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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kaya82
its not the same question word for word. The difference with you is you cant have an intelligent debate with out spewing the same dammed fooled conspiracy drivel and mentioning avery and jones in most of your posts. You cant simply ask a valid question like cassius did youv always gotta attack and tar every single person who doubts the os as "you conspiracy people"


You're one of those people who argues simply for the sake of arguing, aren't you? My question was, and I'm cutting and pasting it verbatim:

Just WHO do these engineers need to "request permission" from when Alex Jones and Dylan Avery aren't bothering to ask permission, and just WHAT is stopping them from "speaking freely" when nothing seems to be stopping Alex Jones or Dylan Avery from speaking freely?

Other than mentioning Jones and Avery...and even you have to acknowledge they aren't asking anyone permission to speak freely about 9/11...how is my question any different that Cassius'? Please, explain it to me, 'cause I sincerely don't know.


I would like to know why they need permission


The answer is obvious- they don't. The OP is simply embellishing his post to make it more sinister sounding. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge he's embellishing it.
no im not arguing for the sake of it but if thats what you wish to believe fine. i was simply pointing out all you simply needed to do whas ask WHY DO THEY NEED PERMISSION? no need at all to menstion your obessions with avery and jones




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I wasnt aware he was talking about American Engineers. Looking at the link in the OP there is a lot more context to the headline.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


quote The answer is obvious- they don't. The OP is simply embellishing his post to make it more sinister sounding. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge he's embellishing it.

I would politely ask you to take this one thing back because all I did was copy and paste the article and try to edit it down so it fits with the T&C of posting threads, thanks



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


Really? The entire case vanished? Then how did they find Lay, Skilling et al, GUILTY?

You claim the entire case vanished, and yet, we still had the trials, found people guilty and sentenced them.


Quit reading goofball websites.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Which would place even more stress/load on the cantilevered trusses over the ConEd substation in WTC 7....wouldnt it?

Just saying....



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Which would place even more stress/load on the cantilevered trusses over the ConEd substation in WTC 7....wouldnt it?


Do you know what a cantilever is?

What is it about a cantilever structure being at the base of the building, that says to you, it's somehow now expected for the building to accelerate into its footprint at the rate of gravity? Has this happened somewhere before that I've missed?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   


Just WHO do these engineers need to "request permission" from when Alex Jones and Dylan Avery aren't bothering to ask permission, and just WHAT is stopping them from "speaking freely" when nothing seems to be stopping Alex Jones or Dylan Avery from speaking freely?

I really don't care. But since you're so hell bent on finding out, here is a revolutionary solution to your dilemma: email the guy and ask him. You're welcome.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
I would politely ask you to take this one thing back because all I did was copy and paste the article and try to edit it down so it fits with the T&C of posting threads, thanks


I think not. Regardless of what the original article was called, you decided all on your own to label this topic "Engineers request permission to speak freely regarding World Trade Building 7" when you created this thread. Someone else may have decided to invent such an outrageous title, but you were the one who liked the title enough to type in for the thread despite the obvious embellishments.

So, why couldn't you have just labelled this forum, "Engineers want to discuss World Trade Building 7" and leave out the "request permission" and "speak freely" embellishments? Even the other conspiracy people here acknowledge this title implies they need to request permission and they can't speak freely without permission, which by definition is innuendo dropping.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Regardless of what the original article was called, you decided all on your own to label this topic "Engineers request permission to speak freely regarding World Trade Building 7" when you created this thread. Someone else may have decided to invent such an outrageous title, but you were the one who liked the title enough to type in for the thread despite the obvious embellishments.


First you were crying that he intentionally embellished the thread title, and now that he pointed out that he took it from the original site, you're crying because he didn't change it to something else. And of course along with that you refuse to apologize for saying it was all his sinister doing in the first place. God help anyone arguing with you about anything actually to do with 9/11.


Don't you have anything better to bicker about here "Dave"?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Regardless of what the original article was called, you decided all on your own to label this topic "Engineers request permission to speak freely regarding World Trade Building 7" when you created this thread. Someone else may have decided to invent such an outrageous title, but you were the one who liked the title enough to type in for the thread despite the obvious embellishments.


First you were crying that he intentionally embellished the thread title, and now that he pointed out that he took it from the original site, you're crying because he didn't change it to something else. And of course along with that you refuse to apologize for saying it was all his sinister doing in the first place. God help anyone arguing with you about anything actually to do with 9/11.


Don't you have anything better to bicker about here "Dave"?


So are you saying it's perfectly fine if someone screams FIRE in a crowded theater and causes a panic as long as he's only repeating something that someone else told him? Let me know how that line of defense works out if you're ever brought into court on it.

If you're genuinely of the opinion that there is no disingenuous embellishment at work here, then let me ask you: why do the engineers need to ask permission to speak freely and who do they need to ask permission from?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So are you saying it's perfectly fine if someone screams FIRE in a crowded theater and causes a panic as long as he's only repeating something that someone else told him?


Yes, because that's obviously what's going on in this thread.



Let me know how that line of defense works out if you're ever brought into court on it.


And you can let me know next time anyone is in court for posting a thread and using the same article title that the original source does.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Im not an american so I wasnt aware of what you say concerning the CEO of ENRON. Thanks. It was something I heard at the time of this crime. As for the demolition of the WTCs. Well I spent 6 yrs in the military and worked with explosives, I was in a behind battle demolition company. 2eme REP 4cie. I have also worked for a demolition company. Family owned demolition company. So yes I am aware of this type of work and from my experience and in my opinion, I would say that these buildings were taken down in a controlled demolition.
And if you check you will find that WTC 7 was a reinforced building, to be used in such an event as this attack.
Now if you believe that a cave man and his gang armed with box cutters, took out these buildings and also managed to hit the pentagon. Then what does that say for the great USA? I guess you are all very lucky that during the cold war, that those reds didnt do the same thing. For you would have been well and truely f*cked and no doubt speaking russian by now.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Im not an american so I wasnt aware of what you say concerning the CEO of ENRON. Thanks. It was something I heard at the time of this crime. As for the demolition of the WTCs. Well I spent 6 yrs in the military and worked with explosives, I was in a behind battle demolition company. 2eme REP 4cie. I have also worked for a demolition company. Family owned demolition company. So yes I am aware of this type of work and from my experience and in my opinion, I would say that these buildings were taken down in a controlled demolition.


Ah, someone with actual expertise in controlled demolitions. I have some questions for you then-

-In the case of the WTC, every video that exists of the collapse shows the loss of structural integrity occured at the point of impact of the planes, up at the ninety-somethingth floors, and then worked itself down in a chain reaction, but in every controlled demolitions video I've seen, the demolitions were always always always at the base of the building, so that the structure would fall on itself and collapse from the ground up.

-in the case of WTC 7, the famous video of the collapse clearly shows the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the structure, and by the windows we see being broken, the penthouse collapsed pretty far down and essentially made the WTC 7 hollow by the time it fully collapsed. I have seen no other controlled demolitions on the face of the planet that ever demolished a building by the inside out like this.

All I have to go on as a model is other documented controlled demolitions jobs, and the other documented controlled demolitions jobs only prove the towers were NOT controlled demolitions. How do you explain this?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave you have no experience other than working with models? Then theres no point in me, or any one else trying to debate this with you.
I always thought that you were some kind of expert, the way you keep defending the OS. When after all,you havent got a clue. So keep on believing the OS as thats the partiotic thing to do. False flags? No the Govt of the USA wouldnt do that...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


How infinitely sad....so, so sad:


Now if you believe that a cave man and his gang armed with box cutters, took out these buildings and also managed to hit the pentagon.


Resorting to that tired, pathetic old meme???



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave you have no experience other than working with models? Then theres no point in me, or any one else trying to debate this with you.
I always thought that you were some kind of expert, the way you keep defending the OS. When after all,you havent got a clue. So keep on believing the OS as thats the partiotic thing to do. False flags? No the Govt of the USA wouldnt do that...


That's about as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. I'm pointing out what I've seen from other actual controlled demolitions and I'm asking you, someone who's claiming expertise in controlled demolitions, why every other controlled demolitions job is different from what we saw happen on 9/11. I'm not asking to debate you. I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, and you're claiming that you do. As of right now, the only suspicious activity I'm seeing here is coming from you, cause every other person with genuine controlled demolitions expertise would be chomping at the bit to explain precisely what we should be looking for in a controlled demolitions job on 9/11.

SO let me ask one more time- why did the WTC come down radically different from how every other building demolished by controlled demolitions came down? It ain't a trick question.


edit on 23-5-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Resorting to that tired, pathetic old meme???


That's all you really do here anyway isn't it?

Like say someone asks you where in any of the official reports (Kean Commission, FEMA, NIST) is there proof that, say, the towers came down from the planes and fires alone? What would you say?

After you come up with it, look at your answer and see if it's not some generic meme non-answer. It's really all you guys ever post when we ask where the proof is.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





Are you an expert engineer now Weed or is that just an opinion based on NO facts??


Yes, apparently he is. And not only that, he's our resident chemtrail skeptic "expert."

Imagine the odds of that.....



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Well Dave I cant really say why they fell differently, to other controlled demolitions. Not that every one is the same. Depends on the building, could be the year it was built ect , or the construction materials.
As Ive already said, you have no experience or expertise on this matter, other than looking at, or playing with models.
I used to play with model cars but Im not a mechanic.

As for these buildings, I wasnt there in person. So I can only say what I saw on the news. To me they looked like controlled demolitions. That is my opinion and I say that, as I have used explosives and have also worked on demolition sites. I have not personally brought any buildings down with explosives. I usually climb up them and cut them down using an oxi gun. Once the cladding or brick work/ concrete has been removed. How ever I have been present and also watched others bring them down using explosives.
Its just very very strange that these buildings fell so quickly. Especially when the buildings were designed to be hit by larger planes. Not only larger planes, but they were also designed, to with stand being hit by more than one plane.
Theres nothing that I could say, which would change your opinion. You are a true patriot, defending the OS no matter what.
To accept that your own govt would murder its own people ? Now thats a big thing and meny people would never believe it. But it has happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. (if required) This `event` was needed, another pearle harbour? or gulf of Tonkin? Bay of pigs?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Well Dave I cant really say why they fell differently, to other controlled demolitions. Not that every one is the same.


Actually I was under the impression that every single skyscraper demolition is unique, because the structures are unique. Not to mention demolitions of skyscrapers isn't exactly and everyday occurrence. There are only so many skyscrapers in the whole world, and demolishing them is often too dangerous because of the dense urban environment.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join