Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

page: 3
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Oh dear, oh dear.

Can anyone point out the obvious error with mr. Sullivans ID?


If the ID is not faked, then mr. Sullivan himself must clearly have been part of any potential controlled demolitions on 9/11, right?



No, CDI was sub-contracted as part of the clean-up. It's in the main article from the OP.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

I think we're talking past each other. Mr. Sullivan was employed by Controlled Demolition, Inc. which has been run by the Loizeaux family since 1947.

CDI Corporation has nothing to do with controlled demolitions, let alone the Loizeaux family.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


ur right - I edited that last post. my mistake.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Other than the fact that absolutely no steel framed buildings of this type have ever come down due to fire before or since, there is ample evidence that building 7 was a CD.
If it really did collapse due to fire, it would have to have burned for much longer at hotter temps to even be in danger of comming down..
Then it would have fallen asymetrically and there very likely have been parts left standing.
Witnesses testify the building came apart from the bottom up.....
that the lower floors collapsed first and the building came down from the bottom up.
Where are the very large chunks of concrete that would not have broken up into powder dust!
it had to be imploded to produce such a large quatity of convrete dust.
The same goes for the towers....
Considering the other false flags of history.....
pearl harbour, the USS Maddox(gulf of tonkin) the battleship Maine, and other incidents which have preceded military actions by the US, it is entirely possible that the whole thing was a setup!
Remember
The "Official" version is also a CONSPIRACY THEORY!
The goverment has far from proved its case.....Too many unanswered questions remain to make any definitive declaration.
meanwhile the goverment owes the people of afghanistan as well as iraq
and its own US citizens a more comprehensive and reality based investigation conducted by independant investigators......!!!!!
Lies lies lies eat up little children theyre good for you.............
I see absolutely NO SIGNS that the GOVERMNT CONSPIRACY THEORY
could negate the Conspiracy theory of the Truth Movement.
And it is patently obvious that the claims such as cell phones being able to make that many cell connects from an airliner at altitude are plain BS!
Somthing STINKS to high heaven!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


I feel the same way about how the Towers fell - that's why I'm always thankful when experts come forward, like the 1200+ engineering,architectural, and demolition experts from AE911truth.org. I can talk all day but a quote from these guys is more valuable than my opinion any day.

America is the sword of globalization; I hope that before this is all done we end up with some global JUSTICE rather than a bunch of hedonistic, narcissistic "leaders" controlling everything.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Actually, it is up for debate. That is what we are doing here.

As you are an expert and can tell the difference between collapse due to structural failure from fire and a CD, please explain what the collapse would have looked like had the NIST report been correct and how it would have differed from a CD.

So far, no self-described expert has been able to do this and it would seem that this would be important to the concept of CD, given the lack of any physical evidence.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Actually, it is up for debate. That is what we are doing here.

As you are an expert and can tell the difference between collapse due to structural failure from fire and a CD, please explain what the collapse would have looked like had the NIST report been correct and how it would have differed from a CD.

So far, no self-described expert has been able to do this and it would seem that this would be important to the concept of CD, given the lack of any physical evidence.


Due to the height and shape of each of the tower buildings, if these had been "natural collapses" then there would have been a certain (and non-uniform) amount of toppling from one tall, proportionally slender, building structure to the next. Over 90% of each tower was untouched, and yet "global failure" supposedly occurred. This is the smoking gun, even if it is the most obvious piece of evidence.

A percentage of intact topple would have occurred. This is how natural collapses of relatively tall buildings look.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
anyone that thinks it fell by itself in such a technical manner is wacko.... now hush, you ptb people....shove slap, push, bonk! quit that crap, shove poke slap git out the door mutha...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by GenRadek
By the way, I watch cars drive by my house. So that makes me a top expert car mechanic!


Hello,

This is off topic, forgive me.

I couldn't figure out why my car kept pulling to one side whenever I tried to drive straight. Plus it drove really bumpy. Then a nice person pointed to my tire and said it was flat. I put a new tire on it and now it drives just fine. Go figure!


[edit on (6/27/1010 by loveguy]



The joke is they use 2/3000 year old debating and rhetorical techniques I'm sure the one you caught would be called blah blah ad absurdum, just a bunch of ancient tricks to appeal to the gallery.

Desperate attempts to keep opinion under control and deflect memes they don't like while they propagate their own



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by GenRadek
By the way, I watch cars drive by my house. So that makes me a top expert car mechanic!


Hello,

This is off topic, forgive me.

I couldn't figure out why my car kept pulling to one side whenever I tried to drive straight. Plus it drove really bumpy. Then a nice person pointed to my tire and said it was flat. I put a new tire on it and now it drives just fine. Go figure!


[edit on (6/27/1010 by loveguy]



The joke is they use 2/3000 year old debating and rhetorical techniques I'm sure the one you caught would be called blah blah ad absurdum, just a bunch of ancient tricks to appeal to the gallery.

Desperate attempts to keep opinion under control and deflect memes they don't like while they propagate their own


I agree.

I'm pretty sure I'm on their ignore list(s). I noticed they never bother to reply to me. As long as they get followers to star their posts, they will continue to intoxicate the threads with the OS and NIST reports; which are not based on the facts in their entirety. Too many holes exist in "final-report."

The entire 9/11 facts got buried and destroyed, on purpose. The purpose was to keep the secret of the conspiracy a secret. Anyone who has the reasoning to understand that is capable of knowing what wisdom is. And wisdom is his friend...Refer to sentence in this post following first sentence of this reply.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The war criminals will be brought to justice. It won't be next week, or next month, but in a few years the hangman's noose will be around their necks.

Viva Liberty! Viva the Patriots!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I've sort of come to the conclusion that any thread in the 9/11 forum will not be read through (the whole thread) because of the half dozen hard-core "derailers" - which just motivates me to write really precise OPs! As long as people read the first page I'm happy


I had a Pentagon "Absolute Proof" thread that now has over 1200 posts! Crazy, the OSers just keep going on and on LOL, I haven't even read the last 40 pages of it.

Not really on topic, just sharing.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I am against the OS on the matter of 9/11. With that said, I think this is hard to believe for some. But just put all the evidence together and tell me something fishy didn't go on.

I am not saying that the government could have anything to do with it but I mean look at past history.

1) Donald Rumsfeld has been known to cite violence against other nations.
IE. The cold war with Russia. He was hyping up how much weapons development the Russians were working on so the US could spend more on weapons.

2) George H. W. Bush gave the NWO speech on September 11, 1991 - 10 years later, George Bush was in office when 9/11 happened.

3) Project Able Danger should have been followed up by congress. The fact that all the evidence was deleted should have gave you guys in indication. The bigger kick in the pants was how the individuals were told NOT to testify in front of congress.

4) Oil companies needed pipelines in Afghanistan to travel through the north where the taliban reside. When the representative said this:


When the Bush administration came to power, however, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. This last chance occurred at a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001... According to the Pakistani representative at this meeting, Niaz Naik, US representatives, trying to convince the Taliban to share power with US-friendly factions, said: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Naik said that he was told by Americans that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead...before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." The US attack on Afghanistan began, in fact, on October 7, which was as soon as the US military could get ready after 9/11.

5) Two wars were pushed from 9/11. Both were unjustified.

6) Much money made by Halliburton and other private contractors.

I am not saying that the government had anything to do with it, but there was someone on the inside. Inside which organization? We may never know.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





My open question to the truthers is "If the collapse had happened according to NIST, what would it have looked like?" "How would you tell the difference between a NIST collapse and CD?"



NIST created a computer generated program that fails to even come close to how building 7 collapsed. Even if a miracle happened and and it was possible that one magical beam could fail causing a partial collapse. Looked like a Beer Can being partially crushed. Nothing like what happened.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Oh dear, oh dear.

Can anyone point out the obvious error with mr. Sullivans ID?


If the ID is not faked, then mr. Sullivan himself must clearly have been part of any potential controlled demolitions on 9/11, right?



The address is in Stevonsville, MD. That is spelled wrong. Typo? Probably.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





Actually, it is up for debate. That is what we are doing here. As you are an expert and can tell the difference between collapse due to structural failure from fire and a CD, please explain what the collapse would have looked like had the NIST report been correct and how it would have differed from a CD. So far, no self-described expert has been able to do this and it would seem that this would be important to the concept of CD, given the lack of any physical evidence.


At about 41 minutes in this video they start to get into the building 7 issue. They show the NIST computer animation. The NIST computer animation fails to look anything like what actually happened. It doesn't even collapse all the way.

www.ustream.tv...

Now why don't you show everyone an example of a steel frame building coming down like building 7, That isn't a controlled demolition?

So far, no self-described expert has been able to do this.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


A failure low in the building from thermal expansion would be indistinguishable from a failure low in the building due to a quiet demolition. If no weeks of preparation, precuts, cabling, and charge placement occurred, could a few well placed charges have dropped the building in its footprint?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Unfortunately all the attention brought to various experts lately, has all come too little too late to mean anything to all the people who have already decided they know it all. The simple idiots, in other words.

They ask for evidence, but when they realize themselves too ignorant to understand the calculations and methodologies, they start asking for "expert opinions" instead. Then it becomes a simple matter of dismissing one side of the argument and only taking the other side credibly, which is made all the simpler when you were previously ignorant and already decided in your opinion. Simply whoever disagrees with you is wrong, and the proof is the cherry-picked experts, ignoring all others, because they still are too ignorant to understand what the data really shows.

If everyone were to post their ages, I'm fairly confident we would see the most prevalent voices here deriding the "truth movement," are adolescent voices, that have no real world experience in any field related to any part of what happened on 9/11. It is what it is, but these sarcastic, vitriolic kids aren't geniuses, that's for sure.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by roboe
Oh dear, oh dear.

Can anyone point out the obvious error with mr. Sullivans ID?


If the ID is not faked, then mr. Sullivan himself must clearly have been part of any potential controlled demolitions on 9/11, right?



The address is in Stevonsville, MD. That is spelled wrong. Typo? Probably.


Look at the date of the ID being issued by the FDNY.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


A failure low in the building from thermal expansion would be indistinguishable from a failure low in the building due to a quiet demolition. If no weeks of preparation, precuts, cabling, and charge placement occurred, could a few well placed charges have dropped the building in its footprint?


Most of us on ATS are NOT demolition experts, hence the reason for the thread - an EXPERT testimony.






top topics



 
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join