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: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Merely pointing out to you that this wasn't hard to find. In fact, it was the first one in the Google search.

Which shows just how thorough and comprehensive your search for truth is.


Googling information from the CDC and then presenting it as an incorruptible authority has nothing to do with "truth."



This?:


Yep. the building collapses.


Problem is, that simulation has nothing to do with reality.

Did you actually look at that image for any length of time?




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you can't post what I ask for then just "sack up and just say you don't want to answer."


I can answer just fine.

But you need to answer what amount of evidence and corroboration will convince you that something has been proven.


How about, you show me everything you've got?

Take your best shot at it.

Can you do that?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

According to NIST it would be the same decibel level as a jackhammer. And have you proven that any of the reported or recorded explosions were any quieter than that? No. So you are arguing from ignorance once again.



Wow.

So I provide a report that shows just how prevalent barotrauma is in a bona fide explosion. This not due to it being just "loud".

Reread - this time for comprehension - the definition of just what barotrauma actually is.

Again, you're welcome....



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Wow.

So I provide a report that shows just how prevalent barotrauma is in a bona fide explosion. This not due to it being just "loud".


You also have nothing to suggest the devices used would have been the same.


Reread - this time for comprehension - the definition of just what barotrauma actually is.


I am not confusing what barotrauma is. I was responding to what you said about NIST trying to address the issue.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Googling information from the CDC and then presenting it as an incorruptible authority has nothing to do with "truth."


But it has absolutely everything to do with exposing your ignorance of the fact that this report is readily available, right?



Did you actually look at that image for any length of time?


Yes.

It looks like a building that is in the middle of collapsing.

What does it look like to you?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
For those blaming the governement...

It is more likely that huge financial interest and likely some infiltration by such into the intelligence industry would be the culprits. I certainly do not believe that terrorists were the cause and as well do not believe that WTC 7 just happened to fall.

Inside Job...and considering something of this scale one pretty much has to follow the money for the main motivation...especially since trillions of dollars were 'lost' as reported a day earlier and much more was subsequently given to military contractors.

Inside Job...but from where inside?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How about, you show me everything you've got?

Take your best shot at it.

Can you do that?


Sure.

NIST has proven to every professional whose opinion is worth listening to - and they agree with their own independent evaluations in many cases - that plane impacts and fire, or just fire in WTC 7, is enough to cause a global collapse.

And that there is zero need, nor any indication of, explosives bringing down the towers/7.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Sure.

NIST has proven to every professional whose opinion is worth listening to - and they agree with their own independent evaluations in many cases - that plane impacts and fire, or just fire in WTC 7, is enough to cause a global collapse.

And that there is zero need, nor any indication of, explosives bringing down the towers/7.


I meant I wanted to see how they actually proved this.

Not some appeal to authority and veiled insults.


You are just proving my point though. You have no actual proof, it's all just pretend for you.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

especially since trillions of dollars were 'lost' as reported a day earlier



Wow.

You don't exactly do much research, do you?

Shameful for a forum moderator.

This accounting discrepancy was reported IIRC more than a year prior to 9/11.

And after 9/11, the accounting was cleared up and all of this money was properly accounted for.

Nothing was lost.

Nothing was pilfered.

Nothing was put into a slush fund.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by MemoryShock
especially since trillions of dollars were 'lost' as reported a day earlier


Wow.

You don't exactly do much research, do you?





Would you like anything else with that crow?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I meant I wanted to see how they actually proved this.



Then you should read the NIST report and the independent studies and the independent peer reviewed papers and the views of professional organizations such as the CTBUH on the matter.

Your opinion about whether or not they proved anything is useless and fit only for mockery and derision.


You have no actual proof, it's all just pretend for you.


No, I'm serious.

Your opinions and the opinions of those that do not have the training, expertise, nor experience means nothing.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
I meant I wanted to see how they actually proved this.


Then you should read the NIST report and the independent studies and the independent peer reviewed papers and the views of professional organizations such as the CTBUH on the matter.


I have, and not even NIST claims to have proven why the Twin Towers collapsed.

You are still very confused about this but of course project all of your confusion onto others.

I'd still like to see where you think they proved anything in their report, but I only expect a continuation of your endless, substanceless rhetoric. Will you please prove me wrong?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Would you like anything else with that crow?


In addition to the 9/10 news conference, it was also reported on 03/03/00 in the Associated Press of these issues.

This is old debunked claptrap.

hv.greenspun.com...

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

And to drive home the point to all those that choose to learn : linky is dead

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11.

I'd still like to see where you think they proved anything in their report



Like I said, they have proven that plane impacts anf fire was responsiblle.

Your lack of training on these matters, plus your apparent distrust of anything gubmint produced - like a CDC report - prohibits you from recognizing that.

That is your problem, not mine.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like anything else with that crow?


In addition to the 9/10 news conference, it was also reported on 03/03/00 in the Associated Press of these issues.

This is old debunked claptrap.


Sorry, but you are not actually debunking that Rumsfeld said this on 9/10. The video above proves that he did. You thought you were debunking something but what was being referred to, did actually happen.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11.
I'd still like to see where you think they proved anything in their report


Like I said, they have proven that plane impacts anf fire was responsiblle.


Yeah, yeah, I know you said that, but NIST didn't.

I also asked you where NIST proved this in their reports, and that part of your response was crickets and tumbleweeds.

You can insult my education/intelligence all you want, and that part just makes you at as a hypocrite at best. I am asking to see the actual proof. Do you know what that means?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Like I said, they have proven that plane impacts anf fire was responsiblle.


No they haven't, they created an hypothesis. Which means they put forth an hypothetical explanation for the collapses. That is an assumption, not proof.

It is perfectly logical for other hypothesis's to be examined until proof is actually found.

Quit trying to pretend you have proof. Both sides of the argument are hypothesis's with varying degrees of logic.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


He is correctly pointing out that there was never 2.3 trillion dollars in cash missing and that it was in no way, shape or form connected to the events of 9/11. Despite the lunatic ravings of the truther movement.....



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ah yes, the CDC is in on it too. As are all the New York City hospitals who reported NO hearing injuries consistant with close proximity to chemical explosions.

The paranoia grows....



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


LOL...talk about clutching at straws....

I would direct you to research his actual duties for the Commission. I would also direct you to research the type of answer that government employees are expected to give when asked about classified information in a public setting.




top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join