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.

 

Stand WITH us for 9/11 Truth!

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
The problem is that

A - you assume that everyone that worked there knew everyone else that worked there and they all knew exactly what every other company was doing all the time, including any construction???????

B- people did report strange goings on leading up to 9/11; namely - construction they did not know the reason for.


A) I never said any such thing and I invite you to post where I said any such thing. What I *said* is that the WTC operated the same way that ever other skyscraper operates- each floor was maintained by the specific tenant, and the caretaking of the building itself was taken care of by a full time staff of building maintenance. The tenants would have known everythign that was going on in their own floors, and building maintnance would know everything that was going on in their own maintenance areas. No work in the tenant area could ever be done without the approval of building management, and any strangers showing up out of the blue attempting to do mysterious maintenance would have been immediately spotted. This is universal and written in stone, regardless of whatever it is you want to theorize or assume.


Like I said, it would not take too many people to be in on it. Here we have building management. They are the only ones who really had to know anything.

Here's a partial list of the technicians and engineers employed at the WTC complex, along with their stories. Please point out which one of these guys let the controled demolitions saboteurs into the building-


Can I give you are partial crime scene and ask you to pick out all the evidence relating to the crime? All a partial list will prove is that some people fit your argument, not all.


B) I can tell right away you're getting this bit from those damned fool conspiracy web sites you frequent. Please provide even *one* example where "peope were reporting strange construction noone understood". The only instnace I'm aware of is that IT guy who reported an upgrade of the pwer cables on his floor, requiring him to shut down and turn on his servers. We know what that maintenance was for becuase building management told him what it was ahead of time, and he said himelf that the workers weren't acting mysterious or trying to hide what they were doing.

Right. He knew what they were going to be doing because who told him again? This would be the same management as above, correct? You say he only knew what they were doing because he was told what they were doing and that they did not seem to be acting mysteriously. If he had to be told what it was that they were actually doing, then how would he know if they were doing it in a mysterious manner or not?




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Like I said, it would not take too many people to be in on it. Here we have building management. They are the only ones who really had to know anything.


But they necessarily would need a gigantic infrastructure to do what these hypothetical insiders were directing. My point is, even then, you'd have to be as stupid as a bag of hammers to NOT understand that someone asking you to plant secret demilitions in an occupied building was going to get a lot of people killed. You wouldn't need to know why they were askign you to do it.


Can I give you are partial crime scene and ask you to pick out all the evidence relating to the crime? All a partial list will prove is that some people fit your argument, not all.


All right then, give me an example of a technician who can confirm what you're saying in addition to the ZERO technicans you're already provided.


Right. He knew what they were going to be doing because who told him again? This would be the same management as above, correct? You say he only knew what they were doing because he was told what they were doing and that they did not seem to be acting mysteriously. If he had to be told what it was that they were actually doing, then how would he know if they were doing it in a mysterious manner or not?


Becuase this "suspicious construction" bit is coming entirely from you truthers, not him. those conspiracy web sites you frequent always point to that as an example of "suspicious activity".

Building management told him there was goign to be a power outage on a certain day so he came in to power down his servers, and in the meantime, he sat there watching what the technicians were doing. He doesn't say it, but I absolutely guarantee that building management was there too. How is being warned of up and coming construction, being allowed into the building while they were doign so, and even being allowed to watch what they were doing "suspicious activity" exactly?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


But they necessarily would need a gigantic infrastructure to do what these hypothetical insiders were directing. My point is, even then, you'd have to be as stupid as a bag of hammers to NOT understand that someone asking you to plant secret demilitions in an occupied building was going to get a lot of people killed. You wouldn't need to know why they were askign you to do it.


I am not sure why you believe that people would know what they were really doing, how dangerous it was, or if they would even care. It has already been made clear that the government could care less about a few thousand people dying. Like you said, you would not need to know why they were asking you to do it. People do crazy things all the time. They do it for power or sadism or out of fear or greed. Not sure what rosy planet you are from.


All right then, give me an example of a technician who can confirm what you're saying in addition to the ZERO technicans you're already provided.


No I cannot. This is probably the reason that I did not claim that I could. I was pointing out that you offered up a partial list as solid proof of something that would require the ENTIRE list to actually prove. I point out the flaw in your argument so you respond by asking me to prove something? I guess that means you cannot justify yourself. I get it.


Becuase this "suspicious construction" bit is coming entirely from you truthers, not him. those conspiracy web sites you frequent always point to that as an example of "suspicious activity".


So there was not a floor closed off where construction was being done?
There was no construction to reinforce the supports under a server room?
Are you sure about this?


Building management told him there was goign to be a power outage on a certain day so he came in to power down his servers, and in the meantime, he sat there watching what the technicians were doing. He doesn't say it, but I absolutely guarantee that building management was there too. How is being warned of up and coming construction, being allowed into the building while they were doign so, and even being allowed to watch what they were doing "suspicious activity" exactly?


So you hold up your own example and within it you admit you do not even have all the facts but you are going to assume some of them and then you somehow relate that to what I said as if we were talking about the same thing???? What kind of tactic is that?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I am not sure why you believe that people would know what they were really doing, how dangerous it was, or if they would even care.


You're honestly telling me that people who have experience in explosives aren't going to understand that secretly planting explosives to blow up an occupied building is going to destroy the building and get people killed? Good GOD you can't be serious. What the heck do you think explosives do to begin with, insult people and make them feel bad about themselves?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean to say that. Please rephrase your question.


It has already been made clear that the government could care less about a few thousand people dying. Like you said, you would not need to know why they were asking you to do it. People do crazy things all the time. They do it for power or sadism or out of fear or greed. Not sure what rosy planet you are from.


...and I'm not certain what science fiction world YOU come from. The gov't isn't some super computer in a vault, or a disembodied brain in a vat of fluid in a laboratory., It's made up of millions of people, from the president to the guy rubber stamping requisitions to the guys busting down the door to a meth lab, and they're as human and you and I are. Yeah, one person would be heartless, but the next guy will be a good hearted boy scout, and the next guy will be a bumbling idiot who'd trip over his own shadow. This single minded drone mentality you're referring to has never existed in any gov't since the beginning of civilization.


No I cannot. This is probably the reason that I did not claim that I could. I was pointing out that you offered up a partial list as solid proof of something that would require the ENTIRE list to actually prove. I point out the flaw in your argument so you respond by asking me to prove something? I guess that means you cannot justify yourself. I get it.


??? Huh? YOU are the one claiming that there was unexplained construction going on in the towers, not me, and all I did was ask you to provide an example to back the claim up. If you can't provide an example, then admit you're making it up.


So there was not a floor closed off where construction was being done?There was no construction to reinforce the supports under a server room?Are you sure about this?


Define "closed off". The tenents who rented that space out absolutely definitely are allowed in there becuase they want to see their progress, and the building management absolutely definitely are allowed in there becuase they need to make sure everythign is built to code. If you're attempting to claim that there's supposed to be something suspicious about one tenent not being able to wander around the floor space of other tenents, then I will say you are a liar.

FYI no, there was no construction to "reinforce the supports under a server room" becuase that's NOT how the floors in the WTC were designed. They weren't supported by girders beneath, they were supported by horizontal braces connected to the inner core and outer perimeter columns, and didn't need reinforcement. It was your obligation to know that *before* you started crying wolf becuase that design is why the towers collapse in the way it did to begin with.


So you hold up your own example and within it you admit you do not even have all the facts but you are going to assume some of them and then you somehow relate that to what I said as if we were talking about the same thing???? What kind of tactic is that?


Ummm...what?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



...and I'm not certain what science fiction world YOU come from. The gov't isn't some super computer in a vault, or a disembodied brain in a vat of fluid in a laboratory., It's made up of millions of people, from the president to the guy rubber stamping requisitions to the guys busting down the door to a meth lab, and they're as human and you and I are.


She is not talking about the whole government and you know that! Your tiny little brain cannot even understand and will never understand because you will NOT let it.
You are the prime example of someone who cannot think out side the box.
She was only talking about a handful of people.


This single minded drone mentality you're referring to has never existed in any gov't since the beginning of civilization.


You know she is trying to have a civilize conversation with you but you are to immature to under stand what she is saying and your only responses to her is to ridiculed every single word she has type, says a lot about you. Do you enjoy insulting and ridiculing everyone who doesn’t believe in your fairytales?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
She is not talking about the whole government and you know that! Your tiny little brain cannot even understand and will never understand because you will NOT let it.

You are the prime example of someone who cannot think out side the box.
She was only talking about a handful of people.


All right, since you're a glutton for punishment, too...if it's not the entire gov't then it's a de facto admission there are parts of the gov't who'd never go along with any such conspiracy, and the parts of the gov't who would, need to hide it from the parts of the gov't who wouldn't, and probably, from the incompetent idiots who'd only fail miserably at it if they got involved. WHAT THE FLIP DO YOU THINK I SAID TO BEGIN WITH???

Never mind thinking outside the box. How about thinking INSIDE the box, for a little while? Sheesh, some people.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This back and forth nonsense stops NOW!!

If you all can't have a civil conversation without personal nonsense the conversation will be closed.

In other words:

KNOCK IT OFF!!

Edit to Add: The topic is 9/11 truth. Not each other.

[edit on 10/20/2009 by seagull]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
This back and forth nonsense stops NOW!!

If you all can't have a civil conversation without personal nonsense the conversation will be closed.

In other words:

KNOCK IT OFF!!


Thank you, seagull, for that wake up call, as it's clear that we needed it. I do try to stick to the topic and to concentrate on discussing the events of 9/11, and all anyone needs to do is look at my original starting posts to see that I do try to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. In my defense, I have to admit, after a steady diet of uncalled for, "I'm not too bright", "I have a tiny brain", "I'm living in a fantasy world", etc., it starts to get under my skin. My full apologies to Lillydale for any rude behavior I may have displayed.

That said, when the conversation has deteriorated to the point where the people here have to resort to emotional personal attacks whenever they can't refute what I say, then any further attempt at rational conversation will be a complete waste of my time. This discussion is over.





[edit on 20-10-2009 by GoodOlDave]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join