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.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
911blogger.com...

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience: From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry: World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes: Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

Graham John Inman points out: WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

Paul W. Mason notes: In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

And many more links and quotes besides including some links to the people quoted.

So who I am going to believe, my lying eyes or the trustworthy US govt and it's adjuncts of hegemonic power.




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Many are waking up to the reality that 911 was an inside job; however scary many deem it to be, that the U.S Government and Israel(Mossad) May have been in collusion to commit such an atrocity on the United states and murder 3000 innocent people. So they could justify going to War in the Middle-East.

Its just sickening down with the Government!



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
911blogger.com...

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience: From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry: World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes: Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

Graham John Inman points out: WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

Paul W. Mason notes: In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

And many more links and quotes besides including some links to the people quoted.

So who I am going to believe, my lying eyes or the trustworthy US govt and it's adjuncts of hegemonic power.





www.youtube.com...

now I know to some people Jessie Ventura is crazy and it's all for show but he investigated the 9/11 bs and found that painters had gone into the building and could have put superthermite on the steel thus making it burn at a much higher rate and giving the building the ability to fall so quickly. It's really sick when you start hearing the REAL stories of people who were there and would have NO reason to lie.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Many are waking up to the reality that 911 was an inside job; however scary many deem it to be, that the U.S Government and Israel(Mossad) May have been in collusion to commit such an atrocity on the United states and murder 3000 innocent people. So they could justify going to War in the Middle-East.

Its just sickening down with the Government!


Do you really think they needed to do that just to go to war? Don't you think if they had just dive bombed the Pentagon the US would have went to war? Don't you ever ask yourself why such a huge event? An event that captured the worlds attention. Don't you feel it was bigger than it needed to be? It's as if they wanted to plant a seed that people would not forget.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Because of the Asbestos in the Towers would have costed Billions to fix the problem.
Larry Silverstien the owner of the twin Towers who signed a 99 year lease on the Towers just months before and reworked the insurance for terrorism.

edit on 20-5-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Yes, 9/11 was far bigger than it needed to be to establish a casus belli. Going out on a limb here, perhaps it was terrorists intent on inflicting maximum casualties !



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Another thing that really pisses me off is, ok Obama catching Osama is fantastic and I know alot of people don't believe that but I chose to believe it's truth and he really gains nothing but popularity from having something like that happen. Obama is not a horrible president and he's not the best but if we are going to talk in terms of holy sheet man what a horrible pres we have to look at George Bush! He is the ring leader of the big top 3 ring circus when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. everyone knows there was no plane found at the pentagon, and no building just collapses when it isn't hit like WTC 7 did. and 2 HUGE sky scrapping buildings don't fall strait down within seconds --if anything they would teeter a little bit possibly dropping the top half but not starting at the bottom!!!

Also, NO COCKPIT BOXES FOUND. BULLLLLLL SHEEEEEET What the frack! We just found the box in the middle of the Atlantic from a Brazilian crash and they claim the the most unbreakable box just incinerated from the WTC fires and from the pentagon?! PLEASE. It screams inside job and the ones that suffer are the blue collar hard working people who made America great. What a middle finger to them 9/11 has been. The truth will never come out of the governments lips because they benefit too much from oil and every other reason they did 9/11 for. Sick!



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Yes, 9/11 was far bigger than it needed to be to establish a casus belli. Going out on a limb here, perhaps it was terrorists intent on inflicting maximum casualties !



Then wouldnt you attack at say mid-day and not early morning?
Would you really attack a reinforced building like the pentagon to attain max casualties?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
these engineers are spouting the same naive arguments that have been torn to shreads right here on ATS.. amazing.. the first two are subtle opinions, but Brookman, Inman and Mason obviously do not have all of the facts, and have also more obviously ignored the witnesses..

It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire...

WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building...

collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed...

these guys are definitely not up to speed on all the nuances recently discussed..



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
perhaps it was terrorists intent on inflicting maximum casualties !



Indeed, their times of day in NY was spot on for maximum office worker casualties, whilst over at the Pentagon they decide to hit the flank that was having work undertaken, involving outstanding and highly dangerous flying skills, rather than opt for the much easier to hit and more chance of killing people centre of building option



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Because of the Asbestos in the Towers would have costed Billions to fix the problem.
Larry Silverstien the owner of the twin Towers who signed a 99 year lease on the Towers just months before and reworked the insurance for terrorism.

edit on 20-5-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


If you are going to take over the lease of a building, wouldn't you get it checked out before hand?
And if you saw it was riddled with asbestos, wouldn't you getting an evaluation on the cost to fix it before you actually acquired the lease?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NNEECE
 



For someone who is so certain that 9/11 was an " inside job " it seems a bit odd that you evidently don't even know that AA 77's flight data recorder was recovered from the Pentagon and has been fully decoded. The last seconds only recently :-

journalof911studies.com...



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SatoriTheory

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Many are waking up to the reality that 911 was an inside job; however scary many deem it to be, that the U.S Government and Israel(Mossad) May have been in collusion to commit such an atrocity on the United states and murder 3000 innocent people. So they could justify going to War in the Middle-East.

Its just sickening down with the Government!

Do you really think they needed to do that just to go to war? Don't you think if they had just dive bombed the Pentagon the US would have went to war? Don't you ever ask yourself why such a huge event? An event that captured the worlds attention. Don't you feel it was bigger than it needed to be? It's as if they wanted to plant a seed that people would not forget.

What happened is what happened and yes, the twin towers needed to be destroyed to make the global psy-op complete.

What if and why this and that, is an inane argument not based in reality, since that's not what happened, get it?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SatoriTheory

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Yes, 9/11 was far bigger than it needed to be to establish a casus belli. Going out on a limb here, perhaps it was terrorists intent on inflicting maximum casualties !



Then wouldnt you attack at say mid-day and not early morning?
Would you really attack a reinforced building like the pentagon to attain max casualties?


The attacks on the towers were not particularly early. 8.46 am and 9.03. Is that not within the normal working day in New York ? If the attacks had been at mid-day perhaps you would be suggesting that they were so timed that a lot of people were out to lunch.

I don't think the attack on the Pentagon was intended to kill as many as possible but because of its significance as Defense HQ.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SatoriTheory

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Because of the Asbestos in the Towers would have costed Billions to fix the problem.
Larry Silverstien the owner of the twin Towers who signed a 99 year lease on the Towers just months before and reworked the insurance for terrorism.

edit on 20-5-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


If you are going to take over the lease of a building, wouldn't you get it checked out before hand?
And if you saw it was riddled with asbestos, wouldn't you getting an evaluation on the cost to fix it before you actually acquired the lease?

There you go again, same thing again. MAYBE... he knew something and didn't care, understanding how much he'd make off the insurance. 10-20 million down, for 2 billion in return on destruction, not bad profit for signing onto a lease agreement..! But alas, now I'm doing the idiotic what if this and and that routine, and why didn't this happen or that happen instead..


+3 more 
posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
these engineers are spouting the same naive arguments that have been torn to shreads right here on ATS.. amazing.. the first two are subtle opinions, but Brookman, Inman and Mason obviously do not have all of the facts, and have also more obviously ignored the witnesses..


Are you quoting someone else with the pink or what? I've never even seen you post on the 9/11 forums here. And I missed where the free-fall acceleration or anything else you mention has been "torn to shreads."



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by Alfie1
perhaps it was terrorists intent on inflicting maximum casualties !



Indeed, their times of day in NY was spot on for maximum office worker casualties, whilst over at the Pentagon they decide to hit the flank that was having work undertaken, involving outstanding and highly dangerous flying skills, rather than opt for the much easier to hit and more chance of killing people centre of building option


I don't think the terrorist pilot was overly concerned about " highly dangerous flying " do you ?

You suggest he should have aimed to hit the " centre of the building " ? You do realise the Pentagon is like a doughnut with an open centre ?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Setting aside building 7, the twin towers were torn to shreds from top to bottom to within about 3 seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air for any freely dropped object from the same height. Try counting as fast as you can or clapping your hands together as fast as possible, to 94 (north tower) - in THREE SECONIDS and you get the picture as to the utter absurdity of the official story regarding the destruction of the twin towers.


edit on 20-5-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
What happened is what happened and yes, the twin towers needed to be destroyed to make the global psy-op complete.

What if and why this and that, is an inane argument not based in reality, since that's not what happened, get it?


But, what if they were destroyed not for war reasons, but for a different reason? No one seems to question whether there could be another reason they were brought down. Could there be some other reason as to why we have had 911 shoved down our throats for the past 10 years?

It is in no way an inane argument, because you dont know what happened. That is the whole point of getting the investigation reopened, to find out what did happen and why.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


He flew the Boeing exceptionally well (allegedly) for a guy who could bare fly a cessna..




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join