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.

 

Upcoming 9/11 team debate on Coast to Coast on July 31, which I'm consulting on

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I would like to make a suggestion. Don't focus on the unprovable things that have been debated for 9 years and are basically in the same place they started. Talking about the towers collapsing will be nothing more than wasted time. Talking about "where is the plane" at the Pentagon will get you to the same destination as well. These things can't be won on either side because the information is incomplete. It only leads to speculation and theories which can't be proven.

I feel the first thing to do is to prove the cover up. That can be proven in using the 9/11 Commission Report itself. Once you have shown the obvious lies and the obvious discrepancies, then you will cast doubt on their minds. Then you must ask what was being covered up and why. Make them defend the Commission Report because it can't be done!

For example i will revisit a question I posed in another thread that no one would touch despite making the claim that all the questions have been answered.

Norman Mineta states he enters the PEOC bunker at 9:20am. He says the VP Cheney and his wife are already there when he arrives. There are some accounts that verify this by saying Rice and Cheney went to the bunker at 9:10am. A White House employee and Karl Rove both say this to be true. Rove says Bush tried to call Cheney at 9:16a and couldn't reach him because Cheney was being forced into the bunker by Secret Service agents. Other accounts say Cheney was nearly picked up off his feet and carried into the bunker around 9:30a, and Rice followed soon after. The 9/11 Commission states he arrived in the bunker around 9:58a. Mineta arrives at the White House around 9:15a and is briefed by Richard Clarke. He is told to go to the PEOC bunker to be with Cheney. Mineta has verified his statement by saying, "VP Cheney was absolutely there when I arrived." Mineta says Cheney and Lynn Cheney are both there when he gets there at 9:20a. The 9/11 Commission, however, states Cheney gets to the PEOC at 9:58a and Lynn Cheney doesn't arrived to the White House until around 9:52a.

This is significant because Flight 77 impacts The Pentagon at 9:37a. Mineta goes on to tell story about the guy who was advising Cheney about the plane being 30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out ..... do the orders still stand? According to the 9/11 Commission this conversation couldn't have taken place, because Cheney didn't get to the bunker until 21 minutes after the Pentagon impact.

Why doesn't Cheney remember where he was when the Pentagon gets hit? What are the "still stand" orders that the guy advising Cheney was asking about? Why was Norman Mineta's testimony not included in the Report? Isn't Mineta's testimony a little to specific to be irrelevant? Why did the 9/11 Commission take the position of "not to place blame" from the outset? Why did they deem who financed the attacks "of little significance"? Why did the Commission fail to answer 75% of the victim's families questions?

And when they realize they can't answer just those questions, ask them why that doesn't bother them. And if they do try to answer those questions remind them their whole basis is anti speculation.

There are so many more issues within the report, but that is my suggestion. Prove the cover up and then hint to the why.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 







Text


I am pretty sure that the plane that went down in Shanksville was headed for DC & not Bldg. 7.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
oops - was responding to this:


Here`s one for you.
Can you explain how the explosives got into building 7 in a couple of hours?
Or are you gonna tell me that was brought down by fire?
As for a plane hitting the Pentagon...........please...use common sense.
There is NO evidence at all that a plane hit the Pentagon.
As for the plane that was shot down.
That plane was intended for building 7.


I also remember seeing a special about 9/11 & the guys who were the original architects & engineers on the towers said they knew as soon as they saw the planes hit that the buildings were going to come down.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
Talking about the towers collapsing will be nothing more than wasted time. Talking about "where is the plane" at the Pentagon will get you to the same destination as well.

I feel the first thing to do is to prove the cover up. That can be proven in using the 9/11 Commission Report itself.




One would hope that Gage, after being touted here as some kind of expert on tall buildings and him making his own statements about they should have fallen, would show his chops and stick to the engineering.





Ain't gonna happen though. He and his merry band of charlatans will dodge and weave and change the subject when asked direct questions.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Well the OP ask for suggestions, so I thought maybe using the forum they have for something beneficial was a good suggestion. Showing the questions that have answers but remain unanswered. I have read numerous amounts of info on the collapses, but it pales in comparison to some of the posters here who have looked at every crumb of information 2 or 3 times, yet they are still debating it. The information is incomplete so that leads to speculation and it can't be proven. I know the debate is on the collapses, but throw them a curve ball. Make them admit what they are really standing up and defending.

They are defending people who were against and investigation, unfunded it after reluctantly having to agree with it, refused to provide relevant information, refused to let everyone on the Commission see what they did show, hand picked the participants, refuse to testify, then agreeing but only with tons of restrictions, omitting part of it, ... i mean the list goes on and on. This is what they are truly defending.

The debunkers work under the assumption that these theories are ludicrous. They'll say things like "the gov't is incompetent" or "too many people involved" or "someone would have talked" ... so talk about the hijackers and show them how they were protected and how they lived openly and were associating with people in gov't organizations. And show how it was covered up.

I just think these tower collapsing debates always end where they began, and draw attention away from the things that are provable. The information is all there and I feel it would be best to ask why some real questions were never asked or deemed "of little significance."



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni

I know the debate is on the collapses, but throw them a curve ball.




Yeah, well, this would be one possible way to catch them unprepared.

But is that really the point?

To catch your counterpart unprepared and change the subject?

If that's the best the tm can do with its star architect, then y'all should give up now.

Cuz if you think that there will be any new investigation as a result of debate tactics, rather than discussing facts, you're wrong.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GATruthseeker
reply to post by lambros56
 







Text


I am pretty sure that the plane that went down in Shanksville was headed for DC & not Bldg. 7.



It's a common misunderstanding I think, but f93's autopilot had been programed for one of the DC airports. If I remember correctly it was making a direct line towards DC also until the taking back of f93 by the passengers.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
And which authority was is it that tested for these explosives after the occurrence? Was it the FBI, the insurance carriers, the NYPD, the FDNY, the Port Authority Police Department, the New York State Police? Or...was it nobody? Kind of tough to find evidence when you deliberately fail to test for it and discard the evidence, don't you think?


I'm going by the authority of the hundreds of ground zero workers who were picking up all this steel that had been destroyed by explosives and not noticing they were destroyed by explosives. There have been many many MANY photos taken of the site and and the steel and NO images of steel destroyed by explosives are seen. All you have is that one photo of that beam cut by acetelyne torch that's being falsely identified as thermite damage. According to you, they also were milling around not noticing this blatantly suspicious destruction right next to them either.


Why would fake IDs even be needed for such an operation? All you need is everybody on side and on the same page. Two such guys were Port Authority Chariman Lewis Eisenberg and WTC Tenant Larry Silverstein.


...which blows the, "only a handful of people were in on it" excuse you truthers use out of the water. Unless you're saying Silverstein and Eisenberg snuck in and planted those explosives themselves, "everyone" includes a hell of a lot of people, including William Rodriguez. You forget that he had access to everywhere these supposed explosives would have had to be planted.

There really isn't anyone's reputation you people won't drag through the mud to fulful your agenda to foist these conspiracy theories on others, is there?


Sorry, I don't recall the first WTC bombing happening in 2003. In fact, I don't even recall the Towers being around in 2003.


Yes, I meant 1993, my mistake, but the point still stands. After the first WTC bombing, security was beefed up becuase they were expecting future sabotage attempts exactly like planting controlled demolitions. You're not talkign about a few sticks of dynamite in a satchel. You're talking about planting tons and tons of explosives out in the open where peopel could see them.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Make sure you get those boxes nice and straight!

Cant have Gage embarassed by sloppy looking boxes....



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Make sure you get those boxes nice and straight!

Cant have Gage embarrassed by sloppy looking boxes....


I hope the JREF guys ask Gage how the Red Cross was involved in the controlled demolition!!

During Gage's pathetic presentation he touts the remarkable (yet unbelievable) story of the McPadden guy that claims to have heard a countdown on a Red Cross radio...... A countdown on a Red Cross Radio....

I mean ... really Richard??

Gage is a walking contradiction.... listen to the debate he has with the explosives expert...can't remember his name. Anyway, Gage starts off talking about the super dooper sekrit gubmint thermite that has to be used so it doesn't seem like a CD... then a few minutes later talks about the explosives used.

Gage admitted to me personally that he lacks the knowledge to even comprehend the NIST report....yet he disagrees with it.

He's a dolt that milks money off of feeble minded, mentally unstable folk.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
One of many pictures showing steels that have not been cut with either of the two cutting devices used by clear up crews (thermal lance - Oxy-Acetylene torch), notice the complete lack of ripping and tearing depicted by Dave earlier in this thread.........



Planting explosives without creating attention to yourself, main key points were the centre columns and exterior steel cladding sheets, which were fixed via floor trusses and the respective truss seat fixings, which would account for roughly 50% of the necessary charges needed, these could have easily been planted using window cleaner cradles, over any given period of time by 1-2 men/woman.

There we go, that`s half the charges done and dusted by an absolute minimum of man power and none attention causing scenario.

One aspect I would like to see hit the table at this debate is..... Why did huge sheets of the exterior steels show clear signs of straight cuts mid collapses, when they were constructed using a half bond staggered alignment design?, if, as has been the case before, the answer to this is..`Because they are parts that formed around the workshop areas`, then let`s see the construction blue prints showing that steels around these areas were straight and had no ratchet hole access`s thus not being bolted to the steels directly below and above them, which is clearly the case as these steels are exposed in many pictures without these square holes.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Planting explosives without creating attention to yourself, main key points were the centre columns and exterior steel cladding sheets, which were fixed via floor trusses and the respective truss seat fixings, which would account for roughly 50% of the necessary charges needed, these could have easily been planted using window cleaner cradles, over any given period of time by 1-2 men/woman.


Wait.... what?

Are you ... really, I am choking on my water. Are you being sincere? You think there was a black op group of window washers planting explosives on all 3 towers?

Did you actually think this through? Do you need to have all the errors in this pointed out to you??

[edit on 1-7-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

One aspect I would like to see hit the table at this debate is..... Why did huge sheets of the exterior steels show clear signs of straight cuts mid collapses, when they were constructed using a half bond staggered alignment design?, if, as has been the case before, the answer to this is..`Because they are parts that formed around the workshop areas`, then let`s see the construction blue prints showing that steels around these areas were straight and had no ratchet hole access`s thus not being bolted to the steels directly below and above them, which is clearly the case as these steels are exposed in many pictures without these square holes.



What am awesome display of proper punctuation and grammar.

And the point is so clear and concise.

Yes. Yes. Let's have Gage and his merry band of charlatans ask about this. Of course for maximum effect, it should be asked PRECISELY as it is typed out above.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma



Wait.... what?

Are you ... really, I am choking on my water. Are you being sincere? You think there was a black op group of window washers planting explosives on all 3 towers?

Did you actually think this through? Do you need to have all the errors in this pointed out to you??


Oh me bad, and there was me thinking that none window cleaners can use window cradles.

But please, point out all the errors now we have established that none window cleaners can use the cradles
.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Seventh

One aspect I would like to see hit the table at this debate is..... Why did huge sheets of the exterior steels show clear signs of straight cuts mid collapses, when they were constructed using a half bond staggered alignment design?, if, as has been the case before, the answer to this is..`Because they are parts that formed around the workshop areas`, then let`s see the construction blue prints showing that steels around these areas were straight and had no ratchet hole access`s thus not being bolted to the steels directly below and above them, which is clearly the case as these steels are exposed in many pictures without these square holes.



What am awesome display of proper punctuation and grammar.

And the point is so clear and concise.

Yes. Yes. Let's have Gage and his merry band of charlatans ask about this. Of course for maximum effect, it should be asked PRECISELY as it is typed out above.


My apologies for my poor grammar, here i`ll make it simple for you.......

Exterior steel showing straight cuts and no ratchet access holes (okay here or more pictures needed?).



Well, i`ll throw in another picture showing the design when it starts none bonded, as you can see there are ratchet access holes clearly visible, understanding okay?.




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
One of many pictures showing steels that have not been cut with either of the two cutting devices used by clear up crews (thermal lance - Oxy-Acetylene torch), notice the complete lack of ripping and tearing depicted by Dave earlier in this thread.........


The only thing I see is your selective interpretation of the photos. The first photo is of a break at the flush ends of the beams where they were originally riveted together and the rivets had snapped. You can specifically see the tiny dots near the end of the beam where the rivets were. The second photo is after they had already cut them up in truck sized lengths and piled them up for loading. Look how short the lengths are, and they're both exactly the same length. Whatever made these cuts, it made them after the collapse.

You get an "A" for effort, though.


Planting explosives without creating attention to yourself, main key points were the centre columns and exterior steel cladding sheets, which were fixed via floor trusses and the respective truss seat fixings, which would account for roughly 50% of the necessary charges needed, these could have easily been planted using window cleaner cradles, over any given period of time by 1-2 men/woman.


Gigantic problem with your fanciful interpretation- the steel beams were *behind* the steel plates, inside the building, so these imagined explosives would need to be planted inside, where the tenent areas were. It is therefore your responsibility to show that your imagined 1-2 member team had spent the better part of the year poking around the area where the trusses joined with the beams. You have 10,000+ eyewitnesses to call upon.

You really are grasping at straws here, you know.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Exterior steel showing straight cuts and no ratchet access holes (okay here or more pictures needed?)


You wanna know why you don't see any ratchet holes on the ones you've outlined?

Cuz you're looking at the exterior side on the exterior column. The ratchet holes are on the interior side of the exterior columns. You can tell the interior from the exterior very easily. The interior side will also have the spandrel plates.


Well, i`ll throw in another picture showing the design when it starts none bonded, as you can see there are ratchet access holes clearly visible, understanding okay?.


And here, you've got it right. That's the interior side.

Why do you think that THESE ext columns are bolted at a single level.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

The second photo is after they had already cut them up in truck sized lengths and piled them up for loading. Look how short the lengths are, and they're both exactly the same length. Whatever made these cuts, it made them after the collapse.

You get an "A" for effort, though.



And an "F" for attention to detail.

In the second photo, one of the tanks can be seen sitting on top of the column.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
There's no debates... it's just criminals continuing their efforts to cover up their crimes



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
To follow up on one of my previous posts... here is the debate where Gage makes a complete idiot of himself.....

This is FANTASTIC.... Truthers... this is the best you got??





top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join