#1 Reason To Believe...

Originally posted by Connected
You know whats even more funny? The FEMA report says fire was the only cause of WTC 7 collapse, and NOT damage. I even made a thread about there here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whats even MORE funny is that the believers aren't even touching that thread.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Connected]

Whats even more funny the NIST and FEMA reports state that the planes did not cause the toowers to collapse it was the fire, but we have seen too many videoe and photos that show fires going out well before the collapse.

Not to mention the firmen, firechiefs, excavation, and demo teams on the scene di dnot expect a full collapse. Their was some concern about the upper floors collapsing of the fires would have burned for several more hours.

You know, its not getting funny anymore, now its just plain sad.

Originally posted by Connected
You know, its not getting funny anymore, now its just plain sad.

Yes, i wish i could get ahold of the FBI and NTSB crime scene reports and see what that officially state. I can find all FBI and NTSB reports on every aviation crime scene. But even though i can access government sites i can not find anything on any of the 911 crime scenes.

I mean the FBI did not officially take over the Pentagon as a crime scene for 10 days, then after stating it would take a month to complete they handed it back over the the military in 5 days.

Originally posted by Damocles
yeah, at this point i got nothing to contribute.

this post is for one reason.

WELCOME BACK SLAPPY :d

Word... I changed my email address and cannot be Slap Nuts anymore I guess

So I will have to go with the pet name assigned to me by my girlfriend. pootie.

Originally posted by Pootie
You are on the Internet... are you qualified to speak? By your own standards you should leave the discussion and log off into oblivion because you are just someone on the Internet.

Correct. But then I would have to work.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002 Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading...

Not quite consensus... not even 1%...

I think it’s odd that you are dismissing a report put out by 25 of the nation’s leading structural and fire prevention engineers…because it wasn’t put out by 125,000 structural and fire prevention engineers.

That’s a pretty high bar. I don’t know what to say to that.

…also they were working hand in hand with FEMA according to that article. Do you really think they are going to disagree with FEMA?

Yes. I do.

I’ll ask again: Are you an engineer, Pootie? From my personal experience working with engineers, and I have had plenty, they are generally not the type of people to buy into grand conspiracy theories, nor are they the type of people to falsify their numbers for any reason.

Especially considering most civil engineers work projects that are government funded? It would be virtual grant suicide.

I think you are overestimating the influence of grants on structural engineering firms. We’re talking about some big money businesses here.

You are the on implying that the ASCE in it's entirety is in agreement and I am stating FACT that they have not been polled or taken a vote or anything of the like.

Fair. I will simply say then that out of the 10 or so ASCE structural engineers that I have personally discussed 9/11 with, 10 of them were disgusted by the controlled demolition theory. (I’m bad at math though…is that 100%?)

I like how you imply here that being an engineer = higher moral ground... hilarious.

Engineers don’t often dabble in rhetoric. It makes them easy to read and hard to deceive. Can you offer me a couple solid examples of sneaky and deceptive engineers…it seems as though you’ve had a lot of bad experiences with them.

So you stop reading when you do not understand something?

No. I just don’t claim to understand something when I’m not sure I do.

They are not scientific papers by any stretch of the imagination...

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination. NIST reports are a little steeper than that.

But if you want me to say it I will: I’m so dumb.

Find me a picture of a lump of C4 that was mashed in the collapse...

I can’t. Noone can. Which is why I think most people believe it wasn’t there.

It is fact that the rubble was removed VERY quickly. FACT.

Very quickly like 30 minutes very quickly, or a few weeks very quickly?

In truth, this is one of the things I find to be odd about 9/11. I’m not sure why so much of the analysis was skipped. I do think, however, that it’s a pretty big jump to say that it was moved to hide conclusive proof of a massive conspiracy.

Originally posted by Essedarius
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's not really the facts that keep the Truth Movement in check...it's the delivery of the facts.

Say it till your blue in the face. The reason "we" lack "facts" is because the EVIDENCE is GONE or being SUPRESSED. [B] AND YOU LIKE IT THAT WAY.[/B]

When did I become the enemy? Hell, I’m one of the few people in the world that will actually take the time to discuss this with you. I’d think you’d treat me with a little more respect.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Fair. I will simply say then that out of the 10 or so ASCE structural engineers that I have personally discussed 9/11 with, 10 of them were disgusted by the controlled demolition theory. (I’m bad at math though…is that 100%?)

Its just too bad you do not have the FBI and NTSB crime scene reports to support what you believe happened.

I happen to side with the firemen, firechiefs, excavation, and demo crews who were on the scene and did not expect a full collapse of the buildings, then someone behind a desk working on a model.

The firechiefs on scene were only concerned that the upper floors of the towers might collapse if the fires would have burned for several more hours.

Originally posted by Essedarius
I think it’s odd that you are dismissing a report put out by 25 of the nation’s leading structural and fire prevention engineers…

I dismiss it because it is backwards science... it begins with a conclusion and is not supported by the limited available evidence.

Why don't you read up on those who DO NOT believe the government's FEMA/ASCE/NIST junk science.

How about these scientists, engineers and students: stj911.org...

Or Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials here: www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Or maybe the survivors families?: www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Maybe these veterans: www.v911t.org...

When you are finished, read what "Fire Engineering Magazine" has to say about your "Fire Prevention Experts" claims here: 72.14.209.104...:eLleB9EV2v0J:fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm%3FSection%3DARCHI%26ARTICLE_ID%3D133237%26VERSION_NUM%3D1 +fire+engineering+magazine+farce&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I happen to side with the firemen, firechiefs, excavation, and demo crews who were on the scene and did not expect a full collapse of the buildings, then someone behind a desk working on a model.

This is going to come across as sarcastic, but please don't take it that way. It's a sincere question:

According to most Truth Movement theories, aren't all those groups "IN" on the operation? I've read a ton of stuff where it is implied, if not explicitly stated, that the fire chiefs were operating as though they new what was going to happen.

I would certainly agree with the assessment of many people on the ground. But I would also take into account the environment that they were in at the moment, and the stress they were under.

But again, I don't disagree that odd things happened that day. I just think there is a statistical allowance for "odd" that means it doesn't necessarily mean "EVIL AND PLANNED."

Originally posted by Essedarius
[According to most Truth Movement theories, aren't all those groups "IN" on the operation? I've read a ton of stuff where it is implied, if not explicitly stated, that the fire chiefs were operating as though they new what was going to happen.

Well i am in the truth movement, meaning i am looking for the truth. I go by the research i have done, such as.

911 commission report, staff statement 13:

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]