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.

 

Prove the 10 parts of the OS of 911?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Could you possibly be meaning this quote from Colleen Rowley?



"Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama bin Ladin to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)"


And if that is true, I am going to guess that maybe you didnt see this part of her letter...




Mr. Director, I hope my observations can be taken in a constructive vein. They are from the heart and intended to be completely apolitical. Hopefully, with our nation's security on the line, you and our nation's other elected and appointed officials can rise above the petty politics that often plague other discussions and do the right thing. You do have some good ideas for change in the FBI but I think you have also not been completely honest about some of the true reasons for the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. Until we come clean and deal with the root causes, the Department of Justice will continue to experience problems fighting terrorism and fighting crime in general.



www.time.com...

She doesnt think it was an intentional thing. She thinks it was a result of the institutional bureaucracy and cover my butt mentality that only solidified after the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles. No one wants to go out on a limb or give approval for someone to do so in case it blows up in their faces. At which point they can count on Congressional hearings and losing their jobs....if not going to jail.


Wait a minute....someone on here has been pointing out for years that it was the restrictions placed on our law enforcement/military agencies during the 70s-90s that made it possible for terrorists to hurt us as badly as they did.....oh, yeah...that would be me.




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Wow, so swampfox is actually admitting there is no real proof for any of those things that is available to the public.

Why are you always coming here to argue with people who just want closure when all you have to support your own opinions is blind faith in the government?


Do they not teach reading comprehension anymore? I said that the evidence for his "parts" would originate with the FBI in most cases and that he doesnt accept the FBI as a source. Never once did I say there wasnt proof available to the public.

On the second part, how is pointing out reality arguing?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
RL Lee Group
For lead to be vaporized the temperatures would have been over 1750 Celsius
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

1750 Celsius =3182 Fahrenheit
www.mathsisfun.com...

What's the hottest that NIST says the fires got?

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers
wtc.nist.gov...


"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
page 21/34

"In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of
heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting
and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens,
and paint during the WTC Event.
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly
if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially
combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building
dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust." page 23/34

"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event." page 25/34

"The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool." page 25/34

[edit on 26-10-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]





Why is this not in the 9/11 Commission Report ?

Where does Molten Iron an Lead come from ? From Jet Fuel Explosions????????


[edit on 26-10-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Could you possibly be meaning this quote from Colleen Rowley?



"Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama bin Ladin to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)"


And if that is true, I am going to guess that maybe you didnt see this part of her letter...




Mr. Director, I hope my observations can be taken in a constructive vein. They are from the heart and intended to be completely apolitical. Hopefully, with our nation's security on the line, you and our nation's other elected and appointed officials can rise above the petty politics that often plague other discussions and do the right thing. You do have some good ideas for change in the FBI but I think you have also not been completely honest about some of the true reasons for the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. Until we come clean and deal with the root causes, the Department of Justice will continue to experience problems fighting terrorism and fighting crime in general.



www.time.com...

She doesnt think it was an intentional thing. She thinks it was a result of the institutional bureaucracy and cover my butt mentality that only solidified after the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles. No one wants to go out on a limb or give approval for someone to do so in case it blows up in their faces. At which point they can count on Congressional hearings and losing their jobs....if not going to jail.


Wait a minute....someone on here has been pointing out for years that it was the restrictions placed on our law enforcement/military agencies during the 70s-90s that made it possible for terrorists to hurt us as badly as they did.....oh, yeah...that would be me.









Yes I've read the whole thing.

George W. knew about it, Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, Able Danger, there was TOOOOOOOO many people who had prior knowledge that they were going to do this. Jon O'neil ????????

And Fixed the link since your not capable of doing so yourself...



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Absolutely nothing there that states explosives or evidence of their use. So, if you believe the report confirms explosives...........



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Absolutely nothing there that states explosives or evidence of their use. So, if you believe the report confirms explosives...........



What did I say about explosives ???????????


It was confirming MOLTEN IRON & LEAD. Where do these come from ?

A hot office fire ? Jet fuel ?

What was it the NIST director said? No reports of Molten Metal ?




?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Absolutely nothing there that states explosives or evidence of their use. So, if you believe the report confirms explosives...........



Continue to dance around the truth.


I Said Dr. Jones report's Confirm Explosives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Do they not teach reading comprehension anymore ?)

I'm simply looking at the fact that
Iron and Lead where melted during this event. And the explanation the government gives us for 9/11 suggest Temperatures not even close enough to melt these metals.



Why is that not in the report ?




[edit on 26-10-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


LOL...Dr. Jones.....do you really want to start a discussion on how many times his "reports' have been rejected? He makes some serious flaws in his research and in his conclusions.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Lets see, seven months after the fact a company takes samples, analyzes them and you think that it somehow proves that explosives were involved based on that their analysis suggests that lead melted sometime between 9/11 and when they collected their samples. Okay, we can go with that.

Not to mention, that the reports on the collapses have a large portion of "educated guess" in them. Absent sensors in each building to collect information about exactly what was going on when, no one will ever know the precise temperatures or the exact sequence of the collapses.

BTW, just what explosive do you think was used?

Just curious here...I wonder what a lead acid mainframe UPS would do when exposed to explosions/fire/building collapse.....

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
[edit on 26-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



or with someone who can't get through a debate here without lying to attempt to further their demonstratively inarticulate point.


Would you care to demonstrate where I have told a lie thank you?

Yeah, I thought so.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by impressme]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



LOL...Dr. Jones.....do you really want to start a discussion on how many times his "reports' have been rejected? He makes some serious flaws in his research and in his conclusions.


Do you have all the names of scientist who has rejected Jones report?
What are these "serious flaws" that have been proven by other scientist?


[edit on 26-10-2009 by impressme]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do they not teach reading comprehension anymore? I said that the evidence for his "parts" would originate with the FBI in most cases and that he doesnt accept the FBI as a source. Never once did I say there wasnt proof available to the public.


So then where is the evidence to support any of the things he listed then?


On the second part, how is pointing out reality arguing?


I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to deliver on that one. It's been 8 years. It's okay if you're gullible but I want to actually see something here.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

LOL...Dr. Jones.....do you really want to start a discussion on how many times his "reports' have been rejected? He makes some serious flaws in his research and in his conclusions.


How many times was Copernicus' work rejected? It wasn't accepted until well after he was dead, and it took the church hundreds of years later to admit they were wrong.

There is no mystery to why so many people find his work objectionable. But talking smack is one thing, proving it is another.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   



Swamp how astute of you.. Great ideas... if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck must be a chicken!



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Another witty reply from the snip.

Seriously, what is this miracle explosive that will explode and yet burn long enough to melt iron or lead?




Mod Note: Please Review Courtesy Is Mandatory

[Mod Edit - derogatory comment]


[edit on 27/10/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
DP removed

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
TP removed

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
That will be enough, discus the topic. If you have nothing to ad but wise cracks, stop now.

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny

Moderator



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Another witty reply from the snip.

Seriously, what is this miracle explosive that will explode and yet burn long enough to melt iron or lead?




Mod Note: Please Review Courtesy Is Mandatory

[Mod Edit - derogatory comment]


[edit on 27/10/2009 by Sauron]



Me personally I couldn't tell you, I'm not at the liberty to do so. I do not consider myself an expert in the use of Explosives. But I bet Jeffrey Farrer ( a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) could enlighten you.


I'll the be the first to admit many so called 9/11 'truthers' are full of #. So are many 'debunkers'.

I don't care about camps. I care about facts. So I won't spare one camp or the other because it suits my agenda, but when I see somebody pretending that strong evidence doesn't exist, or present extremely weak evidence, I do get upset.

9/11 is no different from all the other abnormalities in the past 8 years. Time for all of us to take responsibility, and fight ALL threats to freedom.


width="425" height="344"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/xbMu2w7fSG8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

width="425" height="344"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/41OCQvu7ULQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

[edit on 28-10-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]


Serious failure on my part to post the videos.....


[edit on 28-10-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join