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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Nobody, but nobody, watching the events of 9/11 unfold that day spontaneously wondered whether the planes that hit the buildings were really holograms. Someone came along after the fact and put the idea into their heads.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
So how can you justify saying it was an inside job, if you have no idea, no proof, no nothing, other than a "gut feeling", if you will?
.....and have previously worked in demolitions in the UK.
....I believe that Building 7 was taken down with conventional controlled demolitions techniques. Because I believe explosives were placed in this building in advance of the airplanes striking the twin towers.....
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
These are nothing but wild suppositions, sorry:
.....and have previously worked in demolitions in the UK.
Well, that one isn't a supposition, people will have to just take you at your word, there....but, in light of that claim:
....I believe that Building 7 was taken down with conventional controlled demolitions techniques. Because I believe explosives were placed in this building in advance of the airplanes striking the twin towers.....
Firstly, since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos? I mean...you claimed they were "conventional"??
Do you not see the flaw in you "belief"?
Secondly, it also requires a great deal of 'moxie' to sit there and say, with certainty, that WTC 7 was "prepped" in "advance", because of some "foreknowledge" surrounding WTC 1 and 2! Again, without any shred of evidence.
WTC 7's status is well documented, during the hours after the other buildings collapsed....the damage it sustained, and the consensus that it was going to fail, all on its own, and there was no saving it...not without sever risk to Human life. The decision to clear an area around it, and leave it be, was made hours before it finally collapsed.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
You can be anonymous and make your reasoning explicit, or you can make a credible claim to have expertise based on veriviable credentials and experience. One or the other. Not both.
Originally posted by ProudBird
since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos?
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by ProudBird
since the claim is made of having "previously worked in demolitions", then surely you would be acutely aware of the tremendous noise and extremely obvious visual indications associated with timed, sequential explosions, as part of such demos?
Interesting. Just what can be clearly seen in the collapse videos. Sequential squibs running up the right side, building falls straight down in classic CD style. All that's missing is the explosions, and you say there weren't any, because you were there, right? Oh, you weren't there? But we have loads of firemen who say they heard them. But we're supposed to believe you, an Internet forum junkie who is hell bent on making life miserable for anyone who doesn't believe the official horse cocky. It ain't rocket science. It is what it is.edit on 7-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
My comment was about what I think of a certain issue and it is a truthful and a brief explanation. The way you are making a meal of it is truly indecent. In fact it is badgering.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Nathan-D
I am astounded. Who are these people and what right do the have to disrupt debate? It is not like they are presenting opposing views, they are on the attack.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Simon, our resident electronics engineer with with a BA from DeVry has a high opinion of the work of Dr. Judy wood. I find that very interesting.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
The viciousness of the OS-advocates is really striking, isn't it? They are aggressive, vindictive, malicious, judgemental, accusatory