The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by hooper
 


Lets talk cash.


With over 1 million man-hours at above minimum wage. Let's say it's around 20 dollars an hour. That's 20 million just in hours. That's not counting any expenses accrued from the investigative process.




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by abeverage
 





Building 7 makes me doubt the OS...

Now all you need is one expert who can prove it.

The world awaits.


I have a degree in Drafting. I understand how buildings are designed and the tolerances they can take. Here are some questions you need to ask yourself.

Why and how did building 7 catch fire?
Why didn’t the fire suppression systems work on this building? (I understand the catastrophic events of WTC1 and WCT2 and the fuel etc for those fires…so let’s keep to the subject of WTC7).
Why did it not have enough pressure?
If the fire supression systems could not contain this fire why are the companies not being sued?
Why did the surrounding buildings survive and yet WTC7 was a more modern building?
Why were firefighters kept out of WTC7

Then...do some digging on that building and who owned it and how they had a difficult time keeping leases and there you have an answer on a motive.

Here are some engineers and Architects and firemen etc who will disagree with you
www.ae911truth.org...

Would you consider them experts?

WTC7 was most certainly was left to collapse and the circumstances that lead to it are highly suspicious.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by abeverage
 





Building 7 makes me doubt the OS...

Now all you need is one expert who can prove it.

The world awaits.


I have a degree in Drafting. I understand how buildings are designed and the tolerances they can take. Here are some questions you need to ask yourself.

Why and how did building 7 catch fire?
Why didn’t the fire suppression systems work on this building? (I understand the catastrophic events of WTC1 and WCT2 and the fuel etc for those fires…so let’s keep to the subject of WTC7).
Why did it not have enough pressure?
If the fire supression systems could not contain this fire why are the companies not being sued?
Why did the surrounding buildings survive and yet WTC7 was a more modern building?
Why were firefighters kept out of WTC7

Then...do some digging on that building and who owned it and how they had a difficult time keeping leases and there you have an answer on a motive.

Here are some engineers and Architects and firemen etc who will disagree with you
www.ae911truth.org...

Would you consider them experts?

WTC7 was most certainly was left to collapse and the circumstances that lead to it are highly suspicious.


WTC7 caught fire because of debris from WTC1 & 2.

WTC7 fire suppression system was damaged by the debris from WTC1 & 2. With no fire suppression system it is there is no pressure or ability to fire the fire.

No companies are being sued because there was no basis for legal action. Fire was a result of damage not negligence.

WTC7 was a 47 story tall building that was built over a Con-Ed substation which meant it had a non traditional cantilever design which made it more susceptible to collapse. The surrounding building were shorter and more sturdy buildings.

Firefighters primary duty is to prevent lose of life. No one was in WTC7 and they were needed in the rescue attempts in the debris pile as well as in buildings where people were.

Based on material they have presented I would not consider them experts in anything other than maintaining Gage's lifestyle.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142

WTC7 caught fire because of debris from WTC1 & 2.


Did any other building catch fire because of debris? Even buildings that were closer.

But even those that were closer had to be pulled down later. VERY CURIOUS!

psik



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
So according to the self-proclaimed experts on ATS it’s clear as the nose on your face that WTC was controlled demolition. They dismiss the lack of outcry from the US experts in the fields of CD, physics, structural engineering and other related fields. Their explanation is that somehow these experts are being silenced. Whether its threats from men in black suits or the higher ups in their own company, the truthers never explain. Somehow in some secret way Bush and Cheney are still quashing the voices and opinions of all the US experts.

But what about the rest of the world’s experts?
They have the same internet as we do.
They see the same Youtube videos we do.
They have access to ATS and all its experts.

Take the UK for instance. Their experts are just as good as ours. But not a peep out of them.

What about Russia? Are you saying their experts can’t figure out that the OS doesn’t add up? They don’t really like the US. It’s more of a tolerance of the US for economic reasons. In their eyes any dirt on the US is a feather in their cap of credibility.

What about Iran? They really don’t like us at all. But they do have credible experts in all the needed fields, especially physics. But somehow their experts agree with the OS.


Excellent point! I come from the crowd of unsure of what exactly happened but I would like an independent investigation not conducted by our government, I am a on-the-fencer but enough things don't add up to warrant a another look.

With that said there are two very good reasons you have not heard any outcry from other sources. Nobody raises a stink over this because they don't want their credibility or reputation tarnished, you see this with airline pilots not wanting to report UFO's. Wanting to keep your job is a mighty big incentive to not talk about it. The other is reason is very few people want to sound crazy and we all know talking about conspiracy theories can get you labeled as a nut. People in well paying jobs wouldn't want to throw their job away by spouting such theories.


And while you are right there doesn't seem to be a lot of foreign architects or engineers writing articles expressing their views on the matter there are some others:

Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysian PM:
world911truth.org...

Francesco Cossiga, Ex President of Italy:
georgewashington.blogspot.com...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President:
abcnews.go.com...

Other high ranking officials:

www.wanttoknow.info...

Long list of people in high places not believing the official story:
georgewashington.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Oh... So because the sprinklers in WTC7 didnt work.. It imploded.. Cool, yeah that makes sense....


If only the sprinklers worked... then t he steel wouldnt have melted??

Lets just throw all logic aside, so we can continue to talk to these paid-for deniers



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
WTC7 caught fire because of debris from WTC1 & 2.


How did it catch fire from falling debris?

Why were there fires on sides of the building that were not in the path of any debris?

Why didn't the Verizon Building, or WTC US Post Office building catch fire, there were psoitioned either side of WTC7.

Did WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 catch fire? They were even closer?

The Bankers Trust building was also a similar distance from the towers and didn't catch fire?

Why does a debris hitting the outside of one side of the building completely knock out the sprinklers for the whole building?

Is there any official documents to clarify any of what I have questioned?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Ok you win and I am with you...9/11 was 19 mostly Saudi Arabian Terrorists that hijacked planes that couldn't be shot down. Which led to a war with Afghanistan and Iraq because…missing WMD’s(HUH?) but oddly not with the countries these terrorists came from. But at least we toppled that cruel dictator Hussein and any stability that Iraq provided in that region. Of course we are getting out of Afghanistan only after 11 years and those stupid Soviets only lasted 9! Whimps!

Are you saying the US government was too inept to prevent it or even predict them hitting NY’s tallest building, even though a TV show predicted it 6 months prior. And our government lies, does cover-ups, or promotes propaganda to draw us into conflict? Ouch I have to disagree with you there!

Nobody, but an evil Muslim, hiding out in the desert named Osama who was sponsored by the CIA in the 70’s masterminded this whole event of whom we could not catch for 10 years despite being the most sophisticated and technologically advance military in the world.

Bush is a republican and Obama is a Democrat both of which would never support big businesses and have the tax payer’s interest in mind and would always have opposing views and policies, well at least when it comes to a perpetual war on terrorism.

And of course only NAZI’s would burn the Reichstag building to help usher in laws protecting its citizens and giving more power to its leaders and lead them into war…So forget the patriot act, TSA and the HOMELANDSecurity those are they to protect the US! And History never repeats itself!

Yep I agree with you nothing to see here move on…Oh and what are other world architects doing since they believe the 9/11 OS too?
Oh this?
But I am told they say there is nothing to see here either and no resemblance to 9/11 so go back to sleep
They apologize that looks can be deceiving and not blatant in your face…
edit on 13-7-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I may have gotten off topic a bit there. I am sorry...but something stinks when you look at the bigger picture. And what happened was a tragic event and terrorism should be condemned! But believe me the world sees and teaches about 9/11 very differently. Polls show that...en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-7-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamLuv
Oh... So because the sprinklers in WTC7 didnt work.. It imploded.. Cool, yeah that makes sense....


If only the sprinklers worked... then t he steel wouldnt have melted??

Lets just throw all logic aside, so we can continue to talk to these paid-for deniers


The steel didn't melt. Does that really need to be repeated again?

Sprinklers and fireproofing are essential for the stability of a building. When steel and other building components heat up, they lose strength that must be distributed to the rest of the respective floors. Are you going to try to tell me that with damaged fireproofing and no water, that the building should show no ill effects? Methinks you don't understand anything about why we fireproof buildings.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Would you care to answer the questions I posed a couple of posts above?

I would love to see what answers you may have for these questions.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
How did it catch fire from falling debris?


Debris gets ignited by burning jet fuel often continues to burn after falling. Sometimes fires in buildings can be started simply from electrical wiring shorting out after the impact. I imagine the wires that go through the ceilings and walls weren't particularly intact in the impact zones.


Why were there fires on sides of the building that were not in the path of any debris?


Fire spreads.


Why didn't the Verizon Building, or WTC US Post Office building catch fire, there were psoitioned either side of WTC7.


Pretty sure they did, but the damage and building design was different. Different buildings got varying levels of attention from the fire department. I can't answer this question with absolute certainty, but you will need to prove to me that they never had fire.


Did WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 catch fire? They were even closer?


I've seen video of the firefighters pouring water on these buildings, so I assume there was fire.


The Bankers Trust building was also a similar distance from the towers and didn't catch fire?


Again, not sure. I know that most of the buildings in the area had varying levels of fire and damage. Almost all of them needed to be deconstructed floor-by-floor, and the Deutsch Bank caught fire during deconstruction, killing a few people if I remember right.


Why does a debris hitting the outside of one side of the building completely knock out the sprinklers for the whole building?


It's not that all the sprinklers were broken, it's that the water main in the ground next to the building was severed.


Is there any official documents to clarify any of what I have questioned?


Not sure. They're highly specific questions, and I haven't personally seen detailed reports on it.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 



Why and how did building 7 catch fire?


Burning debris from WTC 1 North Tower - a gash 20 stories high was slashed into WTC 7 south face
This allowed burning debris from collapse of North Tower to enter building and start fires on numerous floors


As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41




Why didn’t the fire suppression systems work on this building? (I understand the catastrophic events of WTC1 and WCT2 and the fuel etc for those fires…so let’s keep to the subject of WTC7).


Collapse of WTC 1 & 2 cut the water mains to the area disabling sprinkler system, also damage suffered by
WTC 7 compromised the standpipe systems which deliver water to each floor for fire fighting


The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.


The FDNY made an attempt to enter WTC 7 and fight the fires inside


We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale


Capt Chris Boyle FDNY


So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
.


Suffered from little or no water pressure to the building . Because of reports of severe structural damage to WTC
7 the incident commanders made decision to withdraw their men

Why risk additional lives trying to fight the fires - WTC 7 had been evacuated. The FDNY had suffered massive
casualties and lost many pieces of equipment . There was no water pressure inside WTC 7 to fight the fires



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



Why were there fires on sides of the building that were not in the path of any debris?


Ah because fires will spread from initial point(s) of origin to the other side of the building

Or did you fail to consider that


Why didn't the Verizon Building, or WTC US Post Office building catch fire, there were psoitioned either side of WTC7.


Do you lack reading comprehension....?

operative phrase: there were positioned either side of WTC7...

Either side of WTC 7 means were out of direct line of debris fall

Also both buildings, Verison (140 West St), Post Office (90 Church) were of older method of construction with
heavy masonry exteriors which prevented debris from entering the interior of the buildings and causing fires



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by samkent

Would you want this same person to design a bridge?



No. And I also wouldn't step foot into a steel building designed by an OS'er.


That's funny, I suppose you don't go into many steel builings then, since approximately .01% of engineers are truthers.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

So what is next, nuke Iran and blame it on China? Maybe Nuke Chicago and blame it on extremist so all your citizens can be forcibly microchipped. Or is it another Global Financial Collapse to profit through hoarding resources and force microchips on everyone? Do you actually know what you are fighting for or have you just been fighting so long you have forgotten?



Really? You really think that because people argue against 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are somehow culpable for every calamity that happened since, and some that haven't even happened yet? This strikes me as a false dichotomy.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thanks for answering the questions better than I would have.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks for providing references and answering the questions far more thoroughly than I did.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 




Really? You really think that because people argue against 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are somehow culpable for every calamity that happened since, and some that haven't even happened yet? This strikes me as a false dichotomy.


I understand everyone needs to make a living, but when your living is lying to yourself, lying to the facts and lying to everyone else, you do have some responsibility when it all goes pair shaped. Perhaps because you think Osama Bin Laden was the real mastermind behind 9/11, he is dead so problem solved. Unfortunately when you look at the inside job, the criminal are still there making their money, wielding there power and getting ready for the next attack as successful criminals do. I am just saying if you want to cross the road without looking for traffic, the consequences can be very messy.
edit on 14-7-2012 by kwakakev because: added 'lying' twice



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

It was in movies and card games for Christs sake.




LOL...

This is the funniest thing I've read here in a while.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join