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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 24
274
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance?


There you go again, showing your ignorance. Here is a hint - the "construction manager" you quoted WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WTC. If you bothered to do some research and just not cut and paste from silly conspiracy theory sites you would know that he was about 17 when the WTC was built.


then think about why the twin towers fell nearly at free-fall speed?


They didnt - all you have to do is watch a video of WTC 1&2 falling, and you can clearly see the debris falling from the building is falling at free fall speed, the building collapsing is falling slower than the debris.


Then tell me I don't know anything about 9/11.


you obviously do not from the stuff you post here!

Just another truther ignoring the facts!




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





That's not a terrible comparison, however you're forgetting that Pearl Harbor was attacked by hundreds of airplanes, with weapons,


No, Im not forgetting that at all. Im pointing out that the "3 buildings had never fallen before..." claptrap is garbage.




You're right in many large fires explosions do occur, however when explosions heard prior to the collapse has molten metal to go with it, which as most of us know is a by-product of thermite


And as of yet, no one has shown any evidence that the molten metal was anything OTHER than molten aluminum. Of which, the temperatures of the fires that day were in excess of the melting point for the aluminum. In addition, there was the UPS batteries in the Sun Bank computer center which was the source of the "molten" metal shown pouring from the corner of the one Tower prior to its collapse.

Will work on the rest after I return.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

There you go again, showing your ignorance. Here is a hint - the "construction manager" you quoted WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WTC. If you bothered to do some research and just not cut and paste from silly conspiracy theory sites you would know that he was about 17 when the WTC was built.
Silly me, but just for old times sake how about your point out where exactly I said he was involved in the construction of the WTC? Surely if you're going to attack me for that, I said it, right?

So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance?
Oh the irony is just hilarious. You call me ignorant for something that I never said! Bravo sir, you make your country proud.



They didnt - all you have to do is watch a video of WTC 1&2 falling, and you can clearly see the debris falling from the building is falling at free fall speed, the building collapsing is falling slower than the debris.
Pick up a stopwatch and time it. I get around 10 seconds every time, which is 8/10ths of a second shorter than free-fall.

If I remember correctly I specifically asked you a question, and in that question I specifically asked you to not ignore the question, so I will post it here in size five font to ensure that you see it:

]WHY WILL YOU NOT ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK THE OP LIKE I'VE ASKED YOU TO MULTIPLE TIMES?

WHY WILL YOU NOT ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK THE VIDEO POSTED BY HIJAQD THAT I'VE ASKED YOU TO MULTIPLE TIMES?

edit on 27-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Silly me, but just for old times sake how about your point out where exactly I said he was involved in the construction of the WTC?


you posted the following in this thread:

"Right the construction manager had nothing to do with the construction...just brilliant.

What do I think the construction manager's job entailed? I think that he was responsible for manning the lemonade stand in case workers got tired on the job."

"Well, since he was in a position of authority, one would assume that he's a little more qualified and has to know what he's doing on the job. Do you think they just slapped a hard-hat on some bum and said "Yo, make sure these guys don't horse around on the job"? "

"the construction manager CLEARLY knows what he is talking about when talking about the building that he managed the construction of. "

"So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance?"


So as everyone can see, you have stated several times here that the "construction manager", Frank A. DeMartini, was involved in the construction of the WTC. Except that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction of the WTC, he was only a teenager when it was built.


So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance? Oh the irony is just hilarious. You call me ignorant for something that I never said!


Except that you DID say it, and then just said it again, but then straight away denied you said it?

You really are very confused.
edit on 27-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

And as of yet, no one has shown any evidence that the molten metal was anything OTHER than molten aluminum. Of which, the temperatures of the fires that day were in excess of the melting point for the aluminum. In addition, there was the UPS batteries in the Sun Bank computer center which was the source of the "molten" metal shown pouring from the corner of the one Tower prior to its collapse.

Molten Aluminum:

Now would you agree that molten aluminum is not the same as Molten Steel:



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Molten Aluminum:

Now would you agree that molten aluminum is not the same as Molten Steel:


Why didnt you post this picture of molten aluminium? It looks exactly like molten steel

www.tencate.com... ial-Safety/TenCate-Tecashieldreg-Industrial-Safety-Molten-aluminium-splash



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


So as everyone can see, you have stated several times here that the "construction manager", Frank A. DeMartini, was involved in the construction of the WTC. Except that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction of the WTC, he was only a teenager when it was built.

Copy and paste the exact wording from my post where I stated "he was involved in the construction of WTC"

Where in this post:

Right the construction manager had nothing to do with the construction...just brilliant.
Do you see the words "he was involved in the construction on WTC"?
This post?:

What do I think the construction manager's job entailed? I think that he was responsible for manning the lemonade stand in case workers got tired on the job.

This one?:

Well, since he was in a position of authority, one would assume that he's a little more qualified and has to know what he's doing on the job. Do you think they just slapped a hard-hat on some bum and said "Yo, make sure these guys don't horse around on the job"?

This one?:

the construction manager CLEARLY knows what he is talking about when talking about the building that he managed the construction of.

This one?:

So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance?

Highlight for me which one of those posts has the words "involved in the construction WTC". So as you can see, I never said what your delusional mind is creating.

You are reading between the lines, shoving words in my mouth to try and invalidate my claims that the man who who managed the construction of the world trade center knows about the world trade center.

And since you refused to answer my questions that I've asked you multiple times, I am ending this conversation until you answer it. I'm not going to reply to any of your posts until you answer the question that I've asked you time and time again.

I would also like to point out that the entire last page of discussion on this thread was over a strawman argument. Look on the last page, at that really long post of mine; spoor took out one insignificant detail, and managed to squeeze out an entire page of discussion.

edit on 27-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

edit on 28/6/11 by masqua because: Removed image intended as a personal attack



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
my claims that the man who who managed the construction of the world trade center knows about the world trade center.


Why do you persist in the lie that the WTC construction manager that you quoted, Frank A. DeMartini had anything at all to do with the construction of the WTC?

he was only a teenager when the WTC was built, and he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC - it is very obvious you had no idea at all when he started work at the WTC, or what his job entailed, and you appear happy to remain ignorant.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

No controlled demolitions job in history has ever brought down building from the inside out like the way WTC 7 fell


And your evidence to prove this is?


Originally posted by bluesman1955
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Three Buildings Collapsed In Their Own Footprint. Have You Ever Seen Controlled Demolition Of Huge Buildings ?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not personally, no, but I've seen enough video of controlled demolitions to see right away the towers weren't controlled demolitions.


You said the same thing in another thread.

LOL, keep it up Dave.

Great entertainment



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Oh jeez, since you aren't really pointing anything out to him, it leaves one with the impression that you aren't sure either so I'll help.

Frank A DeMartini (RIP 9/11 victim) was not involved in the initial construction of the WTC complex, he was hired after the 1993 bombing, in his position as construction manager, he was the man to see if you wanted to do any sort of construction within the complex, office walls, rearrange plumbing, or any other alteration to the buildings.

He was the project/construction manager during all of the major projects that were handled during the period that Securacom was in charge of security for the complex (had to slip that in).

In his position as the project/construction manager, do you believe that he was not intimately familiar with the complex's building specs?

You have credentials and firsthand experience to dispute the words of Mr DeMartini's statement made on Jan 25th of 2001, which is relevant due to the fact that it was not influenced by the events of the day that took his life?.


Raised in Haddon Heights, NJ, he earned a degree in architecture at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn where he practiced his profession and developed real estate after graduating in 1974. He was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. He will be remembered for his courage, his passion, his love for his family, and his joy in being a parent.
Remember: September 11, 2001

Now the video that he is asking you about:
If we examine the physics and science behind the collapses utilizing the Holmesian Maxim (or Holmesian Deduction), simply put "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


Now, if we follow the scientific method and cannot rebuff all of the facts presented then again, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijaqd
Frank A DeMartini (RIP 9/11 victim) was not involved in the initial construction of the WTC complex,


I know that, you know that but poor tupak claims he was involved!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijaqd
 


He was also the man, that on 9/11, climbed up one of the towers to investigate the damage, and to radio down that the building was in danger of at least a partial collapse.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





However think about how many diplomats, politicians, and members of our government are in there everyday, don't you think that every single hallway, office, and square inch of that bulding would be wired to the max?


Not really. The primary security at the Pentagon has always been the security force....and they dont have the clearance to see everything that is going on throughout the building. Actually, I was surprised the building was as shabby on the inside as it was when I was there. Certain areas are impressive...most of the rest of it...old furniture, old carpet, waterstains...




Nope. What I am referencing is a June 1, 2001 document that changes the militaries procedure when dealing with errant aircraft. Read it and weep


And I was referencing your claim that VP Cheney was in charge of NORAD and had taken the shoot down authority away from the generals. Nowhere in the document you posted does it mention the Vice President. So...what was your point in posting it? I, however, did a little research into the claim and found where the story that "Cheney was in charge of NORAD" came from...and as I pointed out, its from the May 2001 statement from the President...and had NOTHING to do with either NORAD or intercepting hostile aircraft.




lol you seem a little too sure of yourself, are you sure they absolutely "NEVER" stand down? WTF were they doing while some terrorists were joyriding four commercial airliners, jumping on the taxpayer funded trampoline at their base? Was our entire nations air-defense giving Dick Cheney a sponge bath while ignoring the four aircrafts which were off course and not responding? Americans always prized out powerful military, but we can't even intercept let alone shoot down four commercial airlines? What happens when a country sends over just a few airplanes that actually have some guns attached to them?


Yes, Im absolutely sure that NORAD never "stands down". You forget that until the SECOND airliner hit the WTC that they were not sure we were under attack. That left two airliners, with no transponders reporting, to be found out of thousands of blips on radar screens. But since you are the expert on Continental Air Defense, why dont you walk us through, step-by-step, how you would have better responded to an event that was never really accepted as a valid threat? As for a country sending over a few airplanes with guns.....well, thats what they actually practice for. Intercepting hostile aircraft over the OCEAN.




I would love if you pointed that out to me, is there an article over that or something to back it up other than your word?


Well here is this...

"The property losses for the World Trade Center towers are likely to be covered under U.S. insurance polices, which do not usually mention coverage for terrorist acts explicitly, Hartwig told Reuters. Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993"

www.foxnews.com...

Article also points out that in the US, unless terrorism was a specific exclusion, that a normal policy would have to pay for damage as a result of a terrorist attack.

More specific to the WTC..

"In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding."

www.forbes.com...




or how Rudi Guliani chose to not stay in his bunker at Building Seven, but no big deal


If I have two 110 story buildings across the street on fire the way the Towers...I wouldnt stay there either. Especially if I do not know if the attacks are over.




Got links? -- (Said in the tone of the "got milk" catch phrase)


Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling ENRON
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Bernard Ebbers, Worldcom
www.guardian.co.uk...




However what about Marvin Bush


What about him? He was on the Board of Directors of Securacom until June 2000.....June 2000-September 2001 ..14 months in which he had NOTHING to do with the company, let alone anything to do with the WTC.

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two. When Officer Lim heard the explosion, he thought at first that a bomb had been detonated inside the building."

www.novareinna.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You like many other conspiracy loons post pictures of the NORTH face of WTC 7, that was the side not struck
by the debris from WTC 1

You then lie and claim the building suffered no damage

Here are some shots of WTC 7 South and West faces

Notice the amount of smoke pouring from multiple floors Note on the West face the damage from debris strikes

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You like many other conspiracy loons post pictures of the NORTH face of WTC 7, that was the side not struck
by the debris from WTC 1

You then lie and claim the building suffered no damage

Here are some shots of WTC 7 South and West faces

Notice the amount of smoke pouring from multiple floors Note on the West face the damage from debris strikes

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...
Starting out solid with an ad hominem attack, how mature and civil of you. That only gives your side of the argument more credibility; calling the person with a different viewpoint a "loon" is a good way to win over the opposition.


Compare that second video of yours to the image that I posted of WTC7. Notice anything? It's the same fire!


Those fires are weak dude! Give me 25 seconds, a tank of gas, and a match, and I could make a bigger fire than that inside of the building. Compare that image that I posted, or the video that you posted to refute the image of that same fire that I posted (
), and then look at the other buildings damage in comparison. You are lying to yourself if you say that building 7 suffered more damage than the other ones and had sufficient damage to collapse symmetrically into it's footprint at free-fall speed.

Edit to add: After watching those two videos you posted again I realized that they actually aren't the fires that I posted an image of. There are lots of videos on the side, so I must have clumsily clicked on another one and watched it instead the first time, sorry about that.

Seeing as how the fires were concentrated on the South side of the building, why did the building fall straight down rather than towards the side of the building where the steel is weakened? You don't need to be an engineer to answer this, just give me your common sense answer.
edit on 27-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

How about those numerous witness testimonies? Still doesn't prove it to you? So there is video evidence of molten metal dripping from the tower prior to its collapse, photographic evidence of molten metal within the debris, and numerous witness testimonies claiming to have seen molten metal, but you're not convinced? If videos, photos, and witnesses aren't enough then what would prove it to you? Do want me to build a time machine, take you back in time, and show it to you and throw you in it to verify the intense heat?


What are you talking about? Obviously there was molten metal at the WTC. Try to read my last post - this is not even a subject for debate.

What remains unproven is that this metal is steel. So I suppose we're still waiting for your "proof" of molten steel.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

You are lying to yourself if you say that building 7 suffered more damage than the other ones and had sufficient damage to collapse symmetrically into it's footprint at free-fall speed.


Earlier you ask why we don't trust the testimony of firemen who say they saw molten steel at the WTC. Wy do you not trust their testimony when it comes to Building 7?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Molten Aluminum:

Now would you agree that molten aluminum is not the same as Molten Steel:


Why didnt you post this picture of molten aluminium? It looks exactly like molten steel

www.tencate.com... ial-Safety/TenCate-Tecashieldreg-Industrial-Safety-Molten-aluminium-splash


To be fair to everybody here spoor, that's just a marketing photo most likely put in by the web designer using stock images.

Hardly credible evidence.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
leaving almost no room for question at the end of the film.


i have a question!!!!! but why?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Here are series of video on The North side of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Play clips 9, 10 , 11

Notice fire fully involved on one floor progressing up and involving several more floors

This is what happens when leave fire unfought - it spreads

Contrast this with multiple floors on fire on South face

Still say that building did notsuffer massive fires



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join