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.

 

Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

page: 21
154
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 





What is assinine is the assumption that an airplane is going to fell a structure over 1000 times more massive by flying into it. The buildings were also made of tougher stuff. Building: steel and concrete. Airplane: predominately aluminum.


More illustration of ignorance. Fire a little bitty magnum round into an engine block and you can destroy the engine. Do some checking into the angle clips that attached the trusses to the vertical supports.


More illustration of faulty logic. A bullet can destroy an engine therefore fire destroyed the twin towers and bldg 7. Aren't you the one who faulted me for making assinine comparissons?

Your engine block analogy would be more accurate that if after the bullet destroyed the engine the car would catch fire and in about 1 hr later the care would suddenly dissolve into a pile of unrecognizable rubble and a cloud of dust.



Do you even bother to read your own posts? You mentioned that it was assinine that an airplane could destroy a much larger building. I pointed out that a little bitty round could destroy an engine. THEN you come back with the "a bullet can destroy on engine therefore fire destroyed the twin towers and bldg 7" I said NO such thing. I pointed out that a small object, with enough velocity can destroy a much larger object.

Then this....

"Your engine block analogy would be more accurate that if after the bullet destroyed the engine the car would catch fire and in about 1 hr later the care would suddenly dissolve into a pile of unrecognizable rubble and a cloud of dust."

Again a failure of comprehension. I did not say anything about the engine catching fire, I said the bullet would destroy the much larger engine. Sorry if I used too complicated a comparison.

I must point out that NONE of the three buildings dissolved into a "pile of unrecognizable rubble and cloud of dust" Nor was what happened to them "sudden" NYPD helicopter pilots were reporting that the buildings were looking like they were in danger of at least a partial collapse well in advance of the actual collapses. WTC 7, the same, FDNY was saying all afternoon that they thought 7 was going to collapse.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 





Riddle me this. Why are we not being told that fires can bring down these skyscrapers? If so, why are skyscrapers still being erected? It would seem the risk to human life is tremendous and only balanced against monetary gain


Are you involved with a firm that designs/constructs/owns skyscrapers? If you were, and were claiming that you didnt know fire could kill a building, then I would respectfully suggest that you change careers. The danger of fires in skyscrapers has been around ever since they started building tall buildings. Look up the quote from Herbert Levine (creater of spray on asbestos fire proofing) when he was told that they were going to stop using his (or one based on hiss) product while they were building the Towers.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by randyvs
 


You are wrong. It does not matter how thick the steel is. The heat excites the atoms in the steel. It does not need to melt. It does not matter how thick the steel is. You go on talking about something that you do not even know about. This is a stupid conversation to have. Learn about how heat affects the atomic structure of steel.


I started working on commercial buildings in 1982 as an ironworker. I think hang'in iron for almost 30yrs.
Connecting, bolting up, rigging and using a torch on this stuff everyday. Most likely even you can see how a person would just come to know what will and won't happen concerning a steel structure. Do you think the fire weakened those vertical columns all the way down? Do you understand that there were forty seven verticle columns running from the ground to the top floor? In each of the towers? Those same columns are a part of those buildings to prevent exactly what you see happen in the videos. Although you sure can't tell when you watch the demo. The columns are non existent as far as I can tell. Why? They were compromised is the only answer. You can't just randomly heat maybe a small percentage of those columns throughout a few floors and have the effect.


edit on 26-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I mean, you assume I haven't "served my country" because of my "candor"? Do you even understand what you're writing, because it doesn't ake any objective sense.


Mine was not an assumption, more of an observation; call it an educated guess. In the end, you know that it's correct.


No, it's literally an assumption. And it's not correct anyway. You should look up the definition of hypocrisy, because accusing someone of doing something, and then immediately doing the same thing yourself falls under it.

Answer me this. Why did Rumsfeld announce the 2.3 trillion missing? Why didn't he just not mention it? It makes no sense to own up to something and then rely on another event to draw attention away from it when you can simply not bother mentioning it at all.

Imagine the meeting. Rummy sits the NWo and PNAC boys down. "You know all that cash we've stolen and hived off from the Pentagon over the last thirty years, and used for black ops?"

"Yeah." Some of them high five.

"I'm going to announce that it's missing."

Everybody laughs. But it does down when they realise he's serious.

"But Donald. Donny..."

"No wait, I'm also going to organise a terroist event to cover it up. We'll shoot a missile into the Pentagon, blow up the twin towers, do another plane just for the hell of it. Everyone's going to crap themselves and forget all about the trillions that I mention the day before."

"But.. I mean don't get me wrong, it's a great idea..."

"It is, isn't it?"

"But... Uh... couldn't you just, sort of, not mention the missing money?"

"What?"

"Just not say anything about it. And we could spend some of the presumably huge budget just sweeping it under the carpet."

Long silence.

"Nah, I'm doing the terrorist thing. I prefer it."



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Answer me this. Why did Rumsfeld announce the 2.3 trillion missing?


I haven't checked but I'd bet it was picked up by accounts and congress etc were aware..
Rummy couldn't not say something..It was his section after all...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Answer me this. Why did Rumsfeld announce the 2.3 trillion missing?


I haven't checked but I'd bet it was picked up by accounts and congress etc were aware..
Rummy couldn't not say something..It was his section after all...


Of course he didn't have to say anything on 9/10. He had already referred to it back in June/July 2001 and the figure of $2.3 trillion had been bandied about long before he took office.

He was hoping to get credit for sorting the financial mess out and perhaps making a bid for no cut in his budget.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



He was hoping to get credit for sorting the financial mess out and perhaps making a bid for no cut in his budget.


Now that's just a BS assumption..
Stick to facts...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



He was hoping to get credit for sorting the financial mess out and perhaps making a bid for no cut in his budget.


Now that's just a BS assumption..
Stick to facts...



I said " perhaps " did I not ? but the rest was factual. Can I not use "perhaps" here where so much lunacy is portrayed as " fact ".



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



He was hoping to get credit for sorting the financial mess out and perhaps making a bid for no cut in his budget.


You STATED the first part..
The "perhaps" merely referred to "no cut" in his budget...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



He was hoping to get credit for sorting the financial mess out and perhaps making a bid for no cut in his budget.


You STATED the first part..
The "perhaps" merely referred to "no cut" in his budget...



I stick by my interpretation. Rumsfeld referred to the $2.3 trillion on 9/10, as he had back in June and July, to indicate that he was a new broom in the DoD and he was going to sort out the archaic financial systems which had led to this situation over many years.

But this is a far cry from your suggestion that he was under some compulsion to talk about it on 9/10. Have you got any evidence for that ? even an itsy witsy little bit ?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Well, I sense the zillionth thread about 9/11 being an inside job is nearing it's natural conclusion, again without having an effect on the implacable skeptics, but for those who continue to believe that the WTC towers could've been brought down by damage from jet impact OR fire, I offer a 30-second clip of WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini discussing the fact that the towers were specifically designed and constructed so that MULTIPLE impacts from a 707 (similar in size, weight and fuel capacity to a 767) would not cause them to fail:




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
There's only two realistic solutions for the events of 9/11/
1. The American government knew what what Al Qaeda was plotting but failed to stop it even thoug countries around the world warned the USA it was going to happen...
2. The American government planned and implemented the events of 9/11 and the manipulated the media into believing that a sick arab had conducted the attacks from a cave! A sick arab who just happened to be on the CIA's payroll...
Where there's smoke there's fire..!



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I offer a 30-second clip of WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini discussing the fact that the towers were specifically designed and constructed


Except that he had nothing at all to do with the design and construction of the WTC's, so his opinion is as invalid as anyone elses.

As has been explained here many times before.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I offer a 30-second clip of WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini discussing the fact that the towers were specifically designed and constructed


Except that he had nothing at all to do with the design and construction of the WTC's, so his opinion is as invalid as anyone elses.

As has been explained here many times before.


Hmmm, so we should not believe in relativity anymore because Einstein is dead??
That's one of the silliest comments I've seen Dereks..
Just because he didn't design or build the WTC doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about..



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer
 





yet did NOT do its job because ALUMINUM was able to penetrate into so many rings ---made of steel and concrete. The building seems to have COMPLETELY FAILED in that an aluminum 757 acted more like a BUNKER BUSTER.


ONE wall of Limestone, brick, kelvar and steel. ONE. The other walls were drywall, studs...things you normally find interior walls made of.

Then you address the "lack of wreckage" There wasnt a lack of wreckage, what there is, is a lack of public photographs of wreckage. There are PLENTY of witness accounts about what was found. Oh wait, I forgot, they are all in on it.....

The Pentagon is constructed of more than ONE wall of limestone, brick, kevlar and steel. More than one. Each ring of the Pentagon is like a self-standing structure. To think that each interior ring is only made of drywall and studs is completely ridiculous. I have personally walked through the Pentagon. Do you know what it's like to do that, have you been there?

A large, wide, expansive hallway in the Pentagon is like walking through a MUSEUM meets an AIRPORT CONCOURSE. These halls give the feeling of walking through a dungeon, at times, --a strong dungeon adorned with bright, vivid museum-quality displays, from models, dioramas, paintings, relics and weapons. It's like the military-industrial-complex version of Hogwarts. Never once will you get the impression that if you leaned too hard on a wall would your arm penetrate through DRY WALL.

Each and every ring of the Pentagon is comprised of steel and concrete. The Pentagon was not built by lazy architects scheming to save money by making it mainly out of studs and drywall. The Pentagon is one of the sturdiest buildings ever constructed, created for and meant to survive WAR. Ever hear of SUPPORT COLUMNS? These are not made of drywall and studs. Support columns are usually made steel-reinforced concrete. I'm sure there are vatiations, but suffice it to say that support columns are EXTREMELY strong (because they hold the building up). The Pentagon has countless support columns. In fact, one of the images provided earlier in this thread ILLUSTRATES HOW MANY support columns there were at the impact site. The assertion that an aluminum plane penetrated so DEEP into the Pentagon because it's made like a Hollywood movie set is completely ABSURD. You certainly wouldn't be on a team of contractors I'd ever hire to renovate my house. Wow.

LACK OF WRECKAGE: Yes. There is a lack of wreckage. Photographs show the impact site immediately outside the Pentagon. There is a LACK OF WRECKAGE. Do you think that official photographs of the impact site actually show more wreckage? In fact, the photographs of the impact site are mainly official. There are not two sets of photographs, some showing wreckage, some showing a lack of it. The photos showing a lack of wreckage SHOW A LACK OF WRECKAGE. Period. I hope you aren't a paid disinformation agent because you really aren't earning your bacon. You do, however, have the caliber of someone with a great future in NASA. Just kidding; please don't take those last two statements personally; I was just being flippant. But, seriously, you can't have it both ways. The photographs SHOW AN UTTER LACK OF WRECKAGE. Even if you're from Missouri, the "SHOW ME" state, there is enough visual evidence to 100% without a doubt prove that there is a lack of wreckage from a supposed 757 impact.




edit on 27-2-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

At this point, it's worthless to even quote you, as you have descended into a weird kind of elaborate screenplay complete with fabricated dialogue. You KNOW that the educated guess is correct. I will leave it at that.

As far as everything else goes, we still have the FACTS:

1. September 10th, 2001, SECDEF Rumsfeld announces that 2.3 trillion dollars is unaccounted-for in defense (Pentago) spending.
2. September 11th, 2001, a section of the Pentagon is destroyed, killing many people; these people were accountants and bookkeepers, these records (soft and hard) were of budgets and Pentagon/DoD spending.
3. All footage of alleged impact was confiscated. Never released. Still classified to this day, except for one released bit which shows absolutely NOTHING to prove what actually hit the Pentagon.
4. The OS states that an aluminum jet-liner (757) penetrated deep into the Pentagon's 5 rings constructed of steel and concrete.
5. A visually demonstrated LACK OF 757 WRECKAGE is painfully apparent.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


And the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Your point is? History is filled with examples of projects that do not live up to their designers boasts.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


On the first two floors of the outer three rings, they are not separated. So, where the impact occured, you had ONE outer wall, the interior walls and then the outer wall that opened into the area between the third and forth ring.




Each and every ring of the Pentagon is comprised of steel and concrete. The Pentagon was not built by lazy architects scheming to save money by making it mainly out of studs and drywall. The Pentagon is one of the sturdiest buildings ever constructed, created for and meant to survive WAR. Ever hear of SUPPORT COLUMNS? These are not made of drywall and studs. Support columns are usually made steel-reinforced concrete. I'm sure there are vatiations, but suffice it to say that support columns are EXTREMELY strong (because they hold the building up). The Pentagon has countless support columns. In fact, one of the images provided earlier in this thread ILLUSTRATES HOW MANY support columns there were at the impact site. The assertion that an aluminum plane penetrated so DEEP into the Pentagon because it's made like a Hollywood movie set is completely ABSURD.


Umm, you need to read the book "The Pentagon" by Steve Vogel. The cleanup crews clearing the wreckage after Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon found that during the original (and hasty) wartime construction, bricklayers would sometimes have two or three rows of brick with NO mortar between them. The outer wall was not nearly as strong as you think it was.

Then you bring up the support columns. Yes there were steel reinforced support columns. However, your post was discussing the walls. To which I pointed out that you had the outer wall and since the three outer rings were NOT separate on the first two floors, all you had was interior walls (which were not concrete/brick/steel) until you reached the outer wall of the third ring. So,no, Flight 77 was not intact as it traveled through the bottom floors, it was coming apart from the time it penetrated the outer wall of the outer ring until pieces of it pushed through the wall of the third ring.

The truly absurd part would be the continuing belief that the Pentagon was some super strong, heavily armored, heavily defended building.
edit on 27-2-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 





There are not two sets of photographs, some showing wreckage, some showing a lack of it. The photos showing a lack of wreckage SHOW A LACK OF WRECKAGE


No, there is one official set of photographs comprised of ones released to the public and ones NOT released to the public. And the ones released to the public show plenty of wreckage.....mostly little bitty pieces.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 


And the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Your point is? History is filled with examples of projects that do not live up to their designers boasts.


Here's a post from one of your guys...FDNY343


You think a warehouse is the same as a bomb-resistant building?


Defend that or call them stupid...
Either way someone looses credibility...




top topics



 
154
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join