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: 45
46
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Negative energy storage in the trade towers contributed to collapse and bad karma in ...

3...

2..

1...




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 



Since when do the FBI investigate plane crashes? I thought it was the job of The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)?!


When the planes are used as weapons by being hijacked and then deliberately flown into buildings

Then it becomes terrorism

The FBI will call in the NTSB to assist it by reading the tapes from the voice/data recorders and in identifing
aircraft related items



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
What could they have tested for which would have been unambiguous? Can you even tell me what explosive was used to produce these explosions? If not, then how can you expect NIST to test for it?


Exponent, how are people like you and I, or the general public going to know exactly what explosives were used unless NIST test for them?

So you're saying that because the genral public don't know what type of explosives were used, NIST then should not test for them? That's a bit ridiculous isn't it?
Explosions were reported by so many people that NIST should have done a test for them. The exclusion of this test says that NIST deliberately avoided testing for them.



NIST looked into it (seismic readings). They got professionals to do so. Just because some amateurs feel that the values look high means nothing, do you have any actual evidence?


The evidence is in the readings themselves. Amatuers, and professionals both can identify these readings, but for some strange reason you and NIST cannot?



Wait so you think hearing a loud bang = controlled demolition? That's the only test you need? There are videos of the whole collapse with sound, with no loud bangs. Please tell me how you do a controlled demolition but somehow hold the building up for a while after you destroy the columns?


You were the person to call them 'bangs' exponent, everyone else, eye witnesses included called them explosions, people were burnt and blown up by them!
So the fact they actually happened and the fact there are untold videos showing them, and siesmic data matching up to them would suggest that this area definitely needed a closer look. Again, it seems only you and NIST cannot see this!

There are videos with loud bangs prior to the collapses, maybe you haven't seen them? NIST released them, reluctantly, so they would have contributed to the collapse, it seems quite obvious, but again you refuse to acknowledge hard evidence!



They tested the minimum possible charge needed to fail a single column IIRC. Something like 2lbs of explosive, not much at all.


Well, there were numerous colums that failed simultaneously, so times that amount by the amount of colums that failed and it adds up to quite a bit!



Your mistake is thinking that 'loud bang' is any sort of proof of explosive after Two half kilometre tall skyscrapers have just collapsed.


Again, you called them 'bangs' I, and numerous eye witnesses call them explosions. You are just deliberately ignoring what they really were. It's pretty obvious to tell they were explosions!

Explosions happened before, during and after impacts and collapses. It's all on video, you know this but choose to ignore this, as did NIST!



You said you've read the reports, so you already know the answer to this question, unless you were lying about having read them.


I have read the report, and I did not see this (foreknowledge) in there, hence why I am asking you, because you say it's there.



It seems this is pretty normal for a FOIA request. I've had to repeatedly push for some of my own over here, haven't had to take out a lawsuit yet but it wouldn't shock me. I certainly don't find it suspicious, do you even know who handles these requests? Secretaries, receptionists, general office workers. Not anyone who would be 'in on it' under even the most extreme scenarios.


So it's normal for someone to ignore an FOIA request for that long, so long that a law suit had to be initiated? That is total rubbish, and you know it!



I believe they did send each group of data they had through in big chunks. That's certainly what my copies of some of the data seem to indicate.


Oh, so you've changed your answer on this now, at least this one is more plausible than the last explanation you gave.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

You have not checked correctly:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by kidtwist
Since when do the FBI investigate plane crashes? I thought it was the job of The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)?!

The FBI investigates crime the NTSB largely investigates accidents.
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: adding extra answer


I came from that page and didnt see it there at the time, we must have crossed paths. Thank you for your reply, and I replied back to your responses. Still not satisfied with the answers though, not really that realistic some of them!

So can you tell me why the FBI didnt look for explosives either then? Even police officers reported explosions!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

You realise that in either situation you are implying, it would still be the FBI in charge right? It was obviously not an accident, therefore it was a crime. That makes it the FBI's responsibility.


So why did the FBI not test for explosives? Just like NIST didn't?

They should have tested for them the amount of explosions that were recorded and reported.

Also, weren't people caught with a van full of explosives?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
The victims knew they were going to die. They realised that they had a choice; either to suffocate/burn to death or leap to their deaths. No human being should have to decide between these two horrors. It is for this reason concerned people demand the truth. You, however, post photos of dumpsters as some weird idea of evidence.

I must say that it's fairly disturbing that you have twisted posting images of crime scene evidence collection into some reprehensible event.

You need to take a step back and look at the scenario neutrally. Photos were posted in response to questions, and the only response to the photos has been denial, not investigation.


I think it's disturbing that you deliberately ignore real evidence presented to you, and uphold the story of the real perps.

Money does strange things to people I guess!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

The reason I'm suspicious of the authenticity of his sympathy is because he so obviously and naively introduced it as a debating tactic. I do not think that it is impossible to have concern for strangers. I think that using a feigned concern for them in a debate is a low tactic.

You, on the other hand are unable to differentiate between sanctimony and genuine empathy. I'm not surprised.


He was showing the picture to show you the realism of the day.

Can you tell me what emotions you feel about that day?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
Exponent, how are people like you and I, or the general public going to know exactly what explosives were used unless NIST test for them?

Because apparently there is 'evidence for explosives'. Are you now telling me that there's no evidence for explosives, but suspicion and that if NIST doesn't confirm your suspicions then that means they are complicit?

That's not logical. Either you have evidence for explosives or not.


So you're saying that because the genral public don't know what type of explosives were used, NIST then should not test for them? That's a bit ridiculous isn't it?
Explosions were reported by so many people that NIST should have done a test for them. The exclusion of this test says that NIST deliberately avoided testing for them.

Explosions != Explosives. NIST avoided testing for explosives because there is not one simple 'explosive test kit'. Explosives are after all made up of very common chemicals, and many of these chemicals existed in the WTC. If you can't name a single thing they should have tested for, then you can't indict them for not testing. It's that simple.


The evidence is in the readings themselves. Amatuers, and professionals both can identify these readings, but for some strange reason you and NIST cannot?

Only amateurs have identified these suspicious readings. Professionals are who NIST employed, the very seismologists who recorded the signals. Simple as that.


You were the person to call them 'bangs' exponent, everyone else, eye witnesses included called them explosions, people were burnt and blown up by them!
So the fact they actually happened and the fact there are untold videos showing them, and siesmic data matching up to them would suggest that this area definitely needed a closer look. Again, it seems only you and NIST cannot see this!

This is just fantasy. Nobody was 'burned' by a demolition explosive, and if they were 'blown up' by them, how would you know? You're just spouting nonsense here, the sum total of evidence for explosives is: 'some people say they heard explosions'.

That's it. Nothing more. How can you possibly claim that 'people were blown up by them'. If these people were blown up they are dead, and so can't tell you their story. Do you have any other evidence or were you just making things up?


Well, there were numerous colums that failed simultaneously, so times that amount by the amount of colums that failed and it adds up to quite a bit!

Exactly, but we have video of the collapse with sound from within the distance they would be deafening. There were no deafening explosions, therefore these columns were not failed with high explosive. QED.


Again, you called them 'bangs' I, and numerous eye witnesses call them explosions. You are just deliberately ignoring what they really were. It's pretty obvious to tell they were explosions!

It's pretty obvious because you say so? How many firefighters have you interviewed that agree with your view? I know of a sum total of 2 accounts that indicate a likelyhood of explosives, only one was on site and he shows significant uncertainty.


I have read the report, and I did not see this (foreknowledge) in there, hence why I am asking you, because you say it's there.

Which is it then? You've read it or you haven't? That's like me saying "I watched loose change but didn't notice any demolition claims!". It's nonsense.


So it's normal for someone to ignore an FOIA request for that long, so long that a law suit had to be initiated? That is total rubbish, and you know it!

It seems pretty common in my experience, but of course you know better. How many FOIA requests have you filed?


So can you tell me why the FBI didnt look for explosives either then? Even police officers reported explosions!

I'm sure they did. Remember people were scouring the pile for weeks. No evidence was ever turned up that indicated explosives.


Also, weren't people caught with a van full of explosives?

No, they were caught in a van with a weird mural on the side that turned out to be not very suspicious. The rest of the hype is anti-Semitic. (not accusing you here)


I think it's disturbing that you deliberately ignore real evidence presented to you, and uphold the story of the real perps.

Money does strange things to people I guess!

Reported. You can't even manage a single argument without accusing your opponents of being paid off. If you'd bothered to do your own research instead of just parroting truther sites that you trust with no good reason, then you'd understand some of this a bit more.

Believe it not, some of us have actually taken the time to read the reports and the evidence, instead of just joining a group and trying to denigrate opponents. You should be ashamed.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

edit on 31-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: deleted

edit on 31-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

No, they were caught in a van with a weird mural on the side that turned out to be not very suspicious.


Here ya go peeps.... here's what an OS'er considers to be "not very suspicious"....



Here's another van from the same company.....



Does it get any more blatant than this that 911 was planned by someone OTHER than OBL and AL-CIA-DA?

How much more evidence do we need that these people posting here are not interested at all in the "truth", but are here to cover up for the real perps?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Whats really funny is I found that exact same van for sale on E bay Minus the mural.



The photo is a hoax. Truthers are slime.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 31-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Thanks for the link. Now I also know that the mural was backed up by police reports.

By the way, prove that the mural wasn't photoshopped OUT.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

By the way, prove that the mural wasn't photoshopped OUT.


I discussed time travel In the link I provided.

The van was owned by a furniture store in Antioch I can show you where the photo was taken on google earth, if you want.


Details for2000 Chevy G30 Cube Van 17' Truck - rebuilt 5.7 Liter V8 & Auto Trans
Address:Antioch, IL 60002 (map)
Date Posted:10/17/11
Year:2000
Make:Chevrolet Truck
Model:G30 Truck Box Van
Mileage:42,000
For Sale By:Owner



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


As already mentioned, the fact there are so many videos with sounds that are exactly like explosions, and eye witnesses that report explosions/bombs, coupled with the way all three buildings came down, then NIST should have done a test for explosives because there was good enough reason to suspect bomb were used that day.

There were bombs in 93, and they should have tested for explosives too. Regardless of whether there were similar chemicals, they have the technology to decipher if explosives were used. Don't be so naive to think they could not detect explosives. Forensic science it quite advanced, and people are trained to know what to look for..

For example, and this is just the basics, that they will initially look for when conducting a standard bomb (explosion) investigation:

"Examination of the scene and witness reports can establish whether an explosion has happened. Loud bangs, flashes, violent eruption of debris, shattering of nearby objects"

These are all indicative of an explosion caused by explosives!

That is just the starting point, I can link you to many links that show other methods they use to determine what methods/material/chemicals were actually used, from official bomb investigation sources!

You're pulling the wool over you're own eyes, but not everyone elses!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Thanks for the link. Now I also know that the mural was backed up by police reports.

By the way, prove that the mural wasn't photoshopped OUT.


I noticed he was so hot to call us "slime". A rather loathsome and abusive expression, don't you think?

Here are a few videos concerning reports of a white van - the Dancing Israelis and the explosive laden white van in at the turnpike.






edit on 31-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Also, there are numerous firemen on video that reported explosion, and many injured people that have reported, again on video, that they were injured and burnt by explosions. Yes dead people cannot speak about the explosion that killed them, but the survivors that were caught in the same blasts, and saw the dead people can relay what happened on their behalf!

Honestly, you are deliberately denying what really happened, I'd get that looked at if I were you!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Whats really funny is I found that exact same van for sale on E bay Minus the mural.



The photo is a hoax. Truthers are slime.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 31-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Where's the ebay link? Anyone could photoshop an image out. Do you always have to resort to name calling? How old are you actually?!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I have seen both of those fake vans before but to suggest they are from the same fleet is a touch of truther genius.

Ever stopped to wonder why truthers fake stuff ?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Whats really funny is I found that exact same van for sale on E bay Minus the mural.



The photo is a hoax. Truthers are slime.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 31-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Where's the ebay link? Anyone could photoshop an image out. Do you always have to resort to name calling? How old are you actually?!


This van, plus mural, is in a youtube video. After complaints the poster was obliged to add the caption " Artists Rendition" to the image.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


I noticed he was so hot to call us "slime". A rather loathsome and abusive expression, don't think?



I have the evidence to back up that statement.


One of the first thing that clued me in to the fact that this might be a fake photo was;

The van in the audio was reported to have exploded.

The van pictured in the photo is a van that has not exploded.

See if you can put two and two together and figure out the rest from there Truthers.
edit on 31-5-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join