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: 20
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I know you mean that as sarcasm but it's pretty dead-on. The hole and all the "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, had nothing to do with why it actually collapsed, even according to NIST. So I don't even know what you think you are proving by bringing up what those firefighters erroneously believed anyway.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I know you mean that as sarcasm but it's pretty dead-on. The hole and all the "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, had nothing to do with why it actually collapsed, even according to NIST. So I don't even know what you think you are proving by bringing up what those firefighters erroneously believed anyway.


Wrong. NIST says the hole - which if you check carefully, you'll note I didn't actually mention - didn't affect the collapse.

If you think the "leaning and bulging" mentioned by the firefighters (who I suppose you are effectively accusing of lying) had nothing to do with the collapse then you'll have to show why. Bear in mind that as the firemen said, and as I reiterated in my post, it could be a symptom as opposed to a cause.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
I know you mean that as sarcasm but it's pretty dead-on. The hole and all the "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, had nothing to do with why it actually collapsed, even according to NIST. So I don't even know what you think you are proving by bringing up what those firefighters erroneously believed anyway.


Wrong. NIST says the hole - which if you check carefully, you'll note I didn't actually mention - didn't affect the collapse.


Read what I just said:


The hole and all the "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, had nothing to do with why it actually collapsed, even according to NIST.


So you say "Wrong." and then repeat what I just said. Great job.



If you think the "leaning and bulging" mentioned by the firefighters (who I suppose you are effectively accusing of lying)


No, just confused and ignorant, which might explain why you identify with their testimony so much more than Craig Bartmer's or Barry Jennings' or scores of other eyewitnesses to explosions.


had nothing to do with the collapse then you'll have to show why.


I don't have to refute a claim that was never proven in the first place. There is simply no evidence of it, period.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Wrong. NIST says the hole - which if you check carefully, you'll note I didn't actually mention - didn't affect the collapse.


Read what I just said:


The hole and all the "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, had nothing to do with why it actually collapsed, even according to NIST.


So you say "Wrong." and then repeat what I just said. Great job.


You can't be this thick. Are you saying that X + Y + Z = X?

NIST says that the hole - which I didn't mention, once again, but you brought up apparently to attempt to refute me - had nothing to do with the collapse. They did not say that the leaning and bulging had nothing to do with it.

What you've done is add in something of your own - the hole - to what I said, and then attempted to throw out what I wrote based on the thing you brought in yourself. Pretty lame.

Of course if you're correct you could show me where NIST says that the "leaning and bulging" had nothing to do with the collapse. But somehow I doubt you will.


II don't have to refute a claim that was never proven in the first place. There is simply no evidence of it, period.


There is no evidence that the building's "leaning and bulging" as per (expert and trained) firefighters' testimony was related to its collapse? Or there's no evidence of the leaning and bulging?

Both are laughably incorrect.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You can't be this thick. Are you saying that X + Y + Z = X?


I'm going to leave you to try to figure out how this has absolutely nothing to do with claiming I'm wrong and then immediately agreeing with what I just said.


NIST says that the hole - which I didn't mention, once again, but you brought up apparently to attempt to refute me - had nothing to do with the collapse. They did not say that the leaning and bulging had nothing to do with it.


There also is no leaning or bulging to be seen in a single photograph of WTC7, and nothing but hearsay to support the idea that it even existed at all. In fact there is solid disproof that the entire building was not leaning, because there were photos taken all around that building and there no noticeable lean whatsoever. This, while remembering that skyscrapers are built to have a certain amount of sway in the wind anyway without adversely affecting structural integrity.

The only "leaning" or "bulging" firefighters even mentioned was all in relation to the hole that they were also talking about, and which NIST even concluded was insignificant to their own hypothesis.




II don't have to refute a claim that was never proven in the first place. There is simply no evidence of it, period.


There is no evidence that the building's "leaning and bulging" as per (expert and trained) firefighters' testimony was related to its collapse? Or there's no evidence of the leaning and bulging?

Both are laughably incorrect.


Both. And I await your evidence to the contrary.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Why do OSers keep ignoring this....





No amount of bulging, or holes in the side, can cause a 47 story building to collapse into its own footprint, period!

You all need to come up with something that at least comes close to reality to explain how that happened from fire and asymmetrical damage to none load bearing structure.

If you can't see that WTC 7 collapse landed in it's footprint, evidenced by outer walls being ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building, then you are in nothing but denial, or purposely being untruthful.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I'm going to leave you to try to figure out how this has absolutely nothing to do with claiming I'm wrong and then immediately agreeing with what I just said.


I didn't agree with what you said. The discussion is about whether the firefighters' claim that they expected the building to fall because of the "leaning and bulging" they observed is a reasonable one.

Into this you have introduced the concept of the hole and its relation to the collapse. You're correct about NIST's summation, but it's irrelevant. We're talking about symptoms of collapse, and you're trying to refute the firefighters' claims by talking about something entirely different.




The only "leaning" or "bulging" firefighters even mentioned was all in relation to the hole that they were also talking about, and which NIST even concluded was insignificant to their own hypothesis.


I don't know if you're purposely lying or you really believe that and haven't researched properly. Chief Hayden had this to say about the bulging. He doesn't mention it in relation to the hole once.

"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."


Captain Chris Boyle:

"That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."

No mention of the hole either. Neither of these men speaks about the leaning or bulging in relation to the hole. And once again we are not discussing whether the damage brought the building down, but rather whether the firemen's conclusions were reasonable. Reading their testimony I find them persuasive.

For me this constitutes good, reliable, expert evidence. The lack of a photograph of something does not. There are a multitude of things which I take to be true for which there isn't any photographic evidence, often because nobody has taken a photograph of it. I don't share your view of Hayden, or Nigro or Boyle, as frightened, confused and liable to make a mistake to the extent that they would hallucinate something that wasn't there. They don't seem to be making this stuff up. But obviously you have reason to suspect they are lying. Why?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:28 AM
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?


In some ancient ritualistic socities they danced for rain.

It appears in Israel they may dance for destruction.



Which also brings up the issue they knew it was going to happen.

Go figure huh ?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm wondering why they are ignoring this:

drjudywood.com...

I've posted this article afew times and everyone has ignored it.....find the weapon and you find the culprits. And let me tell you another thing, the type of weapon used on the WTC is way too sophisticated for Al Qaeda and too advanced for even the Israelis.

I'll say it again as in previous posts....the idea of explosives placed in the basement of the 2 twin towers and exploding has already proven to be false...the basins of the twin towers was found to be INTACT after the incident!

Now what kind of weapon melts steel and destroys 1400 vehicles up to 7 blocks away from the WTC??? Everyone is so focused on the 3rd building........but refuses to even look at the bigger picture!



edit on 19-6-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by this video of yours......was it the "we were there to document...." ?

Sorry, but so was literally hundreds of others also documenting 9/11, many reporters went in to full swing that morning !!! But so long as the reporters were only Americans, right?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


That might be true but personally I try to stay away from speculation. No one at this point knows what was used and to speculate just usually gets you into a pissing match no one can benefit from.

I like to stick to the evidence and facts, there is not that much, but enough to prove the collapses were controlled imo, no matter what energy was used it can be show that something was.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The third building was an obvious but not the twin towers. Again, what practically melted or severely eroded 1400 vehicles up to 7 blocks away from the WTC? What turns steel to dust? Thats not speculation, thats fact! The twin towers was not a controlled freefall....the steel turned to dust. You can't deny the photos however all the 9/11 conpsiracy websites have failed to look at Judy Wood's work.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Again, what practically melted or severely eroded 1400 vehicles up to 7 blocks away from the WTC?


Care to show evidence of these cars 7 blocks away being "melted"?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ANOK
 


The third building was an obvious but not the twin towers. Again, what practically melted or severely eroded 1400 vehicles up to 7 blocks away from the WTC? What turns steel to dust? Thats not speculation, thats fact! The twin towers was not a controlled freefall....the steel turned to dust. You can't deny the photos however all the 9/11 conpsiracy websites have failed to look at Judy Wood's work.


Slow down there bro, speculation is not that those things happened, they did, the speculation is what caused them to happen.

There are enough facts that show the OS to be wrong, without having to go into speculation, and stuff that can make us look stupid in they eyes of those who do not understand these things. Judy Woods might be right, I am not saying she isn't, it's just that I have no frame of reference to know.

No OSer is going to ever believe in space weapons, when they won't even accept rational unquestionable earthly physics.

We don't have to show HOW it was done, to prove it was. The 'how' can come later.

It doesn't help the discussion imo only gives people more ammunition to dismiss 'truthers'.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Look on the previous page for my link.......Dr Judy Wood has some very compelling evidence; you'd need approx a hour on her webite and it's full of photographs.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I am open to possibilities of perhaps some kind of Star Wars weapons were used.......guided by lazer, technology that we do have!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Look on the previous page for my link...


The cars that were 7 blocks away were dragged there to get them out of the way - you can clearly see the drag marks!

More lies from Judy Wood!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


What utter rubbish.......1400 vehicals played musical chairs on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by spoor
 


What utter rubbish.......1400 vehicals played musical chairs on 9/11?


No, they were dragged there during cleanup and recovery.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ANOK
 


I am open to possibilities of perhaps some kind of Star Wars weapons were used.......guided by lazer, technology that we do have!


You know what cracks me up is that the other truthers here always take umbrage in my mentioning lasers from outer space as they were absolutely insisting that nobody was taking Judy Wood's research seriously. It seems the only engineer who is genuinely requesting permission to speak freely about WTC 7 is Judy Wood.

So tell me, if the towers were destroyed by Star Wars weapons then why weren't any of the 10,000 people in the vicinity fried to a crisp along with the building? Judy Wood always refuses to address that point like it was roadkill.
edit on 21-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join