Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by Alfie1

The attacks on the towers were not particularly early. 8.46 am and 9.03. Is that not within the normal working day in New York ? If the attacks had been at mid-day perhaps you would be suggesting that they were so timed that a lot of people were out to lunch.

I don't think the attack on the Pentagon was intended to kill as many as possible but because of its significance as Defense HQ.

I was simply suggesting a more busy time. The majority would probably lunch at their desk, by the time they got down, they would have to go back up. But who knows.

If you want people to remember something for a long time, you shock it into them.
Seems strange they would do that just to go to war, especially seeing as the war has achieved zero, other than the deaths of a lot of allied troops.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

There you go again, same thing again. MAYBE... he knew something and didn't care, understanding how much he'd make off the insurance. 10-20 million down, for 2 billion in return on destruction, not bad profit for signing onto a lease agreement..! But alas, now I'm doing the idiotic what if this and and that routine, and why didn't this happen or that happen instead..

I say maybe because I don't have all the answers. No one does. To assume we know it all just makes us come across as arrogant. People rarely listen to those who are arrogant.
I am not being negative and saying the theories are wrong, I am merely suggesting maybe there is something bigger, or some other reason.

But sadly I can see that it is a waste of time debating with you NewAge, as you seem to know it all. Maybe I suggest you try changing you attitude a little instead of suggesting people are saying idiotic things, otherwise you come across as unapproachable narcissistic moron and people will stop listening. People are always going to make suggestions, ask questions and say what if. Simply because the facts are not know yet. Until those facts are known, it all remains as a theory.

Take it easy.

New York City's building codes will not allow
a skyscraper to be built unless an approved
demolition plan of the structure is in place.
This plan of the demolition was incorporated
into the blueprints before it was built.

This demolition plan was abused on 9/11
to cover up mass financial crimes being
committed by Jewish Bankers on Wall Street
and in the Pentagon.

why was each building targeted?

The Pentagon's accounting office where
Rumsfeld claimed the day before there
were $3 Trillion dollars missing was hit
and destroyed on 9/11. Why that particular
section of the Pentagon ???? Rumsfeld's
office (Sec. of Defense) is on the other side
of the Pentagon. Destroying the accounting
office destroyed the evidence needed to
trace or convict the criminals fleecing
the US Military Budget.

Why WTC 7 ????

WTC 7 housed the offices of the SEC
who were investigating and storing evidence
against Enron and WorldCom scandals. This
evidence also linked back to Jewish Bankers
on Wall Street. When the building fell, so did
all the evidence on the Wall Street scandal.
No further action ensued against those involved
with Enron and WorldCom.

Why WTC 1 & 2 ????

Both twin towers had banks which aided the
criminals in laundering trillions of dollars to
Israel. As long as those computers in the towers
were operational, traces existed to link the
trillions in laundered money to Israeli banks
and offshore accounts owned by Mossad
and Jewish Wall Street Bankers.

This is exactly what Silverstein meant when
he said to "pull it". Meaning the demolition
plan established with the New York City's
Permit Office. The demolition plan for all
3 buildings were abused on 9/11 by
criminals intent on covering their arse.
If you knew Israel was robbing you,
would you still be their friend ???

9/11 was a criminal act to cover up
other criminal acts. Israel was erasing
their tracks and they are still doing it
today in other ways.

19 Islamic scapegoats were used as patsies
to also cover up Israel's involvement. Airliners
did not bring down the buildings, the pre-approved
demolition plan for each building did.

Just who was in charge in Israel on 9/11?

Ariel Sharon

He is now in a coma on life support to keep
him quiet. His successor Netenyahu is currently
in DC right now in talks with the WH.

Americans !!! You have been robbed and murdered
by Israel. yet you war only with the scapegoats
proved as the backdrop.

Does this sound like God's chosen people to you ???

Please note: I am not anti-Semitic.
But for the record, I am an Evangelical Christian.

And just as soon as Americans start finding out
this particular truth of 9/11, there will be another
false flag by Israel to cover up this criminal act.
It is a cycle, rinse and repeat.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Apart from the fact that Ariel Sharon was Israeli Prime Minister on 9/11/01 and the current PM Netenyahu is in Washington now I am calling you out and saying the rest of your post is your imagination.

Please give us some evidence for any of it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Apart from the fact that Ariel Sharon was Israeli Prime Minister on 9/11/01 and the current PM Netenyahu is in Washington now I am calling you out and saying the rest of your post is your imagination.
Please give us some evidence for any of it.

lol, go do ur homework and come back
in 6 months and we'll debate. But right
now, it's past your bedtime in Tel-Aviv

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Apart from the fact that Ariel Sharon was Israeli Prime Minister on 9/11/01 and the current PM Netenyahu is in Washington now I am calling you out and saying the rest of your post is your imagination.
Please give us some evidence for any of it.

lol, go do ur homework and come back
in 6 months and we'll debate. But right
now, it's past your bedtime in Tel-Aviv

So you can't provide any evidence; surprise surprise !

reply to post by SatoriTheory


you state that this war has achieved zero, as far as im aware and that has been reported apart from the oil there has been billions of pounds gone to mainly american companys on the rebuilding program so hardly zero, it would be interesting to find out who owns these big american building firms

reply to post by sensairich


Shareholders of the public companies.

Could possibly be even you through Mutual Fund purchases etc.

reply to post by bsbray11


with all due respect, I have been gone for awhile..
I have posted in many older threads here.. the pink words are mine.. it makes it easier to find where I am on the page, plus I happen to like pink..
anyways, it seemed kinda funny that the three engineers I mentioned are using the well worn talking points of the truther movement.. the buildings did NOT fall at exactly free fall speed, they did NOT fall into thier own footprints.. and there WAS a raging fire (according to the firemen on the scene) that was out of control in WTC7..
either these guys are not fully researched on the subject or they are not A students in thier field..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Alfie1

 

He flew the Boeing exceptionally well (allegedly) for a guy who could bare fly a cessna..

If this is your standard for saying someone has flown exceptionally well, I'd hate to see what you think is bad flying...



Seesaw'ing all over the place, because he thought he could descent faster by applying more throttle.


And banking all over the place.

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by bsbray11

 

with all due respect, I have been gone for awhile..

I don't remember you in the 911 threads either, and I've been here 7 years.

Here is some visual evidence to support controlled implosion demolition of WTC 7....





Outer walls on top of the debris pile is evidence that the building landed mostly in it's own footprint. Naturally the outer walls should be outside the footprint and under the debris pile.

There is only one way the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, controlled implosion demolition.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

reply to post by ANOK


hello ANOK, I did not post much, only when I thought there was a point to be made that people were forgetting.. I had a few lively discussions with ultima1, (if you remember Roger)..
but aside that, the picture can of course be interpreted several ways.. controlled implosion detonation being only one of them.. this is no proof either way.. the building came basically straight down.. it is reasonable to assume that some outer walls would wind up on top.. and also reasonable to assume that some of the structure would fall outside of the original footprint.. there are many pics out there that show just how wide the dispersal of debris was.. as long as you have been here, you know this..

I'm still undecided about 9/11, although WTC7 going down has always made me wonder. I guess I really don't want to believe that the US gov can stoop so low and commit such an horrendous act of mass murder on their own soil that basically is a crime against humanity. If the US gov is that corrupt, evil and without a conscious - then I'm sorry to say it, but I think the US would have a very dim future.

Yet, if true, as some believe here, I personally do not think it would be to just start a war with Iraq or a war on terror.

To me it would make more sense to stage a false flag attack to start a war with Iraq in response to Saddam's actions in no longer wanting to accept US currency which could have had huge economic implications.

Also, possibly to have a valid cause, as well as rally support, to enact the very controversial US Patriot Act.

I have done lots of 9/11 research on my own and do see lots of discrepancies and coincidences relating to 9/11 being just a well planned terrorist attack.. If anything, I would lean more toward the possibility that it was a real terrorist attack that the US gov had prior intelligence about yet decided to let it play out on it's own without intervention or taking proper responsive action for one reason or another.

I personally think there would be easier ways to accomplish all this and everything else listed in other posts than staging a complex false flag terrorist attack with commercial airliners and demolition of the WTC towers. It just seems to be way overboard when there are potentially much simpler solutions available that could provide the same results without mass casualties.. IMO..

reply to post by matito


Check out the work by Chomsky into US crimes abroad especially South America, There is much to read but be warned it it not nice reading. If I understand correctly the US is directly and also indirectly responsible for many many war crimes including genocide and it seems to me not a big leap from murdering your fellow humans to murdering your fellow countrymen.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1305935034&sr=8-4 with a look inside bit, this is the one I remember most clearly although I learned that the co-author did most of the writing and research.

Edit to add: thanks guys for posting your thoughts

Originally posted by pccat
with all due respect, I have been gone for awhile..

Since 2005? That's when I started posting here. ANOK in 2004 and he doesn't seem to remember you either. Oh well...

anyways, it seemed kinda funny that the three engineers I mentioned are using the well worn talking points of the truther movement.. the buildings did NOT fall at exactly free fall speed, they did NOT fall into thier own footprints.. and there WAS a raging fire (according to the firemen on the scene) that was out of control in WTC7..
either these guys are not fully researched on the subject or they are not A students in thier field..

You're behind the times.

Since you've been away, even NIST admitted that WTC7 accelerated at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum. I'll be happy to show you the links if you need them. In other words, even the government has admitted that WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. Looks like you're going to have to scramble backwards to a new defensive position on that one, downplaying what this means.

The Twin Towers were blown outwards in all directions, and ~90% of their masses did not land in their respective footprints, this is true. But WTC7 did land in its footprint, in both terms of where the most mass went as well as in terms of the center of gravity. Some debris spilled out onto all 4 neighboring streets but that is hardly a reason to claim the building didn't fall straight down, which it obviously did. That building was 47 stories and barely even made it across a single street on any side after it was completely destroyed. You can butcher semantics however you want but the reality will stare you in the face in any photograph, such as what ANOK posted above.


Welcome back to ATS!

reply to post by pccat


The fact is there are no scientists that support the OS fairytale.
A&E proved NIST was a fraud. Most scientist and engineers supports demolition because scientifically this is the only thing that explains the demise of all three WTC. Unless you have some evidence that prove that all three WTC were not demo, then I would have to say you will be the first in 10 years to present it

the building came basically straight down.. it is reasonable to assume that some outer walls would wind up on top.. and also reasonable to assume that some of the structure would fall outside of the original footprint.. there are many pics out there that show just how wide the dispersal of debris was.. as long as you have been here, you know this..

We are not here to “assume,” and call them the facts.
Care to explain how hundreds of tons of support beams were blasted over 500 feet in every direction from WTC 1&2, this does not scientifically support a straight down natural collapse does it?

reply to post by Seventh


Reason choose those times is simple

Hijackers needed fully fueled transcontinental flights with Boeing 757/767 aircraft

The flights using these aircraft depart from East Coast airports from between 7 AM to 9 AM Eastern Time

Also as day goes on delays become common from weather, mechanical failure, congestion which would
destroy the synchronization of the plot

Hijackers needed to take over flights in as short a time as possible

Witness United 93 which was delayed 40 minutes on ground in Newark airport

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by ANOK

 

hello ANOK, I did not post much, only when I thought there was a point to be made that people were forgetting.. I had a few lively discussions with ultima1, (if you remember Roger)..

Yes I remember ultima1. I'm sorry but I do not recall you name, maybe I was away that day?

...but aside that, the picture can of course be interpreted several ways.. controlled implosion detonation being only one of them.. this is no proof either way.. the building came basically straight down.. it is reasonable to assume that some outer walls would wind up on top..

Actually no it is not a reasonable assumption that all four outer walls would end up on top of the rest of the collapsed buildings from a non-controlled demolition. Just think about it for a minute. Even if a building can fall straight down from a non-controlled collapse the outer walls are going to be underneath the debris pile. The only way they can be on top is if the collapse sequence is perfectly timed to allow all the middle of the building to fall ahead of the outer walls creating a vaccum and space for them to fall into. Otherwise they would fall outwards and the debris would fall on top of them. Check ANY non-controlled demolition to see that.

...and also reasonable to assume that some of the structure would fall outside of the original footprint..

Yes that is true, even for a controlled demolition.

...there are many pics out there that show just how wide the dispersal of debris was.. as long as you have been here, you know this..

The dispersal of debris is not really the problem. The problem is all four outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building. Not just one wall, or part of a wall, all four walls are visible and it's obvious they folded in after the center of the building collapsed (see second pic). However you want to spin it that IS the point of implosion demolition. It can NOT happen from a natural collapse, period.

You have to admit the chance of that happening from a natural collapse is so astronomically high that it makes controlled implosion demolition the most, and only, logical answer.

WTC 7 is the tip of the iceberg in this tragedy. It is clear, undeniable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story about events that day are wrong, very very wrong. Just watching the video on how it fell and this is not some building undergoing stress from damage and fire, but the same regular pattern as every other controlled demolition.

For Engineers to request permission to speak freely they do not fully understand the situation. The courts dismiss with prejudice any case that involves the events of 9/11. The ICC cannot even touch the the 6 people responsible for breaking the Geneva Convention on war crimes and torture. Instead, the ICC is used as a tool to attack leaders like Gaddafi while those responsible for millions of deaths go unchallenged. There is a power struggle going on with might getting the upper hand over right. Engineers and others with bits and pieces of the puzzle need to take the initiative as permission will be denied by those trying to maintain their power.

We have a situation where no one is watching the watchers. The population is gradually waking up but many are still too unaware, scared, don't care or are profiteering from these events. The law the courts are listening to is that of the jungle. If Ron Paul gets in at the next election he has the best chance of reviewing this with some integrity, but will not be easy with many of the same players still in the system. Otherwise it will take a revolution to readjust the balance of power. The best chance I see is for Planet X coming back and the Anunnaki taking us all out for our arrogance, stupidity and greed as we would just be a blight on the rest of the Universe if this failed experiment of humanity is allowed to continue.

Since you've been away, even NIST admitted that WTC7 accelerated at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum. I'll be happy to show you the links if you need them. In other words, even the government has admitted that WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. Looks like you're going to have to scramble backwards to a new defensive position on that one, downplaying what this means.

The Twin Towers were blown outwards in all directions, and ~90% of their masses did not land in their respective footprints, this is true. But WTC7 did land in its footprint, in both terms of where the most mass went as well as in terms of the center of gravity. Some debris spilled out onto all 4 neighboring streets but that is hardly a reason to claim the building didn't fall straight down, which it obviously did. That building was 47 stories and barely even made it across a single street on any side after it was completely destroyed. You can butcher semantics however you want but the reality will stare you in the face in any photograph, such as what ANOK posted above.

I am not going to get into a back and forth endless debate.. I have nothing to defend, nor do I feel a need to down play anything.. WTC7 falling into its own footprint (more or less) is indicative of structural failure, not necessarily controlled implosion.. I have found very few, better explanations for the WTC7 events than these links here..
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...