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 thedman
No - all it takes is one column to fail
Pointing out that there were fires on multiple floors in WTC 7
So again what is causing all the smoke to pour out of south face?
You made statement that there were not any massive fires - have shown
you extensive fires on multiple floors. With no water the sprinklers
were inoperative - fires had free range
Again all it takes is failure of one part to start collapse
Originally posted by evil incarnate
Am I the only one here still waiting for someone to point out exactly which one column failed? Am I the only one still wating to see massive fires?
www.structuremag.org...
www.debunk911myths.org...
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E. is a partner at Gilsanz Murray Steficek,
a structural engineering and building envelope consulting firm.
Ramon has 25 years of structural experience in a wide range of
projects types and sizes as well as being involved in the cleanup at
ground zero, the selection of WTC steel remnants for analysis, the
ASCE-FEMA WTC report, and the ensuing NIST report. He can
be reached at [email protected]
Acknowledgements
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Structural Engineers Association of New York
...you need to use something besides appeals to authority.
Originally posted by billybob
you need to use something besides appeals to authority.
there are over 700 architects and engineers at AE911 who disagree with this whitewash from the perps.
this ramon dude was there at the cover-up, er clean-up, helped ignore the relevent steel that gave away the demo, and then helped write up the collapse from one column fairy tale.
his analysis reads exactly like the NIST report, and the NIST report is fatally flawed by admitting freefall, but not describing how that could possibly happen without an external energy sink.
Originally posted by billybob
complete hearsay. did you personally interview 141, 000 engineers?
was one of your survey questions, "have you discussed this with other engineers?"
i doubt more than a small percentage actually looked at the report, and among those, even the one's who disagree might not say anything, due to the overwhelming nature of the idea that there is a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and engineer society into a police state.
silence does not equal agreement. you assume too much.
Originally posted by mmiichael
A few of those attaching their names to Engineers for Truth complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave them deceptive paperwork which only said there are outstanding questions that still need investigation.
Originally posted by Lillydale
what do you suppose, in the deaths of 3000 Americans, would qualify and an outstanding question that needs to be investigated but nothing we need to really be concerned with?
Originally posted by billybob
this constant talk of fictional websites and charlatans that convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. the truth is, i knew it at 12:00 noon september 11th when i woke up and turned the TV on. some of us were actually paying attention in school. that's why we got 90 to 100 percent in our physics courses.
and it "us" that "you" have to worry about the most, because your crappy tactics don't work on someone who can see for him/herself.
Originally posted by mmiichael
To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.
Since this is basically your entire argument ever, are you going to get around to backing it up with some kind of scientific statistics at least?