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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Unless of course the entire maintenance and engineering staff of the WTC was involved


No offense but you really are dense if you can't imagine an elevator shaft being shut down unless the entire elevator staff wanted it shut down. Are you even thinking about what you post?




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Are you? Because that's not what I wrote, is it?

Besides, the question's been answered. Billybob thinks that all pertinent staff in the towers were "in on it". Which to anyone who isn't "dense" is obviously ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you? Because that's not what I wrote, is it?


Is it? Why don't you tell me, because it sure looks a damn lot like what you wrote.



Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This should be easy to prove. Go and try it in a local high-rise office building.

I used to work in Canary Wharf tower and I can tell you that there were some shocking health and safety violations (the emergency exits on my floor were locked shut on Sept 12 2001, for example) but if you tried to shut the lifts independently you'd get noticed very quickly.

Unless of course the entire maintenance and engineering staff of the WTC was involved


Can't shut any elevators down without full staff permission.
Of course, how could we all forget the great elevator shaft democracy, where every man gets a say in every damned thing they do, and has to be informed of every little detail, especially illegal ones? Sounds like an efficient business to me. It wouldn't just take someone from the PA to tell an elevator company manager or supervisor that they're shutting down an elevator to do maintenance on something requiring elevator access, and someone to contract a front maintenance company to come in and do said work. No, that's so simple that it must be impossible, of course.
The whole elevator team has to be in on it.

Any other ridiculous fallacies you'd like to invent to try to make this stuff sound so much stupider than it actually is?

You talk like everyone and his mother would have to be involved, but then you're talking about it being impossible for someone "independently" to shut down the elevators, a 3rd party I assume. Do you know what "inside job" even means? Maybe you should sit and think for a second to get a good argument straight before you just start posting crap like this. Remember you are trying to prove a negative apparently. Which is notoriously hard to do. I would just give up in light of the total lack of information here if I were you.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

that's why the authors of the paper indicated it may have been used as a mere FUSE.



Well, that's the problem for Jones, now isn't it?

He was at least intelligent enough in the beginning to realize that there weren't any explosives going off in the few seconds before the collapse initiates, nor during the collapse. And that any such claims would prove him to be delusional. Hence his foray into the whole thermxte bunny-hole.

Now, he's hit a dead end to his thermxte hypothesis, since he now agrees that it couldn't have done anything by itself. So now he's stuck, proving himself into being a delusional idiot - as anyone that claims explosives were heard, effects were seen, etc - by NOW claiming explosives were used.

He's done......



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you? Because that's not what I wrote, is it?


Is it? Why don't you tell me, because it sure looks a damn lot like what you wrote.



Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This should be easy to prove. Go and try it in a local high-rise office building.

I used to work in Canary Wharf tower and I can tell you that there were some shocking health and safety violations (the emergency exits on my floor were locked shut on Sept 12 2001, for example) but if you tried to shut the lifts independently you'd get noticed very quickly.

Unless of course the entire maintenance and engineering staff of the WTC was involved


Hilarious. You've chopped my quote at quite a vital point, wouldn't you say? A less charitable person would suggest you were attempting to alter the context.

The crux, which you may not be sophisticated enough to grasp, is that anyone planning such a closure - and we're not talking about a couple of hours are we? - would need to make a contingency for a very large number of staff. Hundreds of people are going to be lied to. Key workers will have to be co-opted into the conspiracy. In large office buildings having elevators out of action is a pain - who will answer the complaints from services managers of individual companies? What exact front story are you going to follow? What will you do if people demand to see a bill of works?

The whole thing is a massive risk and, yes, requires the involvement of huge numbers of unwitting staff in a project that will look like nothing else they've ever seen and will go on for ages.

Personally, if I was doing it, I'd arrange for some airliners to be flown into the buildings and leave it at that.




Can't shut any elevators down without full staff permission.
Of course, how could we all forget the great elevator shaft democracy, where every man gets a say in every damned thing they do, and has to be informed of every little detail, especially illegal ones? Sounds like an efficient business to me.


You're wasting your time with this sarcasm.


It wouldn't just take someone from the PA to tell an elevator company manager or supervisor that they're shutting down an elevator to do maintenance on something requiring elevator access, and someone to contract a front maintenance company to come in and do said work. No, that's so simple that it must be impossible, of course.


I have a feeling - and I'm just guessing here, stop me if I'm wrong - that you have almost no idea about how large office complexes are run. Because that's a hopelessly naive summary.



Any other ridiculous fallacies you'd like to invent to try to make this stuff sound so much stupider than it actually is?

You talk like everyone and his mother would have to be involved, but then you're talking about it being impossible for someone "independently" to shut down the elevators, a 3rd party I assume. Do you know what "inside job" even means?



Do you? Because the planning and execution that you describe necessarily requires some of the relationships to be "third party". There must be a conspiracy across departments, and when those organisations interact with each other's non-insider staff they are effectively a third party. Those relationships would have to work absolutely seamlessly for what you are describing to go according to plan.


Remember you are trying to prove a negative apparently. Which is notoriously hard to do. I would just give up in light of the total lack of information here if I were you.


I'm not trying to prove anything. It's self evident to anyone with any experience of the real world that a project of the magnitude you describe is impossible.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Hilarious. You've chopped my quote at quite a vital point, wouldn't you say? A less charitable person would suggest you were attempting to alter the context.



This is all I left out:


In which case the conspiracy has grown yet again. In fact I'd be surprised if only about ten per cent of the US weren't in on it.


Are you trolling or what man? What I left out doesn't change what you were saying at all and you've totally lied about me twisting your words in at least two responses in a row so far. YOU are the one being deceptive.


The crux, which you may not be sophisticated enough to grasp, is that anyone planning such a closure - and we're not talking about a couple of hours are we? - would need to make a contingency for a very large number of staff.


Prove it. So far you've just been talking out of your ass in every single post, saying every single maintenance worker would have to know about it, etc., nothing to support any of it and nothing logical about what you are saying at all. So I'm going to ask you to start proving each claim you make with some form of evidence please. Prove the negative.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Are we back trolling again so soon Joey?

Did you ever figure out what NIST's hypothesis was as far as how the core columns broke away from the truss connections, or do you feel like chasing your tail anymore?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'm not trying to prove anything. It's self evident to anyone with any experience of the real world that a project of the magnitude you describe is impossible.



Forget it.

The troofer gambit of appealing to magic: we don't know what technology is out there - hush-a-boom explosives, remote controled planes, etc.....

or fantasy: it could have happened, we don't have any proof of it not happening, etc......

.... is the last hope for the intellectually bankrupt. They know they can't show a darn thing that backs their delusional fantasies, so a logical fallacy is all they've got.

And of course, the cool thing for troofers is, that as long as they deny that they're using a logical fallacy, then their delusions remain intact, and their damaged mind can feel better about itself.....



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Admitting you aren't aware of every technology that's ever been invented, especially those used by the military which is KNOWN to classify all sorts of new technology to conceal it for obvious military advantages, is not the same as believing in a fantasy world. This is still the real world. Maybe you can join it one day, Joey.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
there was no "hushaboom" (although, quiet steel cutting devices DO exist, according to CDI), as hundreds of witnesses reported hearing and seeing explosions, shockwaves, and flashes. some flashes can be seen on video, and so have explosions been recorded.

but, of course, the explosions were transformers (that all overloaded just as the building fell, of course, in all three towers), and the flashes were aerosol cans that just decided to ignite and explode.

pathetic.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


So why do you think that Jones ever went down the whole thermxte rabbit hole in the first place?

He KNOWS that there isn't the correct explosive sounds, at the correct time. He knows it.

And he didn't want to look like a total idiot by lying about explosives being used.

Too late for him now. His game is played out. He has nowhere else to go but into explosives rabbit hole. And show the whole world that he's a delusional idiot. Not that everyone didn't know that already....

And of course, using thermxte as a fuse for conventional explosives isn't just an exercise in constructing a Rube Goldberg method of CD, it's a (Rube Goldberg) squared exercise.

Uh huh.......



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Hilarious. You've chopped my quote at quite a vital point, wouldn't you say? A less charitable person would suggest you were attempting to alter the context.



This is all I left out:


In which case the conspiracy has grown yet again. In fact I'd be surprised if only about ten per cent of the US weren't in on it.


Are you trolling or what man? What I left out doesn't change what you were saying at all and you've totally lied about me twisting your words in at least two responses in a row so far. YOU are the one being deceptive.


The crux, which you may not be sophisticated enough to grasp, is that anyone planning such a closure - and we're not talking about a couple of hours are we? - would need to make a contingency for a very large number of staff.


Prove it. So far you've just been talking out of your ass in every single post, saying every single maintenance worker would have to know about it, etc., nothing to support any of it and nothing logical about what you are saying at all. So I'm going to ask you to start proving each claim you make with some form of evidence please. Prove the negative.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by bsbray11]


If you're going to ignore most of what I write and then lie about the rest of it then there's not much point responding to you.

Here's the whole of my quote just for the record:

"Unless of course the entire maintenance and engineering staff of the WTC was involved, wittingly or unwittingly. In which case the conspiracy has grown yet again. In fact I'd be surprised if only about ten per cent of the US weren't in on it. "

You made a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise this. And then you've just not bothered with what I've written subsequently and gone on bashing out the same sanctimonious drivel. This hasn't worked for eight years. It's not suddenly going to start converting people now.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Four pages in, and still nobody has taken up the challenge in the OP. Let's get this thread back on topic please, I am dying to find out the answer to this:
"Show me an MSDS sheet for any paint that coincides with any independent look at the chips. Or if you have the information strait from the manufacturer that would work too. Or if you have an independent look at both the chips in question and legit paint chips that would be well too."

How hard can it be to show what paint the chips are, if they are paint chips?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Can you send me those chips so that I can get them analyzed? And why do you want the MSDS? Are you planning on swallowing the chips? Wouldn't you want a manufacturer's catalog cut? And where does one get MSDS sheets from the 1970 when the steel was painted?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Four pages in, and still nobody has taken up the challenge in the OP. Let's get this thread back on topic please, I am dying to find out the answer to this:
"Show me an MSDS sheet for any paint that coincides with any independent look at the chips. Or if you have the information strait from the manufacturer that would work too. Or if you have an independent look at both the chips in question and legit paint chips that would be well too."

How hard can it be to show what paint the chips are, if they are paint chips?


What if they're from a type of super paint that is classified and only used by top level high echelon construction firms?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You made a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise this.


No, I missed those three words, but now that I notice them they don't even make sense to me. If someone is "unwittingly" involved then they are not involved at all in the events of 9/11 as far as they or anyone else around them would be able to discern.


And then you've just not bothered with what I've written subsequently and gone on bashing out the same sanctimonious drivel. This hasn't worked for eight years. It's not suddenly going to start converting people now.


All you've done is talked a bunch of nonsense about how elevator shaft workers basically have eyes in the backs of their heads. At the end of the day, the fact remains that there are all number of possibilities as to how to get a bomb into a building or even for a clandestine military/political intelligence operation to haven taken place. You haven't proved a damned thing, which is why I'm "not bothered" with what you've written. Why should I respond to a bunch of rants with no accompanying evidence whatsoever?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Can you send me those chips so that I can get them analyzed? And why do you want the MSDS? Are you planning on swallowing the chips? Wouldn't you want a manufacturer's catalog cut? And where does one get MSDS sheets from the 1970 when the steel was painted?


Don't need the MSDS, although, that would list the chemical contents of the paint. Just because the paint was applied in the 70's, doesn't mean it hasn't been used since 86, when OSHA required MSDS's.

"Or if you have the information strait from the manufacturer that would work too"

No, you don't need the chips, they have already been analyzed. Your job, since you are replying to the thread as a debunker/skeptic, is to prove to us what paint it is. If it really is paint, it shouldn't be too difficult to show us the paint that has the same properities as the already analyzed chips.

Edit:
From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2 showing formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 °C.

So what primer is stable beyond 650 °C, but ignites around 430 °C?


michaelfury.wordpress.com...

Sorry if that link was already posted, but NIST already did most of the work for you debunkers.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You made a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise this.


No, I missed those three words, but now that I notice them they don't even make sense to me. If someone is "unwittingly" involved then they are not involved at all in the events of 9/11 as far as they or anyone else around them would be able to discern.



Oh dear. You obviously haven't even bothered to think through the logic of your own assumptions. Most likely because, at heart, you know that they wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny.

An operation like the one you describe is going to involve many unwitting participants. From people who just need to swallow a quick lie, to those involved in administrational roles (organising money transfers for example), to potentially the hijackers and maybe Osama Bin Laden himself.

It's absurd to suggest that there are two categories of people wrt a 9/11 conspiracy of the sort you envision - those who are wholly "in", who understand every aspect and are intimately involved in its organisation, and the rest of us, who are wholly "out". For a plot of the magnitude you describe their must be people actively involved who are just being manipulated by more initiated actors, and there must be people who are lied to so they will fulfill their role without causing problems.



And then you've just not bothered with what I've written subsequently and gone on bashing out the same sanctimonious drivel. This hasn't worked for eight years. It's not suddenly going to start converting people now.


All you've done is talked a bunch of nonsense about how elevator shaft workers basically have eyes in the backs of their heads. At the end of the day, the fact remains that there are all number of possibilities as to how to get a bomb into a building or even for a clandestine military/political intelligence operation to haven taken place. You haven't proved a damned thing, which is why I'm "not bothered" with what you've written. Why should I respond to a bunch of rants with no accompanying evidence whatsoever?


You want to suggest that the WTC was bombed. For this to be true you need it to seem easy to mount a large scale operation disguised as some form of maintenance work. Thus not only is the burden of proof on you - and I notice that you dismiss this gigantic hole in your nonsensical "narrative" with the breezy phrase "all number of possibilities", and then neglect to mention any of them - but you're also going to need to continue to ignore the basic facts that govern the administration of large office complexes. That's fine, but don't be surprised if you're no further to convincing anybody by 2017.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The debunkers claim that the "paint chips" were not thermite or thermate, and I agree with that much. However they certainly contain components of an incendiary.


Not thermxte but an incendiary is an interesting conclusion, jp. If you are basing this on the DSC, then anything that burns would show the same results. Hydrocarbons burning in air, such as plastics and cured paint matrices, have about ten times the total energy of thermite on a weight basis. As a thin layer on metal, it is unlikely that they would sustain combustion until the bulk metal was above their ignition point. This makes them more like fuel than an incendiary.
Why do you think the chips are an incendiary?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Sorry, I'll need those chips. And the chain of custody documents. I have no way of confirming where those samples came from. Or should I just trust them? I mean, really, why would they lie? Money? Fame? Adoration?

And MSDS do not list all the chemical components, just those relative to safety issues. Toxicology, transport information, etc. MSDS is not a recipe.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join