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: 19
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Why is anyone... i mean ANYONE responding to this filth??? The poster is either totally toying with you to get a rise out of debunkers and truthers alike. Or, he is severely delusional and in desperate need of a psychological intervention.



I assume you are referring to me? Am I filth for pointing out the corruption in the NYPD and the FDNY then?




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Sure, I already thanked hooper for it and responded a couple times. Read back a few pages.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Sure, I already thanked hooper for it and responded a couple times. Read back a few pages.



No, I suggest YOU read back a few pages. You missed it.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Sure, I already thanked hooper for it and responded a couple times. Read back a few pages.



You missed it.


I guess so.

Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were so intense concrete melted.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
I guess so.

Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were so intense concrete melted.


My personal position is that there were temperatures involved in the WTC event that exceeded office/hydrocarbon fires. I believe these issues have not been resolved.

And if you don't want to deviate from the OP, then don't do so here, here, here and here, then complain about it here, then deviate from your own OP again here.
edit on 22-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


If the conversation deviates from the OP as part of the discussion of the OP, fine, but your credibility ceased when you started tossing out dummies, pun intended.

Did you want to comment on the OP, or were you just leaving?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


If the conversation deviates from the OP as part of the discussion of the OP, fine, but your credibility ceased when you started tossing out dummies, pun intended.

Did you want to comment on the OP, or were you just leaving?


Empty words from a delusional mind. I believe the WTC jumpers were people of flesh and blood, who lived when they jumped, out of a building which wasn't "stripped" contrary to your claims, and died when they hit the ground.

This can be easily dealt with by posing you a question which you will NOT answer: Are the WTC jumpers real people of flesh and blood, with real families, who lived when they jumped and died when they hit the ground?

Your non-answer shows your true colors. Phil Jayhan is proud of you.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to deviate from the OP. Carry on!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Sounds like a great topic for a thread.

I am not an expert on the jumpers, but do I appreciate the bumps. Do you know Phil Jayhan? I was under the impression he didn't know I existed, so I find it strange that he might be proud of me, but if you know him, tell him "back at ya'.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to deviate from the OP. Carry on!


No worries mate, I get it all the time from folks who would rather we discussed something else.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Oh hey, I took your advice and looked back and I guess I did respond to you...I must have forgotten...you all look the same.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Oh hey, I took your advice and looked back and I guess I did respond to you...I must have forgotten...you all look the same.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's not a response. There's not even anything remotely close to a "response" in there. I linked to concrete pulverization calculations, and you don't even discuss them in your "response". Which is why I said there was no response forthcoming. Jesus.... Can't you do any better?
edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911


To be frank, I don't think you know much about them at all. Hence the garbled response.


That's an illogical conclusion. I simply misread and responded as though you had written "have you heard of" instead of "are you familiar with".

Frankly you might pretend that the rest of your post is in some way meaningful, but as most sharply evinced by this line and the subsequent one, it comes from an individual so deperate to showcase some sort of perceived intellectual superiority that it seems to contain little of any worth at all. I mean "hubris"? "Epistemological"? Give me a break.

If you think reading makes a country smart you might at least learn to write.



I'll address one point, although I imagine it's a waste of time. I did indeed write:


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's a concept that Truthers have invented. In reality there is a shifting but generally consistent narrative supplied by dozens of sources.


Your reponse:



This is a pretty naive, run-of-the-mill debunker style put-down, and it betrays your ignorance on the subject of 9/11.


Show me a source not involved in a Truther v Debunker 9/11 debate where the term Official Story is used in this context. It never is. It's an artefact created by that debate - and principally by Truthers - to imply that there is some single agency behind the 9/11 narrative. There is not.



But it wouldn't be authoritative, because it would merely be an amalgam of superficial media commentary based on unverified partisan administration claims. Factually wrong? How many "dozens" of facts did I get wrong?


You said that "without these people there wouldn't be an official story". That is facually wrong. There would be.

I can't see how there are more than "dozens" of outlets for what Truthers call the "Official Story". You have latched on to one word and used it - incorrectly - to launch a bizarre screed about me, about debunkers, about the state of the nation. I'm sorry, but it just makes you seem odd. Perhaps you could say what you think the phrase "Official Story" means. Then again, perhaps not.


At other times, I put conspiracy theorists in their place, since what matters is not the conspiracy element of any claim, but the factual accuracy.


The world is genuinely lucky to have someone like you on hand to guard the precious light of accuracy.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 





The police claim the fires were so intense concrete melted.


Their claim is much like your claims, based on visual appearance.
The police are not chemist.

Besides if the fires were hot enough to melt concrete then they were hot enough to melt steel beams. But the truthers say the smoke shows the fires were not that hot. Once again the truthers pick and choose their version of the facts.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Concrete pulverization calculations were already posted. No response was forthcoming.


Oh hey, I took your advice and looked back and I guess I did respond to you...I must have forgotten...you all look the same.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's not a response. There's not even anything remotely close to a "response" in there. I linked to concrete pulverization calculations, and you don't even discuss them in your "response". Which is why I said there was no response forthcoming. Jesus.... Can't you do any better?
edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


It's the response you deserved, sue me if it isn't what you expected, or even better; discuss the OP.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by septic
 





The police claim the fires were so intense concrete melted.


Their claim is much like your claims, based on visual appearance.
The police are not chemist.

Besides if the fires were hot enough to melt concrete then they were hot enough to melt steel beams. But the truthers say the smoke shows the fires were not that hot. Once again the truthers pick and choose their version of the facts.


The OS is entirely based on the visual appearance of the CGI plane slicing through steel.

So you do believe office furniture melted concrete, and not even based on visual appearance, but based on some sort of blind faith. The police claimed the fires were hot enough to melt concrete; they don't back up their claims with anything, but that's good enough for you, and it doesn't stop you from hypocritically accusing me of cherry picking the facts.

Your rationalizations aside, the police lied.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I never believed the concrete melted.

If I had seen the exhibit with a sign saying concrete melted, I doubt I would have believed it. Because they are not experts in such matters.

There many times I read or hear stories that have minor details I feel are wrong. But I don’t jump to a conclusion that they are intentionally lying to the public. Most of the inaccuracies are irrelevant to the main point of the story.

Just because it’s wrong doesn’t mean it’s a lie. A lie is something that is intentional.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
I never believed the concrete melted.

If I had seen the exhibit with a sign saying concrete melted, I doubt I would have believed it. Because they are not experts in such matters.

There many times I read or hear stories that have minor details I feel are wrong. But I don’t jump to a conclusion that they are intentionally lying to the public. Most of the inaccuracies are irrelevant to the main point of the story.

Just because it’s wrong doesn’t mean it’s a lie. A lie is something that is intentional.


They are prime suspects, as central to the success of 911 as the FDNY, the PANYNJ, Guliani, the OEM, the media and the military. As prime suspects, they don't deserve the benefit of any doubt, and for them to come up with such a ridiculous story indicates premeditation with the intent of pushing the "hot fires" lie.
edit on 23-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The NYPD did an amazing job that day and afterwards.
For the real story of the first responders see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You may want to skip slightly ahead into this interview as Dennis plays some sound clips from 9-11 first.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join