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.

 

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 11
62
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: fireladdie

A collapse is one thing but something disintegrating into ashes is something else


Also no one has ever explained the collapse of building 7


You know that big skyscraper that fell down and they decided not to even mention in the 911 official report.


BTW Funny you mention this highway.

I was on Route 78 in NJ the day of 911.

I actually road raged and chased a guy in Somerset county NJ almost all the way to Pennsylvania the morning of 911 before it happend


--facepalm-- Yes, the collapse of Building 7 has been explained over and over and over and over again. But here it is ONE MORE TIME, since you clearly just haven't bothered to do any real research on this. Link: www.popularmechanics.com...




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
And in case you missed this too, here is footage of the fires that were raging in Building 7 all day long, despite what the guys with something to sell would have you believe: Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

The black smoke indicates those fires are starving. How do you know they burned all day long? From a couple photos and a 2 min video of one floor on fire? LOL.

If you believe the NIST report on their theory of WTC 7 collapse, you're literally gullible enough to believe anything. Sure, it could have happened, odds are really poor that it would - a single column failure leading to nearly 3 seconds of free fall, but, if you're into magic bullets and dancing gnomes - I could see how you'd spout this as truth.

By the way, who peer-reviewed NIST's simulation?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
And in case you missed this too, here is footage of the fires that were raging in Building 7 all day long, despite what the guys with something to sell would have you believe: Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...


The irony. I didn't realize Popular Mechanics sold at newsstands for free! How nice of them. I'm glad that they're not trying to sell me something!



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify




The black smoke indicates those fires are starving. How do you know they burned all day long? From a couple photos and a 2 min video of one floor on fire? LOL.

That's called moving the goal post.
You now admit there were raging fires in 7 but how do we know they burned all day?
The simple answer is because the fire department had no water to fight them.
Care to move the goal post again?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: jaffo
And in case you missed this too, here is footage of the fires that were raging in Building 7 all day long, despite what the guys with something to sell would have you believe: Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...


The irony. I didn't realize Popular Mechanics sold at newsstands for free! How nice of them. I'm glad that they're not trying to sell me something!


That is a sad and pathetic attempt at deflection. If you want a free source, there are plenty of them. I went with PM because it is a respected publication. So how about instead of splitting hairs as to the source, you address the argument and the merit of the proofs?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Wow, so I pay for my sources? You keep trying to "sell" the idea that there are profiteers on the conspiracy side. I point out that there are profiteers on your side, and they profit so much more, and you tell me I'm deflecting.

I don't need to debunk PM. The entire idea of WTC 7 NIST Theory is our generations' magic bullet. In another 25 years, those that believe that rubbish will be laughed out of the room.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I never said "raging fires". See, you have to sensationalize your replies to me to build your argument. My contention is how did those fires start, on just that one floor, and how do we have evidence of them "raging all day long"? Those fires look rather modest compared to other fires. I'm actually embarrassed for Jaffo posting a dailymail video as proof of fires burning all day. It's like the meme joke with a chair knocked over saying "we survived the hurricane"



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Here is yet another free source with an explanation as to the collapse of Building 7. And it of course contains a link to the peer-reviewed journal which published the report originally: www.dailymail.co.uk...

And here is another thorough and free debunking of the controlled demolition theory: www.metabunk.org...

And yet another FREE explanation from an accredited individual: www.uwgb.edu...

And yet another, from a site and organization dedicated to the study of controlled demolitions: www.implosionworld.com...

And yet another engineer explains: news.stanford.edu...



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: samkent

I never said "raging fires". See, you have to sensationalize your replies to me to build your argument. My contention is how did those fires start, on just that one floor, and how do we have evidence of them "raging all day long"? Those fires look rather modest compared to other fires. I'm actually embarrassed for Jaffo posting a dailymail video as proof of fires burning all day. It's like the meme joke with a chair knocked over saying "we survived the hurricane"


Can you debunk the film which clearly shows the building burning? Or are you just going to attack the source and ignore the proof?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bobbypurify




The black smoke indicates those fires are starving. How do you know they burned all day long? From a couple photos and a 2 min video of one floor on fire? LOL.

That's called moving the goal post.
You now admit there were raging fires in 7 but how do we know they burned all day?
The simple answer is because the fire department had no water to fight them.
Care to move the goal post again?


Of course he will. That's what he has been doing for two days now. It's a healthy dose of goalpost moving, ad hominem, and "nuh uh."
edit on 7-5-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

How do I "debunk" the film? Do you want me to try and prove that the fire is fake/real? What are you even talking about? Look, there were some localized fires in WTC 7. After that, NOBODY knows what happened. Okay, I believe a select few knows but the rest is just theory. What you keep shouting as "fact" couldn't be farther from that. And it's showing your agenda big time.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
And here is one of if not THE World's leading organizations dedicated to the study of controlled demolitions and implosions stating plainly that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the theory that Building 7 or the other towers were brought down by use of ANY explosives. Enjoy. www.implosionworld.com...
edit on 7-5-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

How do I "debunk" the film? Do you want me to try and prove that the fire is fake/real? What are you even talking about? Look, there were some localized fires in WTC 7. After that, NOBODY knows what happened. Okay, I believe a select few knows but the rest is just theory. What you keep shouting as "fact" couldn't be farther from that. And it's showing your agenda big time.


You're right. My "agenda" is denying ignorance. You, however, wish to wallow in it. Yes, I expect you to debunk the fires. But you can't. You just ignore them and try to minimalize them so that your little theory holds up. But you cant so it doesn't.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

This is my last reply to you because you're wasting mine and everyone else's time and I doubt that the majority of readers here even take you seriously. Your own little video minimalizes the fires. I can't debunk fire. I don't even know what that means.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

This is my last reply to you because you're wasting mine and everyone else's time and I doubt that the majority of readers here even take you seriously. Your own little video minimalizes the fires. I can't debunk fire. I don't even know what that means.


It means that the fires were present in Building 7 just as the report said they were. And that the fires could not be fought due to lack of water, just as the report said. And it means that you are ignoring pertinent facts in drawing your own conclusions, which is neither good science nor denying ignorance. Respond or don't, I can keep going like this all day. . .



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I mean no offense to anyone in particular here, but it surely appears that we have some here that are paid to silence anyone who would question authority and if this is correct what is the point anyway. Yes I understand that this is the goal of those that do it, but as I stated before people have to make a living somehow right, I accept that. There is no proof, there is no truth, there is only spin. Shall we argue about whether or not there is actually a Statue of Liberty in New York harbor because there is not. Got a photo? Photoshopped. A video, just CGI. The only way you could "prove" it would be to take us both there and point at it and I could still claim it was a hologram. It is an old trick developed by lawyers at the suggestion of their organized crime clients - lie, deny, make count charges. It works every time. So when discussions bog down we just pick up our stuff and move on for we shall certain come back here again.
edit on 7-5-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: spelling



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
I mean no offense to anyone in particular here, but it surely appears that we have some here that are paid to silence anyone who would question authority and if this is correct what is the point anyway. Yes I understand that this is the goal of those that do it, but as I stated before people have to make a living somehow right, I accept that. There is no proof, there is no truth, there is only spin. Shall we argue about whether or not there is actually a Statue of Liberty in New York harbor because there is not. Got a photo? Photoshopped. A video, just CGI. The only way you could "prove" it would be to take us both there and point at it and I could still claim it was a hologram. It is an old trick developed by lawyers at the suggestion of their organized crime clients - lie, deny, make count charges. It works every time. So when discussions bog down we just pick up our stuff and move on for we shall certain come back here again.


Please. Just stop it. Accusing me of being paid to destroy your theory is utterly laughable. And weak. You have absolutely no support for your theory which relies upon fact. I have provided you with independent reports by some of the best in the World when it comes to controlled demolition. Are you accusing them of being paid disinfo agents as well? You have nothing but theories. I have facts and research and evaluation by the best in the business when it comes to controlled demolition. You do not like those facts and you assault those presenting them where you have no foundation in reality to do so. Bummer for you and your theory.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I make no accusations in your direction and I plainly stated this. You are very tenacious and that is a very admirable quality. If you and I found ourselves face to face we would probably have a great discussion and even enjoy the experience. I have been considering changing my approach to this issue because from a practical aspect, it is imperative that the American people all rally behind our Masters and continue to wave the flag and wade into this very profitable War of Terror singing songs of victory. A severe loss of faith in our godlike leaders could undermine the very foundation of the Military Industrial Complex which feeds us all and brings prosperity to the land. So America I say to you, stay within the lines the lines are our friends. Landru will guide you into a new Age of Prosperity. Now get back to work, there will be plenty of time for alcohol, drugs and porn when you are all done with your days work.


edit on 7-5-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: Spelling



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: jaffo

I make no accusations in your direction and I plainly stated this. You are very tenacious and that is a very admirable quality. If you and I found ourselves face to face we would probably have a great discussion and even enjoy the experience. I have been considering changing my approach to this issue because from a practical aspect, it is imperative that the American people all rally behind our Masters and continue to wave the flag and wade into this very profitable War of Terror singing songs of victory. A severe loss of faith in our godlike leaders could undermine the very foundation of the Military Industrial Complex which feeds us all and brings prosperity to the land. So America I say to you, stay within the lines the lines are our friends. Landru will guide you into a new Age of Prosperity. Now get back to work, there will be plenty of time for alcohol, drugs and porn when you are all done with your days work.



That's fair enough I suppose. You are dogged in your pursuit and if you are ever proven right I will be the first one to say so.
edit on 7-5-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.




top topics



 
62
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join