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.

 

AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I don't know what "all glass removed" has to do with demolitions, but you still haven't shown another explanation for the jets of dust/debris shown in the collage I keep posting. We're still waiting...


video.google.co.uk...

Use a bit of COMMON sense glass removed on demoltion jobs so members of the public dont get hit by it. SEE VIDEO above

How many things in that building could/would have been crushed by the forces of the floors collapsing on it I can think of a couple can you?


In fact look at your own pictures!

The two tower blocks being demolished which are a fraction of the size of the WTC buildings have more plumes than the trade buildings funny that!!
[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
All the serious architects will head over to the hotel bar while this presentation is going on.

It's been what now? 8 years, and a new administration is now running things? You still think that there is anything to this, and that the new administration would not be crying foul if there was truth to this stuff? You all made your money on books and videos, but the topic is going nowhere. Time to move on and get on with life.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Oh and by the way Bonez and the others IF you look at the video I linked the collapse started then the plumes you claim are explosives it usually the other way!

Not really. No two demolitions are the same. With the right timing and delays, demo companies can do anything they want with a building. They can make a building fall anyway they like, how they like, control the level of vibration, control the level of noise, control the way the debris falls. All with the right timing and delays.

The demolition of the WTC towers wasn't a standard demolition, and of course wouldn't be a normal or standard demolition if they were trying to blame the buildings collapsing on fires.

But I don't understand why you can't comprehend that even the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc., the worlds largest and most experienced demo company (presumed), said that it's a miracle the twin towers "officially" fell from fires and in a way that only well placed explosives have ever accomplished in history before 9/11.

And CDI isn't the only demo company that had someone comment the same way. A Dutch demo company owner had also said that at least WTC7 also looked like a controlled demolition.

So we have 3 WTC buildings fall exactly like controlled demolitions would make them fall, we have the plumes that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions ejecting all over both towers from detonated explosives, and at least 2 demo experts saying as such, and evidence of an incendiary in the WTC dust. I don't know what more a half-intelligent human from this reality could possibly need.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
It's been what now? 8 years, and a new administration is now running things? You still think that there is anything to this, and that the new administration would not be crying foul if there was truth to this stuff?


You keep telling yourself this, waiting for somebody else to settle the question for you, and I promise we'll all still be here trying to pound the same information into stubborn heads for 8 more years.

How many years after Copernicus died did it take for people to realize he was right? Many, many years. The Catholic Church only in modern times admitted it was wrong and Galileo, etc. were right. Everyone else had already "moved on" by the time they had the intestinal fortitude to admit such a huge blunder. It's stubborn people like yourself that are always falling behind and waiting for somebody else to do the work, to think for them, that cause it to take so damn long to get through to people in the first place. The other trouble is you think you already know the answer, when you don't, and so you don't really even think about anything any of us say.

You can blame yourself, basically, for waiting around for your own arrogance to subside while everyone else is continually "moving on" in greater and greater numbers. Not that the numbers themselves have anything to do with it, like YOU would think, but I'm starting to repeat myself. No, sorry, I've been doing it for years now.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Use a bit of COMMON sense glass removed on demoltion jobs so members of the public dont get hit by it.

You better go do some research on controlled demolition before you say such things. I don't wanna have to post some videos of demo jobs where the windows are still in the building. Before I post those videos and make you look like an unresearched *blank*, I'll give you a chance to go do some research and come back and correct yourself. I've been researching controlled demolition for several years and you will not out-smart me in that subject.



Originally posted by wmd_2008
How many things in that building could/would have been crushed by the forces of the floors collapsing on it I can think of a couple can you?

You're still making things up to explain away the plumes, but you have nothing that's provable and repeatable. Plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of explosives, period. Please show us some building collapse videos that are not demo'd that have plumes and we can debate that topic. Otherwise, you are still saying "blah blah blah".



Originally posted by wmd_2008
In fact look at your own pictures!
The two tower blocks being demolished which are a fraction of the size of the WTC buildings have more plumes than the trade buildings funny that!!

Funny that you didn't tell the whole truth. Those two apartment buildings are much smaller and therefore the plumes are much closer together and fewer. Second, again no two demolitions are the same. Third, there's only 3 plumes in those apartment towers. There were probably a dozen or more per tower at the WTC and you'd know this if you were researched.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You here to contribute to the thread, or just do a drive-by attack? Maybe it's YOU that needs to move on and stay out of this part of the forum if you'd rather attack instead of contribute. Bye Bye now.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Lets see read the paragraph again you will understand what i meant ,in brief south tower hit lower down greater mass above impact point and falls before the north tower, although north tower struck well before the south ,both towers start to collapse just above impact points you can see on the video.

1600 that dont believe what you say QUALIFIED structural engineers v 640 what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say!

MY background 30 yrs in construction industry structural steelwork draughtsman when I left school did civil engineering at college now test and give advice to architects & engineers on structural fixings.


Considering your claimed background, and the posts you've made recently, I hope to God that you arent working on any building that my family, friends, or I will ever be in.

Arguing with you on this matter is as pointless as your posts. Please take your business to another thread.


You cant argue with me so you resort to a personal attack against me WELL mate no building I have work on has fell down how many cock ups and friendly fire incidents has YOUR army been involved in! QUITE A FEW!!

This is supposed to be a discussion forum you put your point of view I am puting mine forward! You have no background in construction I have no background re the army etc.

When we have people on here making statements like
A reinforced concrete building would not collapse like that. Which is true because it was mainly structural steelwork!!

Then someone said all the concrete in the building was crushed to tiny particles. WRONG they seem to forget there was a s**t load of gyroc (you call it sheet rock) in the buildings which also account for a LOT of the dust!!!

Just a couple of examples plenty more on here!


How about instead of claiming to have all the answers, you post some proof of all the BS you are throwing up here? I don't have to argue with you, nor do I have to be versed in architecture. The guys at AE have absolute proof in their research, and that is where I'm getting all my information from. How much money have you made on this thread so far?

Nothing you say is legitimate. Not a single thing. You have no quotes/links/proof that anything you post is viable. I really don't understand why you still bother to post in this thread. You haven't contributed a single thing, just nonsense and unsubstantiated claims.

Isnt there a forum rule that prevents this kind of crap from happening? Aimless arguments starting with posters who just throw disinformation all over the place?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Man you are easily wound up WHAT HAVE YOU given to the thread what knowlege do you have?

640 HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF dont THINK as thousands upon thousands CHOOSE to ignore what they say!.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Also if you look closely at the collapse videos you will see the FLOORS above impact point on both buildings drop as one unit!!
Look closely at the videos of the south tower collapse you will see what i MEAN
Look at this video 2:30 or from 3:24 shows it best as 40,000+ tons drops!

www.youtube.com...

The tower could not withstand that dynamic load!


I hope you understand that you are claiming something that the NIST disputes. So you are coming up with your own failure mode? That the entire top of the building acted as one unified mass? Just saying...you're all alone on that one right now.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Man you are easily wound up WHAT HAVE YOU given to the thread what knowlege do you have?

640 HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF dont THINK as thousands upon thousands CHOOSE to ignore what they say!.


Where are these thousands? Do you have the ability to back up anything you say? I noticed that you ignore that question every time.

The point of this thread was to inform of the AE 9/11 Truth 2009 presentation. If you disagree with the facts that are in that presentation, then state why you disagree. If you are going to troll in here and make claims that we are all wrong and you and your 'thousands and thousands' are right, then have the decency to PROVE your claims.

I've already looked at a bunch of your other posts, and for the most part, every post you make is in an attempt to ridicule the purpose of the thread. If its about Niburu, you go in a laugh and say its a lie, its fake, whatever. If its about artifacts on the moon, you do the same. Some of your posts have even been blocked by Mods for being off topic.

Obviously you have a pattern of going into threads to start arguments. Take that BS somewhere else, or are you really that bored?

Back up your claims with evidence or proof. If you can't do that, dont bother to post.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Lets see read the paragraph again you will understand what i meant ,in brief south tower hit lower down greater mass above impact point and falls before the north tower, although north tower struck well before the south ,both towers start to collapse just above impact points you can see on the video.

1600 that dont believe what you say QUALIFIED structural engineers v 640 what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say!



Okay, i'm going to take you at your word that you actually talked to every single one of the 1600 engineers and asked them "do you believe the NIST report?" and they all answered yes.

Did you happen to ask any of the 1600 engineers you surveyed whether a single one of them had actually read the report? Because I don't believe they have. Seriously, I don't believe a qualified, licensed engineer could read it and say - yep, looks good to me!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Re your plumes how many have you COUNTED on WTC videos!

It will be pretty hard to find a video of a building collapse that was not a demolition job! EXCEPT FOR WTC OF COURSE!

Also it has never been claimed that the steel was melted by the fires well apart from you guys saying so.

HAVE A LOOK HERE

forthardknox.com...

and the video here pay close attention to the fire and what happens to the tree

www.youtube.com...

Have to get up for work in 5 hrs
its been fun!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
640 HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF dont THINK as thousands upon thousands CHOOSE to ignore what they say!.

And you keep saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH" and not backing yourself up with names or links or anything to support all that you have said. I can't count how many times I've asked you to give us some proof and you just keep typing your meaningless words on the screen.

Put up or shut up.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Seriously, what argument ON EARTH do you think geocentrists had when faced with heliocentricity, except "No one believes that! Just ask anybody! Duhhhh!"

Give me one good argument they had going for them, except for that nonsense that you are also spouting here.


Whatever argument they used, though it obviously wasn't logic, it kept them in firm denial for decades. So please, for the sake of humanity, consider what "logic" you are using here.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



I have done seminars to engineers/architects etc on a regular basis and quite often you will have 10-15 from a practice I often show them a picture of a swimming pool collapse that happened a few years ago, chlorine from the water caused stress cracking in stainless steel.
All swimming pools or road tunnels should use grade 1.4529 stainless its resistant to chlorine and traffic fumes
Anyway once they see that they often mention WTC and the daft theories about demolition so far none of the engineers I am involved with say what you say.

Swimming pool Uster Switzerland 200ton CONCRETE roof fell and killed 12 people and injured 40 others! see pic in link

www.doyouknow.dk...

Next time you are at a pool check the fixings on ladders and flumes see how many are rusty?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Anyway once they see that they often mention WTC and the daft theories about demolition so far none of the engineers I am involved with say what you say.




Excuse me...what "do I say"? You said they don't say what I say, what do I say? That the NIST report is wrong? Did you ask them if they read it? Do they say it's correct? The only thing I'm saying here is that the NIST report is for crap....so is that what you are referring to when you say "what I say"???



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You keep telling yourself this, waiting for somebody else to settle the question for you, and I promise we'll all still be here trying to pound the same information into stubborn heads for 8 more years.


Well lets see, I worked on 757 and 767’s, you aren’t going to pound anything into my head, as unlike most Truthers, I have personal experience with the subject matter. Despite this fact, let me ask you, does pounding away in said manner work for organizations like the Jehovah Witnesses, or does it make people shut them out, and give them a bad reputation, because they are an annoyance?

Most folks have made up their minds one way or the other on this topic, what makes you think that anything short of a full government disclosure is going to change that?

Maybe the movement should be called the Truth Movement Cult, as at this point, since its becoming a religion for some folks.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Well lets see, I worked on 757 and 767’s


Oh, woah, woah. My bad, man, I didn't know...



unlike most Truthers, I have personal experience with the subject matter.


We were talking about airplanes now?

The only thing I am becoming increasingly sure of, is that no one around here even knows what the word "logic" means.

I asked you, what defense do you think geocentrists used when faced with heliocentricity? It is a FACT that millions of people denied the obvious daily movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets for decades. Not because it is impossible to tell by looking at the sky, but because.... well, that's what I'm trying to get at.. What "logic" do you think kept people in the dark for so long, seriously? It's the same "logic" you keep using man.

If you're going to prove something, you have to prove it, not just talk it to death.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I fought for years in the original thread on this topic, and the truthers would hear none of the aviation-based knowledge by any of the actual people with experience on the topic. There is no point in rehashing any of it because this has become a religion, based on people’s faith at this point.

My original point was that it’s stupid to try to invade an Architecture conference with this kind of silliness. People are there to learn facts, new procedures, and to relax, not to engage in a conspiracy theory based on someone’s personal opinion. If I had been there, it would have been time to hit the bar when this stuff came up.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Well lets see, I worked on 757 and 767’s, you aren’t going to pound anything into my head, as unlike most Truthers, I have personal experience with the subject matter. Despite this fact, let me ask you, does pounding away in said manner work for organizations like the Jehovah Witnesses, or does it make people shut them out, and give them a bad reputation, because they are an annoyance?


If some one were arguing the damage to the airplane this would be relevant. I don't see anyone doing that, so it's not.



Most folks have made up their minds one way or the other on this topic, what makes you think that anything short of a full government disclosure is going to change that?


Do you see what you just said?

So, hypothetically speaking, if the U.S. government told the citizens something that was untrue and the citizens believed it, but there was evidence to the contrary that emerged, no one should be discussing it unless the government decides to come clean on the issue?

Are you serious?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join