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.

 

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


So how can you justify saying it was an inside job, if you have no idea, no proof, no nothing, other than a "gut feeling", if you will?




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Actually, just google up " gut feeling stomach brain " and watch the TED talk, maybe read a few of the articles if you'd like. "Gut Feelings" aren't something to be scoffed at


TLDR: you have a second brain in your stomach!



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Nobody, but nobody, watching the events of 9/11 unfold that day spontaneously wondered whether the planes that hit the buildings were really holograms. Someone came along after the fact and put the idea into their heads.


Nobody but nobody watching the Reichstag burn ever thought it was Hitler that did it. Someone came along after the fact and put the idea into their heads.
edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


So how can you justify saying it was an inside job, if you have no idea, no proof, no nothing, other than a "gut feeling", if you will?


I have read the Nist Final Report, various AE911Truth reports and testaments, I am an architectural engineer and have previously worked in demolitions in the UK.

Based strictly on a balance of probabilities, I believe that Building 7 was taken down with conventional controlled demolitions techniques. Because I believe explosives were placed in this building in advance of the airplanes striking the twin towers, I conclude that 9/11 is an inside job.

There is no amount of mocking, badgering or misrepresentations by the likes of you that will get me to change my mind.
edit on 7-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


These are nothing but wild suppositions, sorry:


.....and have previously worked in demolitions in the UK.


Well, that one isn't a supposition, people will have to just take you at your word, there....but, in light of that claim:


....I believe that Building 7 was taken down with conventional controlled demolitions techniques. Because I believe explosives were placed in this building in advance of the airplanes striking the twin towers.....


Firstly, since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos? I mean...you claimed they were "conventional"??

Do you not see the flaw in you "belief"?

Secondly, it also requires a great deal of 'moxie' to sit there and say, with certainty, that WTC 7 was "prepped" in "advance", because of some "foreknowledge" surrounding WTC 1 and 2! Again, without any shred of evidence.


WTC 7's status is well documented, during the hours after the other buildings collapsed....the damage it sustained, and the consensus that it was going to fail, all on its own, and there was no saving it...not without sever risk to Human life. The decision to clear an area around it, and leave it be, was made hours before it finally collapsed.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You can be anonymous and make your reasoning explicit, or you can make a credible claim to have expertise based on veriviable credentials and experience. One or the other. Not both.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


These are nothing but wild suppositions, sorry:


.....and have previously worked in demolitions in the UK.


Well, that one isn't a supposition, people will have to just take you at your word, there....but, in light of that claim:


....I believe that Building 7 was taken down with conventional controlled demolitions techniques. Because I believe explosives were placed in this building in advance of the airplanes striking the twin towers.....


Firstly, since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos? I mean...you claimed they were "conventional"??

Do you not see the flaw in you "belief"?

Secondly, it also requires a great deal of 'moxie' to sit there and say, with certainty, that WTC 7 was "prepped" in "advance", because of some "foreknowledge" surrounding WTC 1 and 2! Again, without any shred of evidence.


WTC 7's status is well documented, during the hours after the other buildings collapsed....the damage it sustained, and the consensus that it was going to fail, all on its own, and there was no saving it...not without sever risk to Human life. The decision to clear an area around it, and leave it be, was made hours before it finally collapsed.




I was explaining why I believe 9/11 is an inside job.

My comment was about what I think of a certain issue and it is a truthful and a brief explanation. The way you are making a meal of it is truly indecent. In fact it is badgering.

The comment I made is strictly limited to an explanation of my view point and it does not constitute proof of anything.

Also, you do not have to take my word that I am an architectural engineer. This point was offered in explanation of why I believe 9/11 was an inside job. I was not citing my credentials as ex cathedra.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You can be anonymous and make your reasoning explicit, or you can make a credible claim to have expertise based on veriviable credentials and experience. One or the other. Not both.


I merely gave an explanation of why I hold a point of view. It seems to me that mentioning my profession has caused you and another an offense. My apologies.

There is nothing special about what I do and it was not a boast or an attempt to add unverifiable credibility to what I am saying.



edit on 7-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos?

Interesting. Just what can be clearly seen in the collapse videos. Sequential squibs running up the right side, building falls straight down in classic CD style. All that's missing is the explosions, and you say there weren't any, because you were there, right? Oh, you weren't there? But we have loads of firemen who say they heard them. But we're supposed to believe you, an Internet forum junkie who is hell bent on making life miserable for anyone who doesn't believe the official horse cocky. It ain't rocket science. It is what it is.
edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by ProudBird
since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos?

Interesting. Just what can be clearly seen in the collapse videos. Sequential squibs running up the right side, building falls straight down in classic CD style. All that's missing is the explosions, and you say there weren't any, because you were there, right? Oh, you weren't there? But we have loads of firemen who say they heard them. But we're supposed to believe you, an Internet forum junkie who is hell bent on making life miserable for anyone who doesn't believe the official horse cocky. It ain't rocket science. It is what it is.
edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




The squib plumes are clear and prominent in many videos posted on ATS.

My earlier comment about why I believe 9/11 is an inside job was to one person and subsequently a shout down was directed at me by others.

It seems some kind of official dogma is being enforced on ATS. TPTB seem to made it such that citizens have been left to police themselves while our nations are being economically, socially and constitutionally raped by the politicians in charge of us.

False flags have happened throughout history and 9/11 was such a crime.

Think about the poor souls stuck on the top floors having to decide whether to burn to death or leap out of the shattered windows. Those people had families, loved ones, dependents. Doesn't that make you mad!!!!



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



My comment was about what I think of a certain issue and it is a truthful and a brief explanation. The way you are making a meal of it is truly indecent. In fact it is badgering.

The viciousness of the OS-advocates is really striking, isn't it? They are aggressive, vindictive, malicious, judgemental, accusatory and always either on the attack or probing for weaknesses in the sceptics' views and personalities so that they can attack us through them. ATS has been under siege from them for years now. But I think one has to view them philosophically and realise that these obviously sick individuals that come here to perpetuate this siege are merely the foot-soldiers in a military campaign that is being directed and co-ordinated at a distance from the heart of the global political establishment. We deserve everything that they want to do to us in their self-justifying mentality and for many of them attacking us with insults, smears and baseless slanders seems to be a kind of sport in which they indulge purely for ego-recreation. Evidently they actually enjoy demoralizing and humiliating others if they possibly can.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I am astounded. Who are these people and what right do the have to disrupt debate? It is not like they are presenting opposing views, they are on the attack.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I am astounded. Who are these people and what right do the have to disrupt debate? It is not like they are presenting opposing views, they are on the attack.


Oh I wouldn't take it personally my friend. They attacked me for saying I was an electronic engineer. It's just their standard, cookie-cutter M.O. They're just clones of each other. They don't play by any rules of decency or forum etiquette. They are, basically, hired goons, with no regard for anyone's feelings. They are mirror images of their Oligarch overlords.

It's ok. They serve a very good purpose. Haven't you noticed, that every time they fling a cowpie, it forces the person they are attacking to do better research, and the end result is usually that much more damaging information (for the perps) is brought to the forefront.

Hegel was a genius, a high initiate of the White Lodge. Look at the Hegelian Dialectic. Nevermind that TPTB use his knowledge for their own nefarious purposes. We are all evolving and there can be no progress without these Devil's Advocate Internet thugs providing the incentive to better ourselves and the way we draw attention to the cockroaches in the shadows that they work for.
edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Nine times out of ten, alleged "engineers" will be glad to share their conclusions about 9/11 but seldom their line of reasoning-- which would expose them to critical questioning or rebuttal. Pardon my cynicism.

The manners in here are pretty coarse to say the least. If you stick around you'll probably be the same as the rest of us- Welcome to the internet.

You seem pretty reasonable, so you'll be getting it from both sides.

Simon, our resident electronics engineer with with a BA from DeVry has a high opinion of the work of Dr. Judy wood. I find that very interesting.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Simon, our resident electronics engineer with with a BA from DeVry has a high opinion of the work of Dr. Judy wood. I find that very interesting.


Really? Where did I say I had a high opinion of her? Making crap up again?

I posted the link to her site for the photos. I can draw my own conclusions, thank you. Since you can't seem to get it through your skull, my position is that jet fuel or pancaking buildings could not have caused the damage we see in those vehicles. After that, however you choose to obfuscate or otherwise cloud the issue, including my education is completely irrelevant.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Well let's see...

You claim that some mysterious, vaguely defined force ignited the cars and trucks on 9/11, rather than falling debris or other means, and you linked to her website here and earlier in the thread, you told me to google "toasted cars".

The top results of that google search are drjudywood.com...

Hmmm.... sounds to me like you've probably perused the site several times.

So, please, if you're not a proponent of space beams powered by hurricaine, or the huchison effect, I hope you understand why I might have thought so.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


And by the way, there's really no mystery to the toasted cars and the "strange pattern" of what got burned and what didn't. It's damned simple: Debris from the explosions, fires, and building collapses caused fires at ground level. some of these fires started on cars. Those cars that did not burn were not ignited by falling debris, nor fire spreading from falling debris..

The photos of cars far from ground zero show where they were temporarily stored before being scrapped during the first phase of the cleanup.

But you're right. This explanation has nothing to do with jet fuel, or pancaking floors. But why would it?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Whaler31
 


If you think your video with the firecracker detonations is genuine you shouldn't have much trouble pointing it out in other footage and bringing up witness testimony to support it.

Instead of calling other people "lying weasels" how about presenting some evidence that your so obvious fake is real ?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D


The viciousness of the OS-advocates is really striking, isn't it? They are aggressive, vindictive, malicious, judgemental, accusatory


Yeah, because debunkers are always calling for the perpetrators to be "hanged".

Oh, wait a sec...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join