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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 33
46
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

They are very credible witnesses because they are telling us how the lobby was completely destroyed before the tower collapsed. You're telling us that the jet fuel from 90 floors up did that?



You need to find another job....it's Memorial Day for Christ's sake.....



You just moved the goalposts didn't you. You were claiming that they were witnesses to the lobby being damaged before the plane hit. Now its before the Tower collapsed.

Somewhat different and completely in accord with all these eyewitnesses :-

sites.google.com...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

No, one girl says "I believe" . Point is though these girls were obviously evacuated, after the plane strike, through a devastated lobby. Neither claims to have been in the lobby when it was damaged so they are in no position to know what came first.


! think people are pretty sure when an explosion occurs below them first, then above them afterwards!
You comments defy logic and have done in all the years you have been upholding the original story!

What caused the basement & lobby explosions that were reported prior to the plane being hit, by different eye witnesses? Please do answer.

Now I'm expecting you to say they happened after the plane hit, and were caused by jet fuel, if so, what evidence are you basing this on, and don't say you 'think' that is what happened.

BTW a couple more videos for you...






posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


You mean the damage done to the radomes of aircraft hit by birds right? You don't actually think that the bulkhead the radome is attached to is that flimsy do you?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


Swallow your opinion? When the reality of the day shows just how wrong you are? Why would we do that?


Decipher it my great friend...

right below



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   




No it is not logical nonsense, it is logical SENSE. Like Hiroshima, there were more factors involved than just the weight of the object making the impact. In fact, the Hiroshima bomb was detonated in the air and never even contacted the ground. And don't even get me started on how your bosses fried the Japanese people including little kids in their classrooms.....



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   



Was a 767 a bomb?

Do you even know the characteristics of a bomb?


Didn't think so. I know wiki is a click away. Have fun learning though.


Who posting nonsense now?


Read below my friend , answer is below. If you disagree disprove it.


Carry on..
edit on Mon May 28 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: took current post our of quote



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


I have. This is your new name huh. And it doesn't make your signature line any less silly



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   





Was a 767 a bomb?

Do you even know the characteristics of a bomb?


Didn't think so. I know wiki is a click away. Have fun learning though.


Who posting nonsense now?


Read below my friend , answer is below. If you disagree disprove it.


Carry on..



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
....AND, that is EXACTLY what is wrong with your fairy tale. That "jet fuel" had destructive power similar to the Hiroshima bomb.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


I have. This is your new name huh. And it doesn't make your signature line any less silly


Some thing never change .
And some things are obviously paid to derail.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   




Well we seem to agree on something, there' s a novelty. You say " there were more factors involved than just the weight of the object making the impact". Couldn't have put it better myself.

But in my book that does indeed make a nonsense of GiodanoBruno's signature.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You just moved the goalposts didn't you. You were claiming that they were witnesses to the lobby being damaged before the plane hit. Now its before the Tower collapsed.


It doesn't matter WHO states that they witnessed explosions before the first plane hit, you would attempt to discredit them or write them off using any and all available forms of pretzel logic because that's your job description.

I can be my own witness. So could you if you weren't a troll. Listen for yourself....

www.infowars.com...

It's been a pleasure chatting with you... I'm going to the beach. Sorry you have to work today.
edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


I wish someone WOULD send me the app,so I could apply and get paid to make people like you look foolish. I could use it to feather my retirement.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Anyone know the exact time on that day when the Whitehouse announced that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?

I know they managed to frame him quickly, and if they expect us to believe he did it then they would have had foreknowledge to find out so quickly. Establishing the exact time they 'found out' would be interesting.

We know Bin Laden denied it and said it had to be some American terrorist organisation, and you'd think if he actually did it he's be glad to add that to his terrorist C.V.!

Allegedly, he admitted to it 3 years later! So, let's just believe for a minute that he did it, how did they come to that conclusion if he was denying it?

This needs more attention.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


And yet another example of your ignorance of the facts. Osama never denied responsibility for it. Not once. The Taliban responded to a news agency request to talk to Osama by releasing a story saying he did not do it.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
 


And yet another example of your ignorance of the facts. Osama never denied responsibility for it. Not once. The Taliban responded to a news agency request to talk to Osama by releasing a story saying he did not do it.



Oh ok, so this report by CNN in September 2001 is fake then is it?

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

I only provide genuine facts, real evidence, I don't rely on what I saw on tv like yourself, i don't rely on guesswork like you do, and I don't make stuff up as I go along.

I don't remember you ever posting anything that is remoptely accurate, and how long have you been defending the OS?!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by waypastvne

The center tank of both AA11 and UA175 were empty. AA11 had an estimated 66,100 pounds (9,664gal) total in the wing tanks


Well thank you sirb for proving me wrong. And welcome , is this your first time supporting the Truther movement. I have a feeling you will make a great addition to the movement.

Your point proves that fire really wasn't a factor. Because for fire to really be a factor ,the fuselage is the only part of the plane that "could" puncture thru the steel skin of the towers.

So if what you say is true there was no fuel really doing any damage?

I applaud you sir!! Bravo!!



Unlike Truthers, such as yourself, who like to spread lies and misinformation. We believe the truth is the truth and will present it as accurately as possible, and will correct bad information no matter who makes it.

The majority of the fuel was located right behind the engines by the way. Those came out the other side of the building.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist


Which poster did I attack? Can you be specific? I dont see anyone personally being attacked in my comment!
The evidence we present speaks for itself.


You made a series of implications, partly about me, partly about other posters, suggesting that they have been paid to be here or are contributing their thoughts for dishonest reasons. That's attacking the person, not the content of what they say. It's also something for which you have no real evidence. Pretty much like all your "ideas" about 9/11.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno



Um,,,You have been doing this for 6+ years. I'd say you've been employee of the month more than once. You're doing a great job.




You can keep slinging insults and baseless accusations if you like, or you can try to engage with what I'm saying. I imagine you won't though, so I won't be responding to you again.


No please don't leave! But you can't blame to notice you've been doing this for 6 years.

When talking about "engaging", engage my signature. Please try to decipher it with only using logic.

But I am sure it would be easier to run away


Nope. It would be easily done but I just can't be bothered, sorry.

Weird, isn't it? I'm apparently being paid not to talk to you



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join