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.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Unless of course the entire maintenance and engineering staff of the WTC was involved
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you? Because that's not what I wrote, is it?
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
Originally posted by billybob
that's why the authors of the paper indicated it may have been used as a mere FUSE.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.