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.

 

Chief Hayden

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No it doesn't. You've looked at a video and seen and heard what you want to see and hear, no more no less.


You mean like the people look at the security video of the Pentagon and see 757? LOL,,LOL,,LOL,,LOL,,

NO i look at several sources includung the fire chiefs statements.




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Sorry, but I don't really care about the other people, whoever they are.

I think this discussion's at an end. Unless you're able to respond to any of what I've written.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think this discussion's at an end. Unless you're able to respond to any of what I've written.


Its only at and end because you cannot debate anything i posted or post anything to suport what you think happened.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
No. It's at an end because I've systematically proved that every one of your conclusions is flawed.

I'll repeat one final time a summary that you are unwilling and unable to refute:

All you have is a video of some men in hard hats. You don't know who they are, what they're saying, or when the video was taken. You have, as shown by your deafening silence on the matter, no evidence that the barrier in question is the fire chief's "safety zone".

As a result your thoughts regarding the fire chief and Silverstein's discussions are worthless.

Furthermore you've changed the subject every time I've asked you an unwelcome question. You continually avoid answering by retreating to a position that has been proved false previously. You are wasting people's time.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No. It's at an end because I've systematically proved that every one of your conclusions is flawed.


No you have not, just because you say you did does not mean you actually did.


All you have is a video of some men in hard hats. You don't know who they are, what they're saying, or when the video was taken. You have, as shown by your deafening silence on the matter, no evidence that the barrier in question is the fire chief's "safety zone".


Then as asked many times and you completly ignore, who are the workers, where is the location?

More importantly, why were demo teams called into the building 7 site?



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



More importantly, why were demo teams called into the building 7 site?


Wow, you just keep piling on, don't you? Who said they were demo teams?

I could just as easily say they were all carpenters or plumbers or electricians or masons or ironworkers or dockbuilders and then sit back and demand that you prove they are not.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wow, you just keep piling on, don't you? Who said they were demo teams?


So fun and easy to post facts to prove you wrong. Remember this site that i psoted and you quoted form on another thread?

www.jod911.com...

Please go to page 9, number 5. It states that demo teams were there.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Remember this site that i psoted and you quoted form on another thread?

www.jod911.com...

Please go to page 9, number 5. It states that demo teams were there.


You know, the link you provided also states as a fact that "pull it" is not a term used for bringing the building down with explosives....but with cables, where they actually "pull" the walls down.

Thanks for showing us all that "pull it" was then referring to pulling the firefighters out, and not demo'ing the building.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You know, the link you provided also states as a fact that "pull it" is not a term used for bringing the building down with explosives....but with cables, where they actually "pull" the walls down.


Nice way to dodge that fact that it proves demo teams were there. Also the fact that i never stated they uses explosives.

Oh and thanks for agreeing it does mean PULL THE WALLS DOWN.


Thanks for showing us all that "pull it" was then referring to pulling the firefighters out, and not demo'ing the building.


Well unless you have proof that chief Nigro and chief Hayden were lying i have to stick with it meaning the building.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Well unless you have proof that chief Nigro and chief Hayden were lying i have to stick with it meaning the building.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]


You've been shown this so many times. Nigro and Hayden's testimony in no way suggests a demolition. Indeed in an interview you posted with the latter he specifically rules out a demolition.

Furthermore, even if you prove demo teams were there - which I don't refute - you have no evidence to suggest that the hard hatted men in your video are them.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Well unless you have proof that chief Nigro and chief Hayden were lying i have to stick with it meaning the building.


You want proof?

Perhaps you should refer to your own link. Unless your mysterious demo crew was going to pull all the walls down with cables.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You've been shown this so many times. Nigro and Hayden's testimony in no way suggests a demolition.


I never stated it did, why are you so dishonest to put words in my mouth.

Lets look at the facts yet again.

1. Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner Silverstein.

2,. Chief Hayden supports Chief Nigro's statement.


Furthermore, even if you prove demo teams were there - which I don't refute -


Since you agree demo teams were there, maybe you can come up with a reason they were there.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Perhaps you should refer to your own link. Unless your mysterious demo crew was going to pull all the walls down with cables.


Still waiting on proof that the fire chiefs were lying.

If your next post does not show proof then you must concede to the truth of what i posted.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


No, I'm not going to repeat myself. You can find my answers to your questions all over the threads which, basically, you spend your time trolling.

As for the demo teams. My suggestion would be that they might have been there to provide expert advice on what could happen as the building fell down and the likelihood of it happening. If I saw a bulging, burning building and surmised it might collapse, then a demolitions expert would be pretty high on my list of people to call.

In any case, I haven't seen any proof that they were there. Just the usual assertion from you.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Still waiting on proof that the fire chiefs were lying.


Still waiting for you to admit that your own link shows that "pull it" was not referring to the building, but to the teams around the building.

Funny how you can post a link that proves your own statement wrong, then try and cover that fact up.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Still waiting on proof that the fire chiefs were lying.

If your next post does not show proof then you must concede to the truth of what i posted.


As has been shown to you several times, the fire chiefs don't have to be lying. Indeed if you think they are telling the truth about Silverstein and that there was a demolition sanctioned by them, then actually it's YOU who is contending that they're lying.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
As has been shown to you several times, the fire chiefs don't have to be lying.


So thanks for agreeing with me that the fire chiefs were right.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Still waiting for you to admit that your own link shows that "pull it" was not referring to the building, but to the teams around the building.


Oh and thanks for agreeing it does mean PULL THE WALLS DOWN.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Okay, I agree with you. The fire chiefs are, broadly speaking, telling the truth. I've never disagreed with this.

Now, why do you accuse them of lying about the demolition? And why do you trust them on the issue of the call and not on the issue of the demo?

Please, for the love of god, try to answer this question directly.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Now, why do you accuse them of lying about the demolition? And why do you trust them on the issue of the call and not on the issue of the demo?


Since when did i accuse them of lying about the demolition?


Please, for the love of god, try to answer this question directly.


If you would read my posts you would know i have answered this question and every question.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join