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 DeeKlassified
If you are so bothered about groundhog day why have you been debating 9/11 for all these years?
It's been the same questions asked, and the same topics investigated/researched for all this time, but that has not stopped you going over the same subject matter. If you're so bored of 9/11 then why are you still participating?
Nothing has been 'debunked' as you say, an opinion by some like yourself doesn't mean something is officially debunked! It'd take a whole lot of independent unbiased experts to actually debunk something properly. NIST/FEMA etc have debunked nothing, their reports are biased, as are your views because you are not open minded to anything outside the 'official story'.
Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by exponent
No offense friend, but Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not interested in talking to you, whoever you are.
Originally posted by exponent
ANOK I have shown you this now more than 10 times. You keep pretending the posts don't exist. Stop embarrassing yourself. If you feel so confident in this position then here:
I challenge ANOK to a formal debate. I will advocate the position that fire can damage trusses in the WTC, cause them to sag and put an inward force on columns. This force is sufficient to deform the wall inwards until it collapses
Put up or shut up ANOK.
Well CTBUH, Arup, NIST, istructe etc etc all disagree with you. So yeah you can believe it on your own if you like, just like the UFO believers do. Nobody cares.
ANOK you've repeated the same point in 20+ posts despite being shown how it works by me endlessly. Stop being hypocritical and face the facts.
Originally posted by ANOK
Well seeing as you have been unable to prove that, then I doubt you would be able to in a formal debate. But if you really want to be embarrassed, then go ahead and set it up mate.
Now remember though you have to prove that sagging trusses can pull in columns, and you have to explain why the connections didn't fail first.
Proving trusses can sag is all you've done so far, and we already know that, you are making the massive uneducated leap of faith, and assuming they would put a pulling force on the columns.
Then you have to explain why the connections were the weak point during the collapses, but not when they pulled in columns. Then you need to explain how the core failed, and I don't mean just words, I want to see evidence that the core could not stand without the floors.
I can easily explain, and show evidence, how that is not possible, and remember I don't care if you dismiss my evidence because it's not about you, it's about the readers of the thread.
Hmm so all you can do is appeal to authority. How do you know what they are telling you is the truth? Because people in authority never lie?
You have not shown how it works. No one can prove sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns. You just make a complete leap of faith from sagging trusses to sagging trusses can pull in columns.
Something that is sagging can't put much of a force on anything, especially something designed to hold it's weight 4-6 times over.
Yet I can show you a PDF that shows what happens when beams and trusses sag, and it doesn't say they can pull in the columns.
You have not shown anything that contradicts my reply to you and PLB. Just lot's of "look at this paper", without any indication as to what I'm supposed to be looking at.
With your reply to this reply why don't you just lay out all your proof in one easy to read, and understand, reply that leaves no question as to your point? Because so far you have done nothing but offer lip service.
IF trusses or beams can pull in columns then there should be a precedence for this somewhere, where is it? You put up or shut up. 'Shut up' being what you want me to do, isn't it einstein?
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
When an ex-CDI professional says WTC7 is a CD, I am inclined to pay attention.
In that video he made some compelling statements and clearly he knows exactly what he is talking about.
Curiously no debunker's ever takes him on.
See the proof is in WTC7, which leads us to the next two buildings......
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
When an ex-CDI professional says WTC7 is a CD, I am inclined to pay attention.
In that video he made some compelling statements and clearly he knows exactly what he is talking about.
Curiously no debunker's ever takes him on.
See the proof is in WTC7, which leads us to the next two buildings......
edit on 29-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Guys it not just the guy from CDI, Danny Jawenko said the same thing.
Now who is cherry picking ?
As for the President of CDI it's not in his best interest to be advocating 9/11 is an inside job, so it comes as no surprise that he would defend the OS on WTC7.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Guys it not just the guy from CDI, Danny Jawenko said the same thing.
Now who is cherry picking ?
As for the President of CDI it's not in his best interest to be advocating 9/11 is an inside job, so it comes as no surprise that he would defend the OS on WTC7.
Originally posted by ANOK
Controlled demolitions don't happen by themselves.
Originally posted by hellobruce
And no controlled demolition happened on 9/11, as the facts show.
The only "evidence" you have for controlled demolition is your need to believe the US government bought down the buildings. You have no evidence for your silly claim at all, just a lack of knowledge about physics and how things work and even less knowledge on what would be involved in wiring those buildings for demolition.
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”
Originally posted by Vaedur
Can I just add a few observations?
1) to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you have to believe the george w bush is a criminal mastermind!
2) Sure, it looks like demolitions to me, but proof I have yet to find, just an "observation".
3) if someone is really capable of pulling of 9/11 do you really think it would be smart to "out" them with definitive proof?
Originally posted by ANOK
Even NISTs former chief of the fire department wants an investigation of NIST's investigation. Would you not consider this guy and expert?
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”