Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Third Tower

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Fact, I never accused deputy NYFD chief Hayden of being secret “disinformation agents.”


Fact, you are LYING. Some three or four posts earlier you specifically said that NYFD deputy chief Haden is spewing (in your own words) "OS, hogwash claims". Please explain to me how someone is spewing (in your own words) "OS, hogwash claims" and not be involved to this Rube Goldberg conspiracy coverup you're trying to spin. Have they been zapped by secret gov't mind control rays? Have their bodies been replaced by doubles grown in some secret gov't lab somewhere? Please, tell me how you explain that away.

You're painted yourself into a corner with all this nonstop slander from promoting your conspiracy stories and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. You know that and so do I.


Fact, Because NYFD chief Hayden or Berry Jennings story contradict with one another.
This is not about ”my conspiracy story.”


You must think I just fell off the turnip truck. I read both Hayden's and Jennings testimonies and not only do they not contradict each other, they don't even intersect each other. Jennings was describing the damage done to the building immediately after the north tower fell, when Hayden was still down at the towers, while Hayden was describing the damage to the building shortly before WTC 7 fell, long after Jennings had already left.

So yes, it is *your* conspiracy story. It certainly isn't *my* conspiracy story.


It’s really interesting that you will not ask me what part of the story that is contradicting?


I didn't ask becuase like I told you already, I know your own conspiracy stories better than you do. You're referring to Jennings saying he saw the north tower still standing after the explosion he encountered, and in turn, you conspiracy people are trying to pervert this into making it appear like there was a massive explosion in and around WTC 7 before the collapse, which noone else in the entire borough of Manhattan seems to remember (even the guy he was trapped in the WTC 7 with) despite every flipping camera in the city filming the whole WTC complex nonstop and armies of emergency personnel all over the place. I do believe he saw WTC 1 when he looked out the window but that's not when he could have seen it. That's not his failing, it's the failing of those damned fool 9/11 conspriacy web sites milking his testimony for their own financial gain- you know as well as I do this whole bit is coming from that con artist Dylan Avery.

Did I miss anything?


Interesting spin Dave, however, if it turns out that NYFD chief Hayden and not Berry Jennings is lying, then yes it would be fare to say he was helping the perpetrators by helping to bury the truth by lying, wouldn’t you agree?


Typical paranoid conspiracy theorist logic. Why does it have to be the case that *either* of them have to be lying? This abject paranoia that people are sneaking around lying to cover up some sinister secret plot is coming entirely from you, not them or anyone else.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that you're just seeing everything through conspiracy colored glasses?




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

We live in a capital society what is wrong in websites making money, it is very expensive to run and operated and update some of these sites. Do you have a problem with ATS making money? You use ATS do you think the owners do all this work for free? They have every right to make money. Just because a website is making money it doesn’t mean the information on that particular website is all lies, as you like to put it Dave.


Good grief, it's like arguing with a religious zealot. There's a huge flipping difference between tryign to cover expenses and tryign to milk the movement for all it's worth. Not too long ago someone thought they were being clever by posting a video of a 9/11 truth march in (I believe) San Francisco. I took a look at this video, and what do I see? A sea to shining sea of the "investigate 9/11" T-shirts (the one with the magnifying glass) being sold by Alex Jones at $14.95 a pop. Take a wild guess who organized the march. Go ahead, guess, your first guess will almost certainly be right.

FYI ATS isn't a conspiracy web site, per se. It's more of a conspiracy forum where anyone can log in and have their say. True conspiracy web sites (I.E. Dylan Avery and his Loose Change site) sponsor an in-house conspiracy and they ban anyone who doesn't toe their party line. I know becuase they banned two people posting, "no plane" theories in the two weeks before they banned me for posting flaws in that mockumentary. I like ATS becuase they know censorship is cowardace regardless of who's doing the censorship.

Besides, if this were a true conspiracy web site you'd have been banned too for your "no planes hit the Pentagon" statements.


I completely disagree, you were shown photos of airplane parts with no chain of evidence to who, what, where, when, how, all these photos were taken, all it proves they are photos.


That was the first photo I posted. I posted additional photos of Pentagon wreckage and told you who took the photos, as well as photos of the condition of the steel at ground zero as well as the photographer to took them, and you simply ignored them. This "chain of evidence" bit is entirely a game you play to find excuses for why you don't have to believe what the photos show.

I defy you to prove me wrong- photos of ground zero steel taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz shows there is NO evidence of any explosives sabotrage whatsoever. They're all either torn like paper, snapped like twige, or bent into ghastly shapes, and I will show you the photos again if you so desire. Now that you have a chain of custody of evidence, will you now accept that these absurd, "secret controlled demolitions" stories are disproven?

Didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Good grief, it's like arguing with a religious zealot. There's a huge flipping difference between tryign to cover expenses and tryign to milk the movement for all it's worth. Not too long ago someone thought they were being clever by posting a video of a 9/11 truth march in (I believe) San Francisco. I took a look at this video, and what do I see? A sea to shining sea of the "investigate 9/11" T-shirts (the one with the magnifying glass) being sold by Alex Jones at $14.95 a pop. Take a wild guess who organized the march. Go ahead, guess, your first guess will almost certainly be right.


So what Dave?? Everyone needs to live..
It's a fact that during his Campaign Obama received donations from millions of people including little kids donating their pocket money...Shame on Obama for taking the last dollar off a little kid.!!!!!

I think you should attack the facts and leave personalities out of it..

Like why did a flimsy plane body punch though 3 walls yet the two denser engines apparently bounced off??
Now that's an interesting question....
edit on 1-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You keep bringing up aspects that are pertinent to the Pentagon.

This isn't the thread for that...title here is "The Third Tower". In NYC.

THAT building was damaged severely by falling debris from taller Tower.

In any case, engines disintegrated, in NYC, and at Pentagon. Nothing "bounced off". Except, in chaos and energetic crash sequences, lighter materials DO become flung about in unpredictable directions.

Circumstances of airplane disintegration scenario differed, from the WTC Towers, at impact, to the Pentagon. Very different building designs, different results.

There are photos of engine portions in NYC, that traversed through the building, and fell to street below.

Engine components and debris in the Pentagon crash sequence were found inside the building.

There is no doubt of their validity. EXCEPT from crackpot (and patently FALSE) claims from the likes of Dylan Avery, et al....long ago shown to be horribly inaccurate (his "Loose Change" series of mock-umentaries), but the bad info still lingers on the Internet....it's the nature of the Web.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



In any case, engines disintegrated, in NYC, and at Pentagon. Nothing "bounced off". Except, in chaos and energetic crash sequences, lighter materials DO become flung about in unpredictable directions.


Yeah sure WW..The two engines which are more like two heavey missiles, dissintergrated and flung outwards while a flimsy body went through three solid walls...Sure mate..Even you would have to laugh at that idea..

And yes, you said the enginges flung outwards.....
You also said the walls were weak being that they were old..
Wrong, in fact the report said they actually contained the damage and similar construction should be used in future buildings..
You seem to twist everything and ignore the facts...

The fact is, even you would have to admit, with your 40 years of flying, that it is very strange that the engines did not punch through the walls even further than the flimsy body..
Physics tells me they should have..!!



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

So what Dave?? Everyone needs to live..
It's a fact that during his Campaign Obama received donations from millions of people including little kids donating their pocket money...Shame on Obama for taking the last dollar off a little kid.!!!!!

I think you should attack the facts and leave personalities out of it..


It is an established fact that characters like Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, etc are introducing falsehoods and innuendo which are being accepted as fact by the 9/11 truther movement, and I will give you as many examples of this as you'd like. When people come in here and make false claims such as "no interceptors were scrambled", "all the steel was immediately shipped overseas", and this very thread where people are attempting to claim the fires in WTC 7 were almost out, I know full well they're getting from those characters, and it only makes the 9/11 research movement appear like a bunch of naive ten year olds who'll believe any fool thing they read on the Internet. My discussing personalities and my reviewing the facts are therefore one and the same.

The point I made in another thread still stands for this one- if the truthers can't even get past the scrutiny of a nobody like me, how on Earth do you think you're going to survive against any investigation even if you do get one?


Like why did a flimsy plane body punch though 3 walls yet the two denser engines apparently bounced off??
Now that's an interesting question....


Would you mind terribly backing that statement up with something that shows it's even true? Photos of aircraft engine parts found inside the Pentagon have been posted ad nauseum here as it is so I won't post them again, and the tower impacts were witnessed by pretty much all of Manhattan (and shown on TV for the whole world to see) so I'm not goign to waste my time arguing that the entire plane entered the structures upon impact.

What's your point with this question, may I ask?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



It is an established fact that characters like Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, etc are introducing falsehoods and innuendo which are being accepted as fact by the 9/11 truther movement, and I will give you as many examples of this as you'd like. When people come in here and make false claims such as "no interceptors were scrambled", "all the steel was immediately shipped overseas",


Well Dave..They certainly had ample time to intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon but didn't..
I have also seen news from 9/12 that clearly shows and told us they we already clearing the site..

As for the engines on the Pentagon plane. Pieces were found inside and out..
Weedwacker tells us that they dissintegrated on impact and the peices were flung outward..

I would have expected them both to penetrate the building even more than the flimsy body of the plane..
Seems odd....



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well Dave..They certainly had ample time to intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon but didn't..


Oh, I absolutely agree there needs to be further investigations, particulary over that. This almost screams that there was some incompetent boob telling the pilots to fly around in circles while he was having a nervous breakdown, and I want to make sure that incompetent boob is out on the breadline and not in charge of our air defenses. None of this has anything to do with the fact that planes did in fact strike the Pentagon as well as the towers.



I have also seen news from 9/12 that clearly shows and told us they we already clearing the site..



??? so?


As for the engines on the Pentagon plane. Pieces were found inside and out..
Weedwacker tells us that they dissintegrated on impact and the peices were flung outward.

I would have expected them both to penetrate the building even more than the flimsy body of the plane..
Seems odd....


"Disintergrated" is not an accurate description. More like, "shattered"....but that's neither here nor there. I'm not an expert in the Pentagon architecture, materials engineering, or aerospace engineering and I'm certainly not an expert in crash site forensics. My viewpoint is that if you have to resort to researching what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge throughout the 9/11 attack to the point where you need to know how the exact physical distribution of the engine wreckage, then this isn't research- it's a mark of desperation for not wanting to admit these conspiracy claims might be wrong.

What does this have to do with WTC 7, anyway?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



"Disintergrated" is not an accurate description. More like, "shattered"....but that's neither here nor there. I'm not an expert in the Pentagon architecture, materials engineering, or aerospace engineering and I'm certainly not an expert in crash site forensics. My viewpoint is that if you have to resort to researching what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge throughout the 9/11 attack to the point where you need to know how the exact physical distribution of the engine wreckage, then this isn't research- it's a mark of desperation for not wanting to admit these conspiracy claims might be wrong.

What does this have to do with WTC 7, anyway?


You simply can't ignore the fact that the two engines, the two parts of the plane with the highest size/weight ratio, supposidly just shattered, while a flimsy boby punctured 3 walls...

BTW Dave, I'm pretty sure you know the T&C of this site..
I need to stay on the Forum Topic..That is 9/11..I'm completly on topic..



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You simply can't ignore the fact that the two engines, the two parts of the plane with the highest size/weight ratio,


Care to back that claim up - or its it just another lie that truthers make up.

i would say the undercarriage would fit much better, as jet engines have a lot of empty space in them....



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Care to back that claim up - or its it just another lie that truthers make up.

i would say the undercarriage would fit much better, as jet engines have a lot of empty space in them....


There's nothing to back up..I have only stated facts..

Undercarriage?? Your kidding right?? Compared to a 7' wide, 3500kg cylindrical shaped object ??
I wonder why they dont shape bullets like an undercarriage, maybe because a cylindrical shape is better??

And that isn't even assuming the fact that the engines may still have been running on impact, so more like a missile than a bullet even..

You really need to make up a better story Dereks, that sounds like preschool talk..



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

You simply can't ignore the fact that the two engines, the two parts of the plane with the highest size/weight ratio, supposidly just shattered, while a flimsy boby punctured 3 walls...


..and YOU can't ignore the fact that this whole bit is nothing but innuendo dropping on your part. If you want to gripe over perceived improprieties of this sort, be my guest, but there is more than enough concrete evidence showing that it was in fact flight 77 that hit the Pentagon so such discussions are largely academic. I don't know the precise moment by moment physical progression of the sinking of the Titanic, but it doesn't change the fact it was still sunk from hitting an iceberg.


BTW Dave, I'm pretty sure you know the T&C of this site..
I need to stay on the Forum Topic..That is 9/11..I'm completly on topic..


No, you need to stay on the THREAD topic. This is a thread about WTC 7. There are plenty of other threads discussing the Pentagon and you're at liberty to start your own. If you want to get a big red warning from the moderators on your avatar, be my guest, but I don't.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join