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.

 

Vast collection of 9/11 photos , Before,During and After

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by REMISNE
No but he was in his kennel.. Great security !!!


I think it was a bit of a shock to everybody when those terrorists flew the planes into the buildings.


Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

This is starting to get almost comical.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You agree with Remisne that it is suspicious that a dog is in its kennel?

Well, you've found your smoking gun. Do you want me to tell the papers or will you handle it yourself?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


No, I just think it's amusing that your response to his stating that fact was, "Well I'm sure people were pretty surprised by those planes!"



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You agree with Remisne that it is suspicious that a dog is in its kennel??


Its only suspicious if the dog was suspossed to be on patrol and not sitting in his kennel.

Still waiting on the numbers of dogs the weeks prior.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Okay, I'll explain for the kids in the second stream.

Remisne is suggesting it is suspicious that the dog was in the kennel because he should have been out on patrol. He is implying that the kenneling of the dog, and what he perceives as lax security, suggests prior knowledge. Given what was about to happen, he is struggling to get his head around the notion of a dog and its handler not being on full alert.

I can, if you like, explain why such a conclusion is so risible. Suffice to say I think that they didn't know that the aeroplanes were going to hit the building, and were therefore a bit surprised when they did. It is therefore not particularly amazing to discover that they were behaving in a routine and unprepared manner.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Its only suspicious if the dog was suspossed to be on patrol and not sitting in his kennel.



Okay, let me find that out for you.

Back in a minute.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
He is implying that the kenneling of the dog, and what he perceives as lax security, suggests prior knowledge.


Sorry but ther are lots of sources that the government did have prior knowledge.

Several foregn and domestic intell agencies warned that somethingw as going to happen involving hijackings.

Also let me give my background and experience if i may.

Federal police officer for 12 years, 9 years as lead officer in comm center.

So as you can see i happen to have a background in security and how things involving security should work.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I can, if you like, explain why such a conclusion is so risible. Suffice to say I think that they didn't know that the aeroplanes were going to hit the building, and were therefore a bit surprised when they did. It is therefore not particularly amazing to discover that they were behaving in a routine and unprepared manner.


What strikes me as amazing is how you can understand English grammar but not understand that the actual sentences you are forming make no sense. There is no logical correlation between airplanes hitting buildings in a terrorist attack and then security forces at the exact same location subsequently neglecting to follow security procedures, especially because they are "surprised" by the planes. When your life is on the line and you are taken by surprise, basic human instinct is to become more alert of your surroundings, not less, as if in a daze of sudden stupidity. What you are offering is a god-awful excuse and the fact that you try to further defend it only illustrates that you come here to argue (badly), and it has nothing to do with either logic, evidence or good reasoning.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You agree with Remisne that it is suspicious that a dog is in its kennel??


Its only suspicious if the dog was suspossed to be on patrol and not sitting in his kennel.

Still waiting on the numbers of dogs the weeks prior.



Listen, this is not real complicated. The Port Authority officer and his K-9 partner were in the basement office when the officer heard the crash, the officer went to investigate and secured the dog in the kennel while he was gone which is pretty standard behavior for K-9 patrols. When you can't attend the animal, you must secure him/her, in the patrol car or in a kennel when inside.

In this case the tower collapsed and the dog died.

Why were they in the basement in the middle of the morning? Who knows, there are plenty of legitimate answers - taking a break, doing paperwork, etc. Or, you may insert your favorite conspiracy here____________________.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Listen, this is not real complicated. In this case the tower collapsed and the dog died.


Still waiting on the numbers of dogs in the weeks prior.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Listen, this is not real complicated. In this case the tower collapsed and the dog died.


Still waiting on the numbers of dogs in the weeks prior.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by REMISNE]


Hey - if you are going to quote me, do it properly.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What amazes me is that you still don't understand what I'm getting at.

Sorry, but I really can't be bothered to explain something so incredibly simple to you. But just ask yourself this: do you genuinely believe that the fact that the dog was in its kennel constitutes a breach from normal security procedures, and that that is in itself suspicious?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Listen, this is not real complicated. In this case the tower collapsed and the dog died.


Still waiting on the numbers of dogs in the weeks prior.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by REMISNE]


Can't find anything that indicates the exact size of the team (dogs and officers).



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


So you don't understand how you could make an asinine excuse any clearer and just give up on trying to defend that, and instead try to pigeon-hole me into talking about something I never posted about to begin with, that you must think you'd have more luck defending. Tell you what, stick to what I post. I'm still laughing about what I originally responded to.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Only in the deluded world of the "Truth" Movement could the events of 9/11 not be seen as a bit of an excuse for things to run slightly differently than on a normal day. Only in the TM would you find people who fixate on such trivial minutiae as though they'd found Hitler's diaries. And only in the TM do you find people so adept at slithering out of answering direct questions.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I think you wandered off into the Twilight Zone. It's you that keeps trying to change the subject onto topics I never brought up, remember? And now this completely off-the-wall rant.

Someone made the remark, that bomb-sniffing dogs were kept in their kennels. Your response, was to suggest that this was because the planes had "surprised" them.


I'm just pointing out the genius reasoning that you're using here. This really is no different than any other example of you just pulling meaningless garbage, a total distortion of reality, out of nowhere and trying to pass it off as a legitimate rebuttal to someone else. I am just pointing out the bizarre fallacy of somehow coming to the conclusion that the bomb-sniffing dogs were kept in their kennels because the planes had "surprised" the security people. I didn't mention anything else. So since I'm the one trying to stick with my original point, that makes you the one squirming around, not able to take a direct line of responses.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You've misunderstood.

It happens. Move on.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Can't find anything that indicates the exact size of the team (dogs and officers).



I found this,

www.historycommons.org...
However, on September 6, bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed. Security further drops right before 9/11. WTC guard Daria Coard says in an interview later on the day of 9/11: “Today was the first day there was not the extra security.”



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


There's a ton of good photos there okmbd. Good find!

The Lets Roll forums just received a FOIA return from NIST for 9/11 pictures and videos. We received over 7000 photographs and video and as soon as they are uploaded onto our server will make them public. It is impossible to tell because of the sheer volume, but I spent 2 nights reviewing the photos and videos and many of them are new and probably never been seen before.

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


That's great. Definitely let us know when those images are available to everyone. Especially make sure I'm aware of it, please!

[edit on 29-4-2010 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join