically everyone in the area reports explosions. Reporters on scene report secondary explosions. But, the logical thing is to get rid of all the steel before an investigation can be accomplished? Yeah, that sounds logical to me.

And please jf and Seymour, don't give me the "but...but...steel was saved". That's horse kaka and you know it. Especially when WTC 7 is concerned.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So 1 page back, you were thinking a "TEAM" of "MUSLIM EXTREMISTS" were responsible.

Now you're saying that non-muslims must have rigged the buildings.

So which is it? Are you wrong in this post or the other one? OOPS
Your bad???

And once again, big difference between 1 person and an entire team of muslim extremists.


I see what your problem is now. The lack of understanding of the words possibly and maybe etc. I love it when my speculations become "but a year ago, you claimed this and you claimed that".

Please. Both you and Seymour are so transparent with this tactic, it isn't even laughable anymore.

For the record:

The first speculation was if the muslim extremist terrorists planted devices.

The second speculation was Rocky and his cousin (both being of middle eastern descent) were in the building doing who knows what and no one reported anything of the sort. Just an example of the OP.

Neither are related other than to show that it is possible for middle eastern men to go unnoticed in the towers in the weeks before 9/11.

You are the one who is wanting to combine the two to set up a strawman to be burnt down.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So a building was built, completed and occupied and it had fatal structural flaws...hmmm.

I wonder if the WTC's had a similar problem which brought them down after the plane impacts and fires????


I responded to a similar question in another post. I have overseen the design of over 1000 buildings in the last 10 years and have seen countless examples of erectors taking short cuts in the construction process to same time and money. I have no doubt that the structural integrity of the World trade center was diminished by such short cuts.

Using the wrong bolts, the wrong type of welding rods, improper thickness or length of welds are common problems that inspectors are suppose to catch. however, given the corruption and "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality. I would not be surprised at all if many of these inspections were falsified, or just not done.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Please. Both you and Seymour are so transparent with this tactic, it isn't even laughable anymore.



So what's wrong with asking for clarification?

It's a fact that not too long ago, you said that it was possible that if thermite was placed on the bracing floor beams below the impact floors, that this would make it easier to buckle columns. Then you said with just that the global collapse was possible/probable.

But NOW you seem to be argueing AGAINST global collapse if the columns buckle.

So why shouldn't someone call you on this?

Do you understand why WE might think that this is just a tactic? Namely, switch your argument as the subject suits? It seems pretty transparent to me that this is the case, and that the claims of revisiting your position on these issues resulted in changing your mind is pretty transparent too. Cuz when pushed for a reason, you either can't give a the reason WHY you changed your mind - just that you did - or leave the thread.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

The first speculation

The second speculation



Yep.

This is the best evidence that the TM has.

Speculation.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Not only that, but the WTC Towers were under the authority of the Port Authority of NY and NJ as opposed to either NY or NJ individually, so legally I don't even know if they would be subject to NY or NJ's building codes.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The reason you can get away with this sort of thing is quite simple.

Humans are under the impression that they cannot be deceived.

Just look how many "holier than thou" people reply in this thread alone. They have no idea what they are talking about, no experience of the incident, but apparently, they already know that there was nothing untoward goin on.

Reason is, as I was saying, apparently these people cannot be deceived. They ESPECIALLY cannot be deceived by their own race. They may admit to being deceived by people of another race/country/ideology, but that's because people who are different are inherently evil and practise deceiving all day long. Unlike politicians and TV reporters ..... especially if they are from the homeland. Only politicians and TV reporters from foreign countries deceive ...

And as long as most people continue to believe this, conspirators can continue getting away with their conspiracies. Maybe when the next attack comes, a few more people will question it as they did/are 911.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It's a fact that not too long ago, you said that it was possible that if thermite was placed on the bracing floor beams below the impact floors, that this would make it easier to buckle columns. Then you said with just that the global collapse was possible/probable.


Just because I believe something is possible or probable doesn't necessarily mean that is what I think actually happened. Ever look up supposition? Maybe you should.

Although, there would be less supposition on my part had there actually been a real investigation to begin with. Now, we are just left with questions.


But NOW you seem to be argueing AGAINST global collapse if the columns buckle.


When was I arguing against it?

All I said was that you, jf, and NIST believe that one floor's worth of support failing would do it. Guess what. So do I. But, even though you guys are convinced that one floor's worth of support failing would do it, you still come with the questions of "how much to rig the entire towers", "how could a team rig the entire towers", etc. etc. I'm just showing your logical error.

And I just can't see it happening the way you guys do.

For one, how does bowing floors pull in columns when those columns were designed for hurricane winds? Where's NIST's math on this? Have they calculated how much force the bowing floors exerted? Have they compared that point load to the uniform load of wind in a hurricane? Which has more force? A bowing floor or hurricane wind? I'll let you think about that for a while.

Edit: If it is in the NIST report and I have missed it, please let me know where it is. I admit to not reading all 10,000 pages.


Do you understand why WE might think that this is just a tactic? Namely, switch your argument as the subject suits? It seems pretty transparent to me that this is the case, and that the claims of revisiting your position on these issues resulted in changing your mind is pretty transparent too. Cuz when pushed for a reason, you either can't give a the reason WHY you changed your mind - just that you did - or leave the thread.


I wasn't aware that my suppositions were held in such high regard by you that you take notes on what I say.


Life and obtaining one comes to mind.

jfj commented earlier that the Klingons could have done it. Are we now to believe that this is his theory on collapse? Please. It is a tactic and you know it Seymour.

[edit on 2/8/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

The first speculation

The second speculation



Yep.

This is the best evidence that the TM has.

Speculation.


When did I ever present it as "evidence"? You are getting desperate Seymour.

The speculation part was when I speculated why Rocky and his cousin were there.

The only evidence I presented it as was when I tried to show you two some sense and show you that there are at least 2 known Middle Eastern men that were walking around the towers performing maintenance the weeks before the towers fell and no one remembers who or what they were doing.

Edited out the [edits] because they get in the way of the body of the text.

[edit on 2/8/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Looks like you got caught making conflicting statements and now you are going in to hiding. Well good luck with reality avoidance




Show me the conflict and I may respond.


OK
This was posted first


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.


Your response

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.

This tells us 2 things
1. You are suggesting that the workers were fanatical muslims.
2. You are also saying that you currently do not believe the workers were Americans.

Now let's go to another post


Originally posted by jfj123
Again big difference between one person and an entire crew of people. Unless of course you think 1 person rigged all 3 buildings all by himself? or maybe with the help of a cousin?



Maybe that wasn't their job? Maybe their job was to make sure the elevators became in-operable? Or the sprinklers?

Point is: It's an example of middle eastern looking men having access to the towers and no one remembers them. You can argue with it all you want, but there it is.

OK now you're saying that the workmen that rigged the building for demo, were not fanatical muslims.

My point is, you've changed your hypothesis after only one page. Surely based on this complete 180, we must be able to assume you are doing nothing but guessing without the benefit of any evidence. Completely pointless speculation like this only fuels the people who think "truthers" are mentally ill.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
And please jf and Seymour, don't give me the "but...but...steel was saved". That's horse kaka and you know it. Especially when WTC 7 is concerned.


Well according to the NIST, they did save steel for their investigation.
What evidence do you have to suggest this is not true? This seems a reasonable question since you've made an accusation.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The reason you can get away with this sort of thing is quite simple.

Humans are under the impression that they cannot be deceived.

Just look how many "holier than thou" people reply in this thread alone. They have no idea what they are talking about, no experience of the incident, but apparently, they already know that there was nothing untoward goin on.

Reason is, as I was saying, apparently these people cannot be deceived. They ESPECIALLY cannot be deceived by their own race. They may admit to being deceived by people of another race/country/ideology, but that's because people who are different are inherently evil and practise deceiving all day long. Unlike politicians and TV reporters ..... especially if they are from the homeland. Only politicians and TV reporters from foreign countries deceive ...

And as long as most people continue to believe this, conspirators can continue getting away with their conspiracies. Maybe when the next attack comes, a few more people will question it as they did/are 911.


The interesting thing is that your argument goes both ways. I could say that truthers are being deceived by their own paranoia.

Most people will believe in something once evidence is presented. Of course there's always those holdouts who have dug in and cannot change their minds because it's more important to their ego to have their way, then to have the correct information.

That's why I've included the following in my avatar
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth then lies"



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well according to the NIST, they did save steel for their investigation.
What evidence do you have to suggest this is not true? This seems a reasonable question since you've made an accusation.


NIST did not save ANY WTC 7 steel.

NIST got to view and save



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This is completely different than running miles of wire throughout an entire building



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

I noticed you completely ignored my previous post.
You asked me to show you where you made your mistake and I showed you yet you pretend like it never happened.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I just note the thread title which suggests 'almost unkown', not completely unknown. If there was any preparation work for bringing down buildings a heck of a lot of people would know about it in varying degrees of detail. Where are they and why have none come forward, even anonymously?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Griff
 

I noticed you completely ignored my previous post.
You asked me to show you where you made your mistake and I showed you yet you pretend like it never happened.



I ignored it because I still don't see any contradiction. The two scenarios are not related. Only you want to make them so. Not me.

And since this thread isn't about any proof or evidence, only to show that things can happen without notice, I am free to speculate all I want.




new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join