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: 36
46
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
He was certain of the what happened, you are implying assumption. You were not there, he was, I'm going to believe a real eye witness, not someone on the internet who has got most of their facts incorrect so far!


Well he certainly didn't say how he knew, so I have to move to the conclusion that he must have assumed it. His companion seemed to think otherwise, so why were they experiencing two different events at the same time?




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
I'm glad you agree that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but I have not seen any other videos of him talking about WTC1 & 2, so if you have a link please share, then I can give you my personal view on it. Until then I cannot comment on what you are assuming.

Haha wow. You've really done absolutely no research of your own have you? His opinions about WTC1 and 2 are given in the same news report.

Of course, the only way you can't have seen these is if you've only ever watched videos from truther sites where they have cut out the sections that support them.

I'm honestly not remotely surprised that this is the case, and I find it funny that you say '5-7 year olds not interested in 911'. I agree there, but in my experience 11-18 year olds are the most interested in 911.

I also reported a bunch of posts in this thread, "truthers" may not be used as an invective, but I believe "shills" has been banned altogether as it cannot be anything but an invective. The amount of accusations of slander followed instantly by personal insults is beyond belief. You should all calm down and think carefully before posting.


I saw it, so I do know what he said, I meant I have not seen any other videos, and asked you to produce them, I thought you had more on him.

I know what he said, and what he said was that the only way you can make the top collpase that way is to blow out the bottom first, which is consistent to what happened in the basement and lobby, and is consistent with what was reported by all the numerous eye witnesses. There is also video of a sonic boom explosion and smoke at the base of the towers before they came down. All supporting controlled demoliton! Again, nice try!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
He was certain of the what happened, you are implying assumption. You were not there, he was, I'm going to believe a real eye witness, not someone on the internet who has got most of their facts incorrect so far!


Well he certainly didn't say how he knew, so I have to move to the conclusion that he must have assumed it. His companion seemed to think otherwise, so why were they experiencing two different events at the same time?


As already mentioned, the timelines do not lie!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

One more time




reply to post by kidtwist
 



For one, mods have banned the word 'truther' (see a few pages back).

.


For the record, what I said was "please stop using "truthers" as an invective -- in other words "stupid truther", "take that, TRUTHER", etc. Please don't call anyone a "shill".

If the topic cannot be discussed/debated without engaging each other in a personal manner -- that is, staying on-topic -- then the thread will probably be closed.

Please post on topic, everybody. Please keep the personal stuff out of it. Pretty clear, right?

Thanks!
edit on 28/5/12 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


who indeed .makes you wonder www.wellaware1 for a list of actors



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.


Hell I'll hire you in a heartbeat. You and Gdeck are very entertaining.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

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.


What is "truth is the truth"? Is it Anything the government gives you?

How do you know the engines came out from the other side of the building?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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


Fair enough



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
but I have not seen any videos of him talking about WTC1 & 2, so if you have a link please share, then I can give you my personal view on it. Until then I cannot comment on what you are assuming.







Originally posted by kidtwist
and the timings of his phone calls do not lie.




Please provide your official source for the timing of his phone calls.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by Varemia

And yet the firefighters describing the unstable building and damage caused by WTC 1 is to be completely ignored or interpreted as something completely different? These double standards are ridiculous.


Of course it was unstable, explosions were going off inside it, have you not seen the Barry Jennings video!?!

I know you have, and I know what stupid answer you will come out with! You discredit everything! You're not even worth debating with.



The power went off in the building before Barry Jennings even started going downstairs. Based on the pictures of the room he was in and the schematics of the stairs, there were no windows once he started going up and down. The power didn't go off until WTC 1 collapsed and severed the power lines. That puts Barry Jennings' entire statement about the tower being standing as false. It also means that in the time he spent slowly going down the stairs, it was enough time for the second tower to collapse, at which point the "explosions" happened.

Stop being naive and get with the program. There are facts being discussed here, not conspiracy faith.


Not conspiracy faith , its conspiracy fact(like my signature). The only faith basing here is you accepting NIST as the final word. Am I wrong here?




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


How do you know the engines came out from the other side of the building?




I looked at the evidence. Every time a truther ask me to look at his evidence,I look at his evidence. Then I come back and laugh in his face. Did you know the starboard engine UA175 clipped and damaged another building before hitting the ground.



Do you think this is planted damage ?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by kidtwist


Well, it's a good indicator for all the youtube video evidence from that day. Bieber is a different target audience and cannot be remotely connected in any way to 9/11.

You know this, but you deliberately included beiber to take away from what I was getting at.

Where are the majority of 9/11 videos hosted? Youtube, are 5-7 year olds interested in 9/11, NO!

So you know what I'm saying. All video evidence that puts holes in the OS barely have any dislikes, but plenty of likes. That is a good indicator that from the videos presented, most people support the inside job claim!


It isn't actually. For the same reason that online polls are worthless.

But let's pretend that you're right. How come if everyone thinks 9/11 was an inside job nothing's being done about it? How come a majority are sheeple but a majority also support you?

If there really are a significant majority who think 9/11 was an inside job is it just that truthers as a whole are extremely lazy and therefore can't be bothered to do anything serious about it?



"How come if everyone thinks 9/11 was an inside job nothing's being done about it?"


,,Because most are terrified attempting to discuss, objectively ,with others(others meaning in the public eye). Here (ATS) is a bit different.

I could never mention my "signature" in my industry. You know very well 911 is an extremely sensitive issue. Which is the only advantage you OSers have.





posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
No it isn't it's funded by tax payers money, hence why people in the uk have to pay their tv license! Their tv license funds the BBC! Jeez, do you lot get anything right!

It's funded by the TV License, not tax. I have a TV license, and clearly know a lot more about it than you.


I saw it, so I do know what he said, I meant I have not seen any other videos, and asked you to produce them, I thought you had more on him.

You now claim you've seen something you claim you'd never even heard of moments ago. Why are you being so dishonest? Are you trying to save face?


I know what he said, and what he said was that the only way you can make the top collpase that way is to blow out the bottom first, which is consistent to what happened in the basement and lobby, and is consistent with what was reported by all the numerous eye witnesses.

This is just un-sourced fantasy. It has no logical connection nor did Danny Jowenko ever say it. In order to make a building collapse at the top like WTC1 and 2, you do not destroy the bottom first. That would result in a failure at the bottom.

The amount you're trying to twist accounts and logic to avoid being wrong is just depressing, please stop it.


There is also video of a sonic boom explosion and smoke at the base of the towers before they came down. All supporting controlled demoliton! Again, nice try!

No, there isn't. Stop making things up.


Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Not conspiracy faith , its conspiracy fact(like my signature). The only faith basing here is you accepting NIST as the final word. Am I wrong here?

Your signature is fantasy, a fantasy you have invested your ego in. A dangerous proposition. Now you can never accept that you are wrong.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


How do you know the engines came out from the other side of the building?




I looked at the evidence. Every time a truther ask me to look at his evidence,I look at his evidence. Then I come back and laugh in his face. Did you know the starboard engine UA175 clipped and damaged another building before hitting the ground.



Do you think this is planted damage ?


One of the jet engines did that? How do you know? Is there a picture of the engine?

So the engine managed to avoid steel columns and the core, and continued thru to damage an eyebrow section of another building?


Sorry don't buy it




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Is there a picture of the engine?




Yes lots of pictures.





In this photo it still has oil steaming out of it.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Is there a picture of the engine?




Yes lots of pictures.





In this photo it still has oil steaming out of it.


The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)







posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)


Where is your evidence of this? The engine exists in many accounts of the events of the day, and I don't think you actually understand the difference between high and low bypass jet engines.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)






Hey genius, it's the inside of a jet engine.

inventors.about.com...

At least try to think critically. Did you go to school for nothing?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So what makes you think there was any air pressure in the first place, when the whole building was blowing outwards?


Survivors in the stairwell of WTC 1 state that there was high velocity wind being pushed down the stairwells.


If they did then the collapse would not have been complete, and there would be a stack of floors in the footprint.


lie


The air could not have been compressed when the floors and everything else was being blown outwards...


lie



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Then post another picture of that corner street. There has to be more than one picture of that specific engine. C'mon dude.

And what particularly makes you think I have no clue of high/low bypass engines?




new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join