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.

 

It was Paint for sure!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think you realize the enormity of the task you are describing. We are not talking about sneaking a pipe bomb into the bathroom.


Neither am I. What I was talking about was a 5-gallon drum type bomb that was attached to a gas pipeline, according to affidavits, which is inside the actual infrastructure of the building. In a federal building, no less. Now that REALLY doesn't make sense. And the same building was subsequently involved in a "domestic terror" event.

So this kind of stuff is not only possible, it's already happened before.


Imagine repainting the steel in a skyscraper. It would be in the news,


You've got to be kidding me.


Here's another ATS thread that would educate you: Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

The building in question in the above link was also a skyscraper in NY, and the reason the plates were welded to it during the night was because a flaw was found in the design after construction that could have allowed a catastrophic failure of that building under high wind loads. It was eventually a news story simply because of how few people were aware that it was going on every night, in the dead of night, though everything about that operation was actually legal.


there would be inspectors all over the place


No sir. For one thing, inspectors are NOT all up a maintenance man's ass in a building while he is doing any given work. Inspectors come along when inspections have to be done. For another thing, this building was neither in NY or NJ and had its own separate legal authority to answer to. It was not even subject to many of the same legal codes, and the Port Authority did or oversaw almost everything themselves.


Permits, submittals and huge paper trail. Not to mention leasees losing a large quantity of their rental space, etc., etc. etc.


Tenants having to put up with building maintenance was typical in those buildings. There was maintenance going on in them all the time, as even some 9/11 witnesses testified to, for example construction worker Philip Morelli. I already told you, all the maintenance logs (the "huge paper trail") was destroyed during the collapses, not that anyone would actually be stupid enough to write "installing bombs/explosives" on a permit.




As for the Murrah building - I think I heard rumors about that but that it was ultimately just that rumors or misunderstandings.


Nope, sorry again.

I posted 4 relevant documents to what I am describing on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can find more of that kind of documentation. If it isn't enough for you, maybe we can even find the relevant people to call to verify that these are indeed their memos. But that's only if it really comes down to you being that hard-headed.




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are you aware that 2 undetonated military bombs were removed from inside the Murrah Federal Building after the OKC bombing? At least one of them was attached to a gas pipeline in the building. I can post the memos from FEMA, Army, the DoD and civilians testifying to these bombs being safely removed. Have you heard of this before?


No, I hadn't, and it doesn't surprise me, any more than that attempt at debunking that would have worked so much better without the photographs.

Thanks. I'll check it out.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think you realize the enormity of the task you are describing. We are not talking about sneaking a pipe bomb into the bathroom.


Neither am I. What I was talking about was a 5-gallon drum type bomb that was attached to a gas pipeline, according to affidavits, which is inside the actual infrastructure of the building. In a federal building, no less. Now that REALLY doesn't make sense. And the same building was subsequently involved in a "domestic terror" event.

So this kind of stuff is not only possible, it's already happened before.


Imagine repainting the steel in a skyscraper. It would be in the news,


You've got to be kidding me.


Here's another ATS thread that would educate you: Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

The building in question in the above link was also a skyscraper in NY, and the reason the plates were welded to it during the night was because a flaw was found in the design after construction that could have allowed a catastrophic failure of that building under high wind loads. It was eventually a news story simply because of how few people were aware that it was going on every night, in the dead of night, though everything about that operation was actually legal.


there would be inspectors all over the place


No sir. For one thing, inspectors are NOT all up a maintenance man's ass in a building while he is doing any given work. Inspectors come along when inspections have to be done. For another thing, this building was neither in NY or NJ and had its own separate legal authority to answer to. It was not even subject to many of the same legal codes, and the Port Authority did or oversaw almost everything themselves.


Permits, submittals and huge paper trail. Not to mention leasees losing a large quantity of their rental space, etc., etc. etc.


Tenants having to put up with building maintenance was typical in those buildings. There was maintenance going on in them all the time, as even some 9/11 witnesses testified to, for example construction worker Philip Morelli. I already told you, all the maintenance logs (the "huge paper trail") was destroyed during the collapses, not that anyone would actually be stupid enough to write "installing bombs/explosives" on a permit.




As for the Murrah building - I think I heard rumors about that but that it was ultimately just that rumors or misunderstandings.


Nope, sorry again.

I posted 4 relevant documents to what I am describing on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can find more of that kind of documentation. If it isn't enough for you, maybe we can even find the relevant people to call to verify that these are indeed their memos. But that's only if it really comes down to you being that hard-headed.


Your response is full of a lot of holes. I have worked with Port Authority inspectors - trust me, if you are touching the steel frame of the building in any way shape or form, they will be there. Installing a new outlet in an office? They'll look at it next week - but you go messing with the structural elements of one of the tallest buildings in the world, where the Port Authority had an office, and there will be people looking, a lot, all the time.

And for the record, you are not talking about maintenance workers. The outer structure around the steel would needed to be removed, walls, ceilings, etc. then strip off the fireproofing, then strip off the paint to white metal (grinding, sandblasting, scraping) which will require compressors and collection systems. Then apply the super nano thermite, and the initiation system, and the controls.

As for the refernece to the Citicorp building - welding those plates on would be like childs play compared to the thermite application operation. And by the way the article said almost unknown to the public, therefore not unknown and definetly not unknown to the residents of the building (if there were any).



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Your response is full of a lot of holes. I have worked with Port Authority inspectors - trust me, if you are touching the steel frame of the building in any way shape or form, they will be there. Installing a new outlet in an office? They'll look at it next week - but you go messing with the structural elements of one of the tallest buildings in the world, where the Port Authority had an office, and there will be people looking, a lot, all the time.


I am 100% certain that statement is inaccurate. I challenge you to post your source that says inspectors must be present 100% of the time, or that if it is not required of them they take it upon themselves to do it.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think you realize the enormity of the task you are describing. We are not talking about sneaking a pipe bomb into the bathroom.


Neither am I. What I was talking about was a 5-gallon drum type bomb that was attached to a gas pipeline, according to affidavits, which is inside the actual infrastructure of the building. In a federal building, no less. Now that REALLY doesn't make sense. And the same building was subsequently involved in a "domestic terror" event.

So this kind of stuff is not only possible, it's already happened before.


Imagine repainting the steel in a skyscraper. It would be in the news,


You've got to be kidding me.


Here's another ATS thread that would educate you: Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

The building in question in the above link was also a skyscraper in NY, and the reason the plates were welded to it during the night was because a flaw was found in the design after construction that could have allowed a catastrophic failure of that building under high wind loads. It was eventually a news story simply because of how few people were aware that it was going on every night, in the dead of night, though everything about that operation was actually legal.


there would be inspectors all over the place


No sir. For one thing, inspectors are NOT all up a maintenance man's ass in a building while he is doing any given work. Inspectors come along when inspections have to be done. For another thing, this building was neither in NY or NJ and had its own separate legal authority to answer to. It was not even subject to many of the same legal codes, and the Port Authority did or oversaw almost everything themselves.


Permits, submittals and huge paper trail. Not to mention leasees losing a large quantity of their rental space, etc., etc. etc.


Tenants having to put up with building maintenance was typical in those buildings. There was maintenance going on in them all the time, as even some 9/11 witnesses testified to, for example construction worker Philip Morelli. I already told you, all the maintenance logs (the "huge paper trail") was destroyed during the collapses, not that anyone would actually be stupid enough to write "installing bombs/explosives" on a permit.




As for the Murrah building - I think I heard rumors about that but that it was ultimately just that rumors or misunderstandings.


Nope, sorry again.

I posted 4 relevant documents to what I am describing on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can find more of that kind of documentation. If it isn't enough for you, maybe we can even find the relevant people to call to verify that these are indeed their memos. But that's only if it really comes down to you being that hard-headed.


No wait - a 5 gallon DRUM? You mean a big paint bucket, right? You think walking into a building with paint bucket and stripping all the steel in the WTC, both towers, are task of equal labor, right?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
it is known that some of the fireproofing was flaking off the trusses and new fireproofing was applied.
nobody did chemical tests on the new fireproofing. it could have been rocket fuel (ammonium percholate) as dr. frank greening keeps saying.

i laugh at people who think it would be impossible to rig a building when everyone who's rigging it is in on it. that's the security team, the port authority, the leaseholders, and the workers. who do they have to hide from then?

the elevators could have been lined explosives like RDX, the trusses and truss seats could have been painted with thermitic paint, and thermobaric devices could have been placed on mechanical floors and other choice locations after the planes hit.

blowing stuff up isn't really that hard to do when you have the devices.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Why are these chips assumed to have been applied to the columns? It's pretty clear to me that the paper does not draw such a conclusion:

"We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction. While the application of a thin film might have suited specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting. The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."

When I read the three above sentences in the paper, it's clear to me they have no idea of its original form nor what it was in contact with.

Shouldn't anyone asking how it was applied to the columns first have to explain how they came to the conclusion that these were in fact in contact with the columns?

Edited: too many it's and not enough its

[edit on 30-9-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No wait - a 5 gallon DRUM? You mean a big paint bucket, right? You think walking into a building with paint bucket and stripping all the steel in the WTC, both towers, are task of equal labor, right?


Where in a building would you expect to find a large gas pipeline? Just walking in through the door -- then what?



I have worked with Port Authority inspectors - trust me, if you are touching the steel frame of the building in any way shape or form, they will be there.


And if what you are doing (applying paint, for example, or a new fireproofing film, or any number of things supposedly) doesn't look suspicious, then what?


And for the record, you are not talking about maintenance workers. The outer structure around the steel would needed to be removed, walls, ceilings, etc.


Many/most of the core columns were accessible through elevator shafts.




then strip off the fireproofing, then strip off the paint to white metal


How do you know what they were applying necessitated the layer of paint being removed beforehand?


As for the refernece to the Citicorp building - welding those plates on would be like childs play compared to the thermite application operation.


Yeah, but that was done legally. I personally suspect military/intelligence connections, who wouldn't be afraid and would know how to hide something illegal behind done. Even behind a "front" company or job, because the CIA, for example, is well-known for doing that sort of thing.


And by the way the article said almost unknown to the public, therefore not unknown and definetly not unknown to the residents of the building (if there were any).


Also not illegal, not trying to be 100% hidden, just low-key. And without the stigma of people having severe cognitive dissonance at realizing it was going on.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
No wait - a 5 gallon DRUM? You mean a big paint bucket, right? You think walking into a building with paint bucket and stripping all the steel in the WTC, both towers, are task of equal labor, right?


Where in a building would you expect to find a large gas pipeline? Just walking in through the door -- then what?



I have worked with Port Authority inspectors - trust me, if you are touching the steel frame of the building in any way shape or form, they will be there.


And if what you are doing (applying paint, for example, or a new fireproofing film, or any number of things supposedly) doesn't look suspicious, then what?


And for the record, you are not talking about maintenance workers. The outer structure around the steel would needed to be removed, walls, ceilings, etc.


Many/most of the core columns were accessible through elevator shafts.




then strip off the fireproofing, then strip off the paint to white metal


How do you know what they were applying necessitated the layer of paint being removed beforehand?


As for the refernece to the Citicorp building - welding those plates on would be like childs play compared to the thermite application operation.


Yeah, but that was done legally. I personally suspect military/intelligence connections, who wouldn't be afraid and would know how to hide something illegal behind done. Even behind a "front" company or job, because the CIA, for example, is well-known for doing that sort of thing.


And by the way the article said almost unknown to the public, therefore not unknown and definetly not unknown to the residents of the building (if there were any).


Also not illegal, not trying to be 100% hidden, just low-key. And without the stigma of people having severe cognitive dissonance at realizing it was going on.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by bsbray11]


With columns accessible through the elevator shafts that would have made it even more obvious - you would have to shut down elevators. That would really get some dander rising in those building.

As to the extent of the work, that is based on the "thermite" papers. The authors indicated that the two layers of material on the top of the chips were the thermatic material. Now you have two choices for this scenario - either the paint that came from the Japanese fabricator was removed and the thermatic compounds applied after construction OR the materials were applied before erection, in which case the conspiracy starts over 30 years ago in Japan. Now as to the work limits, the conventional conspiracy wisdom is that the towers collapsed at "near free fall speed" because all resistance to the downward acceleration was removed by the purposeful destruction of all the supporting steel elements on each floor. So, the "perps" would have to have had access to all the supporting vertical and horizontal elements, strip them of their fireproofing, remove the paint to white metal, apply the thermite, apply the initiators and install the controllers and re-install the fireproofing. All without ever being noticed, question or interfering with the operation of the building which included the Port Authority construction headquarters.

Good Luck!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
With columns accessible through the elevator shafts that would have made it even more obvious - you would have to shut down elevators. That would really get some dander rising in those building.


Oh, damn you're right. Guess everything is ruined now, since you can't shut down elevators in the WTC towers.


I've read more than once that the elevators were shut down for "maintenance" in the days leading up to 9/11. Similarly some bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed for a number of days the week prior. At any rate all of this stuff is 100% possible and 100% legitimate options for perpetrators to get done what needed to be done.



Now as to the work limits, the conventional conspiracy wisdom


Like I trust you with a fair assessment of "conventional conspiracy wisdom."


is that the towers collapsed at "near free fall speed" because all resistance to the downward acceleration was removed by the purposeful destruction of all the supporting steel elements on each floor. So, the "perps" would have to have had access to all the supporting vertical and horizontal elements, strip them of their fireproofing, remove the paint to white metal


Wow, instead of answering me question, you just repeated the same baseless claim twice now. Why would they have to sand/grind off the paint to apply this stuff, theoretically? The initiating mechanism can be a small chip, or an otherwise small device controlled remotely. It would be easy, cheap and quick to have such a thing designed and built, since all you have to do is signal "on" a strong enough voltage to generate the heat required to start the eutectic.

And you didn't answer my other question -- what would an inspector find so suspicious about applying an extra layer of anything like this to the columns?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
With columns accessible through the elevator shafts that would have made it even more obvious - you would have to shut down elevators. That would really get some dander rising in those building.


Oh, damn you're right. Guess everything is ruined now, since you can't shut down elevators in the WTC towers.


I've read more than once that the elevators were shut down for "maintenance" in the days leading up to 9/11. Similarly some bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed for a number of days the week prior. At any rate all of this stuff is 100% possible and 100% legitimate options for perpetrators to get done what needed to be done.



Now as to the work limits, the conventional conspiracy wisdom


Like I trust you with a fair assessment of "conventional conspiracy wisdom."


is that the towers collapsed at "near free fall speed" because all resistance to the downward acceleration was removed by the purposeful destruction of all the supporting steel elements on each floor. So, the "perps" would have to have had access to all the supporting vertical and horizontal elements, strip them of their fireproofing, remove the paint to white metal


Wow, instead of answering me question, you just repeated the same baseless claim twice now. Why would they have to sand/grind off the paint to apply this stuff, theoretically? The initiating mechanism can be a small chip, or an otherwise small device controlled remotely. It would be easy, cheap and quick to have such a thing designed and built, since all you have to do is signal "on" a strong enough voltage to generate the heat required to start the eutectic.

And you didn't answer my other question -- what would an inspector find so suspicious about applying an extra layer of anything like this to the columns?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by bsbray11]


Well, I gave you the explanation it is based on the thermite paper. The authors did not say they found "thermite" attached to paint but "thermite" attached to metal. So read their paper. Not my idea, theirs.

Sorry, but you will have to trust me on "conventional conspiracy wisdom" as there is no other unified source. No one has the guts to write it all down in one semi-coherent explanation, and for obvious reasons. One you start putting all this stuff down and try to explain it, it sounds so irrational that it wouldn't even make a good Hollywood movie.

Did the thermite paper anywhere say that the thermite was on top of coats of paint? If not then you either have to except my narrative as to its application or explain why it came from Japan that way 30 years ago.

Be my guest.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, I gave you the explanation it is based on the thermite paper. The authors did not say they found "thermite" attached to paint but "thermite" attached to metal. So read their paper. Not my idea, theirs.


It doesn't sound to me like two mutually exclusive ideas, that you can have both attached simultaneously to a column. But maybe not, who knows.


Sorry, but you will have to trust me on "conventional conspiracy wisdom" as there is no other unified source.


No, I'm just going to call that like the stereotyping BS that it is. When you and I are talking about something, I say it would be most effective to stick with things you and I actually believe rather than bringing ghosts and straw-men into the conversation.


No one has the guts to write it all down in one semi-coherent explanation, and for obvious reasons.


Yes, the obvious reason we are all a lot of separate individuals here.


One you start putting all this stuff down and try to explain it, it sounds so irrational that it wouldn't even make a good Hollywood movie.


To you I'm sure it wouldn't, because when coming up with your "conventional conspiracy wisdom" I'm sure you make it a point to include all the things you are most already biased against that even I would probably mostly disagree with. You don't think of us as a lot of individuals with our own problems with what we've heard, you think of us as one insane person with a host of contradictory opinions. I could very well represent you "debunker" lot the same way, or even Americans or any other group of people! It's illogical to argue with an individual with such a gross misrepresentation of each others' understanding.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The problem is that, even treating them as individual perspectives they still lack a coherent alternative narrative. You can't doubt one thing and then allow the other party to assume you hold everything else to be true. If you think the WTC were rigged with explosives would it be irresponsible to assume that you also believe that FLigh 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed in PA?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The problem is that, even treating them as individual perspectives they still lack a coherent alternative narrative.


And that's your personal opinion, and you're free to think that, and so are we free to have these critical discussions of each other here. I personally feel as though anyone who believes al Qaeda did this unaided is extremely naive, but that's my opinion.

Just so we are clear, though, who was legally responsible for the investigation into 9/11 again? You realize it wasn't me or you or anyone else you are talking to here, right?


If you think the WTC were rigged with explosives would it be irresponsible to assume that you also believe that FLigh 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed in PA?


No, the reasoning does not follow at all. Each one is a separate incident, and you are trying to stereotype us all again like a bigot. I personally stay away from Pentagon discussions as you might have noticed, because I fail to see evidence of anything in particular happening there. Obviously there was a plane and there was an explosion and that's about all I can personally tell you. Again, it wasn't my investigation; I'm the jury here. As far as Flight 93, I don't know what happened to it, either (just as I'll tell you I don't know exactly what happened to the Towers and WTC7), but I know that a plane crashing to the ground shouldn't produce an 8-mile debris spread culminating with a small pit in which no one can seem to find a plane. But again, these are things others were charged to investigate.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Oh, damn you're right. Guess everything is ruined now, since you can't shut down elevators in the WTC towers.


I think the point he is making, is that an elevator shut down is a big deal in a building such as the WTC. Also, although the Port Authority was in charge. An unlicensed serviceman is not allowed in elevator shafts. Period. If there is construction going on inside a shaft, you will need a permit, licensed technicians, and you will need an inspection.

Now, allow me to take this a step further. Some folk tend to believe that ACE elevator may have been "in on it" since many of them refused to help after the second place hit.

ACE elevator won the contract to service the elevators, but the mechanics that worked there were from the original service/installer company. Otis elevator.

Simply put, it would be next to impossible to do the amount of construction needed to install this "nano thermite" in an elevator shaft.


I've read more than once that the elevators were shut down for "maintenance" in the days leading up to 9/11. Similarly some bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed for a number of days the week prior. At any rate all of this stuff is 100% possible and 100% legitimate options for perpetrators to get done what needed to be done.


You are correct. Upgrades were made to the cars of the elevators. It was an ongoing upgrade to all the doors. These upgrades started in 1996. This was to comply with building codes. Unfortunatly, these upgrades more than likely killed people.

www.usatoday.com...

Regarding the bomb sniffing dogs. The full time dogs were on duty leading up to and one 9/11. There were extra dogs brought in a few weeks prior due to bomb threats. Sirius, one of the bomb sniffing dogs died on 9/11 during the collapse.



-- what would an inspector find so suspicious about applying an extra layer of anything like this to the columns?


An elevator inspector would first want to know why the inside of an elevator shaft would need to be painted. I would have to assume the inspector would also want to know why there were det cords or other devices installed on the columns in his elevator shafts.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I think the point he is making, is that an elevator shut down is a big deal in a building such as the WTC.


Even if it was a big deal, I still remember reading more than one testimony referring to the elevators being shut down in the days prior to 9/11. Maybe not on the morning of 9/11, but in the days prior there had been maintenance. Dude, there was a news reporter who said his PATH subway train filled with smoke as he arrived to the WTC Towers that morning. There was so much that went on, in both the days prior and especially the day of, that you are unaware of, that it's completely asinine to assume a huge list of things that didn't happen with no evidence to the negative whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Even if it was a big deal,


I meant it's a big deal in that many people are notified of the shut down.



I still remember reading more than one testimony referring to the elevators being shut down in the days prior to 9/11.


Yes, and it is very common. Like I mentioned above, there were upgrades going on for years. This, along with typical maintenance happens all the time. What needs to be known is that the majority of upgrades, and repairs take place in the controls room. (elevator penthouse) There are times that access to the shafts are needed. (re-roping) I am not aware of anything else that would require extended amounts of time in the shafts. Also, there is no way someone who has been working on these units for 20 plus years will not question someone in their shafts. Again, if you are not a licensed elevator technician, you can not be in that hoistway without supervision.

I can not fathom the thought of one of the ACE technicians standing there watching this nano-thermite on the columns, along with some type of detonator.



Dude, there was a news reporter who said his PATH subway train filled with smoke as he arrived to the WTC Towers that morning.


What time did he arrive?


There was so much that went on, in both the days prior and especially the day of, that you are unaware of, that it's completely asinine to assume a huge list of things that didn't happen with no evidence to the negative whatsoever.


Of course there are things we don't know. But, what do you know what happened? What leads you to believe that sinister activity was in progress? (unnoticed)



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Yes, and it is very common. Like I mentioned above, there were upgrades going on for years. This, along with typical maintenance happens all the time. What needs to be known is that the majority of upgrades, and repairs take place in the controls room. (elevator penthouse) There are times that access to the shafts are needed. (re-roping) I am not aware of anything else that would require extended amounts of time in the shafts. Also, there is no way someone who has been working on these units for 20 plus years will not question someone in their shafts. Again, if you are not a licensed elevator technician, you can not be in that hoistway without supervision.


That's all fine but I still fail to see how you have negated the possibility of someone sabotaging the elevators, given the proper resources, access, and creativity. And I can see how all of those things would have been there if the Port Authority and some aspect of our military industrial complex were involved, as I believe they were.


I can not fathom the thought of one of the ACE technicians standing there watching this nano-thermite on the columns, along with some type of detonator.


Me either, but I really doubt anything like this would be done right in somebody's face, such that it was obvious what was being installed. It just wouldn't happen like that. But then to say, therefore, it's impossible to do such a thing, is where the fallacy comes in.



Dude, there was a news reporter who said his PATH subway train filled with smoke as he arrived to the WTC Towers that morning.


What time did he arrive?


No idea, all I can do is link you to the video where I listened/watched him say what little he did about it. He didn't seem to understand what exactly happened himself, understandably.


Of course there are things we don't know. But, what do you know what happened? What leads you to believe that sinister activity was in progress? (unnoticed)


The behavior of the buildings when they collapsed, and all the testimonies of so many additional explosions at completely different times than the actual collapses, both before and after. That's what tipped me off. I have no idea what happened inside the buildings to make such things possible, but then again I have no reason to suspect it would be impossible to do such a thing. Especially when undetonated bombs have been removed from inside of federal buildings involved in "terrorist" events before, with no one being able to explain what they were doing there or who put them there. I really don't see why people have such a hard time comprehending how these things can happen when people just aren't paying attention. People DON'T always pay attention. That's the bottom line vulnerability.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
If you think the WTC were rigged with explosives would it be irresponsible to assume that you also believe that FLigh 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed in PA?



Yes, it would be VERY irresponsible. One of your own debunkers around here (esdad) believes that Flight 93 was shot down. Should we then assume that he believes the towers were CD'd? Just a hint: He doesn't.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
If you think the WTC were rigged with explosives would it be irresponsible to assume that you also believe that FLigh 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed in PA?



Yes, it would be VERY irresponsible. One of your own debunkers around here (esdad) believes that Flight 93 was shot down. Should we then assume that he believes the towers were CD'd? Just a hint: He doesn't.


So, you think that the WTC was a government conspiracy that just happened to have occured on the same day that Islamic terrorist hijacked two planes and flew them into the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join