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.

 

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 21
118
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dereks
Have the truthers ever explained how no one noticed the tonnes of explosives


So you know what kind of explosives were used?


Yes, the invisible kind that take up no weight, no space and do not need a human kind to emplace



It's funny how you compare this to a commercial demolition using TNT/C4,


as opposed to you who think that they must have used invisible explosives that auto magically just appear, or are laid by invisible workers



and think therefore the same thing MUST have happened here or else it simply could not have been a controlled demolition at all.


So how were the tonnes of explosives laid? Or did they use a nuke, or a black hole as some truthers claim?


so I guess it wasn't an inside job after all, right?


The only thing you got right!




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dereks
Have the truthers ever explained how no one noticed the tonnes of explosives

So you know what kind of explosives were used?

Yes, the invisible kind that take up no weight, no space and do not need a human kind to emplace


Yes, they have to be totally invisible, because people tore that building apart every day looking in every nook and cranny. I see it in every office building I walk into, all the time. It's impossible to ever hide anything in a massive office skyscraper.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's impossible to ever hide anything in a massive office skyscraper.


It is certainly impossible to hide the many tonnes of explosives that would have been needed, and all the holes bashed thru walls, concrete removed etc.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
It is certainly impossible to hide the many tonnes of explosives that would have been needed, and all the holes bashed thru walls, concrete removed etc.


Except you never actually proved that all of that would have had to have been necessary.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dereks
It is certainly impossible to hide the many tonnes of explosives that would have been needed, and all the holes bashed thru walls, concrete removed etc.


Except you never actually proved that all of that would have had to have been necessary.


To bring down a building the size of the WTC buildings, yes it would have been necessary. Do some simple research and you would know that to. But truthers think someone running around like in a James Bond movie, sticking a few egg timers to a wall can bring down a building!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
To bring down a building the size of the WTC buildings, yes it would have been necessary.


Now I have your word, but do you have proof?


Do some simple research and you would know that to.


If it's really that simple then I expect to be seeing something to back it up in your next post.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
Wow,they are capable of such feats?
I have been cleaning my tv and furniture with bombs?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If it's really that simple then I expect to be seeing something to back it up in your next post.


www.jod911.com...

Of course another little fact the truthers ignore is that the seismographs that recorded the event show no sign of a explosion, so not only are the explosives invisible they also leave no physical evidence - care to explain that?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 

Aren't you the guy who questioned whether the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of multiple 707s?

It was proven and now you're back for more?

Thermite has already been found in the WTC dust. Bombs and "secondary devices" were discovered by FDNY firefighters, including the FDNY Public Safety Chief. EVERYONE heard massive secondary explosions.

What the hell else is needed to convince you that 9/11 was in inside job?

Just admit it, even a confession by Cheney/Rumsfeld wouldn't be enough, would it?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

It was proven and now you're back for more?


No it wasn't. the statement was "probably" it could withstand, but of course NO TESTS were done to confirm that opinion.

And it was an OPINION of one of the engineers. It wasn't a statement of fact.

NO one on the design team nor the engineers of the towers had ANY idea that anyone would SLAM a 500mph 757 (bigger plane than the 707) that were almost FULLY fueled into the buildings. That was the equival force of a 150 tons of TNT going off.


Thermite has already been found in the WTC dust.


This is a demonstratively false.


Bombs and "secondary devices" were discovered by FDNY firefighters, including the FDNY Public Safety Chief. EVERYONE heard massive secondary explosions.


This is an absolute fabricated lie. No explosive devices were discovered by the FDNY. Explosions were heard, but they were not created by explosives. there were several sources of the explosions heard on 9/11 and they weren't created by bombs.

Why do you continue to spread these lies?




[edit on 4-12-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by dereks
 

Aren't you the guy who questioned whether the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of multiple 707s?


767's are coniderably heavier and were travelling faster than a 707, and as KE=1/2MVsquared...


Thermite has already been found in the WTC dust.


No it has not actually, which peer reviewed journal is that claim in?


Bombs and "secondary devices" were discovered by FDNY firefighters, including the FDNY Public Safety Chief.


Yet there are no photographs of these claimed devices, and where did they state they were found?


EVERYONE heard massive secondary explosions.


So you expect a multi million tonne building to collapse silently... they heard what sounded like explosions, but you twist their words!


What the hell else is needed to convince you that 9/11 was in inside job?


How about some proof, or even physical evidence? that would be nice, but the truthers are unable to supply neither!

What would convince you it was not? Nothing, of course!!



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
No explosive devices were discovered by the FDNY. Explosions were heard, but they were not created by explosives. there were several sources of the explosions heard on 9/11 and they weren't created by bombs.

Why do you continue to spread these lies?

Fool, how many times do you need to be smacked down and made to look like a buffoon?


Now tell us again, who's the liar?


[edit on 4-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
767's are coniderably heavier and were travelling faster than a 707, and as KE=1/2MVsquared...

Another total lie.


To summarize the aircraft:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

More BS from someone who claims to have no morals.

It's the only thing you've said that I believe.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Now tell us again, who's the liar?


You are, as of course there were noises after the building was hit by the aircraft - funny how you also ignore all the other claims made during the breaking story that were later shown to be false...

Again, please show some physical evidence of these explosive devices that you claim were found - why do you refuse to do that? Also why do you refuse to explain the siesmographs not showing any sign explosives were used?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


Now tell us again, who's the liar?



[edit on 4-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]


haha. this video? this video is known as the one that the AUDIO of explosions WAS ADDED to it by the truther who made the video.

and "1" loud "explosion" sound. Where's the bomb?


sorry but where in that yOUTUBE video is a the evidence of bombs? I dont see it. Please point it out.


YOU do know what a CD sounds like? I hear "1" loud bang. Wheres the THOUSANDS of explosions that a CD would need in order to bring down towers of that size.

Wow, that's all you can bring? A video that had its audio altered?

And you SHOW yet again that TRUTHERS do not understand what the hell a SIMILE is.

"sounds like an explosion"

A lot of speculation was being done on that day. No one had any idea of what was going on. It wasn't until AFTER the attacks and the collapses and the investigation started when everyone had a CLEARER picture of what happened.


A lot of things in a 110 story office building can give off "explosion" like sounds:
1) generators (there were several generators in the buildings, one whole floor in each tower was hit by the impacting airplanes
2) Electrical transformers (when severed or heated up can explode. there were hundreds of transformers in the buildings)
3) underground garage had cars in them
4) cars that were on the street hit by flaming debris
5) people who jumped to their deaths from the towers (Naudet Bros film described these sounds as like they were explosions, but realized it was bodies hitting the ground).


You are putting way too much in the early news reports when nothing was known; news reporters had to rely on their own gut to try and describe a chaotic situation.


Have you spoken to ANY FDNY person since 9/11/2001? I have. And they do NOT buy into any claims of explosives in the towers. They wouldn't have sent 341 of their brothers into those buildings if they did.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
sorry but where in that yOUTUBE video is a the evidence of bombs? I dont see it. Please point it out.

2:49 in:


"Just moments ago, I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the NYC fire department, Chief Albert Turrey. He received word of a secondary device -- that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place and then an hour after the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. The second device, he thinks, he speculates was planted in the building..."

4:00 in:


"There's a bomb in the building -- start clearing out."

Any other questions?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by RipCurl
sorry but where in that yOUTUBE video is a the evidence of bombs? I dont see it. Please point it out.



Any other questions?


You claimed "Bombs and "secondary devices" were discovered by FDNY firefighters, including the FDNY Public Safety Chief."

So once again, show us the pictures of these bombs you claim were discovered - why are you refusing to?

Because it is just another truther lie!



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Of course another little fact the truthers ignore is that the seismographs that recorded the event show no sign of a explosion, so not only are the explosives invisible they also leave no physical evidence - care to explain that?


How can you say they left no physical evidence when you have plenty of witnesses who say otherwise?

I don't know what you're basing the claim on that the seismographs didn't shown signs of explosives, but the "collapses" initiated with energetic spikes registered as minor earthquakes and could be heard and felt in Brooklyn.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dereks
Of course another little fact the truthers ignore is that the seismographs that recorded the event show no sign of a explosion, so not only are the explosives invisible they also leave no physical evidence - care to explain that?


How can you say they left no physical evidence when you have plenty of witnesses who say otherwise?


What witnesses - where are photos of these explosive devices? Where are the witness statements saying they held one of these devices?


I don't know what you're basing the claim on that the seismographs didn't shown signs of explosives, but the "collapses" initiated with energetic spikes registered as minor earthquakes and could be heard and felt in Brooklyn.


The seismographs showed the planes hitting, they showed the buildings collapsing, they did not show any evidence of any explosives used



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
A lot of speculation was being done on that day. No one had any idea of what was going on. It wasn't until AFTER the attacks and the collapses and the investigation started when everyone had a CLEARER picture of what happened.


You mean the investigations that were stalled by the White House until late November for the earliest, and none of which investigated scenarios of controlled demolitions?



A lot of things in a 110 story office building can give off "explosion" like sounds:
1) generators (there were several generators in the buildings, one whole floor in each tower was hit by the impacting airplanes
2) Electrical transformers (when severed or heated up can explode. there were hundreds of transformers in the buildings)


Big generator explosions occur when they are overloaded electrically, not when you smash them up. The things generators are made out of are not explosive. And destroying a generator is only going to cause a short circuit, maybe an incompletely-shorted circuit that conducts enough current still to cause a fire and cracking and popping noises at best. I would be surprised if there weren't something to automatically shut power off in such a situation.


3) underground garage had cars in them
4) cars that were on the street hit by flaming debris
5) people who jumped to their deaths from the towers (Naudet Bros film described these sounds as like they were explosions, but realized it was bodies hitting the ground).


None of those things explained the damaged lobby and the blown up concrete and steel door above the parking garage level. Or ANY explosions in the lower floors of the buildings.



You are putting way too much in the early news reports


You are talking mostly about testimonies that reporters recorded straight from the witnesses themselves, right after it happened.


Have you spoken to ANY FDNY person since 9/11/2001? I have. And they do NOT buy into any claims of explosives in the towers. They wouldn't have sent 341 of their brothers into those buildings if they did.


I've seen video of them that believe there were. Firefighter John Shroeder:


Google Video Link




[edit on 4-12-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join