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.

 

NYC CAN Releases TV Spot

page: 5
67
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by IsALL
I have evidence that YOU, and NOBODY knows exactly what happened inside any of the WTCs. I know that all you have are theories. You can deny that and you will fail.


And what evidence is that?


LOL you are funny.

No one knows what happened inside the buildings, and you ask for evidence of this? The evidence is that no one survived the collapses to tell anyone what happened. The people who did see what happened before the collapse, such as the janitors Rodriguez, Sanchez, Johannemann, and firefighters who describe explosives going off in sequence, get ignored by OSers.

www.bushstole04.com...

www.prisonplanet.com...

www.911lies.org...

william911.com...


No, you still have to prove a negative, he asserted it as a fact, he also asserted that he has evidence, I don't dispute the fact nobody knows what happened, I dispute the fact that it can be proven with evidence (rather than logically inferred).

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Jerry_Teps]




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


LOL why?

What is the point of this argument?

And why have I let myself get dragged into it?


Another 'OSer' that just wants to argue pointless drivel.

I thought after IsAll ripped you apart you'd wise up a little, but I guess not...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No one knows what happened inside the buildings, and you ask for evidence of this? The evidence is that no one survived the collapses to tell anyone what happened. The people who did see what happened before the collapse, such as the janitors Rodriguez, Sanchez, Johannemann, and firefighters who describe explosives going off in sequence, get ignored by OSers.


Inb typical fashion, the conspiracy theorists are attempting to defend a lie with another lie. it has been posted here more times than I remember that there's no denial there were explosions. Eyewitnesses heard explosions. Firefighters heard explosions. Reporters heard explosions. *We* heard explosions during the news coverage. Where the CT are being disingenuous is their insistance these were actually explosives rather than the myriad flammable items in the building (I.E. electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc) that would naturally explode when they catch on fire. If even *one* of these explosions were from a flammable object, then it stands to reason that *all* the explosions were from flammable objects.

Also, when the towers collapsed, all the structural steel lay on the ground for work crews to clear out, and enough photos of ground zero have been taken to show that NO signs of sabotage has ever been shown- the steel eihter snapped like twigs or were torn like paper. Moreover, the cleanup crews were experienced steel workers who could recognize signs of sabotage, and everyone knows they found nothing.

Let's face it- this whole "witnesses heard explosions" is nothing but innuendo dropping on the part of the conspiracy theorists to mask their desperation in not having even a microbe of any actual tangible evidence of conspiracy. Between all the other innuendo dropping they employ, from "Bush's grandfather had links to Hitler" to "Condi Rice had an oil tanker named after her", we can see there's an active disinformation campaign going on, all right, but it's NOT coming from the gov't...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Where the CT are being disingenuous is their insistance these were actually explosives rather than the myriad flammable items in the building (I.E. electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc) that would naturally explode when they catch on fire. If even *one* of these explosions were from a flammable object, then it stands to reason that *all* the explosions were from flammable objects.


Every time you post your rhetoric about this phenomenon i post the truth. The truth is the NYPD was investigating a possible bombing that morning. I watched it live and its recorded in the archives.

As far as I know, no word has ever been given about the findings of the investigation. If you would like to supply any information about the findings I would love to review it for myself.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Oh yes professional firefighters don't know the difference between explosives and common office stuff 'exploding'.


I've heard you many time accuse 'truthers' of calling fire fighters liars. You are now doing the same. You love to quote fire fighters who said 'that building is going to collapse', yet ignore and make excuses for the ones who heard explosives going off in sequence.

Anyway I'm not going to get dragged into useless arguments. My real point was OSers focusing on irrelevant points just to argue with 'truthers', I'm not interested in your lame excuses for explosives heard and the obvious outcome of said explosives.

NO ONE knows what went on inside the buildings and the dude wanted evidence of that fact? Where is the evidence anyone could have known? The NIST report is simply a hypothesis, and a weak one at that. No one could know that floor trusses failed and pulled in the outer columns. Try putting that to practice in a lab and it simply wouldn't happen. Sagging trusses do not have the rigidity to pull larger non-sagging columns anywhere.

How do you explain the outer walls of WTC7 being ON TOP of the debris pile? Explosive or not, heard or not, that cannot happen from a natural collapse as I explained. So until you can explain how that can happen the rest of your 'explanations' and excuses are rendered moot.

WTC 7 didn't just LOOK like a controlled demolition it ACTED like one to perfection.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 8/30/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


LOL why?

What is the point of this argument?

And why have I let myself get dragged into it?


Another 'OSer' that just wants to argue pointless drivel.

I thought after IsAll ripped you apart you'd wise up a little, but I guess not...


Umm, lol? Aparently, neither you, nor he appear to understand the concept of the burden of proof. Why do you think he ran off?

Truthers are funny.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
NO ONE knows what went on inside the buildings and the dude wanted evidence of that fact?


Of course I wanted evidence, he claimed he had evidence proving it, so I wanted to see it. Don't you understand the burden of proof? (judging by your earlier posts, i'd guess not)

I thought after GoodOlDave ripped you apart you'd wise up a little, but I guess not...

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Jerry_Teps]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Jerry_Teps]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Speaking of everyday items blowing up....

Has anyone ever watched the 'Mythbusters' episode where they blew up a hot water heater?


Nothing but water there to 'explode'.





[edit on 31-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I thought after GoodOlDave ripped you apart you'd wise up a little, but I guess not...


Huh? Are you kidding me?

When did that happen?



I have all the confidence in the world that anything dear Dave can throw my way won't even make me sweat. If I missed something, which is quit possible as I don't live on this forum like Dave, and now you it seems all of a sudden, then please point me to it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I thought after GoodOlDave ripped you apart you'd wise up a little, but I guess not...


Huh? Are you kidding me?

When did that happen?



I have all the confidence in the world that anything dear Dave can throw my way won't even make me sweat. If I missed something, which is quit possible as I don't live on this forum like Dave, and now you it seems all of a sudden, then please point me to it.


I like the hypocrisy and how you completely avoid the majority of my post.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Oh pah leeeze!

Give your bulldinkery a rest pal!

Oh and I find it very interesting that your buddy john does not allow comments on his youtube channel regarding that video...in other words, he does not allow any rebuttals to that slo-mo video he has up there!



Oh and try going to page one of my post of the lying of NIST!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 28-8-2010 by KIZZZY]


My my, I wasnt expecting such an immature response like this.

Here is another video of the FULL collapse:



So how does my first video differ from this second video? I dont see how this one was slowed down, and I dont see how the first one was either. 13+ seconds.

So is NY CAN going to release the FULL collapse, or are they going to show you the last couple seconds of the collapse? If so, then they are being purposely dishonest, and therefore, LYING about it.

By the way, I dont know who john is, nor have I met him or talked to him on yt. But I can surmise why he does not allow responses, and it probably has to do with childish responses like yours.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

I know 300+ Family members and survivors who disagree with KNOWITALL.

And unlike KNOWITALL, they place their names and faces on their claims.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Yet you won't put your name up alongside any of the "stuff" you pump out here.

Credibility much?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Why don't you explain to us all here what difference the collapse time makes?

While you're thinking about it let me explain why it doesn't matter...
The outer walls CAN NOT end up ON TOP of the rest of the building from a natural uncontrolled collapse (all 4 were on top of the WTC 7 debris, see my post on page one of this thread), regardless of how long it took.

That video does nothing but show a classic controlled implosion, again no matter how long it took. The timing is completely meaningless. How long is a controlled demolition supposed to take? Can you tell me?

Your point does nothing but argue the 'free-fall' times claimed by some people, and I believe verified by NIST, when in reality it doesn't even matter.


[edit on 8/28/2010 by ANOK]


Well lets see, all of you are claiming that it took about 3-7 seconds to collapse, but VIDEO evidence that has not been shortened down, or clipped or edited, shows collapse is actually longer than that, about 13 seconds. Now a second thing, show me a video or eyewitness accounts that have the sounds of the demolition charges going off prior to collapse. Someone in Lower Manhattan would have definitely heard the sounds of demo charges going PRIOR TO any movement of the building. I would like for you post the accounts where firefighters, people, anyone within a mile of ground zero heard the sound of "boom boom boom boom boom boom" PRIOR to the collapse of WTC7. To get you started, here is a video taken of the collapse less than a mile away:



Can you point out the sounds of the explosions that sound like this?


Or something like this from a distance?


You do know that demo charges make a loud bang, and downtown buildings make a great echo canyon. Ever been to a fireworks display in Downtown Chicago?

So please point out to us all the accounts from firefighters hearing a series of detonations inside WTC7 prior to any movement of the building. Notice, I said series, not random booms heard throughout the day. Also, the booms heard BEFORE the building collapses, not DURING the collapse.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mark-in-dallas
 



Another great point! If there was bulging and tilting, that again shows there were areas of lesser resistance. Why didn't the building fall in the path of of least resistance?


Mark you came so close, but you missed it totally.

Did you notice which way the WTC7 tilting during the collapse? It was tilting in the direction of the damage. Which means it fell through the path of least resistance, the interior being already collapsed and the exterior falling after the interior collapsed. That was the whole point, the interior failed and collapsed first, which also pulled down the penthouse, then the exterior collapsed.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Speaking of everyday items blowing up....

Has anyone ever watched the 'Mythbusters' episode where they blew up a hot water heater?


Nothing but water there to 'explode'.


I regret to say I didn't...though I did catch the Mythbusters' episode where they tried to launch a fire extinguisher like a rocket by putting it in a fire, but without a lot of tinkering, the extinguisher kept blowing up like a bomb. Now, seeing that we KNOW there were fires burning inside the towers, and that we KNOW the WTC had fire extinguishers all over the place, and we KNOW that eyewitnesses heard explosions, it can only prove one thing, namely:

The mythbusters crew are really sinister gov't secret agents deliberately spreading disinformation to trick us into thinking the explosions were overheated fire extinguishers rather than secret demolition charges. Of course.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Every time you post your rhetoric about this phenomenon i post the truth. The truth is the NYPD was investigating a possible bombing that morning. I watched it live and its recorded in the archives.

As far as I know, no word has ever been given about the findings of the investigation. If you would like to supply any information about the findings I would love to review it for myself.

Thanks.



There are only two possible answers to this.

a) the investigation turned up no signs of explosives so they closed it, and noone cared to follow up on it becuase there was nothign to follow up on

...OR...

b) the police found explosives but they're part of the secret conspiracy to blow up the towers to frame Al Qaida in a false flag operation, so they're actively helping to covering it up just like the NYFD, the NYPA, FEMA, NIST, NORAD, MIT, and even the Red Cross is doing.

Which do YOU think it is?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So this is Dave ripping me apart?

All that is is opinion, nothing more.

You can wave away what the NYFD said all you like with excuses, you have NO proof what they heard wasn't what they were describing.

And you know it's all irrelevant, you conveniently and completely ignore my post about WTC 7, and how it could not have been a natural collapse on the first page of this thread.

Take that into account and what the fire fighters said, along with all the other anomalies of that say, anyone with half a brain can see the OS is a lie.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
The water heater, just a steel tank with 42 gallons of water, a 120 volt heating element is set up by bypassing the thermostat and plugging the relief valve.

When it goes, the tank shoots over 300 feet into the air. You should watch the episode.

I was just making the point that the Towers were full of everyday items, items that during a fire can release large amounts of energy. Not necessarily water heaters, but compressed gas cylinders, piping blocked with sediment dropping due to the aircraft strike(creating the elements for a steam explosion) or simply carboys full of flammable cleaning agents.

Maybe making explosive sounds. Maybe causing fire-weakened structural members to fail.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Well lets see, all of you are claiming that it took about 3-7 seconds to collapse, but VIDEO evidence that has not been shortened down, or clipped or edited, shows collapse is actually longer than that, about 13 seconds.


How many more times do I have to say the collapse times are irelevant? I have made no claim to how fast the collapse was.


Now a second thing, show me a video or eyewitness accounts that have the sounds of the demolition charges going off prior to collapse. Someone in Lower Manhattan would have definitely heard the sounds of demo charges going PRIOR TO any movement of the building. I would like for you post the accounts where firefighters, people, anyone within a mile of ground zero heard the sound of "boom boom boom boom boom boom" PRIOR to the collapse of WTC7. To get you started, here is a video taken of the collapse less than a mile away:


Hearing 'explosives' is also irrelevant when the collapse of the building was impossible from a natural collapse.

Is that is the best you can come up with to try and refute physics?

How about trying to explain how the outer walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile? Explain how the penthouse conveniently collapsed first, when the so-called damage was on the side of the building? Fire is not going to cause a perfect collapse sequence needed to cause the building to fall into it's footprint with the outer wall on top of the debris pile. Please read my post on page one of this thread for more details and try to understand, and refute, the actual physics, not irrelevant stuff you assume is necessary like collapse times and explosive bangs.

Oh and yeah people DID hear explosives, you just make excuses for them. But obviously if it was an inside job they would make sure to cover the sound of explosives as much as they could.

Even controlled demo's sometimes fail, so how can you expect a natural collapse to turn out like a perfect example?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 9/1/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Hearing 'explosives' is also irrelevant when the collapse of the building was impossible from a natural collapse.

Is that is the best you can come up with to try and refute physics?




What??? Are you saying that this was a natural collapse from fire? You just made no sense there. How was the collapse of the building impossible from a natural collapse? What are you trying to say here cause I am not understanding it at all.


How about trying to explain how the outer walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile? Explain how the penthouse conveniently collapsed first, when the so-called damage was on the side of the building? Fire is not going to cause a perfect collapse sequence needed to cause the building to fall into it's footprint with the outer wall on top of the debris pile. Please read my post on page one of this thread for more details and try to understand, and refute, the actual physics, not irrelevant stuff you assume is necessary like collapse times and explosive bangs.


How did the outer walls end up on top? did you notice the direction the building was leaning towards during the collapse? It was leaning towards the side that was impacted by the collapses of the TT. The reason why it collapsed in this way maybe atributed to the way the WTC7 was designed. Are you remotely aware of the building design of the WTC7? Recall that huge open area at the base that extended upwards for a few floors? Remember the transfer trusses? What would happen if the interior collapsed first, then the exterior? Everyone keeps squaking about how it fell down into its footprint, it fell straight down, when it obviously did not, and ended up having the north side of the building draping the pile. So it didnt fall straight down now did it?

Did you read the NISt report? The events leading up to the collapse are all there, so why are you asking me something that already has been answered ad nauseum for the past two years? Is this all you have?

Oh and back to the part about explosions and "booms". ANOK, if you are going to try and use physics and more "complicated" parts in trying to uncover the "truth" about WTC7, isnt it a good idea first to see and check out the OBVIOUS parts that will help along the way? Thats the one problem I see with many truthers, is that they always try to bite off more than they can chew with technical details they have no idea about, when they cant even begin to understand the simpler parts first. So ANOK, will you be explaining why there are no recordings of the demo charges going off in the WTC7 prior too collapse, or why there are no accounts of hearing demo charges going off in the WTC7 prior to collapse, or why not a single person mentions hearing ANYTHING prior to the sound the the actual collapse? Or are you going to ignore these points and consider them irrelevant? Explosives make a sound ANOK. That is the first part when trying to understand explosive demolition. It makes a sound. A very LOUD sound. Hearing random booms and thuds throughout the day means squat when compared to real demolitions. So how did WTC7 manage to collapse silently?

Also why are you ignoring this firefighter who was there and seeing this with own eyes? Why is this guy being ignored by A&E? Where is his quote in the NY CAN "commercial"? Where is the full video of the collapse of WTC7, and why are we given the last 5 seconds?


So will you adress why this firefighter is saying what he is?

[edit on 9/1/2010 by GenRadek]




top topics



 
67
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join