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.

 

Need help from BOTH camps determining Larry Silversteins role in 911

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I've seen conspiracy theorists use the "fact" that the towers fell into their own footprint and the "fact" that they didn't as evidence for an inside job.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Your stalking me is getting hard to keep up with.


I'm stalking you? That's quite a claim, given that you started a thread in another forum specifically about me, presumably in an attempt to have people cheerlead for you.

Never mind that the result didn't go exactly the way you'd hoped...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale
Your stalking me is getting hard to keep up with.


I'm stalking you? That's quite a claim, given that you started a thread in another forum specifically about me, presumably in an attempt to have people cheerlead for you.

Never mind that the result didn't go exactly the way you'd hoped...


Hmmm. That is an interesting response. What I hoped was that you would be man enough to discuss your insipid idea. The result has been a list of people confirming my idea. One person tried to support you but only a little. It may not be what I hoped but it is pretty to look at.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've seen conspiracy theorists use the "fact" that the towers fell into their own footprint and the "fact" that they didn't as evidence for an inside job.


Well, did they or did they not? Where did the center of mass land? Why am I still asking this?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


That's the problem, actually, as these damned fool conspriacy websites are notorious for being fast and loose with their definitions. Yes, the towers fell perfectly into their footprint...presuming you consider "their footprint" to be the entire WTC complex. Just look at the aerial photos of ground zero and you can see that the wreckage spilled out onto pretty much eveything nearby (including WTC 7). The towers were just plain flipping HUGE, and the wreckage from the collapse wouldn't have ceased to exist simply because it reached the ground.





Have you seen the world trade center complex? You are trying to claim that it went so wayward on its way down that it even did damage to some nearby buildings? That is why it was not perfect but you are trying to act like it was so far from perfect as to be laughable. Where did the center of mass land?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


Hmmm. That is an interesting response. What I hoped was that you would be man enough to discuss your insipid idea. The result has been a list of people confirming my idea. One person tried to support you but only a little. It may not be what I hoped but it is pretty to look at.


Are you serious? Does that thread really look like that to you?

I have posted twice on the thread, and you've ignored me. Furthermore, several people have suggested that I'm right. Only when you alter what I said are you able to find anyone to agree with you.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Have you seen the world trade center complex? You are trying to claim that it went so wayward on its way down that it even did damage to some nearby buildings? That is why it was not perfect but you are trying to act like it was so far from perfect as to be laughable. Where did the center of mass land?


Yes I HAVE seen the WTC complex. I've been there numerous times, and even bought a Japanese scroll painting (a REAL scroll painting, not those machine printed ones they sell in oriental junk shops) hanging on the WTC gift shop wall from the salesgirl working there, under the table. I still have it, so technically, I have a piece of the WTC too.

The fact that the wreckage smashed up nearby buildings is in the public domain and cannot be refuted. The buildings were just too huge, and the nearby buildings too close, for the wreckage not to spill out onto the nearby buildings. What should it have done, pile up vertically while staying neatly inside its own footprint?

If your beef is that the building fell straight down, I must say I have yet to see anyone give any suitable explanation why the towers should have fallen in any other manner from which it did. Gravity makes things fall straight down for secret gov't conspiracies just as it does for the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
mmmmichael, you're so full of it, your eyes are brown.


Because I don't buy into every dopey conspiracy site and Youtube claim.

Are you saying thousands of people standing right there didn't see a building shuddering and slowly crumbling for a hours before it structural support finally gave way?

It's the end of 2009. It's been shown a thousand times how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. You're terrified to read up on it. 8 years of idiots isolating photos and making claims they can't substantiate. Lots of talk. No evidence of explosives and controlled demolition.

Keep on dreaming.










Who has shown it? the agencies who were tasked with the job were unable to do that. They showed how the collapse could have initiated.

Everyone still researching the question in the OP about the precedent that was set and where on the timeline it falls?

As I said if it falls after the first Silversien trial theres no way he was complicit.



new topics




 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join