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.

 

WTC7 Flashes - Pics Inside

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Would you give me sources to Richard Gage's peer reviewed papers since 9/11 please ?



His entire website is is a peer reviewed publication. It has been reviewed by expert peers who sign his petition and agree with his ideas.

source:www.ae911truth.org...

and hit has been reviewed by expert peers who debunk his his ideas.

globalbrief.ca...
globalbrief.ca...




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Would you give me sources to Richard Gage's peer reviewed papers since 9/11 please ?




His entire website is a peer reviewed publication.

It's been reviewed by expert peers who agree with his theories. as can be seen and read on the petition page.

It's also been reviewed by expert peers who disagree with his theories.

Source:
globalbrief.ca...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Would you give me sources to Richard Gage's peer reviewed papers since 9/11 please ?




His entire website is a peer reviewed publication.

It's been reviewed by expert peers who agree with his theories. as can be seen and read on the petition page.

It's also been reviewed by expert peers who disagree with his theories.

Source:
globalbrief.ca...


To describe his website as a peer reviewed publication is quite a stretch. Fact is that Richard Gage is a former architect, with no experience of high-rise buildings, who now makes his living from trutherism and is considered by many to be a bufoon for obvious reasons :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
To describe his website as a peer reviewed publication is quite a stretch. Fact is that Richard Gage is a former architect, with no experience of high-rise buildings, who now makes his living from trutherism and is considered by many to be a bufoon for obvious reasons :-

www.youtube.com...



He is someone who knows more about creating a building that a lot of people (because is or was an architect) who thinks it's a possiblity that the WTC were demolished using explosives and other experts agree with him.

Please realise people that if you are a truther or a debunker THERE ARE EXPERTS THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I want to find a college that did an independant study like MIT or perdu did that supports truther theories. Both studies support debunker theories.

Source:www.purdue.edu...

source: web.mit.edu...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

To describe his website as a peer reviewed publication is quite a stretch. Fact is that Richard Gage is a former architect, with no experience of high-rise buildings, who now makes his living from trutherism and is considered by many to be a bufoon for obvious reasons :-

www.youtube.com...



He is someone who knows more about creating a building that a lot of people (because is or was an architect) who thinks it's a possiblity that the WTC were demolished using explosives and other experts agree with him.

Please realise people that if you are a truther or a debunker THERE ARE EXPERTS THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I want to find a college that did an independant study like MIT or perdu did that supports truther theories. Both studies support debunker theories.

Source:www.purdue.edu...

source: web.mit.edu...


I think, with respect, you are looking for the unattainable i.e a large body of expert opinion that supports trutherism and it doesn't exist. You have one or two mavericks like Richard Gage and Steven Jones who are making a living out of trutherism, so it is difficult to know what they really believe, and members of, say, AE 911 T to which you have referred. The latter has many retired members, electrical engineers, landscape engineers etc so it is difficult to know how many really have a relevant voice but it cannot be more than a few hundred, if that.

What is beyond dispute however, is that NIST had a formidable array of highly qualified people involved in their reports, many of them independent of government, and that the American Society of Civil Engineers, some 120.000 plus strong, are fully supportive. I think it is also reasonable to infer support from structural engineers around the world who are patently not distancing themselves from NIST's findings.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc


Yet again I have to ask the question (again) do you have an expert source or is is the statement "truthers have failed to publish a single peer reviewed paper in almost 9 years that supports their theory" 100% your un-expert opinion?



You want me to prove there isn't any peer reviewed papers? Prove a negative? It will be much easier to provide us with a paper that has gone through the peer reviewed process.

You can start here:
www.asce.org...

www.asme.org...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Must confess i've seen much better images than those shown here and as you all know air presure coursed by the colapsing floors can go down ten floors, around corners to blow out windows and any talk about taking the least path of resistance is total rubbish else it would had gone out through the floor that was colapsing according to the offical story.

You see according to the pancake theory we didn't have any air presure in the floors else it would act like a massive airbag and slow the colapse down and yet we know it came down at near free fail speed.

Seems like the official story wants to have it both ways

Where is that no-planer from the disinfo department when you want him



Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by turbofan
 



I wish all demo teams used those silent explosives that they must have used on 9/11. Seems all other CD's have those large blasts, that even show up on seismic monitors.


That's why I want to have unified theories so that one can be invesitgated. If you believe the WTC towers were demolished then what type of explosives or thermite do you believe were used?


The use of the world ' thermite' would sugest you answered your own question.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

His entire website is is a peer reviewed publication.



Ok, it's gotta be said.

I'm calling Poe's law here.

rationalwiki.com...'s_Law



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Ok after watching it enough times to burn my retnas out, I see only one random "flash" which occurrs AFTER the building is already collapsing. And it seems to come from a window that is just being broken or popped out. I see no series of flashes, I see no corresponding flashes in any other floors. The other "flash" occurs well AFTER the building has fallen away.

let me guess, magic transphasic explosives?
Out of phase with our reality and therefore they failed to detonate in our plane of existance, therefore the detonated just out sequence with our reality phase? Or was it a floating bomb? Just hanging around in mid air?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hooper
 


Well MR ENGINEER publish your own report and findings, which any engineer can do.

Since your EXPERTISE is way beyond what is needed you say to make the case, why don't you show us the ability you say you poses in explosive demolitions, with a history of destroying 245 buildings and bridges, it shouldn't take long to put together such a paper, heck you should have it all in memory!

Ohh yes make sure to include some citations and facts in your report also.

Till then I still have you listed in my ZERO CREDIABILITY arena.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your paper.


Publish a paper saying what? Whats the thesis? That 9/11 was not a CD? They already have - it was published by the NIST. To date not one professional review of the the findings.

But if you insist, here is my paper:

There is no factual evidence of explosives or any other mechanisms, devices or methods being employed on 9/11 to demolish any buildings involved in the terrorist acts of that date other than the effects of the fire and impact as was caused by the intentional direction of commercial aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The End.


Peer review to you heart's content. There has been nothing presented that would refute my findings.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hooper
 


Well MR ENGINEER publish your own report and findings, which any engineer can do.

Since your EXPERTISE is way beyond what is needed you say to make the case, why don't you show us the ability you say you poses in explosive demolitions, with a history of destroying 245 buildings and bridges, it shouldn't take long to put together such a paper, heck you should have it all in memory!

Ohh yes make sure to include some citations and facts in your report also.

Till then I still have you listed in my ZERO CREDIABILITY arena.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your paper.


Publish a paper saying what? Whats the thesis? That 9/11 was not a CD? They already have - it was published by the NIST. To date not one professional review of the the findings.

But if you insist, here is my paper:

There is no factual evidence of explosives or any other mechanisms, devices or methods being employed on 9/11 to demolish any buildings involved in the terrorist acts of that date other than the effects of the fire and impact as was caused by the intentional direction of commercial aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The End.


Peer review to you heart's content. There has been nothing presented that would refute my findings.



you forgot MIT and Perdue

www.purdue.edu...

web.mit.edu...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


I don't claim to be an expert. I have the experience that I have and it informs me accordingly. I could prove some of my experience here but that would mean releasing personal information, which isnt' going to happen under any circumstance.

I have seen, up close and personal, as it were, the means and methods required to prepare and execute a demolition using explosives. Even a small project takes a lot of prep and a lot of precaution let alone something the size of WTC 1, 2 and 7. The idea that it was done unbeknownst to anyone in the building is utterly nonsensical. The more exotic explanations such as thermite, thermate, nukes, etc. are, at best, science fiction and not even good science fiction at that.

The fact that all these videos, etc. have been out there for almost a decade now and nobody of any consequence has ever questioned the established facts about the collapse and damage is more than sufficient proof that there is no other reasonable, let alone proven, explanation for the events of 9/11 relative to the building collapse sequence and causes.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



For an engineer with 245 building and Bridge demolitions under your belt and all you can come up with is the same cook book reply from a script?

Wow.

Same old posts with no new input.





[edit on 17-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



I don't claim to be an expert. I have the experience that I have and it informs me accordingly. I could prove some of my experience here but that would mean releasing personal information, which isnt' going to happen under any circumstance.



Here is were you lie! You do claim to be an expert! HERE is the post with your claims!

That's so funny. I was a project engineer that oversaw the demolition of 245 bridges and buildings. I've been around more blasting then you've seen youtube videos. Everything from bridge abutments, grain elevators and cast shots for excavation and tunnels. That's why I find these claims of CD on 9/11 so hilarious.


That is your post saying you have MORE THAN EXPERIENCE! 245 Building and bridge demolitions ohh but today your not an expert.

Stop pulling is slight of hand with me Hooper you are a farse.

I am getting real sick and tired of you purposefully lying here on ATS.

HOOPER again you can't deny your posting history.

I caught you saying one day your an expert and now your not agian!!

HOOOPER YOUR LYING ISN'T APPRECIATED.

You have zero cerdiablity, you obviously have no experience since if you did you would had to LIE!

All the debunkers have on their side is LIES! The proof is right here!





[edit on 17-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
All the bickering and name calling distracts from the main point:

No one with even a smattering of intelligence could possibly believe that all of the massive supports under Bldg. 7 gave way at the same moment due to isolated fires well above that level....impossible.

To ask thinking people to accept a coincidence is an insult. The laws of physics do nicely, thank you very much, and we do not need to hear silly distractions that have nothing to do with the facts.

Fact: Bldg. 7 exhibited all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and none of the characteristics of a collapse due to fire weakening the understructure. Buildings NEVER seek the path of greatest resistance, as in this case, UNLESS it is intentional. Coincidence? Not in the real world.

There is no debate about whether or not 7 was imploded...the questions is; Who were the main perps, and when will we ever get a real investigation? Anyone who still defends the official story is unworthy of reply and they cannot convince...they can only try and obfuscate and twist and wiggle. We won. now on to getting justice.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hooper
 



All the debunkers have on their side is LIES! The proof is right here!



[edit on 17-5-2010 by theability]


Is the independant investigation about the WTC collapse done by MIT a lie?

web.mit.edu...
John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT


Is the independant investigation about the WTC collapse done by perdue a lie?
Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and director of Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
civil engineering assistant professor Ayhan Irfanoglu
civil engineering assistant professor Santiago Puiol
civil engineering doctoral student Oscar Ardila
civil engineering doctoral student Ingo Brachmann
www.purdue.edu...
www.pbs.org...



What about the popular mechanics article?

www.popularmechanics.com...




What about the northwestern investigation?
Gene corley Vice president construction technology laboratories
ronald strum senior petrographer
charles thornton engineer
paul mlakar concrete tech division US corps of engineers
www.civil.northwestern.edu...


Teams of people at seperate colleges like perdue, MIT, and northwestern give support to the debunkers theories. So to say that all the debunkers have on their side is lies is, in itself, a lie when I am able to present three seperate colleges about the WTC collapses.


Three sources that are not from www.debunking911conspiracy.com.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich We won. now on to getting justice.


I'm sorry, but on what level can you possibly imagine that you "won"? A vanishingly small minority of the US public agree with your ideas. With every year that passes the Truth movement loses momentum. An investigation, let alone some sort of reckoning, is nowhere near.

If that's victory I'd be interested in your definition of defeat.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 



Here is were you lie! You do claim to be an expert! HERE is the post with your claims!

That's so funny. I was a project engineer that oversaw the demolition of 245 bridges and buildings. I've been around more blasting then you've seen youtube videos. Everything from bridge abutments, grain elevators and cast shots for excavation and tunnels. That's why I find these claims of CD on 9/11 so hilarious.


Please run a word search on that statement an find where I used the word "expert". And you call me a liar. I described my experience and advised you how it informs my viewpoint. The matter of the fact is all the so-called "truth seekers" have nothing to inform their opinions but their own personal agendas.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan
 


So, again, exactly what was the one thing being blasted on the upper floors of the building as the building decended?

And this is assume there actually is a flash scene in the video, which I personally don't see.


And the "perps" managed to get only 2.3 seconds of "free-fall" out of that?

Gosh.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join