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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 60
17
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Wow what a moronic post. The only people implying that firefighters blew up those buildings are your delusional truther friends. And you don't need to be a psychic to notice severe damage. You need eyes.

Its really sick to accuse those firemen of lying and being accessory to the mass murder of their colleagues. But for truthers that doesn't matter. As long as it supports their delusional fantasy, everything goes. Lies, false accusations, anything. It is also really amazing to see truthers pretend they know better than the professionals. Without having any serious education, experience or evidence. Nope, truthers were born with this knowledge, and its infallible.

This forum is indeed an online asylum. I wonder if it is moral to use it for entertainment purposes.
edit on 8-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I guess paid trolls have to work on Easter



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Are you kidding , is any one going to show me the evidence of this extreme damage before trying to argue about it ?

Why cant you grasp the fact that i beleive more than one person lied about "9/11" ?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
--" Wow what a moronic post. The only people implying that firefighters blew up those buildings are your delusional truther friends. And you don't need to be a psychic to notice severe damage. You need eyes. "--

Quotes would be nice , because i do not recall anyone claiming the NYFD blew them up.

--" Its really sick to accuse those firemen of lying and being accessory to the mass murder of their colleagues. But for truthers that doesn't matter. As long as it supports their delusional fantasy, everything goes. Lies, false accusations, anything. It is also really amazing to see truthers pretend they know better than the professionals. Without having any serious education, experience or evidence. Nope, truthers were born with this knowledge, and its infallible. "--

Yeah , and what about those brave firemen who were speaking of bombs going off and blowing walls out infront of them ? ........ sick ? pfft , get a grip kid.

- "This forum is indeed an online asylum. I wonder if it is moral to use it for entertainment purposes. "

Tell me about it
......"star hunter".



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Are you kidding , is any one going to show me the evidence of this extreme damage before trying to argue about it ?

Why cant you grasp the fact that i beleive more than one person lied about "9/11" ?


You ignored my question. On what have you based your assessment of the damage to WTC7 and is it more credible than the collective eye-witness testimonies of experienced FDNY officers?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Are you kidding , is any one going to show me the evidence of this extreme damage before trying to argue about it ?

Why cant you grasp the fact that i beleive more than one person lied about "9/11" ?


You ignored my question. On what have you based your assessment of the damage to WTC7 and is it more credible than the collective eye-witness testimonies of experienced FDNY officers?


i did not ignore your question , hence the reply


And yes , i believe that my knowledge and experience in demolition is more credible than the experienced FDNY officers that you insist on quoting. Do you have a problem with that ?

how about that evidence ? do i need to ask for it in another language ?
edit on 8-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
Quotes would be nice , because i do not recall anyone claiming the NYFD blew them up.


Its is the consequence of one of the delusional truther interpretation of Larry's quote. I can understand that you do not understand this, as you are a truther yourself. You aren't really seeing things clearly.

But anyway, Anok posted that "OSers think the fire fighters demolished the building". Why don't you write the same to Anok?



Yeah , and what about those brave firemen who were speaking of bombs going off and blowing walls out infront of them ? ........ sick ? pfft , get a grip kid.


Your understanding of simple language is so bad that it isn't really worth explaining the obvious. But to give a pointer, get a dictionary and look up the word "like".



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Larry never spoke to the fire department commander, he's clearly lying. The only thing truthful in Larry's statement is that building 7 was pulled down.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Why did you try to dodge my request for a quote ?
2nd



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Look, another truther born with the superhuman power to know things that no-one can possibly know. Or did you get this ability later on in life?

Can't it be possible that Larry indeed did not speak to the commander, but to someone else from the fire department, but his memory wasn't that good and he confused the two? Is that an outrageous scenario? Or is it the type of mistake every human being makes on a daily basis? Why call someone a liar without a shred of evidence? Why are so many truthers such despicable people? All in the name of "truth".
edit on 8-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Another homework assignment for you. Take your dictionary and look up the word "imply". After that look up the word "quote". Then write a short essay about how these words are different. Good luck.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
]
i did not ignore your question , hence the reply


And yes , i believe that my knowledge and experience in demolition is more credible than the experienced FDNY officers that you insist on quoting. Do you have a problem with that ?

how about that evidence ? do i need to ask for it in another language ?
edit on 8-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Congratulations on your superior knowledge and experience, but you still didn't answer the question. On WHAT do you base your assessment of the damage to WTC7? Were you there? Did you inspect it personally as the fire officers had done? Was your mom there and told you about it? Did you see some video on youtube? What?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.

So , why do you beleive there was severe structural damage ? because of what a few people with badges said ?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Another homework assignment for you. Take your dictionary and look up the word "imply". After that look up the word "quote". Then write a short essay about how these words are different. Good luck.


" Deny Ignorance "


Ok mr spelling officer sir.

Look up the word .... "ignorant"



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Another homework assignment for you. Take your dictionary and look up the word "Spelling". After that look up the word "Semantics". Then write a short essay about how these words are different. Good luck.

I have to say, it is pretty rare I meet someone who is so bad at language. You have absolutely no clue about what the words I write actually mean. I write "imply" and you ask for quotes. :facepalmsmiley:



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Since there is no evidence, it is something truther must be really fond of. Oh wait, there is evidence of the damage to WTC7, those photos has already been posted. Well then I guess its of no use to truthers.

ps. before you get all confused by my absence again, I am going to sleep now.
edit on 8-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Read back through the posts and i think you`ll find that you are wrong , again , why are you avoiding my request for a quote ? Who said the NYFD blew the towers up ?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


There are no pics of structural damage, stop stretching the facts to fit your agenda.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.

So , why do you beleive there was severe structural damage ? because of what a few people with badges said ?


Ahh--thank you. Just as I thought. You've based it on nothing--on a "lack of evidence". And on that you're willing to call experienced FDNY officers LIARS? Just because YOU haven't seen any evidence of severe damage, you're willing to implicate as criminals the men who were there, the men who assessed the building first hand, the men who risked their lives to save others?

I think we have a good understanding now of where you're coming from--and what your "knowledge and experience" is worth. It's clear where there's a "lack of evidence". You have NONE on which to back your opinion.

Gee--who should I believe regarding the damage to WTC7? All the fire officers who were actually there? Or rocklobster? He wasn't there, but he says he's smarter and more experienced than those other guys. That's a tough one.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Since there is no evidence, it is something truther must be really fond of. Oh wait, there is evidence of the damage to WTC7, those photos has already been posted. Well then I guess its of no use to truthers.

ps. before you get all confused by my absence again, I am going to sleep now.
edit on 8-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Sleep


The photos i have seen do not show enough structural damage for a collapse like that.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join