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.

 

New Investigation

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Now, we move on to EXPLOSIVES.

Was there any ACTUAL evidence (meaning physical evidence) of an EXPLOSIVE? No.
Was there any CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of an EXPLOSIVE? Yes.


You are justifying not testing for explosives, by saying there was no "physical evidence" of explosives. You don't see the circular logic in that?

If you don't test for them, how else are you going to find physical evidence, especially already admitting there was circumstantial evidence? Are you looking for an intact piece of the case clearly labeled by the "terrorists" as "bomb," or what?


Ok, now, can we rule out the DOZENS of things that go BOOM in a fire? No, we cannot.


You keep saying this but actually you can. Start with coming up with the ones that could go off away from the fire, ie in the basements and on other floors below the fires. And not just right after the impacts, but at other times too, some nowhere near the fire. What would cause those to happen repeatedly?

When that narrows your list down, which it definitely will from the list of possibilities you posted earlier, then we can start making other comparisons to the testimony and see what matches and what doesn't.



So, why would we test for EXPLOSIVES when there is no PHYSICAL evidence of an EXPLOSIVE?


This belongs in someone's signature line. It's the most classic and blatantly circular logic I have seen in months/years. "We have circumstantial evidence, but no physical evidence, so we won't bother testing to see if there's any physical evidence."




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are justifying not testing for explosives, by saying there was no "physical evidence" of explosives. You don't see the circular logic in that?


Should we have tested for a nuclear device? Using your flawed logic, we should have.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If you don't test for them, how else are you going to find physical evidence, especially already admitting there was circumstantial evidence? Are you looking for an intact piece of the case clearly labeled by the "terrorists" as "bomb," or what?


I dunno, steel that showed signs of an explosive being used near them? Or, maybe the smell that would have been picked up by the hundred or so explosive sniffing dogs that were there? That would be two very importan clues...



Originally posted by bsbray11
You keep saying this but actually you can. Start with coming up with the ones that could go off away from the fire, ie in the basements and on other floors below the fires. And not just right after the impacts, but at other times too, some nowhere near the fire. What would cause those to happen repeatedly?


Again, citation needed. People using similies and hyperbole =/= bombs.


Originally posted by bsbray11

When that narrows your list down, which it definitely will from the list of possibilities you posted earlier, then we can start making other comparisons to the testimony and see what matches and what doesn't.


Lets do that. Start listing it.


Originally posted by bsbray11
This belongs in someone's signature line. It's the most classic and blatantly circular logic I have seen in months/years. "We have circumstantial evidence, but no physical evidence, so we won't bother testing to see if there's any physical evidence."


No, that's incorrect. THere is NO physical evidence. NONE. No det cord, no physical signs of an explosive that cut the steel, nothing.

Should we be looking for the warplanes too? How about missles? Many different reporters described GZ as "Like a war zone". Should we ask Russia what they were doing that day?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


You still don't get it.

There IS evidence of explosives, of some kind, by the very fact that all three buildings globally collapsed.

Especially WTC 7 that landed in its own footprint, perfectly mimicking an implosion demolition.

That alone is enough to warrant an investigation into explosives, whether you agree or not.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 

No, that's incorrect. THere is NO physical evidence. NONE. No det cord, no physical signs of an explosive that cut the steel, nothing. Should we be looking for the warplanes too? How about missles? Many different reporters described GZ as "Like a war zone". Should we ask Russia what they were doing that day?

How do you know that there is no physical evidence of explosves when the official investigations have admitted they did not look for any and did not do any chemical testing for explosives (which independent investigators have found evidence for and published their findings in peer-review literature, which to my knowledge, has yet to been formally contested by anyone, except for attack-dogs on forums throughout the web). Anyway, I digress - back to the original question: how do you know there is no physical evidence if the official investigation did not look for any and when most of the steel has been destroyed? Surely it was a blind, arbitrary decision. The prevalence of such arbitrary decisions in the practice of OS-adherents is odd. From the physical examinations of the few pieces of steel that were not destroyed, FEMA turned-up some interesting things, such as "sulfidation" which they say was "unexplained", and "eutectic-steel". I do not know a lot about demolitions, but by virtue of some research I am sure that these are not normal occurrences and justify further examination. Furthermore, as other people have mentioned, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence (eg WTC7 collapsing in a way that mimics a controlled demolition).
edit on 28-1-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are justifying not testing for explosives, by saying there was no "physical evidence" of explosives. You don't see the circular logic in that?


Should we have tested for a nuclear device? Using your flawed logic, we should have.


Actually they should have tested the scene for explosives and radiation. I'm pretty sure it's some agency's standard procedure to check potential bombed sites for evidence of a dirty bomb, just like I know it's standard fire investigation procedure to look for accelerants or explosives. It's not going to cost a million dollars to bring a Geiger counter over anyway so I don't know what your big problem is with testing, either.

9/11 was barely over and the guys in charge (ultimately FEMA and the OEM) were acting like they already knew everything that had happened, and were just worried about getting the debris out as fast as possible.



Originally posted by bsbray11
If you don't test for them, how else are you going to find physical evidence, especially already admitting there was circumstantial evidence? Are you looking for an intact piece of the case clearly labeled by the "terrorists" as "bomb," or what?


I dunno, steel that showed signs of an explosive being used near them?


That would also be circumstantial evidence, not direct proof. Sorry. Steel can be totally shredded and you'll just say something else caused it, no different than when explosions are going off or debris is flying out in all directions, you either say it's all just coincidence or deny it even happened.


Or, maybe the smell that would have been picked up by the hundred or so explosive sniffing dogs that were there? That would be two very importan clues...


Those dogs aren't trained to pick up every known explosive compound, only the most common ones. So this again is not an excuse to neglect testing a "terrorist" attack site for explosives residues.




Ok, now, can we rule out the DOZENS of things that go BOOM in a fire? No, we cannot.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You keep saying this but actually you can. Start with coming up with the ones that could go off away from the fire, ie in the basements and on other floors below the fires. And not just right after the impacts, but at other times too, some nowhere near the fire. What would cause those to happen repeatedly?


Again, citation needed. People using similies and hyperbole =/= bombs.

Saying an explosion just occurred in front of your face, that you were injured by an explosion, etc., etc., is most definitely not a simile or hyperbole in any twisted definition of the word.

I've shown you the testimonies before and there are at least scores of them that are readily available to me. You want testimony for explosions in the basements? Philip Morelli, Mike Pecoraro, Lt. William Walsh, William Rodriguez, and others. In other parts of the buildings where there wasn't fire? Again there are many of them. Do your own homework because no one is paying me to tutor you and it isn't my fault if you have no interest in information that is uncomfortable for you.

Here's a collection of testimony for you to read over: worldtradeconspiracy.com...




Originally posted by bsbray11
When that narrows your list down, which it definitely will from the list of possibilities you posted earlier, then we can start making other comparisons to the testimony and see what matches and what doesn't.


Lets do that. Start listing it.


Okay, here's my list of possibilities:

Explosives.
Bombs.

They go "boom," they don't need a fire, they're perfectly capable of causing multiple events, they can damage structure, and they conform with all the witness testimonies on the above link.

What are your bets? Exploding cans of Lysol? Fire extinguishers? Exploding transformers? Elevator cannons? You're going to need to pick a few different ones if you pick Lysol cans, because those need to be near the fire.





Originally posted by bsbray11
This belongs in someone's signature line. It's the most classic and blatantly circular logic I have seen in months/years. "We have circumstantial evidence, but no physical evidence, so we won't bother testing to see if there's any physical evidence."


No, that's incorrect. THere is NO physical evidence. NONE. No det cord, no physical signs of an explosive that cut the steel, nothing.


Det cord? You can't find a desk in the debris either. Is that conclusive evidence to you that there were no desks in the WTC either?


Again you're trying to justify not testing for evidence of explosives, by saying there was no evidence beforehand to justify testing. You don't need proof that something is there, before you test to see if it's there. That's what would be known as redundant and ignorant. You test for explosives, to see if there is any evidence. Not because there is evidence.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 


You still don't get it.

There IS evidence of explosives, of some kind, by the very fact that all three buildings globally collapsed.

Especially WTC 7 that landed in its own footprint, perfectly mimicking an implosion demolition.

That alone is enough to warrant an investigation into explosives, whether you agree or not.


Maybe you can answer this.

How does a building land in it's own footprint, AND strike 3 OTHER buildings on 3 DIFFERENT sides? ONE on it's roof?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
just like I know it's standard fire investigation procedure to look for accelerants or explosives.


I'll address the rest of your post later, but I wanted to know exactly where you get this from?

(PS. Eric Lawyer quotemines, and can prove it.)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yes, yes, test for explosvies, test for accelerants, for radiation and when you're done test for millions of witnesses that saw two huge passenger jets crash into the buildings.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a thread the one of the usual suspects quickly parroted by the same people...wow...

are you serious...
if someone has an opinion, you never address the subject but attack the person.
you make a thread stereotyping people in a group of truthers and suggest they are unreasonable
ad hominen 101...only people with a blind allegiance to an agenda would do this.
so hooper, what do you and the other lyers propose in your obstinate course of not finding the truth?
the steel was melted @ the cut sections...i have proven that to you guys...not that you would know how to interpret the micros in th wtc report...
just more crap from the disinfo gang; I now will refer to your team as the lyers
I think www.911lies.com should be your website



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
stereotyping people in a group




Originally posted by ibiubu
so hooper, what do you and the other lyers... just more crap from the disinfo gang; I now will refer to your team as the lyers


Sometimes no comment seems necessary.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to [url= by FDNY343[/url]
 


sorry...wrong...evidence in the steel metallurgy report wtc 1&2 appdx c...lies lies lies



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to [url= by TrickoftheShade[/url]
 


you just did comment about not commenting...
not enough coffee? Morre ad hominen...now attack me
that's step 2



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
the steel was melted @ the cut sections...i have proven that to you guys...not that you would know how to interpret the micros in th wtc report..


Would you care to elaborate on that? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to [url= by FDNY343[/url]
 


sorry...wrong...evidence in the steel metallurgy report wtc 1&2 appdx c...lies lies lies


Maybe you need to be more specific, as I have no idea what you are responding to, or what part you are referring to.

Appendix C is found here.
wtc.nist.gov...

What page? Section? Keyword? Anything?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to [url= by TrickoftheShade[/url]
 


you just did comment about not commenting...
not enough coffee? Morre ad hominen...now attack me
that's step 2


I was pointing out the irony. You said it was wrong to group people, and then immediately embarked on doing just that.

And your whole thrust is ad hominem. "Your all lyers" etc. Irony upon irony.




top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join