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.

 

The NYPD lied.

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



That many people witnessing it first hand would produce THOUSANDS of videos and photographs, many on negatives which could be used to remove any doubt the images are genuine.

Prove it. How many people in NYC had a camera at their disposal at that time? Your getting 2001 confused with 2011. Today just about every cell phone has a camera, that was not true in 2001. And negatives? And video cameras? Besides, your a hard core conspiracist I am sure you've got an excuse ready to dismiss anything that may disrupt your delusions. Hell, I'm a rational human being and I can think up a few if I'm not tied down to reality. But, unfortunately I am well anchored in the real world and must deal accordingly.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



That many people witnessing it first hand would produce THOUSANDS of videos and photographs, many on negatives which could be used to remove any doubt the images are genuine.

Prove it. How many people in NYC had a camera at their disposal at that time? Your getting 2001 confused with 2011. Today just about every cell phone has a camera, that was not true in 2001. And negatives? And video cameras? Besides, your a hard core conspiracist I am sure you've got an excuse ready to dismiss anything that may disrupt your delusions. Hell, I'm a rational human being and I can think up a few if I'm not tied down to reality. But, unfortunately I am well anchored in the real world and must deal accordingly.


Ever been to Manhattan? There was a camera shop on practically every block when I was last there. Disposable cameras were sold in grocery stores, especially in the tourist-thick area of the WTC.

Are you capable of discussion without insults? I've had many posts deleted for far, far less...you must be a fixture on this site.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Ever been to Manhattan?

Often, had relatives there. Worked in North Jersey for years. Office looked at the Statue of Liberty and the World Trade Center towers. Been in the towers a number of times.

There was a camera shop on practically every block when I was last there.

So? You're running from the towers before the collapse. Hundreds of people have just died for sure maybe a thousand or more. Your first instincts? Quick, get a camera and document the damage just in case 10 years from now someone on the internet suggest that it didn't happen? Or.....get to safety, help those you can help and try and contact your family.

Disposable cameras were sold in grocery stores, especially in the tourist-thick area of the WTC.

See above.

Are you capable of discussion without insults?

Its on a case by case basis.

I've had many posts deleted for far, far less...you must be a fixture on this site.

Yes, a facuet of truth.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





So? You're running from the towers before the collapse.


Wait...what collapse? No one thought the buildings would collapse. Millions of people running to the aid of the victims, thousands of camera-shutters clicking.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.



This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by -PLB-

When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.



This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.


Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, but science shows they're full of BS.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by -PLB-

When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.



This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.


Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, but science shows they're full of BS.


What do you want me to do about it? The media is involved, every person of any standing in society knows about it, almost all professional people, firemen, police, the military. Everybody in the government. Pretty much everyone except you and me.

Can I come round your house? We can sit in the basement and watch reruns of the Golden Girls and never go out.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by -PLB-

When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.



This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.


Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, but science shows they're full of BS.


What do you want me to do about it? The media is involved, every person of any standing in society knows about it, almost all professional people, firemen, police, the military. Everybody in the government. Pretty much everyone except you and me.

Can I come round your house? We can sit in the basement and watch reruns of the Golden Girls and never go out.


Har, interesting way of dealing with your troubles, but no thanks, I'll leave the behavior modification device to you.

Edit - by the way, have you read the OP yet? Care to comment?


edit on 21-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Wait...what collapse? No one thought the buildings would collapse.

First, I said they were running from the building before the collapse, not because they necessarily thought it would but because it was burning and just recently became an impromptu hangar. But for the record, unless you interviewed everyone there, which I know that you didn't, you can't say that no one thought the buildings would collapse. I was watching on TV about 50 miles away and the first thing I thought when I could see the damage and fire is that the buildings were going to come down.

Millions of people running to the aid of the victims, thousands of camera-shutters clicking.

Why would they be taking pictures? And what millions. I thought there were only going to be a few witnesses?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
When you boil it down you have not proven that the substance surrounding the guns is actually concrete.

So you don't know if they are lying or just mistaken.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Add to that people in Brooklyn and most of Northern New Jersey

People in upper floors of my building watched the 2nd plane strike the South Tower, My boss came down
and told us what had just seen

Thats some hologram enabling it to be seen from up to 20 miles away......



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Yeah, kind of the same thing here. A client of mine was in a high rise office across the river in a conference room when someone came in and told them to look over at Manhattan, a plane had just crashed into the tower. They were all looking for a minute but then got back to the meeting. My client, however, kept watching and saw the second plane hit. He tried to tell the rest of the people in the room, who weren't watching at the time, and they all started saying he was nuts until they looked and saw the smoke from the other tower.

Should have never told that stroy. Now they're all going to come out of the woodwork and try to "debunk" it by asking stupid questions like what color tie he was wearing when he saw the second plane.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
When you boil it down you have not proven that the substance surrounding the guns is actually concrete.

So you don't know if they are lying or just mistaken.


Exactly. Gypsum melts at below 200 C.

My money goes with "just mistaken".


Melting point: 100-150°C (See Notes)


www.inchem.org...

Melted and solidified gypsum along with chunks of concrete aggregate is my guess.


edit on 21-12-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
A clump of material.

Is it concrete? That is what the placard says.
Is that a gun? That is what the placard says.

Concrete was powderized.

Water was being used to fight fire.

Gypsum is liquid at a far lower temp than steel.

Powdered concrete mixes with water becoming free flowing sludge that picks up a dropped gun. This gun and water/powder hits the gypsum, cooling the gypsum and steaming the water. Gun gets trapped in the hardening powder/gypsum mixture. Is found and goes to live in a museum. Is immortalized by septic in a thread that is now over.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
A clump of material.

Is it concrete? That is what the placard says.
Is that a gun? That is what the placard says.

Concrete was powderized.

Water was being used to fight fire.

Gypsum is liquid at a far lower temp than steel.

Powdered concrete mixes with water becoming free flowing sludge that picks up a dropped gun. This gun and water/powder hits the gypsum, cooling the gypsum and steaming the water. Gun gets trapped in the hardening powder/gypsum mixture. Is found and goes to live in a museum. Is immortalized by septic in a thread that is now over.


Yours is a rational explanation for the exhibit, yet the police didn't use those words, did they? They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.


"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by hooper
 


Add to that people in Brooklyn and most of Northern New Jersey

People in upper floors of my building watched the 2nd plane strike the South Tower, My boss came down
and told us what had just seen

Thats some hologram enabling it to be seen from up to 20 miles away......


Yeah, and the fires got so hot concrete melted, and molten steel flowed in rivers for weeks afterwards.

Pull the other one.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 





My money goes with "just mistaken".



Really? "Just mistaken"? Wow...you guys are comical.

The NYPD opened a museum exhibit with the message "hot fires melted concrete", and for proof they show a lump of steamed gypsum, yet you call it a mistake.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.

How do you know its a lie? You do realize what a lie is, correct? Someone saying something that may be wrong is not a lie. In order to prove it is a lie you must first prove exactly what the truth is, second you must prove that what is being said or written is not the truth as has been proven in step one and thirdly you must prove all involved had perfect knowledge of the truth and purposely and materially provided something other than the truth for the express purpose of causing deciept.

Have fun!



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.

How do you know its a lie? You do realize what a lie is, correct? Someone saying something that may be wrong is not a lie. In order to prove it is a lie you must first prove exactly what the truth is, second you must prove that what is being said or written is not the truth as has been proven in step one and thirdly you must prove all involved had perfect knowledge of the truth and purposely and materially provided something other than the truth for the express purpose of causing deciept.

Have fun!


Pathetic.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Any one with metal smelting experience can tell you in a heartbeat that this is a picture of slag from the melting of various metals in the basement(?) furnace of 911.


Considering the prime suspects of 911 are likely military, government, business and media, how can we trust the claim the basement was a furnace and fires burned for months?

Much like the lacking photographic evidence of the event, there is not one image of a molten steel river, nor of any cooled pools of steel. Nothing but hearsay, and considering the source, it should be considered just that.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join