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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 56
17
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Besides NIST itself take a look here Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. which all assisted with the NIST report.

Basically, any engineering organization that is been taken seriously supports the OS. (in the real world that is. In the truther world it is a bit different).




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


He actually said the words "pull IT "......... "pull out" and "pull it" are very different , dont you agree ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 





Show me an Engineer , a highly qualified engineer , who has nothing to do with the bush family or their gang of thugs .... Show me ONE engineer who agrees with the OS and would bet his life on it .


There are load of them out there if you would just Google.

Construction Standard of care

A decade after 9/11, new innovations in skyscraper design

You don't think all these experts are going to change their way of designing buildings just to cover up some government plot do you?

Unless you believe everyone but you is in on it?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


So let me get this straight .... you all ask me for proof .... i provide it...
I ask YOU for proof .... and you may aswell have said "go look for it yourself" ...... why cant you understand my reasons for not beleiving a word you say ? ....... ALSO ... i said someone who has nothing to do with the bush family and their gang of thugs ....
"official" reports mean squat to me , ive seen em , i dont beleive em , i want proof.

AND just for the record .... i`m not even american ..... how about that.
edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Besides NIST itself take a look here Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. which all assisted with the NIST report.

Basically, any engineering organization that is been taken seriously supports the OS. (in the real world that is. In the truther world it is a bit different).


And the NIST report cannot even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers, in 10,000 pages.

They specify the total for the steel in three places. So what happened to the concrete?

What does that say about the GREAT ENGINEERS? ROFLMAO

That is the problem with this TEN YEAR CHARADE. The engineers have to now keep people intimidated with their supposed expertise because they have taken too long to resolve a simple problem. Building a physical model that could collapse completely would create repeatable, measurable and testable conditions. Now all they can do is try to razzle dazzle people with mathematics when they can't even specify the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level.

Physics and Math without DATA!?!?! ABSURD

psik



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Its says that those engineers understand what they are talking about and you don't.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


So I give you the engineering organizations with thousands of engineers as member that support the OS and you hand wave it away without even giving an excuse. Whatever. I already was done with you previously, and I am once again.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Where is this engineer who laughs in the face of physics though ???? your links mean squat.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
double post

edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


thousands of engineers . when did you give THIS to me ? i cant remember dude ... repost it for the sake of your THEORY

3rd



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Last time you didn't want to look an inch further than your nose to find out what Verinage demolitions is, and now you are too lazy to look up the organizations I posted. And you want me to do the work for you just so you can say "but I believe my crazy theory anyway". Like I said, I am done with you.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No ... i want you to provide proof ... as i have done .... telling me to look for it myself is ignorant and proves you dont know what the hell your talking about.

The song i provided a link to for Varemia is coming to mind

edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Will ask you again are the relative strengths of the components of your model the same as the items they represent on the towers IF THEY ARE NOT YOUR MODEL IS BS!!!!

If you think they ARE lets see the proof if you can't your model is BS!



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird
 


am i talking about building 7 ??? 7 was controlled demo , it was admitted .... "pulled" is a well known term.


THIS is what i mean -> www.youtube.com... < if it doesnt load up (paused) at 4 seconds, keep looping it from 4 seconds .... youll see it.
edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)


Youve taken "pulled" out of context, like all the other truthers. When Silverstein said "pull it" he was talking about clearing out all the firemen and rescue personnel from the area. There is proof, video proof, that these guys knew it was going to come down BEFORE it did. And it was solely due the severe damage done to the south side of the building. Most of those people knew it was coming down. Were the firemen in on it to?? Get a grip

Silverstein isn't a demo expert like you think you are. He wasn't talking about bringing WTC 7 down.

Come on



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


It's not the 'pulled' that matter it is the 'it' that matters.

'Pull it' is a well known demolition term, and Silversteins' whole fortune was created from buying up old office complexes, demolishing them, and rebuilding. Saying he doesn't know demolition, is like saying he doesn't know real estate.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


This one answers questions about why the collapse happened the way it did:

www.slideshare.net...

Here are a couple papers on it which describe everything and are very peer reviewed by other engineers:

Paper

Paper

This references investigation into new fire safety procedures following 9/11:

www.wbdg.org...

This is about the changes being made to safety precautions after 9/11:

www.nfpa.org...

This is about the improvements being made as a result of 9/11:

www.sciencedaily.com...


Are they all just lying through their teeth, or do they perhaps know what they're talking about? I found these in about 20 minutes. The first slideshow is one I urge you to look at all the way through. It is quite informative.

NO HANDWAVING. Do some reading, please. Thanks.


edit on 19-10-2011 by Varemia because: fixed links



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


When did i claim to be a demo expert ? if i did ... please provide a quote .

When he said "pull it" which IS a well known term in demolition .... he didnt mean pull the firemen out ... you know ... the firemen ... the people you idiots ignore... the people who risked their lives to save not only americans but multiple foreigners such as british french etc . these people who risked their lives TOLD YOU WHAT HAPPENED ,,,, but you ignored it and sided with FEMA and the Bush family.... that`s your problem ... not mine... i dont care if you dont beleive me .. as i dont beleive you... the fact that i have done ALOT more research than you (which is very clear) just proves that you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT .

I`m trying my best not to be offensive here , since that is what you want .... but i`m smarter than that ... and that is why i`m here.... to inform you , EDUCATE you ... on the events which occured that day.

If you have ignored my claims , my proof , my EVIDENCE, then once again... thats your problem , not mine.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You do realise that everything you have provided a link to involves the BS right ?

*shakes head* I asked for YOUR theory ... explain it to me, dont provide links to utter dribble, i glanced over them ive seen them before , its BS... once you explain why you think its NOT BS ... i`ll explain why it IS BS !



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird
 


He actually said the words "pull IT "......... "pull out" and "pull it" are very different , dont you agree ?

www.youtube.com...


You are a maroon. You really are.

The discussion was never about controlled demo. Stop with this nonsense. Are you truthers still using that as the ONLY evidence that WTC7 was blown up on purpose? That's weak.

He was speaking to the fire commander and made the decision to clear the area. Neither are demo experts. SO they weren't talking about blowing it up. You think he'd voluntarily go on TV and admit to control demo'ing building 7?? Get in the real world.


They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

www.nytimes.com...
Banaciski_Richard.txt


Listen to the fireman or police man at 1:33 in.



They new from the damage to the building that it was going to come down.

Stop the madness.

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 19-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I have yet to see any video evidence that a steel-framed skyscraper can collapse in a perfectly uniform manner without the use of uniformly placed explosives detonated in the proper sequence. It doesn't even sound possible.

If anyone has such evidence, please submit it.
Until then, I must personally conclude that there were explosives involved in all 3 buildings.

Anyone who tries to refute this basic, solid argument without evidence is simply denying their own ignorance.


edit on 19-10-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: ...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join