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.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Not to belittle the subject nor the lists of professional (of various flavors) but the only list that would really say something truly concrete would be a list of professional demolitions experts that have years of experience imploding large skyscrapers.
New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal 1 and are reprinted below. Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." 2 His assertion of the official line in the second article is not backed up by any explanation or analysis.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ...
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
Let's not forget:
Dennis L. Lippert
Architect
Wait ....
His personal statement:
Oh? Classic? Freefall? Not really. 3.25 seconds in free fall I believe.
Please proved the scientific analysis of the molten material witnessed.
Not many, I would assume. My "crap" however is honest and well researched. I use facts. Truthers should do the same.
I will accept them... when they present them with sound science and have them peer reviewed.
Have you noticed not a one of them have?
The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.
Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal].
Originally posted by SurefireII
I for one am a building inspector for the largest company in the world kown as BECHTEL. And after 15+ years of construction experience not in some classroom with all my adoring fans ( aka students to dumb to perceive the world in their own light), I can assure you that the buildings did not come down to fast. Case in point, I highly recommend you look up or atleast view what is known as concrete field testing, also known as Concrete break tests. Also, one fact that i find truly amazing is that these alleged experts claim that the fire burnt off the fire proofing within the buildings, only problem is, the buildings construction were completed in the 70's, but not only did fire proofing not become a recognized practice, but the inspections for such procedures didnt begin till 1981. So how is an alleged practice let alone material get used on not one but two buildings when the ICC/ICBO didnt recognize it as an official practice till 1981?
Nice try jack wagon, you truthers make me laugh, always far reaching~
Originally posted by SurefireII
The FACT that all these alleged experts are all either professors or some other type of book worm. Which by the way have had no real time experience in construction let alone any time in the field.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Did you pick him at random?
Because when I randomly pulled out a few AE911 members most were kitchen designers or interior decorators. Several were unemployed, including one whose only building design had been a temporary shed made out of hay bales.
Originally posted by cayrichard
The easiest way to attack those who defend the government story is to ask why bldg. 7 which was not hit by a plane failed in a classic freefall collapse. .
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Originally posted by mnemeth1
An example of just one engineer's backstory:
John Edward Anderson
Let's not forget:
Dennis L. Lippert
Architect
Specialty:
I specialize in log and log integrated architecture.
I started out as a stained glass artist and went back to school and finished my architecture degree. I apprenticed in San Francisco, and moved back to my home town, Missoula. I still do stained glass in my spare time.
Wait ....
His personal statement:
Personal 9/11 Statement:
The way the buildings collapsed was more like a planned implosion rather than an impact such as a jet airliner.
www2.ae911truth.org...
Um... WHAT??