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.

 

EX CDI Employee Dispells Myths About Controlled Demo's and NIST's Inaccurate Report

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Another new video for me, and hopefully for some of you.

This interview is full of good facts and shuts down many of the rumours floating around about NIST and the
Official story garbage.

The man explains that residue from shaped charges would have been consumed during the blast, and
remote detonation devices explain the absense of detcord. He also explains how much prep is involved
to weaken the building prior to demo and the safety factor which allows the building to stand even with
several columns cut.

Hence a few columns, and office fire could never take down WTC7 as seen on Sept.11

Most important, thermite cutters were available and patented in 1984 and are MUCH quiter than RDX cutter
charges.



This professor explains that sulphur within the steel could not have come from wallboard. More interesting
chemistry from him as well.




edit on 20-6-2011 by turbofan because: add notes

edit on 20-6-2011 by turbofan because: add new video




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I hope the people who really did 9/11 get brought to justice.

good vid nice to hear another real expert tell it like it is but anyone still in denial about this on ats wont be convinced by any amount of fact.
edit on 20-6-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thanks for the post, OP.

This is a new vid for me, but I'm sure it's probably been posted before, given the fact we have numerous members who actively follow in AE9/11's postings.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Mr Sullivan has been done to death on here before. He is basically a photographer.

This is a crtique of his AE9/11t interview :-

willyloman.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

The title of this post is not very clear. But his opinion certainly was!

We need to find out who did this and why.

The fact that the owner got paid off is relatively inconsequential.
This was obviously a false flag to justify the military actions that were taken soon after.

But what were those military actions really meant to accomplish?

I was recently researching the Arab Revolt of the early 1900's. The British assisted with that. Their General (Allenby) entered Jerusalem in December of 1917. He entered ON FOOT in respect for the holy nature of that city. Was that just a cute PR move? Europe has coveted that city for hundreds of years. Why?

Could there be other locations in the Middle East of similar interest to the Western world? Unless someone steps forward convincingly, we may never know.

I have seen similar data about the sacredness of several places in Afghanistan. Here's an example:
www.megalithic.co.uk...

What's this all about?


edit on 20-6-2011 by l_e_cox because: found a typo



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Tom Sullivan is a liar in my opinion, same with a lot of others.


empirestrikesblack.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
OP, ATS member , SkepticandBeliever, has posted a thread in conjunction with yours which is intended to distract from your video. I am hoping other members will see what he is trying to do, as his thread is much higher on the page than yours.

Your video contains excellent testimony and it has obviously struck a nerve.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The thing is nobody facts checks the claims of the truthers because they just want them to be true to support the thoery. NIST hired thousands of experts, with millions of dollars to work with, evidence from ground zero to work, plus had an extensive "chain" of command sort of speak when dealing with the validity of evidence. To think that a few truther "experts" can trump that (even when those "experts'' have been debunked by the REAL experts even after the fact, and were laughed at by the larger scientific community) is obnoxious and crazy at the highest levels.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 





Tom Sullivan is a liar in my opinion, same with a lot of others.


No one really cares what your opinion is.

......and we all know why that is, now don't we, Skeptic?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
And If this guy knows anything about controlled demolition or explosives, why does he think detonation cords have anything to do with "wires" or "wireless detonators" The two are entirely unrelated. Not to mention what's left of a blasting cap or det cord after it goes off. Nobody with a brain buys any this misinformation garbage.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Skepticandbeliever why don't you post in any of the other hundreds of topics on ATS too? How come 100% of your posts are in the 9/11 section? Oh, because you're a government plant.

OP: good post, good video. Yet another expert who knows firsthand that something that walks and quacks like a duck is not a pigeon, contrary to what the federal government and MSM want us to believe.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Thanks, and I'm aware of the tactics. I'm not here to debate "them", I'm here to spread the news.

Anyone that thinks WTC7 came down (or any of the towers) by fire after all of the evidence, and
expert analysis needs their head checked.

There's NO reasoning with people that don't want to open their eyes, or are just here to waste our
time and cover-up the official story lies.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
Skepticandbeliever why don't you post in any of the other hundreds of topics on ATS too? How come 100% of your posts are in the 9/11 section? Oh, because you're a government plant.



Attacking me personally, without addressing my specific point about how the the dude in the OP's video doesn't know a thing about demolitions or how they work? Yup, you admitted defeat.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
OP, ATS member , SkepticandBeliever, has posted a thread in conjunction with yours which is intended to distract from your video. I am hoping other members will see what he is trying to do, as his thread is much higher on the page than yours.

Your video contains excellent testimony and it has obviously struck a nerve.


In your desperation to have a conspiracy you are burying your head in the sand. This critique I posted :-

willyloman.wordpress.com...

is actually by one of your fellow truthers who is concerned that the errors in Sullivan's AE9/11t interview is damaging to the "truth" movement.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by NightGypsy
OP, ATS member , SkepticandBeliever, has posted a thread in conjunction with yours which is intended to distract from your video. I am hoping other members will see what he is trying to do, as his thread is much higher on the page than yours.

Your video contains excellent testimony and it has obviously struck a nerve.


In your desperation to have a conspiracy you are burying your head in the sand. This critique I posted :-

willyloman.wordpress.com...

is actually by one of your fellow truthers who is concerned that the errors in Sullivan's AE9/11t interview is damaging to the "truth" movement.



Good post.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


If you listen to the EXPERT, he tells you that thermite cutters may have been used, and wireless control
which explains the absence of shells, detcord and wire in the debris piles.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


If you listen to the EXPERT, he tells you that thermite cutters may have been used, and wireless control
which explains the absence of shells, detcord and wire in the debris piles.


I'll post this again..


"And If this guy knows anything about controlled demolition or explosives, why does he think detonation cords have anything to do with "wires" or "wireless detonators" The two are entirely unrelated. Not to mention what's left of a blasting cap or det cord after it goes off. Nobody with a brain buys any this misinformation garbage."

Please know your stuff before thinking you're on to something lol


If even I can point out that he has no clue what he's talking about, and I'm no expert, then it's clear he isn't either. and the fact that there have been SO many papers refuting his bunk, is just the nail in the coffin.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
plus I found this in another thread.



"AE9/11t has about 1400 members. If you consider the individuals you will find electrical engineers, software designers, landscapers etc. The number with relevant expertise and experience to high rise construction must be very small.

On the other hand the American Society of Civil Engineers, which supports NIST and whose members contributed, has about 120.000 members. Every developed country has a similar professional body; in my country it is the Institution of Civil Engineers. They also do not dispute NIST.

Can you point to any professional engineering association in the world disputing NIST ?"



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

"And If this guy knows anything about controlled demolition or explosives, why does he think detonation cords have anything to do with "wires" or "wireless detonators" The two are entirely unrelated. Not to mention what's left of a blasting cap or det cord after it goes off. Nobody with a brain buys any this misinformation garbage."

Please know your stuff before thinking you're on to something lol



Please buddy, you must lack some basic aptitude if you didn't understand his delivery.

Why don't you post the time stamp that relates to your quote?

My quote relates to time stamp 4:22. He says:

"You wouldn't need miles and miles of detcord, you could have used wireless remote detonators." (< you are wrong)

In case you don't know Gage is asking him questions and he's answering. The quesiton was likely, "Why didn't
anyone find traces of cutter charges, or detcord in the debris pile?"

(skip to next point)

"You wouldn't have found steel casings in the rubble, they haven't been used for years. What we
use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges. Why they are initiated, there is nothing left of those charges." (< you are wrong again)

(next point)

"In the case of Thermite, Thermite self consuming cutting charges...have been around since they were patented in 1984...so there would be nothing left in the debris pile except some residue of molten iron. (< you are wrong a third time)


Once you learn how to listen and interpret, maybe then you can come back and try to pretend you are smarter
than me or Mr. Sullivan.

edit on 20-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Here's another post made in another thread pretty much confirming my belief that the A&E truth is a sham as well as sullivan.


"My problem with AE9/11T have many parts. For one thing, their list of "suspicious" activity and events on 9/11 seems as if it was all copy and pasted from every other 9/11 truther site. Second, their very own list contradicts itself a couple times. Third, they use some very poor terminology in their accusations. Fourth, their list is based on observations of things they have no credibility to comment on. (For example: Griffin, a THEOLOGIAN.)

Let us look at their WTC7 list. I remember seeing on that list a while ago, that one "characteristic" of the collapse of the WTC7 was squibs. Now, take a look. No mention of squibs. Why?

Second, that term, "pyroclastic dust clouds". Did a volcano erupt in Manhattan? You mean to tell me an "intelligent" group of "professionals" would use such poor terminology to describe dust from a collapsing building? After all these years?? Sorry, more credibility down the toilet.

Third: First they say it was demolition charges exploding. They were allegedly heard right before the start of collapse. So that means, demo charges. Or bombs. Then, they go and say a few lines down, "evidence of intergranular melting and oxidation of steel" as strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices. Wait, so we just jumped from explosives to incendiary devices? Incendiary devices are not explosives. Geeze even a lay person should understand THAT basic fact. How did these "professionals" and "experts" miss that is beyond me. Even for the acclaimed demolition "experts" on their site. Sorry, but that bird wont fly with me.

Fourth: They claim that: WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire such as slow onset with large visible deformations. That is a flat out lie, and there was significant evidence of it ALL DAY. That was why firefighters were pulled from the building., that was why they put a transit on it, that was why they saw a bulge appearing early in the afternoon, that was why the building was noticed to be leaning towards the south before the collapse, that was why people heard creaking and groaning from inside the building, and that was why the firefighters KNEW it was going to collapse early on. How the hell can such a bunch of "experts" and "professionals" MISS all of that evidence and LIE right to your face? And of course, Joe Schmo who has no idea about the story of WTC7 looks at it, reads their claims and is automatically biased, and believes the false claims. And we all know he doesnt know the rest of the story, because AE9/11T conveniently leaves out the reports and accounts of the firefighters that specifically mention the deteriorating condition of WTC7. Is that honest? No. And they pulled the same crap with the WTC1+2 part and lied the same way about no "obvious slow onset of collapse or deformation". Did they forget the reports from police pilots who saw the towers leaning in one direction, or the exterior columns bending inwards, or hanging floor slabs and trusses that failed well prior to collapse? Again, these are left off the site. Honest? NOPE.

I'll keep going down the list if you dont mind.

The claim samples of explosives found in the dust. Where? What? I've never heard this nonsense. Oh are they referring to those paint chips that somehow have contradicting properties of being explosive, melting, silent, loud powerful, and painted on? I wish to see this report of explosives found in dust. FYI: thermite is not an explosive. You'd think a demo "expert" would know that.

They mention some European demo "expert" as confirming demolition evidence. But strange, they didnt go to Explosion World or use their expertise or knowledge. Why is that? Explosion World is a respectable demolition company, why arent they included or mentioned?

Then they use an appeal to authority. They think that if you have the title: pilot, doctor, or engineer, that somehow validates their claims. Sorry, but that aint going to work on me. No matter how hard you try, you cannot convince me that a person with a doctorate in THEOLOGY is a credible source on ANYTHING involving with demolition, highrise construction or highrise engineering. And for another "professional" using boxes as comparison to the WTC Towers (ahem Richard "Boxboy" Gage") really seals the deal.

In the end, this is just a motley rabble of loosely related fields with varying levels of education but not the least bit as relevant to the complexity of the WTC events. Once again, a theologian is not a credible source for anything mechanical, engineering, or demolition.

But he did start a heck of a new religion though! Gotta give him credit for that!"




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join