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.

 

My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nothing you say has any facts to it. Everything you've said has been disinformation. You either missed or ignored my post to you on the first page. I suggest you read it.



I respond to what I consider to be intelligent inquiries, new insights, or when I fell I might be able to dispel some misinformation. When I read something totally outrageous, on impulse I often respond.

You said when I mentioned 140,000 Civil Engineers, that one would have to speak to each and every one of them to know what they think. This doesn't even justify a comment.

From what I can see, you like stating things as if their uncontested facts, cherry pick factoids to support statements, embrace dot connecting theories that appeal to you.

Because conspiracy sites are filled with people who communicate this way doesn't mean anyone has to buy into it.

Mike




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mmiichael
Facts speak for themselves.
Disinformation you have to sell.

Nothing you say has any facts to it. Everything you've said has been disinformation. You either missed or ignored my post to you on the first page. I suggest you read it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




I am with you here. mm and I have been round and round about the facts before.
First there are no facts from any source I have ever heard or seen come from the government or any self proclaimed de bunker concerning the 911 tragedies. The best you get even from science is all ways " to the best of my or our knowledge ". Or this supposes that.
The GL here have not and cannot produce sworn signed testimony.----that anything in relationship with the demolition of BUILDING NUMBER SEVEN is a fact.
As thier continued spew of jack squat proves.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I gave you a challenge and you can't answer it. I demanded a source for your egregious claims about Richard Gage and you haven't provided that either. From your actions just in this thread, you will, from this moment on, be known as a disinfo artist, just like the no-planers. Those that make up ridiculous claims and then profess them as truth without having to provide a source.

Not a single person here is going to take you seriously with your demeanor, so any further posts by you will be a waste of space and bandwidth.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You demanded it? Well, if you demanded it, I command that you read what you demanded to read on this link: ae911truth.info...

I also recommend others who have been down the Narrow Gage Railroad read this before they go much further.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I gave you a challenge and you can't answer it. I demanded a source for your egregious claims about Richard Gage and you haven't provided that either. From your actions just in this thread, you will, from this moment on, be known as a disinfo artist, just like the no-planers. Those that make up ridiculous claims and then profess them as truth without having to provide a source.

Not a single person here is going to take you seriously with your demeanor, so any further posts by you will be a waste of space and bandwidth.



I'm labelled a disinfo agent. Aaah.

I'm crying in my beer.

Where's the proof Gage says anything that's true?

Other Truther sources?


Mike



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm labelled a disinfo agent.

No, I didn't say "agent", I said "artist". A disinfo artist is one who creates disinformation (makes things up) and professes them as fact without any proof. You made claims on the first page and I called you out on those claims and you still haven't provided sources.

Provide sources for your claims, or remain a disinfo artist. Your choice.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm labelled a disinfo agent.

No, I didn't say "agent", I said "artist". A disinfo artist is one who creates disinformation (makes things up) and professes them as fact without any proof. You made claims on the first page and I called you out on those claims and you still haven't provided sources.

Provide sources for your claims, or remain a disinfo artist. Your choice.


Sorry, I'm a disinfo artist.

Too bad you're so serious.

Was going to talk about my new organization Pimps and Hookers for Truth, but I don't think you'd find it amusing.

Mike



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Get something perfectly clear: nothing about 9/11 is amusing. Never forget that.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Get something perfectly clear: nothing about 9/11 is amusing. Never forget that.


Yes Sir, Yes Sir.

How about 7/11?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Get something perfectly clear: nothing about 9/11 is amusing. Never forget that.




Well said DITTO double DITTO. AS every normal human being knows.
Only trash laughs at tragedy. Who knows from what countries these lying sacks come from.
And what there putrid behavior is all about. It ain't AMERICAN,,,,,FACT!!!
What say anti American trash? Is 911 a laughing matter?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
AS every normal human being knows.
Only trash laughs at tragedy. Who knows from what countries these lying sacks come from.
And what there putrid behavior is all about. It ain't AMERICAN,,,,,FACT!!!
What say anti American trash? Is 911 a laughing matter?



I guess I'm trash now. As well as a disnfo agent.

For all you know I could be a Mossad agent.

Or sent by the NWO to get people on conspiracy boards off the path of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

If you're serious about finding out who let 9/11 happen, you'd be going through mountains on detailed intelligence documents from a dozen countries and finding out who did what. Others have done it.

But it requires intellect and a lot of hard work.

So just go look at a Youtube of the Towers collapsing. Then come back and post some outraged indignant messages to show how highminded you are.


Mike


[edit on 26-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


US NAVY EOD training after BUDS is how to disarm explosive devices. No person, civilian or military, has the training that would allow them to discriminate between CD and otherwise induced catastrophic collapse for buildings the size of the WTC, merely by watching videos. The only way to determine CD is by physical evidence of which there seems not to be any.

Your EOD pals are having fun with you.



They don't just defuse bombs, they also get to "blow sheet up". They are allowed to deconstruct explosives. Moreover, the recent wars have also forced people to step out of their MOS and perform duties not historically associated with it, for example, Marines never had the mission to police and yet they are doing it. EOD was never supposed to be demolitions for buildings and structures but they are doing it. And if you looked I said city and state, I had friends who served in the military in this capacity and now work for the state doing building demolition because they understand how to create a safe space.

My point is...that people who know how to build buildings generally understand how to protect them from disaster, not destroy them.

But my larger point still has to do with reputation. You will simply not find someone of any public credibility who is wiling to put their reputation on the line even if they believed it to be true because they want to continue to work in their field. Humans fear ridicule. It was true in elementary school, true in middle school, true in high school, and true in the adult world. Ridicule is a powerful motivator.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

They all get to blow stuff up. That is the fun part. Taking it apart is the dangerous part. Mostly, no one takes it apart because no one wants to die cutting the wrong wire. Just blow it in place if you can but be careful setting the charge. After a few little bangs, the desire to make more noise takes over so the charges are upped. Then, you try to get closer and closer and if the Chief/Sergeant doesn't set you straight in time, you get a little too close and become an EOD kit, disassembled for shipment home. Guys that walk on the edge of this are dangerous to be around, usually nicknamed "BoomBoom," or somethng like it, and are mostly deaf and more than a little squirrely. They always have spare caps in their pockets and take a crimper with them, everywhere.
As I stated peviously, no person, civilian or military, has the training that would allow them to discriminate between CD and otherwise induced catastrophic collapse for buildings the size of the WTC, merely by watching videos. That includes the experts that made expose videos and the guys who just opinionate to friends.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

You are getting more demanding and pompous than ever before, BoneZ. Who are you to tell anyone what to do or think?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Some of your arguments are sound, some are not.

I agree the government knew, the Saudis and Pakistanis financed, ect. However, I must disagree that fuel fed fires burned hot enough to weaken enough steel and collapse the buildings. Even NIST and FEMA estimates, technically, do not really support fire hot enough to do the necessary structure wide weakening and collapse.

However, the collapse of the WTC and the question of controlled demolition are not central to my own arguments of government complicity/involvement in the attacks, and there are tons of threads that go into the whole debate of WTC collapse. Its not central, only a curious question mark in the whole puzzle.

Regardless, I agree that debates of missles/no planes hitting Pentagon or WTC do kinda kill any serious movement for the truth.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Get something perfectly clear: nothing about 9/11 is amusing. Never forget that.




That's not true. Some of the truthers are absolutely hilarious.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
This essay explains where Noam Chomsky's allegiances lie and his intentions. You need a new hero.

Noam Chomsky: Controlled Asset of the New World Order


Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I agree the government knew, the Saudis and Pakistanis financed, ect. However, I must disagree that fuel fed fires burned hot enough to weaken enough steel and collapse the buildings. Even NIST and FEMA estimates, technically, do not really support fire hot enough to do the necessary structure wide weakening and collapse.

However, the collapse of the WTC and the question of controlled demolition are not central to my own arguments of government complicity/involvement in the attacks, and there are tons of threads that go into the whole debate of WTC collapse. Its not central, only a curious question mark in the whole puzzle.


I'm pretty much on the same page as you. This isn't the place to go over it, but with all the claims of controlled demolition we have seen no substantiated forensic evidence, characteristic sequenced explosions, or anything beyond people's gut feelings it shouldn't have happended that way.

Buildings with unusual structural designs were impacted by fuel laden planes that were virtual gigantic bombs. In the consuming fires steel was weaked to the point that there was loss of structural integrity and they collapsed. This is the opinion of experts worldwide. Rarely argued, these buildings were already destroyed - so what was the gain overriding the risks, of also blowing them up?

Outstanding issues are the failure of the intelligence agencies to anticipate the event and the inadequate responses when the attacks happened. More deeply, why did the Bush administration avoid direct confrontation with the Saudis and Pakistani on their involvement.

Incredible conflicts of interest that undermine the security of the US existed. The US presidency and adminstration are supposed to be acting in the best interest of all the people, not themselves as individuals and certain special intersts such as the oil industry.

These issues were avoided during the Bush administration and need addressing.


Mike



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
with all the claims of controlled demolition we have seen no substantiated forensic evidence

False.

Active Thermitic Material Found In WTC Dust.

Independent Researcher Confirms Thermitic Material Found In WTC Dust.



Originally posted by mmiichael
(no) characteristic sequenced explosions

False.

There are numerous documented witnesses to sequenced detonations as both towers were destroyed. Numerous first responders (also documented) reported seeing low-level flashes going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds. These flashes were seen at the lower to middle levels while the collapses started near the top.

First responders also reported pre-collapse detonations which have also been recorded and are corroborated by the documentary "9/11 Eyewitness".



Originally posted by mmiichael
Buildings with unusual structural designs

The designs were not unusual. Most skyscrapers since the 1960's have tube structures, and the WTC wasn't the first. There is also a miniature WTC tower still standing today in Oklahoma. You can read more about the above information here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by mmiichael
were impacted by fuel laden planes

According to NIST, the plane impacts only severed or damaged 14%-15% of the columns in the impact areas. That means 85% of the columns in the impact areas were intact and undamaged.

Further, the chief structural engineer of the WTC built the towers to withstand 600mph plane impacts and the resulting fires.

And before you start quoting Leslie Robertson, just know that Robertson wasn't the chief structural engineer. He was one of the head structural engineers, but John Skilling was the chief structural engineer of the WTC's.

Also as a side note, Leslie Robertson was responsible for the WTC's sway-reduction features. In otherwords, Chief Structural Engineer John Skilling and his engineering firm were responsible for the design of the WTC towers' structure and Leslie Robertson was only responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers.

But let's take a look at what Robertson has said:


Leslie Robertson
But mostly it (the 767) was flying a lot faster (than the 707 that the buildings were designed to withstand).
A false claim. A 3-page white paper dated February 3, 1964 concluded that:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”


Leslie Robertson
to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design
To the best of his knowledge? Either the fuel load was considered or it wasn't. Since Robertson wasn't responsible for the engineering of the main structure, then he either wouldn't know, or he's just flat-out lying.

I would say Robertson is lying because working directly with the chief structural engineer John Skilling, Robertson would know that Skilling says otherwise:

John Skilling - "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there."

The analysis that Skilling was referring to would be the one done by his engineering firm, Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson. The analysis was "the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings. The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure."


Leslie Robertson
I don't know how it could have been considered
This quote would be hilarious if it weren't for the serious nature of the topic. This quote alone shows the incompetence of Robertson as an engineer. Maybe that's why he was only responisble for the sway-reduction features and not the actual structure itself.

He doesn't know how jet fuel fires could have been considered? You do not design buildings to withstand the impact of any plane without considering it's fuel load and resulting fires. You don't have to be a structural engineer to know this simple fact.

Therefore, based on the above facts and since fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to globally collapse in history, fire and the plane impacts are completely irrelevant as the cause of the demise of the twin towers.

Unfortunately, Mr. Skilling passed away March 5, 1998, so he's not here to defend himself or his structures.


Well, Mike, you're batting 0-for-0. Not a single thing you've said in this thread has been factual or truthful. Keep trying though. The facts far-outweight anything you could possibly type onto your screen.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,
No active thermitic material was proved.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join