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.

 

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 21
64
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



what would the investigators be looking for? You KNOW how they would do it and what they would use?


In this case you look for landing gears and other such parts.




posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

A few hundred miles of wiring....no matter what method used, there would be a few hundred miles of it. And yes, it would be distinctive from normal electrical wiring.



You THINK it needed wiring because you are looking for something you have seen before.

Anyway. We hit a dead end. Until the next time....



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Sorry I missed you Bruce, I am usually not online during your shift. Maybe this weekend...


Funny how you ignored my question, because you know it totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory....

You have zero evidence the buildings were wired up with explosives, so you just make nonsense up!



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Anyway. We hit a dead end.


That is because there is no evidence at all that the buildings were wired up with explosives, no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being smuggled in, no one noticed the holes knocked in walls, the km of wire needed.

You think you can blow buildings up by someone running around sticking a few egg timers to the walls, as you get your information from James Bond movies!



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Sorry I missed you Bruce, I am usually not online during your shift. Maybe this weekend...


Funny how you ignored my question, because you know it totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory....

You have zero evidence the buildings were wired up with explosives, so you just make nonsense up!


It was a carbon copy of the post above yours which i answered. There will be no running from any idea you have brought forward.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Anyway. We hit a dead end.


That is because there is no evidence at all that the buildings were wired up with explosives, no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being smuggled in, no one noticed the holes knocked in walls, the km of wire needed.

You think you can blow buildings up by someone running around sticking a few egg timers to the walls, as you get your information from James Bond movies!


In your simple world maybe your right... but I am talking about the real not so simple world where it is very very very possible and quite likely explosives were used.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
but I am talking about the real not so simple world where it is very very very possible and quite likely explosives were used.


So you think silent explosives were used, as there were no sounds before the buildings started falling, so you know nothing ay all about building demolition, not knowing that thousands of man hours, hundreds of km of cable, tonnes of explosives, many holes knocked in walls.... which nobody at all noticed.

You really are living in fairy land!
edit on 9-12-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
but I am talking about the real not so simple world where it is very very very possible and quite likely explosives were used.


So you think silent explosives were used, as there were no sounds because the buildings started falling, so you know nothing ay all about building demolition, not knowing that thousands of man hours, hundreds of km of cable, tonnes of explosives, many holes knocked in walls.... which nobody at all noticed.

You really are living in fairy land!


OMG! What silence?? A 100 story building was collapsing and you describe it as silent. And I'm living in fairy land?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
OMG! What silence??


The silence made by tonnes of explosives going exploding.... You really have no idea at all how loud tonnes of explosives going off is!


And I'm living in fairy land?


Very true, with your silent explosives!



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
OMG! What silence??


The silence made by tonnes of explosives going exploding.... You really have no idea at all how loud tonnes of explosives going off is!


And I'm living in fairy land?


Very true, with your silent explosives!


Now your just being ignorant and quite ridiculous.

Have a good day Bruce.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA. He was pointing out that HAD explosives been used, there would have been an unmistakable BOOM-BOOM-BOOM (x10,000). That, we did not hear. More proof that there were no explosives that day.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA. He was pointing out that HAD explosives been used, there would have been an unmistakable BOOM-BOOM-BOOM (x10,000). That, we did not hear. More proof that there were no explosives that day.



In a normal CD you would be right. Explosive ignite and then the building falls. In this case the explosions and the collapse were happening at the same time. So no, I really di not believe you would be able to hear the explosives over top of a 100 story building collapse. Especially recorded into a camera mic from a distance.

This is, again, you trying to compare a theory of explosives with a typical controlled demolition which would not be the case.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

A building the size of the twin towers has never been imploded before.


But you're willing to advocate that they were imploded, with nothing but imagination, ignorance, and incredulity as your evidence.

But.....

You're UNwiliing to accept that they failed due to plane impacts and fire, even though we all saw the planes and the fires.....


That means you can not exclude explosives because this specific application would have never been done before. IF explosives were used...


You're wrong about that. The physics of an explosive that would be able to collapse the towers is known. They are loud and have a high brisance.

To claim that they were used, but not noticeable above the sound of the building collapsing..... now THAT would be breaking the laws of physics...



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
[

It has never been done before.



True.

Therefore you need extraordinary evidence to convince the rational that it was a CD.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Was evidence of explosives looked for?


Of course it was. Virtually all the steel was visually examined. That includes signs of something odd going on, like the "swiss cheese" piece. There were zero visual signs of either cutter charges being used, nor a "brute force" explosive shattering the steel.

If there was, then chemical tests for explosives on the "cut" would of been done. None like that were found, so no chemical tests were done.

What did you expect? that they would test every piece of steel for explosive residue?


what would the investigators be looking for? You KNOW how they would do it and what they would use?



They'd be looking for signs of "cut" or "shattered" steel columns. These signs are known.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


and quite likely explosives were used.




So do you still think that every concrete slab was blown to smithereens and out the windows?

Or have you abandoned that insane claim after you thought about it some more?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

OMG! What silence?? A 100 story building was collapsing and you describe it as silent. And I'm living in fairy land?



You are, if you believe that the collapsing building would cover up the sound of every floor's concrete being blown to dust and out the windows.

Any person interested in truth would just admit that in every video of an explosive driven collapse, the explosives are WAY louder than the building they are collapsing.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot




Any person interested in truth would just admit that in every video of an explosive driven collapse, the explosives are WAY louder than the building they are collapsing.


In a normal CD, all the windows, furniture, carpeting, drywall etc. has been removed beforehand which would greatly affect the noise levels.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
In a normal CD, all the windows, furniture, carpeting, drywall etc. has been removed beforehand which would greatly affect the noise levels.


They also use tonnes of explosives, km of wire, punch many holes in the walls etc. etc,.... yet truthers claim that all this was done with no one noticing!



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join