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.

 

Big planes cause big damage

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's been staring you in the face for more than six years. If you haven't stumbled across it yet, there is nothing I can help you with.


So, instead of pointing me to the actual math, you are just going to state "it's in there"? Typical debunker response.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Hmm. Let's quote Leslie Robertson, whom has everything to loose if it came out that his design was flawed. I'm not calling the man a liar but unbiassed he is not.



No, but your casting dispersions on the man through innuendo. Which, is nothing more than an ad hom, personal attack.

Instead of attacking him and his "motivations" why don't you provide some evidence that supports the idea that he's "in" on it?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Instead of attacking him and his "motivations" why don't you provide some evidence that supports the idea that he's "in" on it?


Where did I say he's "in on it"? Another typical debunker response of putting words in other's mouths.

I said he has a very big vested interest. If not, why is he not releasing his structural documentation and would only do so to NIST under subpoena?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, I mean this honestly - you're becoming unglued, nasty and hostile. This is starting to become the focus of your posts (personal insults) rather than anything that moves the discussion forward.

I know you tend to overheat and not really think before you post so, again, if your discussing anything that's been said in this thread lets talk.

I have provided very specific, sourced responses to the questions that have been put to me. You asked for me to provide you examples of my "rational, reasoned", etc responses. I asked you to go back and read what was directly above your post, as but one example.

Am I missing something?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Thank you Griff, I didnt know that.

See I did learn something new today.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Griff, I mean this honestly - you're becoming unglued, nasty and hostile. This is starting to become the focus of your posts (personal insults) rather than anything that moves the discussion forward.


Maybe I'm getting sick of being called a "conspiracy loon", or that I belong to a "truth club". Instead of what I've said in the past (with actual math, reason, and engineering principles to back them up) only to be called a nut by some. It goes both ways. Just throwing the debunker tactic back at them. Sorry this hurts your feelings. But, frankly I don't care.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Instead of attacking him and his "motivations" why don't you provide some evidence that supports the idea that he's "in" on it?


Where did I say he's "in on it"? Another typical debunker response of putting words in other's mouths.

I said he has a very big vested interest. If not, why is he not releasing his structural documentation and would only do so to NIST under subpoena?


Thank you for proving my point Griff. When you've got something useful to add to the conversation, I'll be ready to listen. I am referring to what I have said in this post so as not to confuse you.

If you've got some other contention, start a thread and I'll respond to you there.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


(Am I missing something?) YES! you are.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Doesn't hurt my feelings in the least.

You shoot yourself in the foot every time you engage in what you claim you're so upset about. I was, believe it or not, trying to help you out. When you act like that, you're not reflecting on me - you're reflecting on you and your beliefs.

See, I am not so wrapped up in the myth of a conspiracy that I think being wrong (which I have readily admitted to, shoot, I think once to you) is a personal insult against me.

The only dog I have in this race is the truth.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I see you are on an attacked to any one who dose not believe your Conspiracies.

I ask some qustion early in this post and NOT ONE OF YOU GOVERNMENT believers have answer them YET!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Hey Cash,
Since I'm missing something....fill me in. In relation to this thread, with what I have said and presented, what am I missing?


I'm all ears.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


You have your truth!

If you werent so upset with Griff why are you STALKING him.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

SlightlyAbovePar, I'm not sure why you are quoting the FEMA report when the NIST study was after theirs and was more comprehensive. Also the Leslie Robertson quote was in response to a quote made to the press by an architect but there was more to it than that... at least NIST thinks so.

In NIST's press release of August 5, 2005 (just two months before they released their final report) their is evidence that there is more than just an architect's statement to the press. There is a 3 page Port Authority white paper from February 3, 1964 titled "Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center towers"

Here's a link to the NIST document: wtc.nist.gov...

The pertinent parts are on pages 14-17 of 39. With the evidence of the document on page 14, 1st bullet point under "Available sources of information" and the evidence of the speed considered on page 15.

NIST certainly thought this was relevant enough to include in this release. However on the bottom of page 15 it does say "NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion." But to me there is a good reason for that.

On December 8, 2002 Dr. Sunder gave a media briefing where he said "We are informed that most of the items listed may have been destroyed in the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC 7." (Source: wtc.nist.gov... )

And among the items missing at the time were "documents related to the ability of the WTC towers to withstand the abnormal load condition of a Boeing 707 aircraft impact that was considered in the original design" and right under their bulleted list of missing documents it says " The Port Authority and Silverstein Properties have informed NIST that most of the documents cited above were destroyed in the collapse of WTC 1, which housed documents for the Port Authority" (Source: wtc.nist.gov...)

So the analysis that the Port Authority may have done most likely was destroyed in the collapse.

So to me I'd take documentary evidence over the recollection of a 60+ year old man forty years after the fact. And I think NIST did too. That's why they included the 600 mph speed in thier presentation.

As to if the fires were considered, I'm not sure as I haven't gotten that far. In this NIST document it says there were some that say they were and some that say they weren't. I'm not sure yet how NIST determined which was correct...but I'm still looking.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


No i dont play your GAME.

I ask YOU Government Believers, to Answer my qustions that I post earlier.

Your Government CONSPIRACIES hold no water Please Answer my qustions.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
ahhhh
I see the truth movement is kicking the debunkers butts once again.

why do you debunkers even bother anymore..
your arguments are so weak.

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

the bush crime family
Chaney-Haliburton
Fox news and the MSM
the patriot act

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

don`t care if the towers fell by planes or bombs...
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

false flag terror
hr-1959
wireless tapping
protesting made illegal
making natural cures illegal

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

its simple to see for anyone with open eyes.

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

people look through our pc`s without our permision.
warrantless searches.

these "leaders" KILL PEOPLE by the thousands and hundreds
of thousands, but still you debunkers stand behind them...

this is TREASON of the highest order..

911WAS AN INSIDE JOB...................face it

Obama
McCain
Clinton
Bush
guliani
murdock
rockefeller
rice
chaney
ect ect .ALL CROOKS. MURDERERS.

and you debunkers actually back these people????????

I feel sorry for you debunkers....helping to destroy democracy ,
and America...AND THE WORLD

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB... its OFFICIAL

83% of America has said their government SUCKS.

so that only leaves 17% of you debunkers that are still clinging to the LIE.

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB....ITS official



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 

No plane hit WTC 7

No plane hit WTC7

Can some one explain to me how it fell in its own footprint late that after noon.

Lets talk about explosion that people wittness and heard on all three buildings.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


You are Right! THANK YOU.


(these "leaders" KILL PEOPLE by the thousands and hundreds
of thousands, but still you debunkers stand behind them...

this is TREASON of the highest order..)

These people who suport the Government Conspiracies are PART OF THE CONSPIRACIEY.
They are suporting Government terrorism in OUR Country.

Yes 911 was an inside job!

Those of you believe in the Government lies PROVE it was not an inside job!

We have proven in Our movement that Our Government has become LIERS. We have PROOF ! SO WHAT DO YOU GOVERNMENT BELIEVERS HAVE!

YES 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! It is plain and simple. OPEN your eyes and your ears.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
OH ya! One more thing,Becareful of Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants.

Because they are in this thread.

Trying there best to railroad this site, its not going to work.

Becareful of Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants.

Becareful of Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants.

Becareful of Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants.

911 was an iside job!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 

Cashlink, I'm not sure what your response means concerning my post. My post had to do with SlightlyAbovePar's claim that it's a myth that the buildings were designed to take an impact from a fully loaded 707 going at 600 mph. I just showed how NIST has in their possession documents that say otherwise.

Also, I just read over the NIST presentation again and it's kind of odd that they attribute the 180 mph scenario to FEMA in 2002. Did they not find anything themselves to support this claim?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
As we sit here and read and type, I have to just stop and look back for a moment.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON was impeached for lying under oath about geting a Lewinski. That is basically all he did. The Bush Bunch has done and committed who knows what? The question is now, How do we prove
link them to the crimes? PROOF IS ALL WE NEED. TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL PROOF!

I keep telling you guys to look at where this all began. A little town in India and a little natural gas power plant owned by a little company by the name of Enron. If you really want to end this and arrest the guys, you have to get proof. People make copies of things and keep for insurance. If I remember correctly, Enron lost 400million dollars in cash on that deal. India just did not pay them!

If you start here, this will lead you across the trail through a few small little countries and a pipeline deal that was a thorn in everyone's side who was involved. Negotiations stopped in the latter weeks of August 2001.

September 11, 2001, that morning someone got what they wanted. An excuse to take what would not be given!

If there is someone outthere willing to investigate this, and tie and link these events to companies and people you will find motive to do what was done.

Do this and we get our country back without another CIVIL WAR!

And just to comment on a recent reply, I think we would get more on the side of 90% of our military on our ( WE THE PEOPLE) side. The UN would not dare set foot on this soil and take up arms against us. They would not stand a chance.


Yours truely,

Eye of Eagle

" There are men in the shadows of the men in the shadows, and we are watching them."



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join