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: 24
118
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Nope. The question was about bomb parts left behind from an attack. There are parts that aren't destroyed, and the investigators can use them to track down who set it off.


Yeah so who looked for them again? That's what I'm asking.

I know it wasn't NIST or FEMA. Who was it?




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Swampfox had said that explosions leave behind evidence. You said prove it. I said that there is evidence left behind; that's what the FBI, etc, use to find out who a bomber might have been.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


And I said yeah, that's what they do to identify common types of explosives. Are you going to prove common types of explosives were used, or MUST have been used? Or are you just simply going to assert it, like you assert all kinds of ridiculous BS, and not back it up with anything?


I THEN asked you to SHOW ME WHERE ANYONE HAS EVER ANALYZED THE WTC DEBRIS FOR BOMB RESIDUE.

That would be kind of important if you were LOOKING for them.

NIST said they didn't do it. FEMA didn't. Then WHO DID?

Thank you.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I said yeah, that's what they do to identify common types of explosives. Are you going to prove common types of explosives were used, or MUST have been used? Or are you just simply going to assert it, like you assert all kinds of ridiculous BS, and not back it up with anything?


Yeah, I'm right. You do have a reading problem.

I really don't give a flying f**k about 9/11 truthers or whatever got their panties in a bunch. All I said (if you actually took the time to read the post) was that investigators can find out all sorts of info from the remains of the devices after an explosion. Your post seemed to question this.

Did they do this during 9/11? Probably. Makes sense. Do I have some spectacular internet source to prove this? Nope, and I don't care.

Now, any more screaming hissy fits you want tho throw?







posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
If something like that happened this minute, of course I'd fight. Just like everyone else. Except maybe you.


Yeah, everyone except me. What a big, tough, macho man you are. I notice it really gets your rocks off talking like a big man, huh? Is that why you signed up for the military? To show everybody what a callous, "brave" man you are?


But guess what, genius. That wasn't the case in Iraq. How long was Saddam breaking one UN resolution after another? How many chances was he given to make nice with everyone? How many times was the "no fly zone" breached??


Guess what? The UN didn't go to war with Iraq!

You going to reformulate that excuse or just fly with it?

Is the US the sole enforcer of UN policy now? Is that how that works? When not even the UN is trying to go to war with Saddam.


If breaching international contract justified war, then that's the UN's call since it was their resolutions and laws. We went to the UN, remember? We tried to sell them all that BS. They didn't buy it. We said they were making MORE weapons of mass destruction, NEW ones. They weren't. You don't remember any of that?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
All I said (if you actually took the time to read the post) was that investigators can find out all sorts of info from the remains of the devices after an explosion.


What difference does it make when they don't even look, genius?



Did they do this during 9/11? Probably. Makes sense. Do I have some spectacular internet source to prove this? Nope, and I don't care.


Well now that you've said your piece, and rested it upon an unsupported "probably," you can go now.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, everyone except me. What a big, tough, macho man you are. I notice it really gets your rocks off talking like a big man, huh? Is that why you signed up for the military? To show everybody what a callous, "brave" man you are?


Well, you seem to be the one with the complex, not me. What happened, get turned down when you tried to enlist? That's OK, Wee Man. It's not a life for everyone. The world needs ditch diggers.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Guess what? The UN didn't go to war with Iraq!

You going to reformulate that excuse or just fly with it?

Is the US the sole enforcer of UN policy now? Is that how that works? When not even the UN is trying to go to war with Saddam.


Hmmm....don't see the UN putting sanctions on the US for being in Iraq.

And is the US the enforcer of UN policy? Well, it sure seems like it now, doesn't it? Anytime something happens, the UN seems to want the US military involved in some level. Getting pretty old, if you ask me.

Secretly, I think the UN is glad Saddam is dead. I know I am.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If breaching international contract justified war, then that's the UN's call since it was their resolutions and laws. We went to the UN, remember? We tried to sell them all that BS. They didn't buy it. We said they were making MORE weapons of mass destruction, NEW ones. They weren't. You don't remember any of that?


Nah, I was too busy fighting.


Like I said, if the UN was so "upset" over this, they really don't seem to be getting off their asses to do something about it, are they?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What difference does it make when they don't even look, genius?


Nevermind. You obvious have problems reading and understanding. Genius.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Well now that you've said your piece, and rested it upon an unsupported "probably," you can go now.


Well, I don't know. I kinda like it here.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by jerico65]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Well, you seem to be the one with the complex, not me. What happened, get turned down when you tried to enlist? That's OK, Wee Man. It's not a life for everyone. The world needs ditch diggers.


Haha, don't you guys dig ditches, too? I was always told the military was for drop-outs anyway. I went to college.


Hmmm....don't see the UN putting sanctions on the US for being in Iraq


That doesn't change the fact that the war in Iraq isn't an enforcement of UN policy, because the UN isn't enforcing anything.


And is the US the enforcer of UN policy? Well, it sure seems like it now, doesn't it? Anytime something happens, the UN seems to want the US military involved in some level. Getting pretty old, if you ask me.


Not old enough, considering the US is going out of its war to start wars even when the UN doesn't want them, and here you are fighting them. Yeah, I can tell it's really getting on your nerves.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Nevermind. You obvious have problems reading and understanding. Genius.


Yeah, you said the FBI studies bomb residues. Okay. I hear that loud and clear. So what?


I guess you were just making a totally irrelevant statement then, right? Did you forget what we were talking about?

No one looked for explosives residue at the WTC.




Originally posted by bsbray11
Well now that you've said your piece, and rested it upon an unsupported "probably," you can go now.


Well, I don't know. I kinda like it here.


It's fine with me if you waste all the thread space in the world, I just thought since you weren't going to offer any evidence, just a "probably," that your "work" here was pretty much done anyway.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Like the old saying says only the winners write history so really who knows what they found if anything??



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Haha, don't you guys dig ditches, too? I was always told the military was for drop-outs anyway. I went to college.


Actually, those are called "fighting positions".


I went to college, too.


Originally posted by bsbray11
That doesn't change the fact that the war in Iraq isn't an enforcement of UN policy, because the UN isn't enforcing anything.


I know. How many resolutions did Saddam break? The UN doesn't enforce anything. I don't think they could enforce parking policy at their own building.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Not old enough, considering the US is going out of its war to start wars even when the UN doesn't want them, and here you are fighting them. Yeah, I can tell it's really getting on your nerves.


If the UN actually did something constructive in this world, maybe there won't be any wars. All they do is talk and look for ways of skimming off money from their own programs.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one looked for explosives residue at the WTC.


Really? Prove it. I mean, dig up some cool websites that show this. I'd be interested to read that.


Originally posted by bsbray11
It's fine with me if you waste all the thread space in the world, I just thought since you weren't going to offer any evidence, just a "probably," that your "work" here was pretty much done anyway.


Shucks, I'm sorry. I didn't know before posting in the 9/11 forum that you needed some moonbat, tinfoil hat wearing website full of "facts" to join this party.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
I know. How many resolutions did Saddam break?


Iraq wouldn't be alone. The US has broken resolutions and so has Israel, to start off that list.


The UN doesn't enforce anything. I don't think they could enforce parking policy at their own building.


What do you remember about the first Gulf War? Something about -- it only lasted 6 weeks, and many different nations combined, an effort that actually WAS united?

Any difference from that and this recent US-led war? No, I don't think you would be able to see any differences.


If the UN actually did something constructive in this world, maybe there won't be any wars.


The US invaded Iraq, not the UN.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Really? Prove it. I mean, dig up some cool websites that show this. I'd be interested to read that.


Do you know what "proving a negative" is?


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


wtc.nist.gov...

There's a starter, that proves NIST didn't look. NIST is relevant because they were assigned the job to investigate why the buildings collapsed.

There is no one, no sources, nothing I can show you, that says "we tested for residues, and here's what we found." Not because I haven't seen such material in 8 years, because, believe me, if it were done, someone would have shown it to us "truthers" by now. But because it simply was not done.

Think about how much debris you are talking about in the first place. Only a small fraction of it was held for ANY investigations.


Shucks, I'm sorry. I didn't know before posting in the 9/11 forum that you needed some moonbat, tinfoil hat wearing website full of "facts" to join this party.


It figures you would insult me for asking you to post proof, even while you are doing the same thing. Another example of you being a complete hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Hey, where's Swampy? Still out "fixing F-16s?" Someone should tell him that he forgot to respond to my posts about who sold Saddam his "weapons of mass destruction."

A good professional debunker always responds to all posts, no matter what ridiculous explanation is required.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Hey, where's Swampy? Still out "fixing F-16s?" Someone should tell him that he forgot to respond to my posts about who sold Saddam his "weapons of mass destruction."

A good professional debunker always responds to all posts, no matter what ridiculous explanation is required.


Thats a classic response i like it Fleece



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



No. The crap is clearly coming from you. There is a reason that these supposed weapons were never actually considered a threat to anyone.

Tell me something, do you know how old these weapons were?

Do you know how effective they actually were?

Basically you are saying he did have WMDs even though they would not do mass destruction and could barely be used as a weapon. Desperate much?


Latest Update: Pentagon official further confirms munitions can "not be fired as designed." Earlier update: Pentagon says Iraq's 'WMDS' are too old to use.


But hey, who is the Pentagon to decide if these weapons are still weapons. Some people on a UFO forum say there were still weapons so that makes it ok that my friends died in the desert.


The links were bad, i need to find the correct ones, unless someone can just prove me wrong in the meantime. I would accept that.

and...

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.



The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.




you are the one peddling crap once again


Looks to me that Lillydale just proved you wrong.
Thank you Lillydale,
perhaps now dereks you might want to apologies to me. Or, are you man enough?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



I should have known, you think the entire US military was in on it...........


That is a not true, I never said that.
Where did I ever say the entire military?

I have never, ever, said the entire US military was involved and you know that. Swampfox46_1999, are you so desperate to discredit me that now you have resorted to telling lies? I have always said a handful of experts, in the military.

Why don’t you show the post that I have accused the “entire military ” of pulling of 911 and if you can’t then I demand an apology and if you don’t, then don bother posting to me ever again… You went too far this time.




I will gladly bow out of this thread with my head down now that I know that Saddam was going to blow up America with muster gas.

Umm, no, but then we werent going to take the chance that Saddam might start selling his WMDs to terrorists after 9/11 either.


Yeah old muster gas as WMD.



Latest Update: Pentagon official further confirms munitions can "not be fired as designed." Earlier update: Pentagon says Iraq's 'WMDS' are too old to use.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





I went to college.


And I have graduated Cum Laude with a degree in Business. What is your point? Trying to be superior? I hate to burst your bubble, but there tend to be far more college graduates (enlisted and officer) than in most organizations.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join