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.

 

If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958


Well the most obvious proof would be the fact that these three firemen are not dead. There was only one surviver from inside the collapse of WTC 2 . He was a policeman.




So?

You need to watch your video again before you make things up.


So, you made it up. The only way to support the OS is by fallacies and you just demonstrated it.
Enough said.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

You need to watch your video again before you make things up.


Here is the video again:




Give us the time stamp of when they say they were inside of WTC 2 .


Good luck.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

As I poster earlier in this thread the airplanes were never identified or investigated, those photos proves absolutely nothing.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

NO! you outright lied. Now you have to prove your lie?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

The following reference you posted was taken from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth."



Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.


That is false and I have confronted the founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" for posting disinformation on the Internet. Case in point, it said there was no hard evidence and yet, American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. released the conversion formulas that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77 and no other aircraft and look what "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" posted; Disinformation.

Any airline pilot should have known that radar would have tracked each of the 9/11 airliners to their crash sites and that ACARS would have confirmed that none of the 9/11 aircraft landed anywhere else. In addition, wreckage from from the 9/11 airliners were recovered andhave been identified, which proves that "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is not playing with a full deck and you turned around and posted disinformation from that website that was debunked years ago. In addition, part and serial numbers from the wreckage of each aircraft can be used to identify the aircraft as well.

In addition, my Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck and I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, which further proves that you made a mistake to post more disinformation from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" that has been proven as such.

You need to stop posting disinformation, especially disinformation that was debunked years ago.
edit on 15-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne



The three firemen in this video were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel when WTC 2 collapsed on it. Not being able to see the building collapsing they had no idea WTF was going on and mistook the collapse of WTC2 as an explosion.


This is the fallacy you told now back it up with the truth?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: waypastvne

As I poster earlier in this thread the airplanes were never identified or investigated, those photos proves absolutely nothing.



So you are claiming I made this up and some how managed to hack into NYTimes archive and post it there ?



James Duffy. CHIEF CONGIUSTA: Firefighter third of
Ladder 24 of the New York City Fire Department....

We were told to report to the south tower, but the only way to get to the south tower -- you couldn't walk down Liberty Street to get into the main entrance because of the jumpers and the falling debris, so we had to go in through the corner entrance of the Marriott, which is on West and Liberty. We went in there......

over there right next to us. 22 Truck was in the lobby also. Then we were just waiting to go into the south tower. As we were waiting, we looked up and all I saw was -- I heard this huge noise, and I saw hundreds and hundreds of people running towards us. They were running out of the south tower to the Marriott, to the lobby.

We just turned. We started to like run also. We got about ten feet before getting blown across the lobby. We got blown across the lobby, just got covered with debris.



graphics8.nytimes.com...


Here is another quote from James Duffy the fireman on the right.





Q. When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?

A. Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after.

Q. Afterwards?

A. Yeah, that that's when it came down. I wasn't expecting that. I thought it was a bomb or something that went off.

Q. Glad you made it.

A. Yeah.

Q. Thanks for the interview.


graphics8.nytimes.com...


Your funny. I like you.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: waypastvne

those photos proves absolutely nothing.


They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that N612UA crashed into the South Tower.

That is the tower East of the Marriott, where those 3 firemen were located when WTC2 collapsed.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne



You told a fallacy. Please identify these two men in this video? No you cant so you copy and past reports of other firemen instead.

Prove to me that these two me are the same firemen in this video that you claim were in the alleged Marriott Hotel in the below article.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

And stop moving the goal post.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

You told a fallacy. Please identify these two men in this video? No you cant so you copy and past reports of other firemen instead.




Yes I can. Here is an extended version of the video.




All 3 firefighters are with ladder 24.

Ladder 24 was in the Lobby of the Marriott Hotel when WTC 2 collapsed.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



As I poster earlier in this thread the airplanes were never identified or investigated, those photos proves absolutely nothing.


That is false. Check it out.

* FAA Registry: American 11

* FAA Registry: American 77

* FAA Registry: United 93

* FAA Registry: United 175




United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:
United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon









posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Here we go again skyeagle409, I'm not debating you about whether Hanjour was a good or a bad pilot. I am only showing you that there is information that says he wasn't the pilot. You have already proven your point about his experience and I never disagreed with you. I know the same info about Hanjour as you do. I don't get my info from "CT websites". Unless you are calling the London Times, The Guardian, direct quotes from FBI and CIA interrogations, etc. "CT websites." Are you calling them CT websites? If so, why do you think they are "CT websites"? If not, you are wrong for saying that's where this information comes from.




In about the same time, a child can be trained to place an airliner on auto pilot and throttle and program an aircraft to descend at 2000 feet per minute and level out at a preset altitude and airspeed.


So you agree the Alhazmi had enough training to be the pilot of Flight 77. Great. So now we have at least 2 possible pilots on Flight 77. You can't prove Hanjour was the pilot, and I can't prove he wasn't. I am merely showing you things that make people question the OS.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


You told a fallacy. Please identify these two men in this video? No you cant so you copy and past reports of other firemen instead.




Yes I can. Here is an extended version of the video.




I just watched this video four times. No where in this video does the firemen claim they were in the Marriott Hotel, any ATS casual reader can view your video and see that you told a fallacy


The three firemen in this video were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel when WTC 2 collapsed on it. Not being able to see the building collapsing they had no idea WTF was going on and mistook the collapse of WTC2 as an explosion


This is your statement to me the above quote. the you tried to say

graphics8.nytimes.com...

That these two men are in this NY Times stating the were in the Marriott Hotel. Another fallacies.
The man in the video is identified as Jimmy Gurllop he said his name in this video.

Do not post anything else to me, It is clearly and proven that you made up fallacies in order to support your OS. As I always have said the only way to support the OS of 911, one has to create fallacies and you just demonstrated that.

How asinine.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RomanMaroni



Here we go again skyeagle409, I'm not debating you about whether Hanjour was a good or a bad pilot. I am only showing you that there is information that says he wasn't the pilot.


That requires undeniable evidence. The evidence available placed Hani in the cockpit.



You have already proven your point about his experience and I never disagreed with you. I know the same info about Hanjour as you do. I don't get my info from "CT websites". Unless you are calling the London Times, The Guardian, direct quotes from FBI and CIA interrogations, etc. "CT websites." Are you calling them CT websites? If so, why do you think they are "CT websites"? If not, you are wrong for saying that's where this information comes from.


I have read many things from those CT websites that I knew from personal experience were false, and that is why I tend to come down on such websites.

For an example, their claim that American 77 flew north of the gas station. All they had to do was the line up the hole in "C-Ring" and the downed light poles to make a determination that a flight path north of the gas station was impossible. Question is; with that evidence in hand, why did they continue to respond that I was incorrect when the evidence was crystal-clear that I was correct on all counts?
edit on 15-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Yay! Another WTC's collapse thread! This one is going to be the one guys. All those other threads for the last 14 years couldn't do it, but this time you're going to convince everyone that explosions brought down the towers.

I am going to try to explain this to you guys. I don't get into the WTC collapse stuff much because I am not a structural engineer, not a demolition expert, nor am I any kind of scientist. I am going to assume no one in this thread is either. If you are, please show your credentials and I will retract my statement.

The problem you will always run into trying to "prove" the WTC's were demo is that your information will always be incomplete. There have been many posters over the years, most who are way smarter than me, who have argued this topic. The ultimate question regarding the WTC's collapse is "how does asymmetrical damage cause symmetrical collapse." This is a great question. How do the trusses in the non damaged areas fail at the same rate as the trusses in the damaged area to cause symmetrical collapse? To help answer this questions, posters wanted to see the blueprints of the WTC's. However, to my knowledge, the blueprints were never made available. You can never know. All you can do is make assumptions, but you aren't engineers. So nobody cares about your assumptions because you will always be discredited by experts in this field who are far smarter and way more qualified than you.

I totally understand why you guys have questions. I get it. But you are never going to convince anyone of your theories or assumptions. So why do you guys keep on going as if you can? Far smarter and much more qualified people have gone over this for years and they haven't been able to. If you think, or if you know that demo explosions brought down the towers, great. Know what you know and move on. Your argument will just go on for years and years and you always end up in the same spot that you started. That will be very frustrating and not productive. This horse has not only been beaten to death, it's been pulverized to dust. Pun intended.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No where in the video do they say they were in the lobby of WTC2.

They do say they were in the lobby, and they do say they were in the staging area.
The staging area was in the lobby of the Marriott hotel. This is a fact.

The firemen from left to right are Tyrone Johnson, Jimmy Grillo (not Gurllop), and James Duffy.

You questioned the whereabouts of Jimmy Grillo, so let me post this again.





My Story, September 11, 2001

Once we reached the doorway I thanked God that we had made it and then entered the hotel lobby. There was a sea of firefighters all waiting their turn to start heading up. We knew we had to wait a while, so we loosened our coats and put down all our gear so we wouldn't overheat. While we waited, I noticed Jimmy Grillo, a member of our company, holding a five-gallon bottle of water, filling up cups with water so we would all be properly hydrated. Standing by, just waiting for our turn, I also noticed a bank of pay phones on the lobby wall. The lieutenant and I approached the phones trying to get a working line. We had a dial tone but all the circuits were busy. I even attempted to use my cell phone to get in touch with my family, but that failed. I was concerned about how much they must be worrying about me.

It was our turn to go up.

We started heading to the stairwell when this dark, overpowering shadow started heading toward us. It seemed as if it was in slow motion. People were yelling to run. My first instinct was to run away from the shadow thinking another plane must be coming in. I made a turn toward another lobby, trying to get away from the front of the building. Then I felt this force, like being in a massive wind tunnel. Firefighters were getting tossed around like rag dolls. I found myself being blown across the floor landing into what appeared to be a closet. The South Tower was collapsing.



www.newsweek.com...

www.thedailybeast.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Question is; with that evidence in hand, why did they continue to respond that I was incorrect when the evidence was crystal-clear that I was correct on all counts?


No skyeagle409, the question is why are you calling the London Times, The Guardian, and direct quotes from the FBI and CIA interrogations CT websites?

When you reply to me skyeagle409, it says "a reply to: RomanMaroni" ... if you go on to say "information from CT websites" you are saying that to me. You are saying that I am getting my information from CT websites. But in reality, all this info is comes from mainstream sources. I have shown you evidence that Hanjour may not have been the pilot of Flight 77. Responding to show me that Hanjour had a license and his training hours doesn't refute that information. There is evidence that Hanjour was the pilot of Flight 77, and me showing you that Alhazmi had training doesn't refute that evidence either, but I have shown you enough evidence that should at least allow for it to be considered a valid question. I am merely trying to show you that there are still legit questions. And I'm trying to get you to stop making blanket statements about conspiracy theorists. Because from your posts, it looks like you believe that everyone who doesn't believe what you believe must believe that a C-130 cargo plane remote hijacked Flight 77, or that we all believe theories about WTC7, etc. It's not true skyeagle409. So please stop acting like that.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne



Once we got to the other side, we saw that we had 50 yards to go to get to the entrance of the Marriott Hotel [part of the WTC complex] with nothing to shield us from above.


You are correct about the Marriott Hotel, so please accept my apologies for making the claim that you made up stuff. It took you long enough to prove yourself, why didn't do your research further and saved us all the BS in the first place.

However I was correct the firemen where in the WTC. and you kept denying they where. I did not know the Marriott Hotel was part of the WTC as this source says.

www.newsweek.com...

At lease I will man up when I make a mistake.

However you owe me an apology for saying in your above posts that the firemen where not in the WTC.

I rest my case and I am done in this thread. Good day.




edit on 16-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: RomanMaroni



No skyeagle409, the question is why are you calling the London Times, The Guardian, and direct quotes from the FBI and CIA interrogations CT websites?


I am referring to websites such as 'Loose Change,' 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth,' that Veteran's website, etc.


if you go on to say "information from CT websites" you are saying that to me. You are saying that I am getting my information from CT websites. But in reality, all this info is comes from mainstream sources. I have shown you evidence that Hanjour may not have been the pilot of Flight 77.


I have shown evidence that Hani was the most qualified and experienced person to fly that aircraft in the manner that it was flown before American 77 struck the Pentagon, a maneuver that was similar to the precision maneuvers he would have had to perform satisfactorily in order to satisfy requirements to obtain his commercial pilot license.

In addition to his experience, communications place him in the cockpit and al-Qaeda list him as Head of his terrorist team, so it is inconceivable to think that anyone else would have been in a position to fly American 77 into the Pentagon and by that very fact he would not have allowed a less experienced person to jeopardized their terrorist mission. You have to look at it from a pilot's standpoint. I can sum it up here. Who landed Apollo 11 on the moon, and why?



Responding to show me that Hanjour had a license and his training hours doesn't refute that information. There is evidence that Hanjour was the pilot of Flight 77, and me showing you that Alhazmi had training doesn't refute that evidence either, but I have shown you enough evidence that should at least allow for it to be considered a valid question. I am merely trying to show you that there are still legit questions. And I'm trying to get you to stop making blanket statements about conspiracy theorists.


I understand where you are coming from but when it comes to important missions, you don't let a less-experienced amateur jeopardize that mission.



Because from your posts, it looks like you believe that everyone who doesn't believe what you believe must believe that a C-130 cargo plane remote hijacked Flight 77, or that we all believe theories about WTC7, etc. It's not true skyeagle409. So please stop acting like that.


I can sum it up this way. if people did their homework, they would not be conspiracy theorist. Too often, the CT folks ignore the conclusions of real experts and disregard facts and evidence and instead, they substitute disinformation.

How many times has it been proven in videos and photos that dust plumes and debris are seen striking the ground while the collapse of the building is still in progress many stories above the street? Why then, are the CT folks still lying about free fall when photo and video evidence proved otherwise? Other than presenting hoaxed and bogus videos and photos, and disinformation, I also look at CT folks who are distorting the facts and taking comments out of context.

Case in point, the claim of people hearing explosions prove that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings. Despite the fact that I posted their revised comments that the explosions they heard were attributed to aircraft impacts, pancaking floors, exploding gas lines, and even bodies striking the ground. Question is; why are the CT folks still claiming that the explosions people heard were evidence of demolition explosives and do so without a shred of evidence? Never mind that they also dismiss expert statements debunking explosives at ground zero.



edit on 16-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




I am referring to websites such as 'Loose Change,' 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth,' that Veteran's website, etc.


Funny, I don't recall citing any of those as my sources. Can you point those out to me? If not, you'll need to respond to other people about that I guess.




I understand where you are coming from


No skyeagle409, you really don't. If you did, you would never bring up WTC collapse in any response to me. I really don't know how much more clear I can be about that. I have directly told you that's not my thing. To which you will respond that "conspiracy theorists believe ...." Again, another example of how you don't get where I'm coming from. I have tried to show you that you can't make blanket statements like that, but you just ignore that. We all know it's wrong to judge an entire group of people based on a few.




if people did their homework, they would not be conspiracy theorist


I see. I guess I just need to do my homework. Those "blunders" I cited to you earlier in this thread wasn't an indication of someone who has done their homework? Referencing a 2007 London Times article isn't homework? Referencing Alhazmi and Almihdhar all the way back to '92 isn't homework? I think you should replace "did their homework" with the phrase "think like me." Let's see how that looks ... If people "think like me", they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists. Yeah, I think that's more accurate.




Question is; why are the CT folks still claiming...


No skyeagle409, i think the question really is, why are you here? ATS is a place for people to discuss possibilities. A place to point to unanswered questions and try to figure out what the answer is or may be. A place to think "outside the box." A great place to exercise your brain. You have proven my point over and over again that you are going to believe the same thing on Wednesday that you believed on Monday no matter what happens on Tuesday. You talk about conspiracy theorists as if they are morons yet here you are. I don't believe in bigfoot. Therefore I don't hang around in bigfoot forums telling them they are wrong and calling them names. Something brought you here skyeagle409. There's an old saying that says whenever you point a finger at someone, you have 3 more pointing back at you. Why are you adamant about defending your beliefs to people who are obviously beneath you? I wonder ....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join