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.

 

challenge to the gifted

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Those are caused by the force of the TOP of a 100 story building falling into itself. This is visible in many photos. They are not 'squibs'...


Have you ever seen a demolition?

First, the explosives are fired and you can SEE them BEFORE the collapse of a building not the other way around. It starts at the base. This did not happen...Also, sometimes, they do not work...please watch the below video...

www.youtube.com...

This is a small building compared to the WTC.

or this one...

www.youtube.com...

Challenge to the gifted....


How about you come up with more more fiction for us to read. There is no need to debunk a photo with some lines drawn on it that give no Evidence of explosives. None.

As far as your facts Bonez, they are as credible as Nancy Pelosi's expense report. You are making statements and not presenting facts.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by conrad x
Ever wondered why the various videos of collapse of the twin towers didnt show these flashes?

There's a number of factors as to why the videos don't show the flashes, but the first responders have no reason to lie, so it doesn't matter.



Originally posted by conrad x
Ever wondered why the various videos of the collapse of the twin towers never picked up the same kind of audio you heard in that video you linked?

There was one video that recorded the collapse and pre-collapse detonations and I posted a link to it. But again, the first responders, survivors and by-standers have no reason to lie about the sounds, so that again doesn't really matter what sounds were recorded.

I guess it would be easier for you to call them all liars so that you don't have to believe their testimony.



Originally posted by conrad x
How many of these people believe 9/11 was an Inside Job? You know as well as I do it's ZERO.

And how could you possibly know what they think if they haven't been contacted? So don't sit there and say what they do or don't believe when you haven't got a clue. Thats dishonest, but what do you care about being honest, right?

And it doesn't matter one way or another what they think. What they actually saw is key to any investigation no matter what their beliefs are. We're not dealing with peoples' beliefs, opinions or bias in an investigation. We're dealing with facts, period.



Originally posted by conrad x
Are you frightened about releasing this film?

Not in the least.



Originally posted by conrad x
Not 1 demolition expert in the World believes those are plumes caused from explosives.

Can you post the names of every demolition expert in the world that doesn't think the plumes are from explosives? Don't waste your time, I know you can't provide those names. Just because every demolition expert in the world hasn't made a public statement saying that they don't believe it, doesn't mean they do or don't either way. That makes you again dishonest.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, the explosives are fired and you can SEE them BEFORE the collapse of a building not the other way around.

Explosives are fired whenever they are activated. There's no rule book that says that the explosions have to go off first and then the building collapses. Explosives can be detonated as the building collapses. It's all up to whoever has control or how the building has to fall.

A blaster from Controlled Demolition, Inc.:

"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."




Originally posted by esdad71
As far as your facts Bonez, they are as credible as Nancy Pelosi's expense report. You are making statements and not presenting facts.

In other words, you can't debunk them either. Gotcha!


[edit on 8-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Not 1 demolition expert in the World believes those are plumes caused from explosives.

Let me repeat that.

NOT 1 DEMOLITION EXPERT IN THE WORLD BELIEVES THOSE ARE PLUMES CAUSED FROM EXPLOSIVES.



I think you might revise your statement.

Demolition expert says WTC7 was a demolition



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 



Once again.

NOT 1 DEMOLITION EXPERT IN THE WORLD BELIEVES THOSE ARE PLUMES CAUSED FROM EXPLOSIVES.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Funny. You fail to mention just 1 reason why flashes werent recorded.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by conrad x
 


Funny, that's all you said and still haven't debunked a single thing I posted. I didn't think you'd be able to post any factual information to debunk me.


Next....



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
Has anyone who is interested in 911 as a conspiracy topic and who has also remained neutral thus far actually attempted to duplicate the alleged crashes on a scaled down version in the shop/garage? For me and other simpletons such as myself this crude type of experiment might just be persuasive enough to tip the balance one way or the other. Can anyone here marshall the various resources to try this; does anyone care enough to try, or are you all satisfied enough in just theorizing? Imagine the outcome of some publicized results if the scaled down versions of the trade center towers could not be brought down in the same fashion as it was alleged to've happened after multiple scientific attempts; what might happen? Has anyone done this, and if not, why?



I believe the closest you could get to doing this is in virtual reality where all of the factors could be taken into consideration. But in the end, I think everyone knew that the towers came down with some demolition tools to help.

What should have happened when the towers fell, was that the tops should have slid off at an angle as the jets badly damaged the side they entered. Yet they neatly cascaded in pancake fashion, just like demolition work.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
First, the explosives are fired and you can SEE them BEFORE the collapse of a building not the other way around.

Explosives are fired whenever they are activated. There's no rule book that says that the explosions have to go off first and then the building collapses. Explosives can be detonated as the building collapses. It's all up to whoever has control or how the building has to fall.

A blaster from Controlled Demolition, Inc.:

"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."




Originally posted by esdad71
As far as your facts Bonez, they are as credible as Nancy Pelosi's expense report. You are making statements and not presenting facts.

In other words, you can't debunk them either. Gotcha!


[edit on 8-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]


There is no rulebook? So, this would mean that anyone with a 8th grade education could implode a building. That is a large insult to those who do demolition in the private and public sector.

You are quoting how something is done. I mean, of course they can control all of those actions. They are imploding a building...ask that same person what it would take to bring down the WTC and there had NEVER, EVER been a demolition even close. Read what they had to do to bring down a building about 1/3 of the size of the WTC...

www.controlled-demolition.com...



CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.


So, again, this would mean that over 2 tons of explosives would be needed to bring down one tower. So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????

Debunk that Bonezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


[edit on 8-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????

Contrary to popular belief, we don't have all the answers. Fact is, it was done. How they did it would be a great question to ask and have answered when we get our new investigation.


See, it doesn't matter if you can comprehend or not what it would take to bring the buildings down. But the buildings are down and all available evidence points to them being brought down with explosives. Evidence, I might add, that still remains undebunked. Just because we don't know exactly how much explosives or how they were planted, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You gotta try harder than that, esdad.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 
So why hasn't anyone actually done some type of vitual reality test like you suggest would be viable and made the results public? Wouldn't the North Koreans or some other country that is at odds with the U.S. right now gain an advantage if they could cast reasonable doubt on our leaders and whoever MIGHT be pulling their strings and pushing their buttons? Maybe it can be proven that it was not jumbo jets that caused the collapses. Once a conspiracy has been established, the next heroic effort will be to find the perpetrater/s so that THE PEOPLE can formulate some sort of response. What about a simple INVENTORY of ALL jumbo jets ever manufactured and then accounted for; that could be a valuable clue to look into. This is a small forum and I don't recall ever hearing anything within the mainstream madia about thought of conspiracy. Thing is that before this ends up on dateline nbc or larry king or whatever, there has to be a soul out there who is prepared to be assasinated probably in order to bring what they know forward...would it be worth the sacrifice?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

You are confusing people not "debunking" your BS with people not caring a whit about some foolish compilation of wacked-out interpretations of what a a 1,000+ foot tall building looks like when it collapses.


But...YOUR 'TOLD' that THIS 'IS' what a NATURALLY collapsing building looks like...the DAY OF 9-11, EVERY newscaster was comparing this to CD and explosions, not to mention the numerous reporters who were reporting BOMBS and EXPLOSIONS...but not the next day, or ANY day since...WHO is the fool?



I know you'll crow from the rooftops that since I *don't* "debunk" it that you are correct, which is fine with me. The Sunshine rule is in effect here. I *want* you to put this out, in every forum and place you can find. The School of Public Humiliation is in session and you are in the front row.


sorry, but THAT spot is TAKEN by YOU



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by conrad x
 


GEE, kind of like the NIST 7 HYPOTHESIS, being VOID of ANY pic of fire that THEY say caused a free fall accelerated total global collapse



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????

Contrary to popular belief, we don't have all the answers. Fact is, it was done. How they did it would be a great question to ask and have answered when we get our new investigation.


See, it doesn't matter if you can comprehend or not what it would take to bring the buildings down. But the buildings are down and all available evidence points to them being brought down with explosives. Evidence, I might add, that still remains undebunked. Just because we don't know exactly how much explosives or how they were planted, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You gotta try harder than that, esdad.


What evidence?What leads to explosives being used?I mean, if 2 planes did not slam into them maybe it couldhavebeen explosives. You cannot prove explosives with pictures and dust.

I mean, I could show you some pictures of men that look like women but that does not make them female. Your logic is flawed. You are only seeing what you want to see.

There is nothing I need to try harder except use more restraint.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

posted by esdad71

So, again, this would mean that over 2 tons of explosives would be needed to bring down one tower. So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????



Hmmmm. Flash the security pass/badge. Wheel the pallet on the freight elevator. Take it up or down to the required floor. Wheel the pallet off the freight elevator. Tell the military demolition experts waiting to get to work. Go back for another load. Keep the security pass/badge displayed. No suspicions.

Should be simple. Tell any curious people to not worry about all the dust and noise; just temporary.

Heck maybe there was an FBI agent hanging around flashing his badge to help them out; just like back in 1993.

Rocky had a WTC Repair Pass, but NY Port Authority did its own work. So lots of military demolition team members could have had their own security pass/badges. Rocky was an Arab and military traitors would have been American or Israeli. Dummy Rumsfeld or Tricky Dick Cheney could have picked them up some security pass/badges in their spare time. Or maybe Marvin Bush picked them up.

Who Signed Sakher Hammad's WTC Basement Level Pass?



[edit on 7/9/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
What leads to explosives being used?

When first responders talk about explosions going off around the building like a belt, when first responders talk about flashes popping up, down and around the buildings, when first responders talk about pre-collapse explosions that are verified by the "9/11 Eyewitness" video, when you have plumes that are seen going down and around the building just like controlled demoliton, when the buildings fall like controlled demolition, what more could you possibly need?

What part about the above do you not understand?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This just goes to show how the MSM is doing a fine job of keeping the sheeple in their pens.


Its kind of hard to take all the mysterious events that happened on 9/11 and say "yea what we were told happened must have really happened" Wheres the plane in Pennsylvania? I never saw one, i saw some debris that could have had enough material to make a microwave case out of? The pentagon all we have is one vid of something hitting the building,so wheres all the other video evidence? I'm sure that it being the pentagon and all there was at least one more if not many more cameras that captured what really happened. Dont gimmie any National Security BS "they" dont want you to see all the other vid's because that comfy little cushion of illusion would disappear and TPTB would be in some deep doo doo.

MSM sorting the wheat from the chaff and doing a great job of it



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Does this look like demolition....




This does not look like any implosion i can find..implosion means it collapses into itself...

Does this show debris hitting WTC7...YEs......



and here is where your 'beams were cut with thermite' come from



Also, take a look at all of the FDNY that do not feel there is conspiracy. Most of them do not even want to be called heroes from that day even thought they were
link


Doesn't take someone who is gifted to find this stuff but it takes someone who is open minded to look at it..


[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


You're stuck in the mind-set that the demolition of the towers has to look exactly like a demolition. Your problem is not recognizing the fact that if 9/11 was planned and orchestrated, don't you think they would make the towers fall as much unlike a controlled demolition as possible? Just to make people like you say "it didn't fall like any demolition I've ever seen, so it's not demolition". BS.

Don't forget, demolition experts can make buildings fall any way they want, make debris land where ever they want, control the sound, control the vibration. With the right placement of explosives and the right timing, they can make a building do whatever they want.

Either way, you haven't yet and never will explain away the aspects of the way the towers fell in the form of plumes, the physics, or the witnesses to the explosions corroborated by video, and flashes, all of which have been seen in almost every single controlled demolition and never have been seen in any other building collapse.

Now, if you have evidence of a building that has collapsed before that has flashes going up, down and around the building while making popping or exploding sounds, have plumes seen going down the building as the building is collapsing, or has huge explosions heard miles away, then I'd like to see it. If not, this discussion is over, you lose, end of story.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join