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.

 

I just saw "witness to 9/11"

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either.



That quote speaks volumes.



What I find interesting is that 22 short minutes after making the above statement you demand that someone else do what you are unwilling to do.

Your hypocrisy has been noted.




posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Besides, you have not demonstrated that these witnesses "saw and heard somethign very different" from what the gov't saying.


I do not need to prove anything. Any five year old can Google the internet and find a dozen web sits that have very creditable eyewitness accounts that went on record. The government chose to ignore it because they would not be able to sell their lie if they use the truth.
However, for what it is worth at lease you bought into their lies and that is all that matters. Oh, one more thing you are wrong.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 



That quote speaks volumes.



What I find interesting is that 22 short minutes after making the above statement you demand that someone else do what you are unwilling to do.

Your hypocrisy has been noted.


Before rushing to judgment against me, I would appreciate it if you would have a glance at all of my previous posts on ATS and rethink your statement. I am tired of posting absolutely creditable sources for almost every statement I have made since joining ATS to have disinformationists either simply say the opposite with no proof, derail the thread, using false information with no sources, insulting me personally and attempting to discredit me for simple errors in spelling or grammar. It is the goal of many OS believers to use only their opinions to discount information I have often spent hours researching and for which I have posted credible sources. Sorry, but enough is enough.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You all need to watch a movie/documentary called Zeitgeist. You can find it on Google. It's about 2 hours but I've seen it 3 times and get more out of it every time.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Every video of the collapse in existence shows the towers collapsed sequentially down floor by floor, not every third floor, and this cannot be refuted.

The presentation which put me on to the every third floor thing is from Scottish engineer Gordon Ross here.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

There were FEMA rescue workers deployed to New York for a bioterror drill on 9/12 . Strange co-incidence.


Would you mind terribly posting somethign to back this up? This would have been one day after the attack, and I can guarantee everyone's attention was exclusively on the 9/11 attack, not on any bioterror drill.

Here is the audio with the FEMA guy Tom Kenney mentioning FEMA's presence in New York on Sep 10 to Dan Rather. Giuliani backed it up in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:


"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack..."


And here is an excerpt from a recent interview with the FEMA videographer who has applied for asylum in Argentina from the US govt:


Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA. FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!


There's also a TV interview but haven't found the link.


Originally posted by GoodOlDaveGWB was in an elementary school in Florida reading "My pet goat" to school children during the attack.. Didn't you watch "Fahrenheit 9/11"?


From The Guardian:

[Bush] said yesterday: "I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'"



Originally posted by GoodOlDave

The buildings fell at nearly free fall speed. They were engineered to be four times stronger than they needed to be to stand up – they were no house of cards.

The initial collapse began at the ninety-somethingth floor, and the towers had 110 stories. This means the floor that first collapsed was hit with at least TWELVE times its own weight, and each floor below it was hit by exponentially greater weight as each floor fell in turn.
No, no, no. If they have twelve time their own weight above then the columns are designed to hold forty eight times the weight above.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveFYI there's no such thing as a "cool" or "oxygen starved" fire
Cool means "relatively cool". Likewise, "oxygen starved" means "relatively oxygen starved", not completely oxygen starved. I thought that would be obvious.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
The presentation which put me on to the every third floor thing is from Scottish engineer Gordon Ross


It really makes no difference what scottish engineer Gordon Ross says. Every video in existence specifically shows the towers collapsed downward sequentially by floor, not sequentially by every third floor, and this can NOT be refuted. If he's attempting to claim otherwise then he's wrong.


Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA.


That shouldn't be anything suspicious. There were lots of people who saw the first passenger jet hit the tower. It IS Manhatten, after all, so not everyone thought it was just a small plane.



FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed.


Not true. Photographer Joel Meyerowitz obtained a permit from the city to enter ground Zero to take photos. There are thousands of photos floating around the internet detailing the cleanup of ground zero, and these were almost certainly taken by him.

FYO the "evidence destroyed" wasn't evidence. It was steel from locations that weren't anywhere near the impact area. THAT steel is still in a hanger at La Guardia airport even now.



And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!


There's also a TV interview but haven't found the link.

I already know what you're referring to. It was an interview with a FEMA official after working some 72 hours straight at the disaster area with no rest, and he mispoke the date becuase he was exhausted out of his mind and 9/11 wasn't as infamous a date at the time as it is now. Records show that FEMA came into town on the 12th so that's the time we have to go by.


[Bush] said yesterday: "I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'"


Again, the video exists that shows Bush was in an elementary school in Florida at the time of the attack and it caannot be refuted, so either he mispoke and meant to say he saw the video footage after the fact, or he's lying through his teeth like he always did and didn't see it on television at all.


[No, no, no. If they have twelve time their own weight above then the columns are designed to hold forty eight times the weight above.


Nope. None of the floors were load bearing becuase they were supported entirely by a support brace connected between the interior core columns and the exterior shell. Their maximum load bearing capacity was therefore only (according to you) four times their own weight. The first floor to fall was hit with TWELVE times its own weight, with subsequent floors being hit wiit exponentially greater weight as each floor collapsed in turn.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
Cool means "relatively cool". Likewise, "oxygen starved" means "relatively oxygen starved", not completely oxygen starved. I thought that would be obvious.


The laws of thermodynamics must work differently where I live, then, since to me temperatures of fire are usually judged by its color. NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact areas of the jets reported seeing support beams glowing red from the fires, so I'm taking this to necessarily mean it was a high temperature fire I.E. 1800-2000 degrees F.

Is 1800-2000 degrees F considered "relatively cool"?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I do not need to prove anything. Any five year old can Google the internet and find a dozen web sits that have very creditable eyewitness accounts that went on record. The government chose to ignore it because they would not be able to sell their lie if they use the truth.
However, for what it is worth at lease you bought into their lies and that is all that matters. Oh, one more thing you are wrong.


It obviously makes you feel better about yourself to simply say "I'm wrong" so I won't take that away from you. Nonetheless, there are mountains of evidence from reports, photographs, interviews, eyewitness accounts, and not to mention logic and critical analysis, that show the events of 9/11 occurred the way they all say it did. If you don't agree with the findings then yes, it IS your responsibility to prove why it's wrong, and moreover, it's likewise your responsibility to provide an alternative scenario that better fits the facts. I'm afraid I'm going to need a little bit more than your simply saying "I'm wrong" before running away giggling.

In case you haven't realized...and it doesn't look like you have...you're NOT the first truther I've encountered. I've been discussing this issue with many, many, MANY truthers, for a long time, and if you don't believe anythign else I say, believe this- I already know exactly why everything you're going to say is nonsense, before you say it. This is because almost to a man, all the truthers do is mindlessly repeat the exact same crap they find on these internet sites almost word for word, over and over.

I've already looked at all those "dozen web sites with credible witnesses" you're referring to, and I know full well they're full of sh*t. They're either deliberately misrepresenting what the witnesses are actually saying (I.E. claiming witnesses heard explosives going off when they were almost certainly flammable objects going off as the fires reached them), dropping innuendo (Bush's five degrees of separation away from the Nazis. Good grief, all that happened before Bush was even born), making unprovable statements ("unreleased reports" quoting "anonymous sources" saying Bin Laden "may" have died of Kidney disease), artfully quote mining people out of context (I.E. Silverstein's "Pull it", which obviously meant to get the firefighters out of the building), or putting out bald faced, flat out lies (I.E. fighter planes were orderd to stand down, despite fighters being seen flying over the skies of NYC only minutes after the attack). I've already explained why all these websites are full of sh*t in detail, and I will explain it as many times as you'd like. I'm not the one who has anythign to hide.

Thus, when I say the evidence shows the truthers are being conned by these stupid conspiracy web sites, more than it shows there's really any conspiracy, all you're really doing is proving I was right all along. You have my gratitude for that.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Nonetheless, there are mountains of evidence from reports, photographs, interviews, eyewitness accounts, and not to mention logic and critical analysis, that show the events of 9/11 occurred the way they all say it did.


Humm… you are joking right? So your logic is better than science?


If you don't agree with the findings then yes, it IS your responsibility to prove why it's wrong, and moreover, it's likewise your responsibility to provide an alternative scenario that better fits the facts.


The fact is you will not look at the science that proves the government is lying about everything and you have been shown. However, ignoring scientific evidences doesn’t make it wrong. How can anyone show you proof of anything when you have made it very clear that you do not want to see it. Dose the fear of our government being involved in 911 really frighten you so bad, that it is better for you to close the door on that possibility without ever looking at the true evidences.


I'm afraid I'm going to need a little bit more than your simply saying "I'm wrong" before running away giggling.


Running away giggling? Am I talking to an adult here?


This is because almost to a man, all the truthers do is mindlessly repeat the exact same crap they find on these internet sites almost word for word, over and over.


So you repeating the OS over and over and failing to show sources to back up your opinions and rants is not mindless?


I've already looked at all those "dozen web sites with credible witnesses" you're referring to, and I know full well they're full of sh*t. They're either deliberately misrepresenting what the witnesses are actually saying (I.E. claiming witnesses heard explosives going off when they were almost certainly flammable objects going off as the fires reached them), dropping innuendo (Bush's five degrees of separation away from the Nazis. Good grief, all that happened before Bush was even born), making unprovable statements


Wow, so firemen and police officers who saw and heard something different and despite the fact that they were put under gag orders still spoke out risking everything, their jobs, careers and reputations, so you are saying these brave men and women are full of it?


almost certainly flammable objects going off


Almost certainly?


Good grief, all that happened before Bush was even born), making unprovable statements ("unreleased reports" quoting "anonymous sources" saying Bin Laden "may" have died of Kidney disease),


You have proof that all this is a lie? Do you have absolute proof Bin Laden is still alive?
Do you have absolute proof that Ben Laden did not die of Kidney disease?


artfully quote mining people out of context (I.E. Silverstein's "Pull it", which obviously meant to get the firefighters out of the building


You do not know what Larry Silverstein meant; nor do you know what that man was thinking. You can only “assume” nothing more.


or putting out bald faced, flat out lies


I will agree with you on this statement, there has been plenty of proof that the FBI has been caught lying repeatedly in all areas of the 911 story


lies (I.E. fighter planes were orderd to stand down, despite fighters being seen flying over the skies of NYC only minutes after the attack).


Really, can you supply a link for this information besides your opinions show us some sources that it was only *minutes after the attack* because I don’t recall see any F16, or F18 flying over NYC in any of the News videos.


Thus, when I say the evidence shows the truthers are being conned by these stupid conspiracy web sites,


This really goes to show how little you really know.






[edit on 25-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave...so I'm taking this to necessarily mean it was a high temperature fire I.E. 1800-2000 degrees F.

Is 1800-2000 degrees F considered "relatively cool"?...


No..but isn't it impossible for an office fire??

1800 degrees F is hotter than jet fuel burns right? Doesnt jetfuel burn at a max of about 1500F? And office fires don't get nearly that hot.

Unless you are suggesting that, instead of burning off in the initial impact, that the jet fuel was splashed all over the bare steel columns, then set on fire to burn through them...

In any case, you are 'taking it to mean', not, it DOES mean. Could you verify for me, since I'm not very educated in fires, the temperature of an office fire, and the temperature of jet fuel burning? Also, could you show me how burning jetfuel could sustain a fire long enough to cause the collapse?

I'm sure the combo of fuel and office combustables was enough to make a temorarily hot fire, but that termperature could not have been sustained for an hour.

Unless you know something I dont...?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You and I both know that identifying the Pentagon photographer would be meaningless to you just as identifying the ground zero photographer was meaningless to you.

No, Dave. Again, you are completely wrong. Knowing who took the images is critically important. It is essential that the images can be verified. Failure to identify the photographer means that the images are unreliable.



You, sir, seem to forget the the burden of proof isn't on ME to prove an aircraft had hit the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it didn't...and we both know you can't.

You poorly fail logic, Dave. The null hypothesis is that there was an explosion at the Pentagon.

Your alternative hypothesis is that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. So, prove it.

Dave, you made a claim that a piece of scrap metal laying on green lawn, was part of the alleged Flight AA77. You have utterly failed to support that claim.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Humm… you are joking right? So your logic is better than science?


In that context, I am referring to the fact that logic says...

-it's impossible for anyone to plant controlled demolitions in a heavily populated building without any of the tens of thousands of occupants noticing.

-Any controlled demolitions/thermite/whatever would leave blatant after effects on all the wreckage that would be immediately noticable during the cleanup, regardless of the method of sabotage.

-conspirators that already have the resources to commandeer multiple passenger jets to be used as weapons aren't going to waste their time shooting a cruise missile at the Pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses and manufacture all kinds of fake wreckage and disinformation to make it look like another passenger jet. They're simply going to commandeer another passenger jet

-conspirators aren't going to go through the trouble of faking evidence of a plane crash in Pennsylvania only to turn around and cover up the evidence they planted.

-Not to mention, any outer space energy weapons powerful enough to disintergrate a building would also disintergrate all the people in the vicinity too.

Just what science do you have that refutes this?


The fact is you will not look at the science that proves the government is lying about everything and you have been shown.


No, the fact is that all your "science" is completely junk science. If, for example you believe the towers fell too fast, simply calculating out how fast it fell is irrelevent. It's also your obligation to show how fast the towers *should* have fallen, given the specific construction and specific damage inflicted on it, or else you haven't proven how fast "too fast" is. Is throwing a baseball at 200MPH fast? Is a man walking ten feet per minute too slow? You won't know unless you know how fast a baseball can be thrown or how fast a man can walk.

So, since you say science backs your claims up, tell me how fast the towers should have fallen.


However, ignoring scientific evidences doesn’t make it wrong. How can anyone show you proof of anything when you have made it very clear that you do not want to see it. Dose the fear of our government being involved in 911 really frighten you so bad, that it is better for you to close the door on that possibility without ever looking at the true evidences.


I've stated many times that I've *already* seen your supposed evidence many times from prior discussions with other truthers so I *already* know your own material better than you do, which makes your statement an absurd accusation right there. Besides, it is YOU who openly admitted that you don't care what anyone says, you're still going to believe what you want to believe, not me. Do you want me to quote your own words back to you?


Wow, so firemen and police officers who saw and heard something different and despite the fact that they were put under gag orders still spoke out risking everything, their jobs, careers and reputations, so you are saying these brave men and women are full of it?


Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Give me an example of a fireman/police officer who "saw and heard something different".


Almost certainly?


The buildings definitely had flammable objects (I.E. fuel tanks, electrical transformers, etc) like every OTHER large building does, which would definitely blow up as the fires reached them, and there definitely was a fire burning in the buildings, so it means people would definitely hear explosions, the longer the fires burned. Thus, it's almost certainly what they heard becuase they definitely would have heard it sooner or later.

Does that clear it up, now?


Do you have absolute proof that Ben Laden did not die of Kidney disease?


I didn't say it was a lie, I said it was an unsubstanciated report. Do you have absolute proof that he did?


You do not know what Larry Silverstein meant; nor do you know what that man was thinking. You can only “assume” nothing more.


Silverstein's office released a statement as a reponse to all these "pull it" accusations floating around the Internet specifically explaining that "Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building." So yes, I DO know what he meant and what he was thinking.


Really, can you supply a link for this information besides your opinions show us some sources that it was only *minutes after the attack* because I don’t recall see any F16, or F18 flying over NYC in any of the News videos.


I've already stated a dozen times over that such information can be found in the 9/11 commission report documenting the military response to the hijackings, including a bibliography of where their information came from. BUT, if you are really that deathly afraid of reading the report and seeing the conspiracy-crushing information it contains, CNN caught them on camera, too. The twin tails means it's an F-15 fighter.

CNN broadcast

...and being an F-15, it means we know which base it came from...but I'm not going to tell you how I know that. I've already given you all the information you need to find that out, yourself. What say you actually do your OWN research for a change, instead of simply just repeating what you read on some damned fool conspiracy web site and then calling it "research"?

By now, you should realize I am not here to coddle your beloved conspiracy stories. I am here to post the facts of 9/11 that you've painfully demonstrated that you didn't know. How you decide to use the information is entirely up to you, but do not insult my intelligence and claim how there are "so many unanswered questions" becuase the questions do have answers. You're simply choosing to ignore the answers you don't want to hear.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
No..but isn't it impossible for an office fire??

1800 degrees F is hotter than jet fuel burns right? Doesnt jetfuel burn at a max of about 1500F? And office fires don't get nearly that hot.


It depends on what the material is that's burning. Aluminum (which sheathed the entire structure) burns close to 7000 degrees F.


Unless you are suggesting that, instead of burning off in the initial impact, that the jet fuel was splashed all over the bare steel columns, then set on fire to burn through them...


I don't need to suggest anything. The fact that the the aircraft destroyed the emergency stair wells necessarily means the aircraft impact reached the core columns, which, being metal, obviously would have scraped off much of the protective fire retardent coating and expose the naked steel to the fire. It would also have necessarily damaged, if not destroyed, the horizontal support braces that held up the floors, causing the remaining intact support braces to become overloaded.


In any case, you are 'taking it to mean', not, it DOES mean. Could you verify for me, since I'm not very educated in fires, the temperature of an office fire, and the temperature of jet fuel burning? Also, could you show me how burning jetfuel could sustain a fire long enough to cause the collapse?


I myself subscribe to the report by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eager, who states that the uneven heating of the steel from the fires caused irregular thermal expansion and contraction, causing the steel to warp and lose their structural integrity. The weight was therefore transferred to the remaining intact supports, beyond their load bearing capabilities.


Thomas Eagar


There are many conspiracy people who insist he's wrong, but not one of them can actually explain why he's wrong. That by itself is telling.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, Dave. Again, you are completely wrong. Knowing who took the images is critically important. It is essential that the images can be verified. Failure to identify the photographer means that the images are unreliable.


All right then, since most if not all the photos taken during the ground zero cleanup were verified to have been taken by NY photographer Joel Meyerowiz, we can assume the photos are reliable and thus, proof positive there were *no* signs of any sabotage to the World Trade Center.

You're only painting yourself into a corner with this bit, you know.



You poorly fail logic, Dave. The null hypothesis is that there was an explosion at the Pentagon.


No, the null hypothesis is that an aircraft hit the Pentagon which caused the explosion. The aircraft flew over a highway during rush hour traffic so there were multitudes of witnesses, as well as large amounts of obvious aircraft wreckage which appeared on the Pentagon lawn almost instantaneously. The debate is over whether the aircraft was actually flight 77 or even a passenger jet at all, not whether it was an aircraft.


Your alternative hypothesis is that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. So, prove it.


I have no alternative hypothesis of it being anything other than an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. You do.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, since most if not all the photos taken during the ground zero cleanup were verified to have been taken by NY photographer Joel Meyerowiz, we can assume the photos are reliable and thus, proof positive there were *no* signs of any sabotage to the World Trade Center.

Huh?

Casual readers to this thread, wishing for some comedy relief, will note that Dave has been challenged to verify the image, showing a piece of scrap metal, that he alleges was from Flight AA77.

Dave has not been able to do so. Therefore, what is Dave's only option that he can take to try and save his credibility? He typed about a completely different set of photographs and avoids the question about his original image of scrap metal!!!

It's easier for Dave to avoid his losing argument by trying to deflect it.

Then, Dave decides to type the following:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're only painting yourself into a corner with this bit, you know.

Dave, when you completely avoid trying to verify that image of scrap metal and then deflect the argument to something irrelevant, it is you who is painting yourself into a corner. And that corner lacks credibility.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, the null hypothesis is that an aircraft hit the Pentagon which caused the explosion.

Dave clearly has never taken a course in logic, or if he did, he failed it.

When you are so clearly wrong, Dave, with what you think has already been presumed, before being investigated, then your bias has taken over.

The null hypothesis is that some kind of explosive event caused the damage at the Pentagon.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have no alternative hypothesis of it being anything other than an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. You do.

Firstly, Dave, in many threads I have stated that I only support the null hypothesis. I do not have an alternate hypothesis, as I don't know what happened. You are clearly wrong. I won't call you a liar, because last time I called someone a liar I was warned by a Moderator and fined 500 points. Please, search my nearly 3500 posts and quote where I have provided an alternate hypothesis at the Pentagon, with proof. It would be wise of you not to make up stories about what I have previously stated.

Secondly, neutral readers to the thread - note the subtle shift in Dave's argument. Remember that Dave claimed that the Pentagon was hit by Flight AA77 and he used that image in a failed attempt to prove that some wreckage had serial numbers.

But now, with the statement above, Dave has decided that it was an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Note how he has taken a step back from his claim that the aircraft was the alleged Flight AA77. Perhaps Dave has realised that he is finding it a little more difficult to prove that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon than he was hoping it would be?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What can I say about GoodOlDave? I have reviewed these three recent posts by Dave and I cannot figure out if he is a broken record or if he has broken a record, for spouting misinformation, that is. With no evidence to back up his countless reviews of “Fantasy In The Big Apple,” Dave, like my GoodOlTimex, takes a lickin and keeps on tickin’! With as much really credible proof as people have offered him, GoodOl refuses to have any part of it. He would rather ramble on about melting buildings from outer space than just review some very simple, logical facts. I think G’O’ does this so he can have someone to argue with.

Hmmmmm I just remembered where I may know Dave from... ‘There once was a fellow named Dave...” OK, sorry, but really Dave, it’s time to stop ridiculing everyone who does not agree with your fantasies. Better watch out for those tractor beams, they may be rearranging your thoughts as you read this. Ta-Ta for now GoodOl.!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Humm… you are joking right? So your logic is better than science?



In that context, I am referring to the fact that logic says...


You still did not answer my question. So, your logic is above real creditable science.
You are referring to what fact? I really do not expect an answer on this question.



-it's impossible for anyone to plant controlled demolitions in a heavily populated building without any of the tens of thousands of occupants noticing.


Only in your imagination, it is impossible. GoodOlDave try to think “outside” the box for once. Your comment is only your opinion nothing more.


-Any controlled demolitions/thermite/whatever would leave blatant after effects on all the wreckage that would be immediately noticable during the cleanup, regardless of the method of sabotage.


It did leave blatant effects on all the wreckage and it was noticeable everywhere thermit was everywhere, melted steel beams, pools of molten steel, eyewitness accounts of flashes going around the towers, eyewitness accounts of explosions by firemen and police officers, and first responders, oh that’s right all those people are liars and your witness only tell the truth. Then there is the science that you cannot dispute, because you are not a scientist.


-conspirators that already have the resources to commandeer multiple passenger jets to be used as weapons aren't going to waste their time shooting a cruise missile at the Pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses and manufacture all kinds of fake wreckage and disinformation to make it look like another passenger jet. They're simply going to commandeer another passenger jet


The fact is we are led to believe by the FBI that these alleged hijackers stole other people identities so that they could not get any recognition for carrying out such a defeat. I find it truly amazing that 19 extremist Muslim planned and carried out 911 in total secrecy and did not want to get the recognition that they thought their comrades deserved. Then there is the absolute proof of seven out of the nineteen alleged hijackers are still alive and some have filed lawsuits against our government, to clear their names. Now one has to ask whom these “phantom hijackers” that the FBI said they were able to identify conclusively through DNA. What was the FBI comparing the DNA against whom? Remember, seven of the hijackers are still walking around Then we have millions of tons of WTC debris buried on top of airplanes that crashed into the WTC. These airliners were flying at a high rate of speed and we know the air planes disintegrated on impact to little to nothing. So again, one has to wonder how on earth did the FBI find any DNA at all unless, the FBI has a super duper computer that can sift all the WTC debris and dust to find tiny specks of DNA. Since you believe every word of the OS were is your logic in the above statement that I made? This ought to be good!

-conspirators aren't going to go through the trouble of faking evidence of a plane crash in Pennsylvania only to turn around and cover up the evidence they planted.


I have never made that claim.


-Not to mention, any outer space energy weapons powerful enough to disintergrate a building would also disintergrate all the people in the vicinity too.


I have never made that claim! Most people who do not believe in the OS, do not believe in that garbage. This is your way of insulting people who do not believe in your fallacies.


Just what science do you have that refutes this?


Oh, all the same science that you have but, you keep ignoring all the facts and the scientific evidences.


No, the fact is that all your "science" is completely junk science.


Prove it? Show us proof from other scientists who have made that claim in the same filed of expertise as the scientist, who have proven the government is lying? ( Oh that’s right you cant!)


If, for example you believe the towers fell too fast, simply calculating out how fast it fell is irrelevent.


I see you lack an understanding of science and logic in this ridiculous statement.


It's also your obligation to show how fast the towers *should* have fallen, given the specific construction and specific damage inflicted on it, or else you haven't proven how fast "too fast" is. Is throwing a baseball at 200MPH fast? Is a man walking ten feet per minute too slow? You won't know unless you know how fast a baseball can be thrown or how fast a man can walk.


No, it is not my “obligation” to show you how fast the WTC fell anyone can look at his watch and watch one of the News broadcasts of that day, showing how fell fast they fell. Any five year old can figure that out.


So, since you say science backs your claims up, tell me how fast the towers should have fallen.


Easy, just watch CNN New of the events of that day, and watch in the videos of the WTC explodes upward and out ward and watch all the concrete being pulverized into a fine “dust” take your wristwatch and count the seconds from start to finish and you will see it only took a few seconds. What TV News video on 911 did you watch, perhaps one that was being showed in slow motion. You are asking me to tell you how fast they fell, yet in eight years you do not know. Looks to me, that you are very good at giving your “opinions” on everything why not research it yourself. It does not matter what I say to you. You really don’t care anyway, you just want someone to chat with, and I am willing to have a chat with you. We both know what you are doing is hardly called a debate, especially when one does not show sources for his claims. But, that’s ok this is a conspiracy web site, right.


I've stated many times that I've *already* seen your supposed evidence many times from prior discussions with other truthers so I *already* know your own material better than you do,


Well now I know for a fact that you are WRONG because I seldom ever talk with people who do not believe in the OS. The reason is because we all know the proven lies in the NIST reports, the 911 Commission reports, the phony pentagon video. It is so funny your sciences that you stand behind has already been proven false, furthermore, scientists have shown how NIST got it all wrong and have written for NIST to make appropriate scientific changes. NIST has refused to make any changes in their phony fairytale, however, most academics now “ignore” NIST unscientific journal.


Besides, it is YOU who openly admitted that you don't care what anyone says, you're still going to believe what you want to believe, not me. Do you want me to quote your own words back to you?


No, you don’t need to, It is true, I did say that. Is there something wrong with that?


Give me an example of a fireman/police officer who "saw and heard something different".



Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed.
Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers.1 (Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department.2) The Times then made these oral histories publicly available.3

www.911truth.org...



[edit on 27-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




The buildings definitely had flammable objects (I.E. fuel tanks, electrical transformers, etc) like every OTHER large building does, which would definitely blow up as the fires reached them, and there definitely was a fire burning in the buildings, so it means people would definitely hear explosions, the longer the fires burned. Thus, it's almost certainly what they heard becuase they definitely would have heard it sooner or later.


Well, I can understand you argument, however, it dose not explain why there were explosions going off in the basement of the WTC when the airplanes hit between the 78 floors way to high up. No airplane hit the bottom floors. So what caused all the explosions in the bottom of the WTC basement? Many people witness this, and now there is a public record of it. So, do you think all these people are lairs all those firemen and police officers, first responders, office workers, janitors, clean up employees, security officers, pass Byers and so on.


Silverstein's office released a statement as a reponse to all these "pull it" accusations floating around the Internet specifically explaining that "Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building." So yes, I DO know what he meant and what he was thinking.


Wrong, Silverstein’s said “pull it” live on television for the world to see and hear. You can “assume” he was talking about pulling the firemen out of WTC 7, however it is a fact that demolition experts use's the same terms to bring down a building “ pull it. “


CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down'
For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:
Click here to listen to conversation


killtown.blogspot.com...


So yes, I DO know what he meant and what he was thinking.


No you don’t, and I just proved it.


I've already stated a dozen times over that such information can be found in the 9/11 commission report


How can you go by a report that contradicts itself repeatedly? Can you show exactly what time the military showed up?


BUT, if you are really that deathly afraid of reading the report and seeing the conspiracy-crushing information it contains, CNN caught them on camera, too. The twin tails means it's an F-15 fighter.


CNN broadcast


Yes, those are our military jets, however, watching the video you have presented from CNN, shows both towers have already been stuck, so thank you for proving my facts. You are only showing after the fact. I wanted to know if there was any proof of our military being in the skies over NYC moments before that attacks, or during the attacks, however, you have failed to prove this.


...and being an F-15, it means we know which base it came from


What base was that? I am sure you have sources where this F-15 came from?


but I'm not going to tell you how I know that.


I know you wont, when one is only “assuming” things, one “cannot” provide facts.


What say you actually do your OWN research for a change, instead of simply just repeating what you read on some damned fool conspiracy web site and then calling it "research"?


POT CALLING KETTLE...


By now, you should realize I am not here to coddle your beloved conspiracy stories.


You are not coddling my facts, however, I do not have to resort to belittling, or ridiculing, the facts speak for themselves. It is your conspiracy story the OS that cant stand up to real science and is falling apart every day. Lies cannot stand up to science!


I am here to post the facts of 9/11 that you've painfully demonstrated that you didn't know.


No one is going to take you seriously until you start providing sources to your wild accusations.
Furthermore, you do not know what I know, there you go again, just assuming things that you don’t know about.


but do not insult my intelligence


But, but, Dave, you have insulted everyone else’s intelligences on this thread with your opinions, and assumptions, And no sources.


and claim how there are "so many unanswered questions"


You are joking right? I know for a fact most questions regarding about 911 have not been answered. Furthmore why don’t you tell that to the Jersey Girls who lost their husbands in the WTC and demanded an investigation into the events of 911. After 18 long months after 911 our government still didn’t give the American people any answers to what happened on 911. It was the Jersey Girls who put pressure on the Bush administration and congress to investigate what really happened. These women were not buying the lies that were told to them and the American people. The 911 commission was formed because of the Jersey Girls. However, when they read the 911 commission report they were sadly disappointed, the Jersey Girls made a public statement saying the 911 commission failed to answer most of their questions.


9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions


www.911truth.org...



Jersey Girls Survive Attacks, Continue To Press For Truth About 9/11


www.bradblog.com...




Right sets attack dogs on Jersey Girl widows

www.smh.com.au...

You're simply choosing to ignore the answers you don't want to hear.


It looks like you are quoting yourself. I do not believe in going into denil to make myself feel better. The only way I can feel better is by reasurching the truth, and avoiding all those disninfo web sites that you keep quoting from.


[edit on 27-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman It is not necessary for every part of the structure to fail in order to bring
building down..
If this is true than we need to halt the building of all high rise structures right now - they are just too flimsy and dangerous to occupy. One kink, one fire, major or minor, and they all fall down. How could we have been so stupid? But of course builders worldwide carry on with their constructions without giving any credence whatsoever to the structural aspects of the collapses of Sept 11. Odd behaviour if the govt story is indeed true.


Originally posted by thedman
Think of it as row of dominoes - one domino topples knocking down...

Yes, but the dominoes are still there afterwards, not pulverised to powder with traced of incendiaries in the dust.




Originally posted by Swampfox46: Osama Bin Laden is an invention of the CIA? I will bet that that is a surprise to his family....Im guessing that you didnt think that through.

Heh, heh, fair enough. You're right my phrasing was loose there, but you correctly interpreted what I was driving at. Al Queda is used as a generic excuse for all manner of terrorist acts when it is not really such a unified cohesive organisation as the media makes out but a fairly loose band of... jackasses, for want of a better term. It's not this amazing fighting force.

Even Osama said immediately after 9/11 that he was not involved. This was his statement, which the Bush Admin tried to suppress fearing it would contain a coded message to other terrorists (yeah, right):

I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States....


Originally posted by Swampfox46:
We got his wedding band back. We got his business card with his name on it..

You have informed me of some things of which I was unaware, however the majority of all items and bodies were completely pulverised including, regrettably, this gentleman. Not what you'd expect from a pancake collapse if it didn't involve explosives. How did bits of bone fragments and up on the rooftops of buildings hundreds of feet away if explosives weren't used?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join