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.

 

AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


I can see you are having a hard time understanding something like an example. What he was trying to simplify for you is how a lot of things can go BOOM during a HUGE fire. also things can go BOOM when a building collapses, and the items buried inside can also go boom. How can you tell the difference between a five ton steel beam hitting the ground from high up to a bomb? Or a truck gas tank exploding after being crushed and set on fire? Can you tell the difference between a trucks gas tank exploding and a bomb from a block away? OR a car exploding? Or a pressurized oxygen cannister from a 757? Or from a firefighter's tank? Hell even a "Ax" body spray can makes a heck of a boom when thrown in a bonfire. And a CO2 cannister from an airgun makes a very loud boom. Can you tell the difference between them and a bomb from a block or two away? I cant! Can you?

I would suggest you listen to news reports during a large fire in a warehouse or large building, and listen to the reports of explosions inside, and having the roof collapse. So by your logic, those explosions were bombs that went off and brought the roof down?




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 
I can see you are having a hard time understanding something like an example. What he was trying to simplify for you is how a lot of things can go BOOM during a HUGE fire. also things can go BOOM when a building collapses, and the items buried inside can also go boom. How can you tell the difference between a five ton steel beam hitting the ground from high up to a bomb? Or a truck gas tank exploding after being crushed and set on fire? Can you tell the difference between a trucks gas tank exploding and a bomb from a block away? OR a car exploding? Or a pressurized oxygen cannister from a 757? Or from a firefighter's tank? Hell even a "Ax" body spray can makes a heck of a boom when thrown in a bonfire. And a CO2 cannister from an airgun makes a very loud boom. Can you tell the difference between them and a bomb from a block or two away? I cant! Can you?I would suggest you listen to news reports during a large fire in a warehouse or large building, and listen to the reports of explosions inside, and having the roof collapse. So by your logic, those explosions were bombs that went off and brought the roof down?


1. Those warehouse fires were in the midst of a terrorist attack, correct?
You know the type of attacks where terrorists have a historical record of blowing up buildings with bombs.

2.Those warehouse fires were the target of a successful truck bomb explosion back in 1993, correct?
Those warehouses you mentioned were a known target of terrorists, correct?

3.Survivors in the basement of WTC 1 were reminded of the 1993 truck bomb explosion because of pop cans, firefighter's oxygen tanks, and/or a CO2 canister? WTF?? LOL
I don't think so.

4.This isn't about me so it doesn't matter if I can tell the difference. It is firefighters and survivors. Please don't make me cite every example of where persons with experience with fires believed there were bombs in the buildings.


"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place. NBC News Broadcast on 9/11

Why do you suppose he DIDN'T say pop cans, co-2 canisters, or gas lines?


Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. “We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”

Notice he said it didn't look like gas lines, pop cans, or co-2 canisters exploded! Your examples and your peers fail miserably.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


A very important note on what happened at Pearl Harbor and your comparison to the people in charge after 9/11:

9/11 had four aircraft hijacked from within the US borders. These were civilian aircraft. They were hijacked in the skies over the US. They were turned into kamikazes and struck our financial and military targets. NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders. These were not aircraft that were hijacked overseas and flown here, or from Canada, or from Mexico, or anywhere else. They were not fighter jets nor bombers from an organized nation's military. NORAD and our air defenses are to track and target any INCOMING aircraft from outside the country's airspace, as well as any incoming missiles from space. Once the buildings were hit, it was understood as a terrorist attack. No major, or colonel, or general could have prevented it in time, simply because there were no Muslim aircraft carriers offshore, or fighters or bombers, or tanks, or whatever coming AT us from the sea or air. We do not fly recon flights over the US searching for rouge aircraft, we scramble fighters when a threat is detected. However we were not on a heightened war footing (ie DEFCON 3 or 2 or 1.) This means our fighters were not on round the clock 5 minute ready times. There is a very big difference between Pearl and 9/11.I would appreciate that you would refrain from comparing this sort of attack with Pearl Harbor in terms of who should have gotten blame and for what reasons. If anyone is to blame, its the intelligence gathering community for not working together passing along important info and the bureaucratic red tape that slowed everything down and presented obstacles in tracking and stopping the terrorists. Not the military officials.


Most of your post is a lie or of an uninformed opinion.

Why are you repeating the official story? Of course NORAD was responsible for the entire North American airspace above its borders. Why would you state that it wasn't?

NORAD is responsible for the air sovereignty of the United States of America and Canada.


NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. Source: Government Accounting Office Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76).



What is sovereign airspace?



"NORAD defines "sovereign airspace" as: the airspace over a nation's territory, internal waters, and territorial seas. NORAD's territorial seas extend 12 miles from the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada. Sovereign airspace above a nation's territory is unlimited." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (www.npac.syr.edu...).


Your NORAD statement simply parroting a cover-up for intentional or accidental failure to intercept.

Stop repeating the lies of the official story that or do your research.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Way to twist and twist and twist.


Hmm lets see, an obvious terrorist attack happens. Two planes into two buildings. The same two that were atacked nearly a decade earlier. People are remined by it. Wow. Thats definately proof right?


A terroist attack. To a layperson, they think BOMBS! Gotta be bombs. Initial reactions of a terrorist attack? BOMBS!. And this is proof of bombs actually being there how? Now lets go further. People see and now can tell its a terrorist attack. Its now obvious. They think terrorist attack and they link it to bombs. Now they hear explosions inside the towers that just got hit by a 757. Now they go, oh my there are explosions inside! Must mean there are bombs now going off. See how logic is? And what would the initial reaction be? Hmm terrorist attack+fires+explosions+the mental link between terrorism and bombs= bombs are going off and are used. No one is going to think oh thats just equipment and other stuff epxloding in the fire. They are scared, stunned, stuipifed, emotional, and all they know they were just in a terrorist attack and they will think that bombs must have been used in it.

And the initial early reports are usually based on these INITIAL reactions to something they dont fully comprehend. Remember during Katrina the initial reports of dead bodies stacked like cordwood at the Dome, or mass murders and gang rapes and so on? The choppers getting shot at? Remember how they retracted them all after ALL the facts were known?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Swing DanglerWhy did eyewitness, including firefighters and the mainstream media reports at ground zero, come to the conclusion that the cause for the "boom" was the coup de grace for the building itself??

How many firefighters that were witnesses to these explosion sounds have stated they thought the building was brought down in a controlled demolition? Oh, that's right, they bought the "media fed story"... oh wait... they were "silenced with a gag order"... no no.... firefighters are "in on it".... or... hmmm... they want to "keep their jobs."


If you could, please cite the number of firefighters who have publicly published their views about the cause of the collapse. Thanks.

Secondly lets examine one published account of a firefighter who thought bombs were used in the attacks:


Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ... "Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator. "Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

Now lets read his opinion when he testified to the commission in private:


Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."

Fire Fighters Excluded
From 9/11 Testimony
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. Source: Fire Fighters Excuded From 9/11 Testimony

Here are a few more:


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

Your position fails,thanks 4 playin



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


Cameron, can you tell us out of the 25,000 attendees, how many saw Gage's booth?

Don't worry, no one will hold their breath waiting for your response because you don't know. Which means your math is your waste of time and an exercise is comedy for the rest of us.


No need to hold your breath...just got to his site:


Over 20,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth


source: www.ae911truth.org...

or:


24,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth


source: www.ae911truth.org...

But then he states that they "spoke" to "hundreds" of Engineers and Architects:


we spoke to hundreds of architects and must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days.


source: www.ae911truth.org...

So far... +9 on the sign up sheet!!! SUCCESS!

I wonder when Marvin Malecha will be signing up?

I'm glad you can laugh at the truth movement now, like the rest of us.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Most of your post is a lie or of an uninformed opinion.


Ok, prove me wrong.



Why are you repeating the official story? Of course NORAD was responsible for the entire North American airspace above its borders. Why would you state that it wasn't?


NORAD and the whole point of it is to protect our airspace from INVADING aircraft. Its in the mission statement. You can twist it and say its to protect us from internal passanger flights hijacked, but that would be a wrong assumption. NORAD can be requested to assist in tracking an aircraft that has lost contact, but only AFTER all attempts to reach the aircraft through the FAA means have failed.



NORAD is responsible for the air sovereignty of the United States of America and Canada.


NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. Source: Government Accounting Office Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76).



What is sovereign airspace?



I guess you didnt read the opening paragraph to that report:


The continental air defense evolved during the Cold War to detect and intercept Soviet bombers attacking North America via the North Pole.
GAO concludes that such an air defense is no longer needed and could be
disbanded at an annual savings of as much as $370 million. Other
reserve and active units are well equipped to handle what has become the
defense force's current focus--intercepting drug smugglers.

www.fas.org...

this was the original mission. After the fall of the USSR, they had to change. However the idea of hijacked aircraft was usually attributed to having one hijacked overseas and heading towards our airspace.



"NORAD defines "sovereign airspace" as: the airspace over a nation's territory, internal waters, and territorial seas. NORAD's territorial seas extend 12 miles from the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada. Sovereign airspace above a nation's territory is unlimited." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (www.npac.syr.edu...).


Your NORAD statement simply parroting a cover-up for intentional or accidental failure to intercept.

Stop repeating the lies of the official story that or do your research.



Now I dont see there specifically domestic flgihts that are hijacked with the intention of being used as a weapon inside our borders, do you? You should read up on the general assumption that the threat of hijacked aircraft tracking would be from beyond our territory heading towards us. Tracking it into our air space. The focus was on INCOMING threats headed towards our air space. That does not mean tha NORAD wasnt available for use if the need should arise for a suspected aircraft inside our borders, but it does mean that the defence of our air space from external threats. But hey, you can twist it as much as you'd like to fit whatever preconcieved notion you want.

The facts remain the same. NORAD was not ment to track passanger flights. Only when requested by FAA. So dont call me the liar when you dont understand something.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


If you could, please cite the number of firefighters who have publicly published their views about the cause of the collapse. Thanks.



About 500(give or take)

There are over 12,000 pages of oral history from firefighters & EMT's. Start reading and please point out one first responder that mentions that they think the building was demolished VIA a controlled demolition:

Why don't you start with the B's and let me know how you make out!

Badillo, Benjamin E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 1/24/02
Bailey, Stuart Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/6/01
Banaciski, Richard Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/6/01
Barrett, Kevin E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 1/17/02
Barry, Albert Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/9/02
Bartolomey, Anthony E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/9/01
Basile, James Division Commander (E.M.S.) 10/17/01
Battista, Richard Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/6/01
Beck, Paul Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/12/01
Becker, Brian Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) 10/9/01
Beehler, Michael Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/17/01
Bell, Jody E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 12/15/01
Beltrami, Dean Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/17/01
Bendick, Thomas E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/15/01
Berntsen, Eric Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/4/01
Bessler, Paul Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/21/02
Billy, Richard Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 10/10/01
Blacksberg, David E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/23/01
Blaich, Charles Deputy Chief (F.D.N.Y.) 10/23/01
Boeri, Richard Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/10/01
Bohack, Robert Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) 1/9/02
Borrillo, Nicholas Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/9/02
Brady, Greg E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 11/1/01
Breen, John Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/12/01
Brodbeck, Michael Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/10/01
Broderick, Richard E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/25/01
Brogan, Derek Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/28/01
Brosnan, Neil Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) 12/12/01
Brown, Peter Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/7/01
Brown, Sean Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/14/01
Brown, Timothy Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/15/02
Browne, Robert Deputy Chief (E.M.S.) 10/24/01
Brynes, Adam Lieutenant (E.M.S.) 10/16/01
Buonocore, Vincent Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 10/12/01
Burbano, George Paramedic (E.M.S.) 10/11/01
Burgos, Freddy E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/31/01
Burke, Timothy Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/22/02
Butler, John Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/9/02
Butler, Michael Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.) 12/21/01
Byrne, Michael Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 1/21/02
Byrne, Robert Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) 12/7/01
Byrnes, Robert Fire Marshall (F.D.N.Y.) 11/14/01


graphics8.nytimes.com...





[edit on 12-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
How can you tell the difference between a five ton steel beam hitting the ground from high up to a bomb?

If you've worked with steel before, you can tell the difference. To the lay person that has no experience, then I could see your point. However, steel beams hitting the ground don't blow firefighters and other civilians around, knock them into a wall, cause ceilings and walls to crack and crumble, blow people across a stairwell, etc.

Construction worker Phillip Morelli working in the basement of WTC1 on 9/11:


I go downstairs, the foreman tells me to remove the containers. As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean the impact of the explosion, of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor. And that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. And all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving.

I was racing -- I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden a big impact happened again. And all the ceiling tiles were falling down. The light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling. And I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And I now started running towards the parking lots.

As I ran to the parking lots, you know, I mean, everybody screaming ... There was a lot of smoke down there. You gotta go clear across the hole (underground tunnel) from One to Two World Trade Center. That's the way you gotta run.

And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on, I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face."


Why are people dying or getting severely injured in the basement levels if a plane impacted a quarter mile up?

Chief Frank Congiusta interviewed FDNY Lieutenant William Walsh for the World Trade Center Task Force. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of that interview provided by The New York Times:


[Lt. Walsh:] What I observed as I was going through these doors and I got into the lobby of the World Trade Center was that the lobby of the Trade Center didn't appear as though it had any lights.

All of the glass on the first floor that abuts West Street was blown out. The glass in the revolving doors was blown out. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out.

The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It's about two or three inches thick. They're about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall.

[Walsh:] What else I observed in the lobby was that -- there's basically two areas of elevators. There's elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that's facing north. Then on the right-hand side there's also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That's where the service elevator was also.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren't side lobby elevators?

[Walsh:] No, no, I'd say that they went through floors 30 and below.

[B.C. Congiusta:] And they were blown off?

[Walsh:] They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway.
NY Times

So, the explosions that took place in the basement levels can't be explained away anymore by jet fuel as the elevators only went to the 30th floor and below. Now, let's see yet another witness testimony from someone that was working in the basement at the time.

Mike Pecoraro was a WTC Stationary Engineer on a roving crew that serviced all of the buildings at the WTC complex:


Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. “Did you see that?” he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. “You didn’t see the lights flicker?”, his co-worker asked again. “No,” Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building’s equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center’s equipment back on-line.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything,” he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.


There are plenty more witnesses, including William Rodriguez, but you should get the drift.

You can see in pictures and video the smoke coming from the bases of the towers from the explosions:







Now let's take a look at the lobby and basement levels (again):

Marble tiles in the lobby:


Glass in the lobby:


Basement levels:




Parking garage:




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Can you tell the difference between a trucks gas tank exploding...OR a car exploding?

You're mind is in Hollywood mode. Gas tanks don't explode like that. Mythbusters already did a show on that subject and while gas tanks or any fuel will ignite, cars will not go "boom".



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Way to twist and twist and twist.


Hmm lets see, an obvious terrorist attack happens. Two planes into two buildings. The same two that were atacked nearly a decade earlier. People are remined by it. Wow. Thats definately proof right?


A terroist attack. To a layperson, they think BOMBS! Gotta be bombs. Initial reactions of a terrorist attack? BOMBS!. And this is proof of bombs actually being there how? Now lets go further. People see and now can tell its a terrorist attack. Its now obvious. They think terrorist attack and they link it to bombs. Now they hear explosions inside the towers that just got hit by a 757. Now they go, oh my there are explosions inside! Must mean there are bombs now going off. See how logic is? And what would the initial reaction be? Hmm terrorist attack+fires+explosions+the mental link between terrorism and bombs= bombs are going off and are used. No one is going to think oh thats just equipment and other stuff epxloding in the fire. They are scared, stunned, stuipifed, emotional, and all they know they were just in a terrorist attack and they will think that bombs must have been used in it.

And the initial early reports are usually based on these INITIAL reactions to something they dont fully comprehend. Remember during Katrina the initial reports of dead bodies stacked like cordwood at the Dome, or mass murders and gang rapes and so on? The choppers getting shot at? Remember how they retracted them all after ALL the facts were known?


Again firefighters, not lay persons. People with experience with things that go boom in a fire.

Now if you can point to me where there is report stating that a Federal agency tested for the residue of explosives and found none, I would be extremely interested in reading this report. I can state as a fact, no report was published.

See, Gen, you have stopped at sound alone in your argument. You fail to grasp the physical damage reported by the firefighters and survivors. You succeed in omitting or ignoring everything else that points to bombs. Pop cans do not destroy basement parking garages. Co-2 tanks don't cause cave-ins in the Path Level Plaza 90+ floors below the impact zone. None of these lame excuses reminded survivors of the 1993 attacks.

I would agree with you if we were discussing sound alone. We aren't. My first piece of evidence for arguing for an explosive device is the logical sequence of events that followed the explosive sound. Numerous things can sound like explosions. I do not dispute this. However, it is the reaction and change of the surroundings, the injuries to people, and their reactions and thoughts following the sound of the explosion which points to a device in the basement sub levels as well as in the buildings. With regards to the WTC: 1 basement levels, all of the account follow this logical sequence.

The second piece of evidence is the damage to the structure and victims surroundings. A few examples of structural damage include: walls that are cracked or destroyed, a parking garage is obliterated , a machine shop is destroyed, failing ceilings, as well as a multiple cave-ins 4 levels below the ground.

You can read more of my own analysis at The Case For Explosives In The Sub-Levels Of WTC: North Tower
It is spot on.

Now back to the forensic evidence that proves there were no explosive devices....do you have that report from FEMA, NIST, BATF, FBI, etc?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Cameron, can you tell us out of the 25,000 attendees, how many saw Gage's booth? Don't worry, no one will hold their breath waiting for your response because you don't know. Which means your math is your waste of time and an exercise is comedy for the rest of us.

No need to hold your breath...just got to his site:

Over 20,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth

source: www.ae911truth.org...
or:

24,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth
source: www.ae911truth.org... then he states that they "spoke" to "hundreds" of Engineers and Architects:

we spoke to hundreds of architects and must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days.
source: www.ae911truth.org...
So far... +9 on the sign up sheet!!! SUCCESS!
I wonder when Marvin Malecha will be signing up?
I'm glad you can laugh at the truth movement now, like the rest of us.


The number of anticipated attendees and the fact that 9/11 Truth was there. I don't see an issue with that statement.

Why didn't you just say you don't know how many people visited the booth? That would have saved you so much time. AE Truth I'm sure does not know an exact number who saw the booth.

Could it have been 25,000? Sure. Could it have been 50? Sure. The point is, if there was nothing amiss with the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7 AETruth WOULD NOT EXIST! Don't you get it?
Patriotsfor911.com WOULD NOT EXIST! 9/11 Truth WOULD NOT EXIST. The mainstream political reality of 9/11 Truth would not exist. No need to publish debunking books to 9/11 Truth, etc. etc.

So if they think 9 is success, more power to them. Is 50 a success to them? Great! What about 1, is that a success? Keep it up. I would think just getting a booth would be a success but then I'm not a full fledged member of AETruth. Who knows how many saw the booth and then began to research the facts on their own at home.

Now ask yourself, those that 50 that signed a petition or 9 on the sign up sheet, why do you think they signed up? Free food and drink? Don't think so...



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Now I dont see there specifically domestic flgihts that are hijacked with the intention of being used as a weapon inside our borders, do you? You should read up on the general assumption that the threat of hijacked aircraft tracking would be from beyond our territory heading towards us. Tracking it into our air space. The focus was on INCOMING threats headed towards our air space. That does not mean tha NORAD wasnt available for use if the need should arise for a suspected aircraft inside our borders, but it does mean that the defence of our air space from external threats. But hey, you can twist it as much as you'd like to fit whatever preconcieved notion you want.
The facts remain the same. NORAD was not ment to track passanger flights. Only when requested by FAA. So dont call me the liar when you dont understand something.
[bold]The Gov. before 9/11 told us how NORAD operated![/bold] Why ignore that information? Can you source anything you say?

1. The first paragraph describes the evolution of NORAD during the COLD WAR. Sorry that war ended over a decade ago. The point of the GAO report was to reduce the numbers and suggest a shift to more domestic activities.


"The dramatically changed threat and . . development of post-Cold War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty . . The size of the core force would equate to that required to perform the peacetime Air Sovereignty mission."

3. Back to the definition of air sovereignty:Monitoring and controlling the airspace covering North America is called air sovereignty.

"NORAD defines "sovereign airspace" as: the airspace over a nation's territory, internal waters, and territorial seas. NORAD's territorial seas extend 12 miles from the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada. Sovereign airspace above a nation's territory is unlimited." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (www.npac.syr.edu...).

2. The article NORAD: Air National Guard manning stations across the country (National Guard Association of the United States, Sep. 1997) explains how NORAD's six battle management and command centers identify commercial aircraft as these aircraft are being monitored flying through our air space,[bold]"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand. [/bold]OOPS!
Commercial!
You whole point relies upon NORAD knowing the motivation of the pilot: a hijacked plane to be used as weapon, NORAD doesn't see. Hijacked aircraft whose intention is not a weapon, NORAD sees.


"The Air Operations Center (AOC) (also known as the Air Defense Operations Center – ADOC) maintains CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTH AMERICAN AIRSPACE TO PREVENT OVERFLIGHT by hostile aircraft. It TRACKS over 2.5 million aircraft annually. The ADOC collects and consolidates surveillance information on suspected drug-carrying aircraft entering or operating WITHIN North America, and provides this information to counternarcotics agencies." -- Cheyenne Mountain Complex; Federation of American Scientists, 1999 (www.fas.org...); Cheyenne Mountain Trivia; NORAD, April, 1997 (www.au.af.mil...).

The official accounts of NORAD after 9/11 were a lie to cover up the non-response. Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people."

I apologize to you for suggesting you were a liar. It appears it was a misinformed opinion. Now that you are informed, I would expect it to change to a factual one.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


From Louie Cacchioli's website...




In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate civilians. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building




Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.





Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).



Oops...looks like Mr Cacchioli doesn't believe there were bombs either.....



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You can't go from "We think there was bombs set in the building" to "Oops...looks like Mr Cacchioli doesn't believe there were bombs either..... " as that's an oxymoron.

There's a number of reasons why Mr. Cacchioli changed or "clarified" his story, but you won't entertain any of those reasons because they do not agree with your denial-blinded mindset.

Either way, it doesn't really matter what he thinks or doesn't think because the video evidence, photographic evidence, physical evidence and witness testimony all corroborate each other like I've shown a few posts above and you will be hard-pressed to find anything to counter it. So please, try...

*edit to add* I notice you didn't even attempt to take a shot at the real evidence I posted a few posts above. Got you stumped, does it?

[edit on 12-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


He hasnt changed a word of his story in the last 7 and a half years. He has spent the last 7 years pointing out the shoddy journalism that only took half of what he said and published it, leading to 7 years of conspiracy theorists using his words out of context.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





I notice you didn't even attempt to take a shot at the real evidence I posted a few posts above. Got you stumped, does it?


I havent bothered to read it.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Ah, well I'll check back soon to see what you come up with.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


And what else did Mr. Pecoraro say:




The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby


www.chiefengineer.org...

As for the elevators..there were several in each building whose shafts went from the subbasements to the top floors.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I have testimony from a police officer, William Walsh, that gives the side of the story you don't give but only suggest:


[Lt. Walsh:] What I observed as I was going through these doors and I got into the lobby of the World Trade Center was that the lobby of the Trade Center didn't appear as though it had any lights.

All of the glass on the first floor that abuts West Street was blown out. The glass in the revolving doors was blown out. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out.

The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It's about two or three inches thick. They're about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Wait a second.

(Interruption.)

[Walsh:] What else I observed in the lobby was that -- there's basically two areas of elevators. There's elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that's facing north. Then on the right-hand side there's also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That's where the service elevator was also.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren't side lobby elevators?

[Walsh:] No, no, I'd say that they went through floors 30 and below.

[B.C. Congiusta:] And they were blown off?

[Walsh:] They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway.


graphics8.nytimes.com...


There is no evidence at all of any fireball coming down from where the planes impacted and blowing things up near the lobby.



Also, your assertion that there were "several" elevators in each building that went from the basements to the topmost floors is wrong. There was only 1 elevator that went the whole distance in WTC1 and I only know of one other that went from any basement floor to the impacted floor. Those cars were 50 and 6. Other than that, you can post whatever sources you want.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join