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.
Originally posted by DaWhiz
Originally posted by andersensrm
Originally posted by SavedOne
Originally posted by TupacShakur
OK then start by watching these interviews:
Again, my point is that many if not all of these may indeed be in the field just like I am, but that does not make them experts just like I am not. I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience and several high-rise projects as I said above (and as I've repeated in many other threads not related to 9-11, feel free to look in case you think I'm making it up just for this occasion). This does not make me an expert on the WTC collapses. Nor does it make my peers experts. The only "experts" would fall under two categories:
1. Those intimately involved in the design and construction of the projects (and they have been completely silent, probably for legal reasons).
2. Those who are experts in the field and have engaged in a full study of the drawings, specifications, field reports, test reports, submittals, etc. etc. etc. for the projects. These wouldn't start out as experts, but could become experts if allowed full access to all the documentation. They should also interview the construction personnel involved to get the full picture- IE, were connections made per the drawings or were field modifications made, etc.
Again, not saying the conspiracy is true or not, just pointing out that these people are expressing personal and not professional expert opinions unless they fall under one of the two above categories.
I'd have to agree with him, If you don't have access to ALL of the information, then your not an expert. Experts are objectives and shouldn't have to speculate, not that I'm saying I think the OS is true, cause it most obviously is not. I do think that when you have so many "professionals" that is people working in a relatively same field, that they do have something to contribute. But look we already destroyed all the evidence, all we can do now is speculate as to what happened....
So basically what you both are saying is if you don't have all the information, even if the information is a proven first time event, that no one can be an expert? I would love for the both of you to please state how this is possible considering the fact that this is notably a "first time event"!
And in going by your so called logic, doesn't that mean that everyone on the official report given is also Not an expert? They had access to the same information, didn't they? Then, also by your logic, doesn't that make the Official Story and Report nothing but theory, conjecture and opinion?
Please follow your rules of logic before you reply or it will be consider hipocracy.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by csulli456
Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Is one of the only three skyscrapers to collapse from fire damage in history collapsing not important or something? It didn't get hit by a plane or anything, but whatever, they just felt that it wasn't worth mentioning.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.
If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.
If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.
You assume that the towers could not have collapsed from impact and fire. No one has shown this to be true and the search for explosives has not led to any evidence suggesting such. Hence, once must conclude that they did collapse from impact and fire
Originally posted by Sandman80
And the numerous independent reports that have led many to believe nano-thermite was found amidst the dust and wreckage... this would be the so called "evidence suggesting such" maybe?
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.
If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.
You assume that the towers could not have collapsed from impact and fire. No one has shown this to be true and the search for explosives has not led to any evidence suggesting such. Hence, once must conclude that they did collapse from impact and fire
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report
Except of course it was mentioned - but facts have not stopped "truthers" telling lies and making up stories.
Anyway let us look at the purpose of the commission:
To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public Law 107-306, November 27, 2002). Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission
www.gpoaccess.gov...
but "truthers" think research is visiting silly conspiracy theory sites, and coming up with sillier and sillier conspiracy theories!
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by Sandman80
And the numerous independent reports that have led many to believe nano-thermite was found amidst the dust and wreckage... this would be the so called "evidence suggesting such" maybe?
Care to show us these "independent reports"?
Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..
Also there is a lot of evidence that these types of building will not collapse under long exposure to extreme heat. And when they do fall they do not collapse they way these did. Google it up bud.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Care to provide me with a single quote from the 9/11 Commission Report that has "World Trade Center 7" in it?
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Care to provide me with a single quote from the 9/11 Commission Report that has "World Trade Center 7" in it?
Pages: 311, 320, 323, 563, 566, 568, 570.
So you really should not believe the lies put forward on silly conspiracy sites.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by NorEaster
Thank you for your post. The paragraph "So now you have had the "how it was done" explained to you. Never post here again that no one's ever offered up a plausible narrative. I just did, and here's some more explanation for you concerning why they did it and how they got away with it" is not correct.
What you just did is merely a start and we have had lightweight starts like this before. Now you should post the sizes of the charges, their locations, and total numbers.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..
Also there is a lot of evidence that these types of building will not collapse under long exposure to extreme heat. And when they do fall they do not collapse they way these did. Google it up bud.
How do you know how buildings constructed like the WTC buildings would collapse? Have you googled it up, Bud? Did your upGoogling lead you to some fantasy sites?