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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Now, dont get me wrong here, but u just said "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.
" it took them all that work to detonate a building smaller than wtc. now one plane hitting just the top of the tower would have the same effect as all the explosives placed all over the tower evenly? so burining fuel from the very top of the tower would drip all the way down the tower and melt all that steel and bring the whole tower down? just like installing all the explisives in god knows how many locations? more than 1,100? i doubt it. i think jet fuel burns at . ok nevermind, i was researching all this to debunk the hell outa ur debunker butt but i just found this: guardian.150m.com... so if you interested, read all that. there's no way the fuel burn down the tower theory holds up. i hate to take my time out of my day to post this, u was just talkin so much kaka.




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, take a look at all of the FDNY that do not feel there is conspiracy.

It does not matter if they think there's a conspiracy or not. The evidence supports a conspiracy, not someone's opinions of whether there was one or not.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ponyboyfukatsrulz
 


sfu??? did you leave out the f?

Demolition experts cannot make a demolition happen in anyway they want, they have to adhere to the laws of physics and make it implode into itself as not to damage what is around it which is what makes it such an exact science that takes months to physically prepare. Look at CDI and the largest building they bought down was under 40 stories (439 ft)and it took months of working in a hollowed out building to accomplish this.




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.



The WTC was created to squeak out as much commercial property as they could which is why the structure of the building was so unique. So unique, you would be hard pressed to see another building designed in that fashion. Do you think NO ONE would notices tons of materials 'laying' around on multiple floors of the WTC?

The 2 tons I speak of is in reference to another post that was made so please go back and read the entire thread. sorry if you did not see it.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, take a look at all of the FDNY that do not feel there is conspiracy.

It does not matter if they think there's a conspiracy or not. The evidence supports a conspiracy, not someone's opinions of whether there was one or not.


So now you are attacking the FDNY? Seems your 'evidence' is nothing more than opinions also so again you are talking in circles...



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ponyboyfukatsrulz
reply to post by esdad71
 


Now, dont get me wrong here, but u just said "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.
" it took them all that work to detonate a building smaller than wtc. now one plane hitting just the top of the tower would have the same effect as all the explosives placed all over the tower evenly? so burining fuel from the very top of the tower would drip all the way down the tower and melt all that steel and bring the whole tower down? just like installing all the explisives in god knows how many locations? more than 1,100? i doubt it. i think jet fuel burns at . ok nevermind, i was researching all this to debunk the hell outa ur debunker butt but i just found this: guardian.150m.com... so if you interested, read all that. there's no way the fuel burn down the tower theory holds up. i hate to take my time out of my day to post this, u was just talkin so much kaka.


You got on that research bud as I am looking forward to it. You, as all of those who think there were explosives, buckle when you cannot give proof. If you bought down 3 buildings with explosives, you are expecting me to believe that the only evidence you have to support your theories is dust tested 7 years later....no blasting caps...wires...detonators...nothing????

Start here link and do some of your research also...



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


well, as long as you feel safe, its all good to me. sorry for taking your time.
edit for second line saying that wow.. this is truly something.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by urahui]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Seems your 'evidence' is nothing more than opinions also so again you are talking in circles...

Flashes going up, down and around the towers, plumes, and explosions all happened at the WTC exactly as they do in controlled demolitions. To deny these facts is to call the firefighters, police and other first responders that were there, liars. Not to mention the survivors and by-standers that heard and saw the same things. Denial disorder makes people say the saddest things.



Originally posted by esdad71
You, as all of those who think there were explosives, buckle when you cannot give proof.

Are you here just to troll? I'm starting to think you are. You're just flat-out being dishonest in that quote above. I posted several instances of proof of explosives in my previous posts that you ignore because of your denial. Don't sit there and dishonestly say that people "buckle" when I absolutely did give proof.



Originally posted by esdad71
If you bought down 3 buildings with explosives, you are expecting me to believe that the only evidence you have to support your theories is dust tested 7 years later

Once again, another flat-out dishonest statement. That is not the only evidence and I've posted alot of evidence several times. You know, the witness testimony to explosions that is corroborated by video, flashes, plumes, all support 3 buildings being brought down with explosives, not just the dust samples.



Originally posted by esdad71
no blasting caps...wires...detonators

You don't need the actual physical parts to prove demolition. How many murderers have been prosecuted without the actual physical murder weapon, or even a body? They were still prosecuted because the evidence supported it regardless of having the physical evidence.

In a court of law, there are basically 3 types of evidence:

1.) Physical
2.) Audio/Video
3.) Witness testimony

The audio/video evidence and the witness testimony prove controlled demolition. Most of us don't need the blasting caps, wires, and detonators to prove it, unlike those with denial disorder. I would lay money down that even if there were blasting caps, wires, and detonators found, you still wouldn't believe in the conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   


You don't need the actual physical parts to prove demolition. How many murderers have been prosecuted without the actual physical murder weapon, or even a body? They were still prosecuted because the evidence supported it regardless of having the physical evidence.

In a court of law, there are basically 3 types of evidence:

1.) Physical
2.) Audio/Video
3.) Witness testimony

The audio/video evidence and the witness testimony prove controlled demolition. Most of us don't need the blasting caps, wires, and detonators to prove it, unlike those with denial disorder. I would lay money down that even if there were blasting caps, wires, and detonators found, you still wouldn't believe in the conspiracy.


First, you are confusing law with website postings. Lets go through your law example. I scored quite well on my LSAT....

1) Physical evidence - dust...you state that you do not need anything else
2) Audio/Video - someone saying it looks like an explosion or I heard an explosion(loud noise) would be heresay and thrown out
3) Witness testimony - Again, you are going on what people say they saw ( it did look like a demolition) and what they heard which, if you were a good lawyer would buckle them under cross examination.

So, according to you and your lack of evidence, you would not even get an indictment. As far as the murder analogy, it happens, but most times they plea out to second degree or manslaughter, it is a rarity to convict someone with no physical evidence. It is for a jury of your peers to decide. however there is always good testimony, which again, you cannot provide and do not feel you should as well as any physical evidence.

I am not a troll, I am someone who does not like the spreading of lies for the ignorant to read and believe.

Also, I have stated in these forums numerous times that if there was good, solid, verifiable evidence, I would concede...all I have been given is dust..I am not blind nor a sheep. Remember, I think 93 was shot down which alot of people call me crazy for..


Also, here is a link to some photos you should check out that give a different angle then the ones you posted....

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:154

and this one...

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:230

Also, I forgot, your case would actually be thrown out based on the 'chain of custody' in obtaining your samples...


[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
O.k., I'm open to investigating the idea that explosives may've been used so now what? When might they've been deposited without being detected...if it was when the structures were 1st erected than that would make this a WAAAYYY premeditated event. Another thought that comes to mind is why have not all large commercial aircraft that could possibly be used as projectiles been retrofitted with some type of self destruction mechanism that could be operated via remote control to vaporize the craft, passengers, & crew in the event of another problem...the lesser of 2 evils so to speak? Perhaps because it is known that this won't ever happen again! You guys still haven't addressed the bigger question of why hasn't any other country that is supposedly at odds with the U.S. tried to promote the idea to the masses that this may've been an 'inside' job because you are to engaged in quarreling. Maybe because the PTB are in fact everywhere and in absolute control of nearly everything we commoners here on the planet are all safely devided into different countries and then reasons for us to keep from uniting are created as time passes and necessitates for the PTB. When a roughly 2,000 year old manuscript makes claims of the return of Christ for to rule with the saints over the NATIONS, it still suggests that we'll be kept divided. If there is a grand scheme by some elite faction to keep us divided by utilizing clever events like Pearl Harbor, WTC, etcetera, the trick for the commoner'll be to REALIZE it 1st before anything else can be done to demolishish them and their plans. United we stand, divided we fall prey to the PTB.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Lets go through your law example. I scored quite well on my LSAT....

Well I hope you're not practicing as you intentionally skewed and/or omitted some evidence. Allow me to make corrections to your attempt at deception:



Originally posted by esdad71
1) Physical evidence - dust

At present, the only physical evidence is thermite found in the WTC dust.



Originally posted by esdad71
2) Audio/Video - someone saying it looks like an explosion or I heard an explosion(loud noise) would be heresay and thrown out

You're partially correct. ONE person saying it looks like or sounds like an explosion could be considered hearsay. However, multiple, credible witnesses in the form of police and fire officials testifying to hearing and seeing the same thing would make quite a difference.

The documentary "9/11 Eyewitness" itself is great for hearing the pre-collapse and collapse detonations. Not to mention all other videos of the WTC that shows plumes. And especially the plumes that can be seen some 50+ floors below the collapse wave which cannot be explained away be mere floors pancaking (which NIST has dismissed, by the way).



Originally posted by esdad71
3) Witness testimony - Again, you are going on what people say they saw

Numerous firefighters, police, EMT and other first responders say they saw the flashes, heard, felt and saw the explosions. To further make the witnesses more credible, some of their testimony of pre-collapse detonations can be corroborate by the sounds in "9/11 Eyewitness".

Not to mention the multitudes of survivors and by-standers that also heard the collapse detonations as both towers fell.


Open/shut case as far as I'm concerned. The jury is released and you are dismissed.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
When might they've been deposited without being detected

There have been numerous opportunities over the years that the explosives could have been brought in and set up. However, as far as not being detected, check out this news story that just came out:

Drills successfully brought bombs into secure government buildings including DHS.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thermite was found??? Really?????




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well then I wonder how much time you would do when you perjure yourself and say that there is thermite in that dust. Simply present experts to make Jones paper look like what it is. A non peer reviewed paper that has as much validity as a picture of a rocket drawn by a 5 year old. You can make out what it is but if you recreated it, it would not work.

The jury is not out, it is in and after 7 years, all there is would be dust in the wind that we cannot actually PROVE came from ground zero.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by plainmike
When might they've been deposited without being detected

There have been numerous opportunities over the years that the explosives could have been brought in and set up. However, as far as not being detected, check out this news story that just came out:

Drills successfully brought bombs into secure government buildings including DHS.




LOL....so they are going to take down the towers now with a glorified pipe bomb? Did they send 2000 operatives into the towers that day?

If the government or terrorists wanted to bring them down with explosives, why not use a truck bomb again that would have worked and not worried about the logistics of FLYING PLANES into buildings.

In a demolition of this size, 2 times larger that the next largest ever performed, I think it is extremely ignorant of anyone to believe the ONLY thing left of ALL of that thermite or conventional explosives is dust. oll:



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

People will believe posts like mine that are well thought-out, well-presented and have links to sources and information that they can verify and research if need-be. They will look at posts like yours and think things I'm not allowed to type because of the forum rules.


That this is true doesn't mean that anything you've proven is magically some sort of "fact" that needs debunking.
It just shows how easy your sort of post can mislead people.
Being popular doesn't mean that you are right.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Those who take the time to do some real, in-depth research would find out that no steel-structured high-rise has ever completely and globally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after. That is not theorizing, that is a fact.

As far as I know this is true. But why do you leave out the other important facts? That never before has a high-rise building been hit by a massive commercial airliner. That never before has a high-rise building been subjected to thousands of liters of burning aviation fuel. That never before has a high-rise building-fire, been allowed to burn unchecked and unbattled for many hours. You completely disregard the premise on which the collapse came to occur and focus purely on the one fact that supports your theory. Scientificaly speaking, you've made a major blunder by ignoring the basis on which you've found your "fact".


Debunkers will try to theorize or explain away the plumes due to their lack of research, understanding of physics, or just plain denial disorder. But it is a fact that these plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions no matter how much debunkers want to theorize or explain them away

Where I come from we have a saying: Empty barrels rumble the most. Your choice of words here indicate with the utmost clarity that you find yourself on very shaky ground and try to strangle opposition in advance, by declaring anyone who disputes your claims as either being poor researchers, lacking understanding of physics, or outright suffering from a mental illness. I have 12 years of experience as a firefighter and I can attest that it does not require a high-rise building to witness the "corridor-blast" that the plumes are indicative of. It happens even in one story buildings if the roof collapses. The displacement of many cubic meters of heated air will travel through the passage of least resistance. A blown out window, or even doors (rare), is the usual result and can travel many floors before finding release. It is not uncommon that the displacement occurs through the bottom floor of a building, when the roof collapses. I have personaly seen this in an 8 story building. A blast of dust, heated air and smoke, came out through the open front doors as the roof collapsed. Had the firedoors been closed between each floor, and if one or more windows had been broken in the middle floors, this is where the displacement would have taken place instead.

Could they be blasts from explosions? Sure, they could be. Since I'm no expert, I'll at least allow for the possebilty. But why is it so much easier for you to explain the plumes by way of secret government agents igniting thousands of kg's of explosives at the exact moment of collapse, than that of a commonplace corridor-blast?

As for the flashes that you go on to describe (again, claiming factual certainty that the only explanation is explosives) can again be plausibly explained by the above mentioned corridor-blast. For a brief instant the fire is being pushed in front of the blast, before being "drowned" by dust and debris. A falling floor or a collapsing support beam can sound very much like an explosion. On more than one occasion, we have pulled teams out of a building because we heard explosions (assuming storage of gas flasks or other explosive containers), when in fact it was "only" a flat collapse of a floor or a heavy support beam. Again, a very simple and straightforward explanation that you refuse to accept, on behalf of an elaborate and intricate conspiracy.

What is it that makes you believe the least likely explanation?
The same goes for your section on WTC7. Never before has the circumstances in which it collapsed, been seen. So it is hardly surprising that such a collapse has never been seen before.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Continued:

I think it was your (sorry to say this) rather arrogant way of proclaiming "fact" when in reality you were interprating the facts to retrofit them to a theory, that got me to respond to this thread. No one is disputing the plumes, fires, collapses, etc. People, and myself, are disputing your interpretations of those facts.

Considering the magnitude of the disaster, and the fact that it's like has never been seen before, it is unlikely that all the details and factors will ever be found. This leaves government officials with a unique but very real problem with regard to the twoofer movements. No matter how much research, no matter how well documented their findings are, no matter how credible their explanations may be, there will always be a detail or factor that is unaccounted for or cannot readily be explained. This leaves them in a no win situation. If they conduct an investigation into one aspect and explain this in a scientific and logical way, it will either be discredited as "source contaminated and therefore in-credible" or demands to further investigate other avenues of details, will be issued. The government can investigate, inquire and evaluate itself to death. And it will amount to absolutely nothing in convincing twoofers. Seeing that even the simplest concepts of physics and commonly accepted theorem are being questioned by the twoofers, it makes little or no sense to take up battle. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it, and will only risk being "caught in a lie" if they make a mistake in their investigations.

There is actualy a presidence to prove my point. It is now 40 years after the moonlanding, and even though it is one of the most recorded and well documented historic events, there are still a multitude of conspiracists out there who claim that it never took place. Some have the intelligence to actually think up new approaches to prove it was a hoax. But an alarmingly large number of people still use the "flag movement" as proof, eventhough this was debunked and explained so many years ago (I think it dates prior to the invention of the internet). This leads me to believe that these people are not the least interested in the truth. The theory of a conspiracy has presidence over factual proof. If facts do not support the theory, they are imediately discarded and/or ignored.

The burden of proof is unreasonably being placed on government officials. Ín my view, it should be those who submit the alegations who bear the burden of proof. It's like accusing someone of murder (which is the case here), offer no real proof to support the accusation, and on top of it all, demand that the accused provides evidence of his own innosence. If he cannot, he must be guilty.

Contesting technical evidence and proof is an easy game to play. Just look at the (american) judicial system today. Armies of experts have made a billion dollar business out of contesting each others evidence in court. Twoofers have managed to bog everyone else down in techno babble, thus diverting attention away from the very basic flaws of their own premise of the conspiracy. Motive!

Twoofers say that the conspiracy was made in order to justify an invasion/war on another country. If American foreign policy has taught us anything, it is that they need no excuse to invade whomever they want. But lets follow that train of thought. Purely as an experiment of logic. If the US government needed a terrorist attack to authorize a war on terror, it makes little sense to do it in this way. A few wellplaced bombs in selected government buildings, inflicting a massive casualty count, would have easily provided that excuse.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Continued:

Twoofers call "smoking gun" because the buildings did a uniform collaps on themselves. This is apparently proof that it was controlled (???). I think it's safe to say, that if a government decides on weaving a tangled web to fly an airliner into a high rise building, they've pretty much allready thown caution to the wind, wouldn't you say? Or did they say to themselves "oh, we'd better make sure this building doesn't hurt anyone when it falls".

And again; if a terrorist attack was the excuse they needed, wouldn't you say that flying two planes into WTC with a thousand casualties as a result, would do the trick?

Sorry for the terribly long reply. I hope you have the stamina to read through it all. It should in fact have been even longer since I originaly wanted to comment on each of your loudly selfproclaimed "facts". But I've limited myself to the more blatant ones in your post. You claim that no one has been able to debunk your points. I feel I have now debunked the sailient points of your post and do not feel the need to debunk it in further detail.

I am fully aware that you will discredit my response with your usual flair for ridicule, and deftly avoiding the points and the logic that I have applied. In truth, I am not so naive to believe that I can sway you from your religion by this little post. Perhaps, I'm writing this response for other readers more than I am writing it for you.

Peace.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Urias
 


Look at the bigger picture and how you would stifle evidence if you were the main perp...

The biggest problem would be how to doctor and manufacture the obvious flaws in the whole event....

1. What we want the public to see via media censureship....

A. Restricted news coverage for none government companies.

B. Patsie witness`s all stating quite clearly what happened to suit the O.S.

C. Random engineering and architecture expert stating how the collapses happened.

D. Scarce viewing of any witness that referred to explosions before/during or both, of the collapses.

E. President to be doing something that appeals to the general public as he is told of the attacks.

F. Removing as quick as possible any evidence the following day that would reveal another reason for the collapses.

2. The inevitable commission that would arise to quell the general public`s need for answers.

A. Hand pick the board paying special attention to the adjudicator.

B. Any witness`s that give different accounts that contradict the OS not to attend.

C. Those responsible for scientific evidence and structural investigation to be none independent and not to test for anything other than what is instructed to them, and completely neglect/overlook/ignore any possibilities of explosions and aftermath evidence of explosions.

D. No mentioning of the gross incompetence on show that day from early warnings of this by those responsible in counter terrorism units - those responsible for home security - Norad.

You will find that for anything that the whole event would reveal if it was an inside job, there is evidence, no matter how trivial, there is no aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has managed to be carpeted over without exposing the bumps underneath for everyone to see.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





The biggest problem would be how to doctor and manufacture the obvious flaws in the whole event.


The twoofer movements have yet to point out to the general public any "obvious flaws" that have not allready been debunked.




1. What we want the public to see via media censureship....


USA does not impose media censurship. There were/are a multitude of independent newsagencies who covered the event. There is however something called journalistic integrity, and that would ensure that the most ridiculous and frivolous claims would not be aired.




A. Restricted news coverage for none government companies.


I have no idea what you are talking about there. Sorry.




B. Patsie witness`s all stating quite clearly what happened to suit the O.S.


Is your definition of a patsie witness someone who corroberates the OS? Would it not be equaly fair to claim the exact opposite? That all witnesses who do not corroberate the OS are patsies? It's an oppinionated argument.




C. Random engineering and architecture expert stating how the collapses happened.


Would you rather have none-experts, explain the collaps? Why is it unreasonable to ask experts to explain the collaps?




D. Scarce viewing of any witness that referred to explosions before/during or both, of the collapses.


I don't think it was scarce. There just weren't a lot of wintesses saying that. Fact is, few as they may be, they are telling what they percieved as explosions openly and freely. The "government" aren't trying to suppress their story.




E. President to be doing something that appeals to the general public as he is told of the attacks.


What possible relevans does it have if the president was taking a dump or bungee jumping when he heard the news? You are searching for things that just aren't there.




F. Removing as quick as possible any evidence the following day that would reveal another reason for the collapses.


To my knowledge the debris took many months to clear and was scattered all over the city. Claiming that "the government" could somehow remove/conceal/destroy evidence of this magnitude is non sensical.




2. The inevitable commission that would arise to quell the general public`s need for answers.


Err...that's kinda the whole purpose of a commision. So questions can be answered. Why is such a commision somehow suspicious? I would have thought it more suspicious if they hadn't.




A. Hand pick the board paying special attention to the adjudicator.


If the board had come to a different conclusion, you would not be suggesting that the adjudicator/board was "bought". It is only because their conclusion differs from your own that you make this leap into the paranoid.




B. Any witness`s that give different accounts that contradict the OS not to attend.


No doubt the witnesses credibility and story has been crosschecked prior to giving public statements. A defense lawyer would not call a witness to the stand if he knew the witness would entertain the court with bird-calls and tin-foil hat folding for beginners.




C. Those responsible for scientific evidence and structural investigation to be none independent and not to test for anything other than what is instructed to them, and completely neglect/overlook/ignore any possibilities of explosions and aftermath evidence of explosions.


To outline the purpose of a scientific investigation is perfectly normal and propper. Any scientist will tell you that. They were not told to specificaly look for evidence of explosives, no. But they were not told to ignore it either. Your claim in that is completely unfounded and simply not true.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join