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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 95
10
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Please follow the guidelines you impose on others and show sources or admit your photos are not evidence according to your rules.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by _Del_]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


_Del_.....I value you as friend, on this site. I don't want to see you go "tilting at windmills"....if you know what I mean??

Of course, you may do as you wish, since we have no plan together...I have chosen a path of 'kindler and gentler' when it comes to ULTIMA....just my opinion....and I will not judge anyone...it is their decision.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If the basis of accepting or rejecting photographic evidence is dependent on sourcing as he has stated, he needs to meet his own burden of proof. It can't be applied selectively. He made the rule, not me. I'm simply asking for a level playing field.

I promise not to end up broken like Alonso Quixano.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Citations please.


These are very easy to find, but i will post them all later since i have to go to work.

I wil post sources of photos when others post the infomration for the photos they poste, its the fair and adult thing.



I will ask everyone to post sources for photos. Please post your sources.
Also, once again I must remind you of your own statement in which you said you would answer legit questions. His question was legit so please answer it. After all, keeping your word "is the adult thing to do".



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Please do not post photos until you can provide it. Someone I know said something like that in this thread.


Originally posted by Ultima


Also photos ... are unsourced so therfore cannot be used as real evindence.

But the photos of the wreckage ... are unsourced, so they are not verifiable evidence.

What was the Photograhers name, where and when were the photos taken ?

So again what was the photographers name, where and when were the photos taken, or admit the photos are unsourced?

When you admit that you cannot post a source of the photos. I have asked several times and you and others have failed to post a source of any of the photos taken. So just admit you have no source of the photos.

So how can you still believe in somthing that you cannot provide proof of?

What is the phtos sourec, Photogrpher, date and time time taken?

If you have no sources the photo is not evidnece.

Becasue i am not the one who claimed to have photos, you are.

So if you cannot support your photos with proper sources that they are not evidecne, simple as that.

Please show me the proper source for the photos you posted.

I have asked this several times, so do you have the proper sources for the photos, YES or NO?

No, you failed to show the time, date and location of the photos as i asked.

Do you have the dates, times and locations the photos were taken, YES or NO?

If your next post does not answer the question then we will all know you do not have the sources and you are jsut making statments and opinions.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by _Del_]


What a great way to handle the situation

Let his own words either bring him along or crush him

Good job !!! Very well done !!!



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
A few things to note:

All the pics and testimony speak of red-hot molten metal. You don't need a degree in metallurgy to realise that red-hot and molten metal can not be steel - it simply can't be. It's material (most likely metal) that melts and remains molten at, or below, red heat which is about 800-1000C. There's much support for that temperature from multiple official sources.

Black smoke does not indicate the temperature of a fire because, as pointed out correctly by several posters, there are materials that produce dark smoke when burning even when combusted efficiently.

If we take black smoke as indicative of temperature, how black was the smoke emerging from the rubble fires?
If using smoke as an indicator, those fires were very efficient.

The 'thermite reaction' in the corner only produced red-hot liquid so it's doubtful there was any thermite there. Thermite burns at 2500C+ which would make it look like a blinding white spotlight. Wasn't there a large UPS battery bank in that corner (lots of lead, electrolyte and electrical energy) ?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Have you moved into ignore mode Ultima...now that you have been called out?

Step up or shut up.


Thats so funny, since its the believers that never show anything to support thier claims. I have yet to see anyone post 1 shred of evindece to debate my post or to support the official story.

If anything i call out the believers again to show any evidence to support thier claims or the official sotry.

Lets see if any of the believers are adult enough to answer the questions i posted.

Is the subway right under the debris pile?

Did the subway station have damage to the roof to let oxygen up to the fire ?



[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Note the part I bolded, YOU, of all people shouldn't not be asking if anyone is adult enough to answer questions, since you continuously avoid answering questions and keep changing your pathetic excuses.

I have had enough laughs at your expense, you are a paranoid, tin foil hatted joke.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I certainly didn't read thru much of this thread... quite frankly, just this page, but to answer the question I clicked on to get here...

... to set it up, I dropped about 5-7, F-bombs on my dad, on my way out the door, after he had made some apathetic comment regarding his stipulations for voting for someone; basically he didn't want to look for himself but would trust one guy in the local paper --

and to interject off track, I saw Ben Stein say he doesn't like any of the candidates (McCain, Hillary or Obama), but he'll vote for McCain because he (Stein) is a Republican. Are you serious? This is even worse than my idiot dads' comment!! And Ben Stein is considered a smart man?
Quite the successful 'dumbing down of America,' wouldn't you agree? Certainly, politically.

-- back on track... so, to "wake-up" the old man to the importance of "giving a crap" about what's going on within our government... and no disrespect, but, for the moment, you can even disregard the Twin Towers even fell that day and watch these 2 vids...

Building 7 Controlled Demolition


Bush Cheney attempted coup


Show or send those to someone and simply ask for 15 minutes of their time... 15 minutes of their life... to view these 2 vids and decide to walk away or look into things further. I'm not sure how anyone can walk away. My dad, at 70+, was not able to and is paying attention now.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Provide evidence for your claim. Photos show that fires were raging unfought up until the collapses of each tower.


Well i have reports, several photos and video of the fires buring out before the collapse.

1. Report of fire buring out before collaspe.
911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.


Sorry, you said:

"i stated the witness testimonies would be worthless because common sense says they would not hold up in court, any half decent lawyer would tear the witness statements up.




This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence

2. Photos of no visiable flames (only black smoke) showing outside the building before collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

3. Video showing some thermite reaction at corner of building BUT NO LARGE FLAMES SHOWING OUTSIDE THE BUIDLING, ONLY BLACK SMOKE (MEANING OXYGEN STARVED FIRE)

www.youtube.com...


Nothing you provide shows fires going out before the collapse. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved fires."


Provide physical evidence of "molten metal"



1. Photos of molten metals and steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Again, the photos you provided show no molten metal. Please demonstrate with evidence that there was molten metal and demonstrate that if there was molten metal, what id came from.


2. Photos of water being sprayed on equipment and debris pile due to fires burning under debris. Also showing the smoke coming form the fires.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Fires burned for weeks in the debris. Your point?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18
I have had enough laughs at your expense, you are a paranoid, tin foil hatted joke.


Yes all my co-workers and i have lots of laughs at immature people like you who still believe the official story.

Why are you and the believers so afraid to do research and post sources of photos when asked?

I can post sources for the photos i posted, why can't the believers?


Originally posted by jthomas
Nothing you provide shows fires going out before the collapse. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved fires."


The reports, photos and videos i have been posting are all evidence of fires going out and oxygen starved fires.


Fires burned for weeks in the debris. Your point?


My point is how did the fires get hot enough to melt metal and steel and how did they stay hot enough to keep meatal and steel molten for 6 weeks?






[edit on 27-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
I have had enough laughs at your expense, you are a paranoid, tin foil hatted joke.


Yes all my co-workers and i have lots of laughs at immature people like you who still believe the official story.


What "official story"? Explain yourself


Originally posted by jthomas
Nothing you provide shows fires going out before the collapse. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved fires."



The reports, photos and videos i have been posting are all evidence of fires going out and oxygen starved fires.


You provided nothing that would stand up in court. You provided no evidence of fires going out. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved" fires. You provided no evidence of molten metal. When shall we expect you to provide any evidence for your claims whatsoever, Ultima1?


Fires burned for weeks in the debris. Your point?



My point is how did the fires get hot enough to melt metal and steel and how did they stay hot enough to keep meatal and steel molten for 6 weeks?


Provide factual evidence of temperatures hot enough to melt steel.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What "official story"? Explain yourself


You knwo the BS story the media has tried to make us believe. You must beleive the official story or you would be looking for the truth like me.


You provided nothing that would stand up in court. You provided no evidence of fires going out. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved" fires.


Oh i believe all the reports, the photos and videos would hold up in court better then the Official story, you know the story you cannot provide any evidence to support.


Provide factual evidence of temperatures hot enough to melt steel.


The reports, photos and videos show evidence that the temps were hot enough to melt steel.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
What "official story"? Explain yourself


You knwo the BS story the media has tried to make us believe. You must beleive the official story or you would be looking for the truth like me.


No one has ever explained what the "official story" is supposed to be. 9/11 Truthers use it all the time but never can define it or explain what it is. Please explain what the "official story" is in your own words.


You provided nothing that would stand up in court. You provided no evidence of fires going out. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved" fires.



Oh i believe all the reports, the photos and videos would hold up in court better then the Official story, you know the story you cannot provide any evidence to support.


Since you haven't explained what this so-called "official story" is supposed to be, any comparison with it has no meaning. Please explain for everyone here what this "official story" is, what's "official" about it, why it's a "story", and just exactly what you mean by it.


Provide factual evidence of temperatures hot enough to melt steel.



The reports, photos and videos show evidence that the temps were hot enough to melt steel.


Then you should have no trouble showing it. So far, you just claim it. So, provide the evidence to support your claims.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by jthomas]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
[No one has ever explained what the "official story" is supposed to be. 9/11 Truthers use it all the time but never can define it or explain what it is. Please explain what the "official story" is in your own words.


You know that 2 planes hit the towers and caused 3 buildings to collapse, even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 93 crashed in PA. even though there is no evidnce to support this.

You know the theory that the media keeps teeling us to believe. But a little common sense says its BS.


Then you should have no trouble showing it. So far, you just claim it. So, provide the evidence to support your claims.


I have been showing the reports, photos and videos, you just ignore them.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....how were the DVDRs faked? You just said that UAL 93 never crashed in Shanskville, PA. You also say that AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Yet, we have the DFDR information.....where did this come from??

There is also the UAL 93 CVR.....where did this come from?

You are expecting us, your audience, to believe that all of that data was faked?!?

Show us how this could be faked, please.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Yes all my co-workers and i have lots of laughs at immature people like you who still believe the official story.

Why are you and the believers so afraid to do research and post sources of photos when asked?

I can post sources for the photos i posted, why can't the believers?



Let's analyze your response:

1) You and your co-workers at McDonalds are laughing

2) Immature people? Do you mean like ones who avoid answering questions and keep coming up with new excuses not to answer? Maturity like saying you won't answer one persons questions because different people did not answer yours?

3) You then go on to make assertions as to my beliefs about 9/11...even though I did not state them.

Are you going to answer my questions or continue to make a fool out of yourself?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by scottie18
I have had enough laughs at your expense, you are a paranoid, tin foil hatted joke.

Yes all my co-workers and i have lots of laughs at immature people like you who still believe the official story.

Why are you and the believers so afraid to do research and post sources of photos when asked?

I can post sources for the photos i posted, why can't the believers?

Maybe you can but since you haven't, we don't know that, do we?


Originally posted by jthomas
Nothing you provide shows fires going out before the collapse. You provided no evidence of "oxygen-starved fires."

The reports, photos and videos i have been posting are all evidence of fires going out and oxygen starved fires.

Mostly they are just of fires with black smoke which may or MAY NOT indicate an oxygen starved fire.


Fires burned for weeks in the debris. Your point?

My point is how did the fires get hot enough to melt metal and steel and how did they stay hot enough to keep meatal and steel molten for 6 weeks?


Some metals have low melting points and as I've stated before under furnace like conditions (your post) it would be fairly easy to keep low melt metals red hot. Also, we don't know that there was molten STEEL there, do we?






[edit on 27-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
[No one has ever explained what the "official story" is supposed to be. 9/11 Truthers use it all the time but never can define it or explain what it is. Please explain what the "official story" is in your own words.


You know that 2 planes hit the towers and caused 3 buildings to collapse, even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 93 crashed in PA. even though there is no evidnce to support this.

You know the theory that the media keeps teeling us to believe. But a little common sense says its BS.



I'm sorry but to make a blanket statement saying there is NO evidence is utterly absurd.
For example, flight 93 crash site had body parts everywhere. Those parts came from people.

There was a lot of plane debris at the pentagon. Do you honestly believe it was planted with all those witnesses and nobody saw them plant the debris??

Come on, blanket statements kill arguments every time and it just killed yours.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
[No one has ever explained what the "official story" is supposed to be. 9/11 Truthers use it all the time but never can define it or explain what it is. Please explain what the "official story" is in your own words.


You know that 2 planes hit the towers and caused 3 buildings to collapse, even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon even though there is no evidence to support this.

Flight 93 crashed in PA. even though there is no evidnce to support this.

You know the theory that the media keeps teeling us to believe. But a little common sense says its BS.


I am not asking you for you think. I am asking you to show me this so-called "official story." Where is it? What makes it "official"? What makes it a "story"?

Speak up, man.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes all my co-workers and i have lots of laughs at immature people like you who still believe the official story.
I can post sources for the photos i posted, why can't the believers?


So the NSA must be in on it -- just as I suspected. They are all laughing behind our backs! I knew it!
Also, please provide when, where and by whom the photographs you posted were taken. I've heard you say you can, but haven't actually seen the information. Contact information for the photographer would be a plus.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join