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: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LexiconV
 





Yes I thought it was bloody amazing that the boxes were destroyed (never heard of that occurring before) but they were able to find a bunch of paper passports. Go figure !!! At least 6 of the guys they accused of being terrorists and dying in the explosions are apparently still alive. Go figure !!!


Well, you havent studied enough airliner crashes then. Its not the first, nor will it be the last, time that FDRs are destroyed in a crash or damaged so badly that no information can be recovered. They are not indestructable, merely CRASH RESISTANT.

Paper passports being found.....um, we recovered PAPER notebooks from both Challenger and Columbia. There is ALWAYS paper debris of one form or another at airliner crash sites. Logbooks, inflight magazines, notebooks etc....all depends on their location in the plane and its exposure (or lack thereof) to fire.

Then there is the ever popular, but completely false "they are still alive" crap. Those 6 individuals you are claiming, merely had simliar names. The list published by the FBI at the end of September 2001, have the correct names of the hijackers.....and they've all been dead since 9/11/01.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Its amazing how little you seem to remember about your own posts. I am WELL aware of the Pentagon accounting issues. Much more so than you are.

The issue as normally presented by the "truth" movement is that between January 2001 and September 9, 2001...2.3 trillion dollars (in cash) was stolen. And that on Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfeld announced that it was gone...and then helped wipe out all evidence of the heist the next day.

You, said that maybe it was a "different" 2.3 trillion that was missing...so thats 4.6 trillion missing....according to your post.

And I do not treat it as a "non-issue". I correctly point out that it has NOTHING to do with the events of 9/11/01.

Personally, I think the Pentagon should be turned into what its planned use post WW II was supposed to be.....STORAGE. There are way too many bean counters there whose jobs are to justify their existance and make the rest of us in the DoD lives' miserable.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


You're full of it, you didn't google that search term. Typical debunker reasoning...

You only look until you find something that confirms your prejudice and then whistle a sweet tune (i.e. repeat the same rubbish line over and again without ever checking in with reality).

Take the crane example above: It didn't occur to you at all that a low quality sound recording of steel snapping in the open air is incredibly poor quality data. You haven't looked at all the truther videos where the falling penthouse IS in the video, or the official videos where we would have expected sound is conspicuously edited out? No debunker yet has (to my knowledge) admitted that they were wrong about the ability of thermate to cut steel, or that Bazant used seriously flawed methodology or a myriad other things which they have been shown to be wrong about.

All debunkers have proven is that they care more for their delusions of grandeur than reality.

Do you ever bother to look further than your own noses?

Google the freaking search term! The fact many of the "terrorists" were later found to be alive has been common knowledge for agers, there is no excuse for not even looking.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by GenRadek
 


These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised' end quote - wow, deliberately vague, ultimately it could also mean it can't be accounted for but then you can expect politicians and proxies to misrepresent the truth.

...'$370 billion; and it maintains more than $1 trillion in assets, she remarked.' end quote

With a budget that big and accountancy holes seemingly so huge, it could only be a fool who thinks there was no possibility that some money was diverted to provide funding for an false flag attack. Add to that statistical probability that some working there are high functioning psychopaths or have a criminal inclination.

Peace
edit on 3-6-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)


Can there be misuse of funds in such a bloated bureaucracy? You bet your sweet bippy. Is there waste of money? Hell yes. Does any of that fit with $2.3 trillion being "stolen" and then allegedly being covered up with crashing planes into the buildings? Not a snowball's chance in Hell during the peak of Global Warming.

The point is, there was no instance where Rumsfeld walked up to the big ol safe in the Pentagon, spun the wheel and opened it up, and exclaimed, "OH @*%^#*%!!!!! We got nearly $2 trillion missing over here! Where did it go?? Its been stolen! Quick, hijack a plane with a missile on it and crash it into the Pentagon and WTCs to cover it up!!! Don't ask stupid questions, just do as I say!!"

There is a huge leap going from having trillions of dollars of transactions being stored on multiple devices spread out over a large area, on antiquated systems, which are not compatible with each other, thereby having a hard time keeping track due to the crappy systems, and claiming that $2.3 trillion was stolen from the DoD or whatever, and that 9/11 was used to cover it up somehow. But you see what happened? Those claiming to be for the truth, just twisted the facts and came up with a big old lie that $2.3 trillion was stolen, and Rumsfeld admitted to it. That right there is a big fat honking lie, committed by.............. a TRUTHER. And when other truthers jump aboard it unquestioningly and support it, despite being told and proven trillions of times, that its wrong, it turns me off the truther movement even more, and I cannot even start to take them seriously, especially when such deliberate lies, false assumptions, and more lies is being pushed and supported by some many claiming to be for the "truth".



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Oh look, a demolition with no explosive noises:



Oh and look, here's another:



Interestingly enough, a little digging turned up this little video with slightly better sound quality on the crane collapse cited earlier:



Notice that it doesn't much sound like explosives anymore?

Seriously guys, there is no dishonor in admitting you are wrong from time to time.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 



Hmmm, we have loud reports, coming from a crane that fell apart, that sounded like explosions, loud enough to be picked up on camera.

Second, no one ever doubts the ability of thermate to cut steel. Show me someone who made that claim that thermite cannot cut steel. I say you are poorly informed. However, painting on a thin layer of it is going to do diddly squat to a beam. Also, thermate does not cut horizontally. And how did Bazant use flawed methodology? In fact, I have yet to see one truther take on Bazant's paper and do some serious analysis. What I have seen is nothing more than 2nd grade antics of ridicule and scoffing, including heaps of personal incredulity smothering every "argument". Oh yes, and the terrorists are still alive. Also false.

Well you came in swinging, and missed everytime. Better luck next time!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Oh look, a demolition with no explosive noises:



Oh and look, here's another:



Interestingly enough, a little digging turned up this little video with slightly better sound quality on the crane collapse cited earlier:



Notice that it doesn't much sound like explosives anymore?

Seriously guys, there is no dishonor in admitting you are wrong from time to time.




Hmm what was the common theme of those first two videos? Oh yeah! NON-explosive demolition. Its called verinage. No explosives used, and either cranes with cables remove walls to begin the demolition, or hydraulic equipment to push apart the walls, causing collapse.

Now if you can just direct me to where the cranes were located that pulled the load bearing walls of the WTC7 building, or where they managed to install secretly large hydraulic rams to destroy the building, I'd be very appreciative!

Also the crane collapse, I still hear two distinct BOOMS before collapse. It sure sounded like bombs to me, and to the layperson hearing it, would think the same. By the way, have you ever heard a large steel dumpster being dropped a few feet? Or a large chunk of concrete being dropped into the back of a dump truck? Makes a pretty big "BOOM!!!" sound too.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Oh look, a demolition with no explosive noises:



Oh and look, here's another:




Seriously guys, there is no dishonor in admitting you are wrong from time to time.


You have no idea how funny that is. So now it's time to admit you were wrong.



The fact many of the "terrorists" were later found to be alive has been common knowledge for agers, there is no excuse for not even looking.


Prove it Truther. I've looked and I have found no evidence dated after sept 28 2001saying the hijackers are alive. If you have some PLEASE post it.

The hijackers are dead.

And they're not only merely dead, they're really most sincerely dead.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Uhm, if you will scroll back a little you will see claims from debunkers that explosive sounds are virtually inevitable in building collapses as an explanation for eyewitness statements.

So I link you building collapses with no explosive sounds, and you think it "debunks" me!!??

On what planet. That "explosives" sounds are inevitable was YOUR claim, it is you who got debunked.

Look at the higher quality video of the crane collapse and compare the sound to the lower quality you linked and explosions. The higher quality sounds nothing like an explosion, in fact it sounds just like what I would expect snapping steel to sound like. I have no doubt if a high quality sound recording existed the sounds would be unmistakably different even to someone with such poor aural faculties as you guys display.

Low quality sound recordings are not good evidence of anything, there are simply too many variables.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: clarify



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 




Your second video, I hear at least three loud slams as the building collapsed. Then its just the sound of the building collapsing. In fact, its pretty darn noisy and sounds like kabooms as its collapsing. Didnt you notice that?

Obviously these buildings were more concrete and much more different than WTC7.

In regards to the crane collapse, how can you tell the difference between the steel snapping and an "explosion"? I've heard car accidents that sounded like a bomb went off. IN fact a lot of times when people talk about a crash, they say it sounded like a bomb. Be it a pane crash, car crash or a train derailment. Or in this case, a building collapsing.

Also I ask you, what got Craig Bartmer's attention to the WTC7 when it started collapsing?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Oh so now suddenly you hear loud slams, I suppose you think that could be mistaken for explosions too?

You guys will never cease to amaze me.

I think I enjoy this debate just because it is truly amazing to me how deeply people can delude themselves.

Look: No-one (at least not me) is denying that there MAY have been some noises which MAY have sounded like explosions. But to suggest that this is an explanation for anything is beyond ludicrous.

At best one can say that the he may have been mistaken or not and add it to the maybe pile. The fact of the matter is that HE heard something HE thought was explosives, and that most people can readily distinguish the sounds when pressed.

(I am reminded of listening to gunshots in the middle of the night in Johannesburg, you know it when you hear it. It is not just "some loud noise" like a car backfiring, which is common in a large metropolis. My suspicion at the time was confirmed by sirens shortly after of course. Indeed, think of the sound of a distant car wreck, it is not loud, but you know it when you hear it, and even if it is soft it doesn't sound anything like anything else)

There are sound (*ahem*) reasons why things sound just the way they sound and not like other things, and also why recording equipment do not necessarily reproduce the sensation of sound faithfully.

That is the problem with the very concept of "debunking", you have to first formulate a coherent testable hypothesis and then be prepared to let that hypothesis fail before you can begin to "debunk" anything. You have to be prepared to say "well maybe... I don't know for sure" before you can know anything at all.

Debunkers just don't get this, they think that by simply stating some fantasy about an isolated fact that they have now "proven" something. Here's a newsflash: It doesn't work that way. Sorry.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: anecdote

edit on 4-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: anecdote

edit on 4-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: sound



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Hmmm.

A few questions.

How many fires have you fought?

How many times have you been shot at?

How many times have you had mortars/rockets explode near you?

How many times have you had an IED go off within earshot?

How many times have you watched EOD explode confiscated armaments?

And, how many times have you heard steel give way under stress?

For myself, the answers to all of those questions would be more than once. And with the exception of being shot at, most of those events sound similar enough to not be able to distinguish between them. The paint locker that exploded when we were fighting an onboard fire on my ship many years ago, sounded almost the same as the mortar/rockets that landed around me a couple years ago in Balad. The steel framing in one of the buildings that gave way when the construction guys were tearing down a couple of old warehouses, sounded almost like the IED's we detonated in place. And to be honest, out of all of them, I think it was the paint locker that caused the most damage when it exploded on us.

The point is, I have heard many, many different types of explosions in my life and they all pretty much sound the same. So, claiming that hearing an explosion means that there was a bomb....is ignorant.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That you are completely out of your depth.

And have never balanced a checkbook in your life....


Seriously, what are you trying to argue? That the Pentagon didn't really lose any money, that it was all just writing down numbers wrong or something?

Is that what it looks like the above article says to you?


Yes.

This is exactly what these articles are saying. (there's lots more btw)

But as I noted, some kid that's too young to ever have balanced a checkbook before the age of online statements wouldn't know about how sometimes records are lost and adjustments are made until the records can be reconciled more accurately.

This is what Rummy was complaining about, and what had been complained about by many others for at least a year and a half prior to 9/11.

You are simply out of your depth here to understand it. Just like you are out of your depth to undersdtand phtsics and engineering arguments.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Anyway "Joey" is apparently trying to argue that somebody just wrote down some numbers wrong somewhere which is a total misinterpretation of the article.


No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

If you had ever run a business as I have, then you'd understand something about accounting, and how adjustments are made and how later reconcilation works.

Onca again, you are too young to have any experience in much of anything accounting wise other than college tuition and beer money.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you self styled "truthers" so seduced by your damned fool conspiracy web sites that you're even going to willfully ignore such outrageously fake information they're feeding you?



But of course they are, for their pronouncements of just wanting to find out the truth about 9/11 is just a smoke screen for their anti war beliefs - which I agree on.

Just read some posts for a while from characters like BSB and Anok. Sooner or later, they will ask for proof for Saddam Hussen being responsible for 9/11, where are the wmd's (even though this was only 1 of 7 reasons for invading Iraq), etc.

For although their anti middle east war beliefs are to be respected, for I actually agree with them, their belief that repeating lies and half truths and quote mining etc, is a truly deluded position. Just look at the reception that real ant war activists give to truthers at their rallies. Truthers show up uninvited - cuz there's only a few of them anyways that will actually leave their basement/dorm room - and basically get told to F off cuz they are diluting the real message of the anti war protestors.

This is much the same reaction that NOPLANERS, NUKERS, AND SPACEBEAMERS GET HERE FROM THE LIKES OF MANY HERE.

However, the irony is lost on them.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
First "Joey" says:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Seriously, what are you trying to argue? That the Pentagon didn't really lose any money, that it was all just writing down numbers wrong or something?

Is that what it looks like the above article says to you?


Yes.

This is exactly what these articles are saying.


Then he says:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Anyway "Joey" is apparently trying to argue that somebody just wrote down some numbers wrong somewhere which is a total misinterpretation of the article.


No, that's not at all what I'm saying.




Seriously, what can I even add to that?

This guy can't even get what he's saying straight between two posts in a row.



Btw "Joey" I do in fact know how to balance a checkbook. I also know how to spell, and how to correct typos, if you want to make this into an "I'm better than you" pissing contest to tell me how I don't "undersdtand phtsics."

edit on 4-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 





For myself, the answers to all of those questions would be more than once.


Even if the credentials of anonymous people on the internet were reliable the argument would still be invalid.

At best you are are saying that you couldn't tell the difference when I am telling you that I can and so should you if you knew how to use your ears properly.

A gunshot makes a thud of relatively low pitch and few overtones because there is no resonance.
Steel snapping under tension has a much richer overtone structure because the steel itself is resonating momentarily.
High explosives has a high pitch, closer to a whip like sound as the sonic boom goes past.
Low explosives (or confined explosions) makes a thud more like a gunshot but because of the large amount of energy and low pitch it will tend to elicit sympathetic vibrations, so it isn't as dull as the gunshot.
[my description may need some work but you get the general idea]

Of course you you can tell the difference between these things if you use use your ears properly, don't be daft, how do you think people can differentiate between the types of resin used to coat 400 year old violins?
edit on 4-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: example



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Quite frankly...any structural engineers, given their time in the field is more credible than anyone on this forum that cannot be publically verified. The only proper way of addressing questionable aspects in relation to the collapse of building 7 is having individual specialists, engineers and related experts in the field analyze the evidence that is still available to them.
What little evidence is still there to go on....given that the clean up crew got at it soon after the actual collapse.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Quite frankly...any structural engineers, given their time in the field is more credible than anyone on this forum


If you are reduced to taking "experts'" words on faith alone, then sure, but you've apparently already given up on understanding any of this stuff yourself. It's not that complicated if you actually try to understand. But it's not my choice....

Also there are many structural engineers who are very vocally opposed to the "official story." So what conclusions you make in that case are obviously a matter of bias and whoever you already agree with.



The only proper way of addressing questionable aspects in relation to the collapse of building 7 is having individual specialists, engineers and related experts in the field analyze the evidence that is still available to them.
What little evidence is still there to go on....given that the clean up crew got at it soon after the actual collapse.


Exactly. Plus the structural documentation is off-limits to anyone but NIST and a select few others, apparently, so you can't have that now either.



But just like the Aerosmith lyric from the "Three Mile Smile" (allusion to the Three Mile Island incident), from these kinds of actions (withholding information and destroying evidence as rapidly as possible), "you get the point from Uncle Sam's loaded gun, who be the one to light the fuse."



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So when people describe a train derailment sounding like a bomb, they are stupid? They should realize that its something else? Or when a plane slams into the ground, it sounds nothing like a bomb? Or when an electrical transformer explodes, and sounds like a bomb going off, its all wrong, because to you, people are suppose to be able to distinguish the difference? My, arent you sounding all high and mighty? Or should I say, incredulous? Seems like a good 95% of the truther arguments are based solely on personal incredulity.

Most people tend to describe any sudden and loud noise, bang, thud, or boom, as a "bomb" going off. Thunder sounds like a bombs. Even a car crash sounds like an explosion. Didnt you notice the description people gave of the bodies of the jumpers hitting the ground from WTC1+2?

How else is a couple hundred tons of steel going to sound when it hits the ground from 400ft? Like a feather hitting a pillow? But no no, of course, your personal incredulity is duly noted. To you, people are stupid if they cant tell the difference, like how you can, between a bomb exploding, a pipe bursting, steel snapping, tons of steel impacting the ground from high, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join