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.

 

Should we just focus on Building 7?

page: 15
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Wrong. The van did NOT have a mural painted on the side of it. AND less than seven minutes after the report of possible explosives, was the second report that no explosives were in the van.




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Sorry, but Willie Rodriguez long ago proved that he was lying. In the days after 9/11, he said that there were noises above him that sounded like heavy furniture was being moved around. A couple years later, after the "Truth" movement started to grow, he started spinning a tale about explosions that blew the drywall off the walls, collapsed his office ceiling, etc....

Of course NOW, people will pay him to come and tell his tales.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
one van was pulled over by the George Washington bridge and contained "tons of explosives". This van had a mural painted on the side of the two towers and a plane flying into the side of one of them. This can't be ignored and proves both the presence of explosives AND advanced knowledge.


No, it was just a made up story, no explosives were found, no mural was painted on any van.


Another van was reported by these same credible sources as having exploded and that the fire department had the men detained. These 7 total men were later deported. Nothing in the official story even pretends to acknowledge this.


So a van load of explosives exploded, but there was no evidence of it, no one heard it or needed to clean up anything.... yet you claim that a "credible source" reported all of it?

Why do truthers post such nonsense without stopping to actually think about what they post?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Sorry, but Willie Rodriguez long ago proved that he was lying. In the days after 9/11, he said that there were noises above him that sounded like heavy furniture was being moved around. A couple years later, after the "Truth" movement started to grow, he started spinning a tale about explosions that blew the drywall off the walls, collapsed his office ceiling, etc....

Of course NOW, people will pay him to come and tell his tales.


I asked you in the other currently active 9/11 thread to prove your claims that you spout as fact.

Specifically, you said the Guardian corrected their story on several of the 9/11 hijackers being alive. Please prove this claim or STOP making unfounded claims in this forum. This is exactly what you say to "Truthers".

I will be waiting for your response, but it's been 12 hours in the other thread so, I assume you likely were making up your claim, as you so often do.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Just to add on previously mentioned above, witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the planes hit the towers,


Funny that the Naudet brothers, who were filming and managed to catch flight 11 hit WTC 1 never caught any explosions, nor were any picked up by seismographs that picked up the planes hitting the buildings and their collapse.

Why do truthers keep bring up the same much debunked crap - all it shows is that they have done zero research!
edit on 21-2-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Just to add on previously mentioned above, witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the planes hit the towers,


Funny that the Naudet brothers, who were filming and managed to catch flight 11 hit WTC 1 never caught any explosions, nor were any picked up by seismographs that picked up the planes hitting the buildings and their collapse.


Also "funny" that you continue to ignore any evidence that counters the offical story, and find your typical excuses as to why only the "official evidence" matters. The same official evidence that it's own committee members said was "politically motivated", "a cover up", a "national scandal", and In which they were lied to.

So, you can throw away the same evidence the committee rejected, and embrace the same flawed official story, and accuse anyone who points this out as a silly Truther. You are truely a piece of work, and transparent as glass.
edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Also "funny" that you continue to ignore any evidence that counters the offical story,


That is because you are unable to put forward any evidence, just the standard truther silly stories like "the buildings fell in their own footprint" when a quick check shows that is just not true, or that the collapse of WTC 7 was left out of the official report, another lie.... or Larry Silverstein confirmed WTC 7 was demolished, which he never did....

What is even sillier is you thinking the FDNY wires up and blows buildings up, and they do it on the command of a civilian!

So as we see truthers are not at all interested in the truth, they ignore the evidence preferring to go with silly made up stories!
edit on 21-2-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Perhaps you can outline your step by step rebuttal of the official NIST WTC 7 report to help this thread move forward as a start. I'd be interested in where you disagree. Can you ensure you quote the specific parts with page numbers you disagree with.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Perhaps you can outline your step by step rebuttal of the official NIST WTC 7 report to help this thread move forward as a start. I'd be interested in where you disagree. Can you ensure you quote the specific parts with page numbers you disagree with.


Personally, I only have to compare their computer sim to the actual event to see the obvious flaws.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I didn't realize that many conversations recorded on NYFD radio dispatches where firefighters confirm they have men detained wasn't a credible source. I didn't realize the NYPD wasn't a credible source. I didn't realize that NBC, CNN, CBS or ABC news reports from the evening of 9/11 on this topic weren't credible. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time or technical know how to post lots of videos and links, but here's an excerpt:

"It was reported by ABC, the New York Post and the New Jersey Bergen Record that police stopped a group of five men in a white van on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel at around 4.30pm on 9/11.

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives.

The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released.

It was also determined that the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominick Suter, dropped his business a few days after 9/11 and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as Mohammed Atta and the 19 hijackers."

The fact that so many different sources reference this and other incidents of white vans and also that the majority of these vans are reported to have the same company name on them, and the fact that several "first on the scene" officers indicated explosives OR in one case that the van has actually exploded means to me that this story is not so easily dismissed.
This transcript says a lot to me. Read it and then show me the transcript or report that says which aspects were proven false and I'll gladly discuss it with an open mind. All I want is information no matter what side it proves or disproves.

officer: [inaudible]
officer: 5 the message about the plane
officer: Sergeant [inaudible] seven five (Miller?)
officer: 5 [inaudible] about the, 10-5 the message about the plane
officer: 9414 hold up
officer: 5 the message about the remote-control plane
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] Trinity and Liberty… all city wide task force units are to respond to Liberty Trinity Place
officer: 10-4 the message is the plane [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] task forces
c/o: [inaudible] and [inaudible] will be the mobilization point at this time [inaudible]
officer: 10-4 c/o central who is [inaudible]
officer: didn’t find any mention about the plane (alt: didn’t find any admission about the plane)
officer: central, we need the bomb squad and EAQ over at King and……background noise….click
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] units
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: 9415 you on?
officer: 85[inaudible] this is uhh operator
officer: [inaudible]
officer: negat[inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] giving up these [inaudible] (planes?)
officer: [inaudible] I got a message on that uh plane,
it’s a big truck with a mural painted of a of a airplane diving into New York City
and exploding [inaudible] know what’s in the truck, the truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] 10-5 10-5
officer: with a mural painted uh airplane diving into New York blowing up. Two men got outta the truck
ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under.
officer: kay great.
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] are you holding those to guys [inaudible] (kay?)
multiple voices/commotion: [inaudible] #ing beat the # out of him.
officer: [gasps]
multiple voices/commotion: [inaudible] #ing # out of him [inaudible]
officer: all right listen you need any [inaudible] on those two guys over there? you all right over there kay?
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive…drove in the van and that exploded
we have both of them under kay let’s get some help over here
officer: now I’m sending you [inaudible] I just want to make sure you and your guys all right over there kay, that’s all.
officer: what’s the location [inaudible]
officer: put em up, put em up
officer: you know we have both the [inaudible] driven that exploded. Is that correct?
officer: what location?
officer: location [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] location [inaudible]
officer: King Street between 6th and 7th
officer: King Street and 6th and 7th avenue, King Street and 6th and 7th avenue
officer: [inaudible] on the scene King 6 and 7, which unit are you kay?
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] explosion
officer: which unit is on the scene at king street?
officer: truck to Manhattan
officer: [inaudible] 10 truck
officer: [inaudible] 10 truck is heading a team toward 14 Trinity Place
officer: all right you take care of that for me and get back to me
multiple voices: [inaudible]
officer: all right just check out that location let me know what you got
officer: [inaudible]4
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: on the air
officer: [inaudible]
officer: that fine with you?
officer: CIT Units on the air, CIT
officer: [inaudible] always available [inaudible] we’re talkin








A reply to: hellobruce




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
we have the suspects who drive…drove in the van and that exploded


Well, as no van exploded on 9/11.... or do you think one did?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

You didn't have enough time to post a few links to back up these claims?.....
edit on 21-2-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I posted excerpts from the links. I didn't want you to have to soft through the whole article to find the relevant points so I copied and pasted. Instead of criticizing me try posting links that show documented refutes of these claims and is appreciate it. a reply to: Prezbo369



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Funny

I would do as you suggest but I don't want you to have to go through the labour of pushing your mouse cursor over a link.....



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I don't know what to think about whether they exploded to be honest. I have the fire and police department saying it did, and I have no one (as of yet) telling me on the record that it didn't. All I have is the reports disappearing gradually. Even if a can didn't explode, there are too many references to white vans to have the whole thing be a hoax, and I know people are creative but it seems to me that at 11:00 or so in all that confusion and horror of the collapses I'd have to be a pretty sick person to invent multiple can sightings and also creative enough to come up with the mural painting story. That's a strange lie to come up with at that moment (especially if I'm official enough to be heard on FDNY radio frequencies). And to be a good enough liar to invent the specific contents of one of the vans and have multiple media outlets report on the detaining and questioning of these fabricated men weeks and months and years later, that impressive. If they aren't fabricated (which is most likely for at least part of this story) then I think it needs more looking in to.
a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Or none exist. a reply to: Prezbo369



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
If you want to you can do what I did. When people tell me they hear reports of things I go as close to the original source as possible. I listened on a podcast to every dispatch from the fire department to the dispatcher from 8:46 until 12:40 or so. If you do that you'll hear the dispatch I supplied earlier. You'll also hear the very first report of the second plane where fire department marine unit 6 describes a "large bomber style green aircraft hit the second tower". This was the very first dispatch seconds after the impact. Not saying that proves anything, but it helps to save you from saying later that no one ever said a green large bomber style plane hit the towers and not being able to supply any evidence to back up your debunking, such as now. reply to: Prezbo369



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

oh, no...I want the links. To the ACTUAL transcripts. Not the sick hoax you posted.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: TheBolt

oh, no...I want the links. To the ACTUAL transcripts. Not the sick hoax you posted.

And I want proof that the Guardian pulled the story about some of the 9/11 hijackers being alive, but you have produced nothing in 14-15 hours. Waiting.
edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
If you want to you can do what I did. When people tell me they hear reports of things I go as close to the original source as possible.


Lol which source?

Whenever anyone makes such a claim, it doesn't deserve much or any attention unless they're able to provide evidence. Seems like you're either making this up or you chose to believe this tale because it fits into what you want to believe.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join