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: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Can you cite any professional demolition stats that show this?


The official story as stated by everyone.


Everything I've ever read requires physical weakening of the entire structure and charge placement from bottom to top.


So how did damage from a plane and ensuing fires do it then?

Would severing one floor's worth of columns (vertical support) not be the exact same scenario as the official story? If not, why not?


we were talking about demolitions charges bringing down the buildings not a fire/impact combination.

My point is that if demolitions require placement on every floor of the building and structural weakening to work, and this was not done, then demolitions can be ruled out.




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienj
OMG< unknown to the public, but not the owners of the building


Construction crews were in and out of the WTC Towers all the time according to a construction worker interviewed on 9/11 (Philip Morelli). All that would have to be accomplished, is contracting the front team to come in and do some sort of service. Look at the sorts of operations the CIA has been involved in in the past, and has now declassified, and tell me they couldn't do something so simple as this.


there was not one job I was on that I wasnt confronted by building occupants and asked "what I was doing?" and then find out the next day building managment was contacted.


I don't know where you live, but we're talking about NYC. A lady can be having a baby on the street and people will keep filing past like nothing is wrong. I'm not even making that up.

Even after a confrontation, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do if you actually have a permit and were properly contracted anyway. So who cares?



you hurt the families of the people that were involved in these tradgedy caused by terroism.


Actually many of them are sore because of how the government handled the aftermath and are demanding re-investigation. I think there is even a formal organization of them by some name or another. No offense but you sound like you need to grow a back bone. You are not seriously offended by what I post, you're just afraid of it.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Would this mean that John O'Neill, who was the head of the FBI's counter terror office and an agent for over 30 years, part of the conspiracy? He was the leading expert on AQ. He was a lead in the USS Cole bombing so he was well aware of a threat of terror including the attack in 93? He took over the FBI field office in NY after the 93 attacks. Are we too believe that he would not have had security tight enough to not allow this or was he in on it?


Great joke.

As at least two other people have already told you, his first and last day of work at the WTC was 9/11. He was killed.

Prior to that, he had just resigned from his position at the FBI because he was frustrated that his superiors were ignoring his warnings. He knew "too much."



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
we were talking about demolitions charges bringing down the buildings not a fire/impact combination.


Those things only caused initiation, according to NIST's "hypothesis" anyway.

Everything after that was allegedly kinetic energy doing the "pile driving." So it really does not matter what sets off the first falling floor considering your theory, that once it's moving, everything else is automatically screwed.

Can you really not understand that? That according to you, after initiation, it took 0 additional help? We don't think that's right, but why in the world do you think it would have to be a massive amount of conventional explosives when you simultaneously think none did the same thing?

You are being a hypocrite, just to argue with us.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
we were talking about demolitions charges bringing down the buildings not a fire/impact combination.


Those things only caused initiation, according to NIST's "hypothesis" anyway.

Everything after that was allegedly kinetic energy doing the "pile driving." So it really does not matter what sets off the first falling floor considering your theory, that once it's moving, everything else is automatically screwed.

Can you really not understand that? That according to you, after initiation, it took 0 additional help? We don't think that's right, but why in the world do you think it would have to be a massive amount of conventional explosives when you simultaneously think none did the same thing?

You are being a hypocrite, just to argue with us.

No I'm arguing against your claim.
People are claiming that demolitions were used on the building and all I'm saying is that based on how demolitions are typically used, this is what would need to be done. One argument has nothing to do with the other.

let's not start calling people names shall we?

And nobody has answered my other question. Why bother wiring the buildings at all? Why not just park big bombs at the base of them?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And nobody has answered my other question. Why bother wiring the buildings at all? Why not just park big bombs at the base of them?


Already tried in 1993. It didn't work.

What, you think the barbarians within the gates didn't learn anything?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Thank you, OP, for making so clear what I have said all along. The average office worker, upon seeing a "maintenance person," would have at best only a vague recollection of said individual a few days later, and virtually all of them dismiss the sighting immediately with no recollection whatsoever.

So when people say that "someone would have noticed" a group going around placing explosives, I beg to differ.

Sure I notice maintenance workers now and then, but I never ask them their business, find out what they are actually doing, or speculate that they might be there for some nefarious purpose.

In fact, on a presumption that they have a valid job to do, I dismiss them from any further thought.

So why we would expect "someone" to make any connection whatsoever is beyond me.

Thanks for putting it so well and keep up the good work!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
we were talking about demolitions charges bringing down the buildings not a fire/impact combination.

My point is that if demolitions require placement on every floor of the building and structural weakening to work, and this was not done, then demolitions can be ruled out.


Let's see:

The official stance is that the columns failed and the top "cap" crashed onto the floors below. This caused the entire building to come cascading down in a shower of concrete dust.

What exactly do you think would be different if just one floor's worth of columns were severed and the top "cap" crashed onto the floors below causing the entire building to come cascading down in a shower of concrete dust?

Please explain what the difference would be exactly.

Edit: Actually, in the second scenario of columns being severed instead of buckling, we would have a higher KE to blast through the rest of the structure. As buckled columns give some resistance, severed ones don't give any.


[edit on 2/2/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Thank you, OP, for making so clear what I have said all along. The average office worker, upon seeing a "maintenance person," would have at best only a vague recollection of said individual a few days later, and virtually all of them dismiss the sighting immediately with no recollection whatsoever.

Of course this is just your opinion. I've experienced the exact opposite. Maybe the reason they remember me is that I'm a special kind of man pretty ?



So when people say that "someone would have noticed" a group going around placing explosives, I beg to differ.

Again, just your opinion. My experience says that you are wrong.


Sure I notice maintenance workers now and then, but I never ask them their business, find out what they are actually doing, or speculate that they might be there for some nefarious purpose.

That's you. Other people do ask questions. Do make phone calls. Do notice.

The reality is that some people notice, some don't and pretending we know for sure, 100% one way or the other that nobody would have noticed them placing the explosives, is pure conjecture which frankly gets us nowhere.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Ok now explain why if you are going to spend weeks or months rigging
a building with explosives then why go out and hijack some planes to crash
into said buildings?

Just blow up the !@#$%^ building!

This is a logical fallacy which violates the Rule of Parsimony, better know
as Occam's Razor (from William of Occam, a medieval monk and logician)
Which states that given theories of apparaently equal validity the
simplest is the best choice

Also explain how said charges where detonated - real demolition experts
use shock tubes, delay elements and det cord, miles of it in fact to
tie everything together to. No such devices were found in the rubble
which was gone over with great care to collect all fragments of tissue
and bone for DNA testing along with personal effects.

Real demolition experts start at the BASE of the building to kick supports
out and allow gravity to do work - not start at top of structure.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jfj123
we were talking about demolitions charges bringing down the buildings not a fire/impact combination.

My point is that if demolitions require placement on every floor of the building and structural weakening to work, and this was not done, then demolitions can be ruled out.



What exactly do you think would be different if just one floor's worth of columns were severed
[edit on 2/2/2009 by Griff]

Just curious but why do you say there was only structural damage on one floor? Which building are you referring to?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by glenn84
reply to post by treemanx
 



Im sorry I have seen those two buildings in person when living in NYC for the first 15 years of my life. There is no way two planes crashing into the buildings would cause enough damage by themselves to take down those two buildings. How do you explain in terms of physics and law of gravity how two very similar aircraft, crashing into different areas of each tower cause two different explosions(the second plane caused a greater explosion on impact.) and that in turn causes both buildings to fall in the same exact manner not toppling over, or the tip of the building falling over but falling perfectly in place as if there was some sort of pocket of air that was holding the structure in that very spot. I am sorry only explosions from the inside would create that pocket, not fires destroying the steel structure of the building. If fires did indeed destroy the steel than you would have seen the tip from the first impact falling over way before it would have spread throughout the entire structure.


People are obviously missing the purpose of my post. I am not trying to defend one theory or the other. All I am saying is that both have valid points, and it is unreasonable to harshly judge someone for feeling one way or the other about it, which is something I noticed was starting at the begining of this thread.

I have my own opinion about it, which is 'to me,' the most reasonable with the information I have about it at this time. I believe that the attacks on 911 were the result of terrorist activity, nothing more. I will believe it was an inside job when there is sufficient incontrovertible proof of it, and not until then. I wont base my opinion on anyones "speculation."

Trying to speculate on exactly how these buildings fell, and why they tipped this way and that way, and why these things didnt happen in a way that fits into your interpretation of the laws of physics, is something you can do with your time, if you want.

Discuss this topic here, thats what ATS is for. But the point of my previous post was to keep people on an even keel, so that this thread didnt evolve into another bash fest, like I've seen here before.

There is a large amount of respect due to this topic, considering how monumentally devastaing this event was to our country. Anyone who is harsh on another poster here, has no idea if the person they are bashing happens to have lost someone on 9/11, or if they just have a sensitivity to it due to empathy for those who did lose a loved one.

My point is, lets remember to have some class, and respect for a subject that is close to alot of Americans hearts.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Ok now explain why if you are going to spend weeks or months rigging
a building with explosives then why go out and hijack some planes to crash
into said buildings?

Just blow up the !@#$%^ building!


It was tried in 1993. The government discovered it didn't work -- the WTC buildings were too strong. First, you gotta have an excuse to evacuate the building.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Here is a direct quote from the NIST

To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (wtc.nist.gov...). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11

www.nist.gov...

My point is that if there were CD, then you must admit that the entire NIST and every other related investigative unit must be involved in the cover up. This would add to a long list of people that must be involved in this supposed conspiracy. A good rule is that the larger the perceived conspiracy, the less likely it is to be real.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Hi,
I'm a newbie,and I'm looking at the video clip of the first
'plane hitting the North Tower.
I had not seen the continuation of this clip before,
just the 'plane hitting the Tower and a little more.
At 1.16 minutes into the clip I can see two fast moving aircraft,
behind one another,(or so it appears)
travelling in the same direction of travel as the car.
can anyone tell me if they are commercial jets,
or air force or whatever.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Thank you, OP, for making so clear what I have said all along. The average office worker, upon seeing a "maintenance person," would have at best only a vague recollection of said individual a few days later, and virtually all of them dismiss the sighting immediately with no recollection whatsoever.

Of course this is just your opinion. I've experienced the exact opposite. Maybe the reason they remember me is that I'm a special kind of man pretty ?


Yeah. My opinion. Based on a lifetime of observation and incidents where I was looking for such a worker and asked if any of the nearby regular workers saw which way the maintenance worker went - to have most of them unaware that there had even been a maintenance worker nearby, and a few saying that they did see a worker but they weren't paying attention and did not see which way he went.

So what if it is my opinion? it is very well considered and based on a substantial amount of observation.



So when people say that "someone would have noticed" a group going around placing explosives, I beg to differ.

Again, just your opinion. My experience says that you are wrong.


Heh. Yup. Our experience differs - at least if we both tell the truth here. So our opinions differ.



Sure I notice maintenance workers now and then, but I never ask them their business, find out what they are actually doing, or speculate that they might be there for some nefarious purpose.

That's you. Other people do ask questions. Do make phone calls. Do notice.


Really? I have worked in a great many office situations, and maintenance people have come and gone. I have NEVER seen anyone take any interest in them. Ever. Never, ever.


The reality is that some people notice, some don't and pretending we know for sure, 100% one way or the other that nobody would have noticed them placing the explosives, is pure conjecture which frankly gets us nowhere.


There is a far cry between noticing and investigating. I'm sure that if you asked all the people who worked in those buildings - those who are still alive to ask - if they remembered any maintenance workers in the months preceding 9/11, some would say "yes."

If you asked them if they were concerned about seeing such workers around, if they were in any way alarmed, I bet NONE would say "yes."

Maybe in retrospect, but not at the time of sighting.

Stating that it is possible that some would have noticed is a muddying tactic. From observational tests, we can establish that expected things garner very little attention unless they are specifically what one is looking for. We can see that office workers expect to see maintenance workers from time to time and since, as a rule, the maintenance workers are not what the office workers are specifically looking for, we can conclude that expecting them to pay any attention to the maintenance workers would be counter to what evidence suggests we should expect.

To go further and expect them to proactively pry into the activities of said maintenance workers is... Rather absurd.

I have seen you working the "cover it up and confuse it" angle for a while now, jfj, and...well, I am losing the supply of "benefit of the doubt" I can afford you in regards to the likelihood you are "working" this board...

Well. I hope I am wrong and you really are one who just can't face reality.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No I'm arguing against your claim.
People are claiming that demolitions were used on the building and all I'm saying is that based on how demolitions are typically used,


Ok, stop right here. How they are typically used? Can you explain why it would have to be typical, if it isn't even going to be legal?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

So when people say that "someone would have noticed" a group going around placing explosives, I beg to differ.



Again, just your opinion. My experience says that you are wrong.



Heh. Yup. Our experience differs - at least if we both tell the truth here. So our opinions differ.

I'm willing to assume you're telling the truth. Are you saying I'm lying? I would like you to be clear so there's no misunderstanding.


Sure I notice maintenance workers now and then, but I never ask them their business, find out what they are actually doing, or speculate that they might be there for some nefarious purpose.



That's you. Other people do ask questions. Do make phone calls. Do notice.



Really? I have worked in a great many office situations, and maintenance people have come and gone. I have NEVER seen anyone take any interest in them. Ever. Never, ever.

Really? NEVER, EVER??? Interesting. I am the maintenance/remodeling guy you're referring to, and I field questions MOST of the time.


The reality is that some people notice, some don't and pretending we know for sure, 100% one way or the other that nobody would have noticed them placing the explosives, is pure conjecture which frankly gets us nowhere.



If you asked them if they were concerned about seeing such workers around, if they were in any way alarmed, I bet NONE would say "yes."

Ask them, then get back to me. Until you do, you're only guessing based on your own personal observational skills.


Stating that it is possible that some would have noticed is a muddying tactic.

Not at all. You're making a guess that people wouldn't notice. I'm making a guess that they would. Your guess isn't any more valid then mine except to you.


From observational tests, we can establish that expected things garner very little attention unless they are specifically what one is looking for. We can see that office workers expect to see maintenance workers from time to time and since, as a rule, the maintenance workers are not what the office workers are specifically looking for, we can conclude that expecting them to pay any attention to the maintenance workers would be counter to what evidence suggests we should expect.

Yet it happens to me all the time. Looks like you can't count on using your "observational tests" to work 100% of the time. As a matter of fact, a few other posters have said the exact same thing as me. So the reality is that your "observational tests" are not 100% reliable.


To go further and expect them to proactively pry into the activities of said maintenance workers is... Rather absurd.

People are nosey. Haven't you ever heard of nosey neighbors? They're not just nosey at home, they bring that noseyness to work.


I have seen you working the "cover it up and confuse it" angle for a while now, jfj, and...well, I am losing the supply of "benefit of the doubt" I can afford you in regards to the likelihood you are "working" this board...

And I've seen you use the conspiracy without evidence angle for quite some time and...well, I am losing the supply of "benefit of the doubt" I can afford you in regards to the likelihood you are "working" this board...

Give me a break. Next you'll accuse me of being a government agent that comes to these threads to debunk important 9/11 "truthers" such as yourself. Well that is when I'm not trying to debunk the reptillian board



Well. I hope I am wrong and you really are one who just can't face reality.

I was thinking the same about you.

I'm a person who looks at facts. I haven't seen any to this point to suggest there was anything more then massive amounts of incompetence within the walls of our government which allowed 19 terrorists to strike on Sept 11, 2001 causing massive amounts of damage. Sorry if you can't handle this but I'm not the wet blanket at your conspiracy party, reality is.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
No I'm arguing against your claim.
People are claiming that demolitions were used on the building and all I'm saying is that based on how demolitions are typically used,


Ok, stop right here. How they are typically used? Can you explain why it would have to be typical, if it isn't even going to be legal?


Typical based on minimum requirements needed to drop a building in it's own footprint. That's what I mean by typical.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Typical based on minimum requirements needed to drop a building in it's own footprint.


Why into its footprint? What was so wrong with them being thrown around in all over the complex? They just tore the whole site down, instead of just the towers, as the only major difference after it was all said and done. (Not to mention that much symmetry, would be a dead give away. It would also be harder to hide the charges on every floor if you didn't throw debris outwards.)

When you set up all these nonsense conditions to be met, that really didn't need to be, it's no wonder you have such problems imaging how easy it would be to do to those buildings, exactly what was done.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join