Changes in the last year

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.


I was just looking through all of those citations myself.

Lots of talking about looking for evidence, but nothing about looking for evidence of explosives. NIST quite clearly said they didn't look "because it would be silly to look for some that isn't there".

Why would the FBI be so interested in looking for imaginary explosives? Answer: They wouldn't and they didn't and you're making stuff up.




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Actually I did miss that they were looking for ballistics.

Thanks I'll read the whole thing



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


So what I said was that you would not be able to explain even the most basic facts of the day in a consistent and coherent method.

Your response was to say "They must be guilty because they might have covered something up".

I think I have proven my point, you don't actually have any reliable information, you can't even choose between high explosives and thermites for the towers.

You just know they must have used 'explosives'? Why? Because people said 'explosions'.

Why should anyone bother discussing the facts with you, when you're obviously only willing to believe something as long as it contradicts the 'official story', even if you don't even understand what the official story is at the time.

Do you not feel embarrassed that despite believing you have all the information needed, you can't even answer a simple question?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Lots of talking about looking for evidence, but nothing about looking for evidence of explosives. NIST quite clearly said they didn't look "because it would be silly to look for some that isn't there".

Really? I thought they said there is no diagnostic test. Could you link me to the statement that you're quoting?


Why would the FBI be so interested in looking for imaginary explosives? Answer: They wouldn't and they didn't and you're making stuff up.

The FBI isn't NIST. Please don't be so hasty to accuse someone of making stuff up, I was patient and calm with you despite what I feel are extremely different biases depending on the source of your information.

The least you could do is hear a case out.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.


I was just looking through all of those citations myself.

Lots of talking about looking for evidence, but nothing about looking for evidence of explosives. NIST quite clearly said they didn't look "because it would be silly to look for some that isn't there".

Why would the FBI be so interested in looking for imaginary explosives? Answer: They wouldn't and they didn't and you're making stuff up.


MY apologies for that... They were not specifically looking for explosives, but I would like to add the following though... (see we admit when we make mistakes)

At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
• 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour
• 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process
• 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination
• Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked
• Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered
• 4,257 body parts had been recovered
• 209 victims had been positively identified.

Not a single inspector found ANY traces of ANY devices? No steel with tell tale signs of being destroyed via an explosive device? Oh, will you now say that since they were not looking for det cord or devices..they would over look them?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Your response was to say "They must be guilty because they might have covered something up".


Not might have covered something up, but DID cover something up. innocent people don't.




I think I have proven my point, you don't actually have any reliable information, you can't even choose between high explosives and thermites for the towers.


I have no expertise in explosives so I don't need to choose anything. To me the crime of 9/11 is obvious in the prior knowledge and the cover up that follows . But you go ahead and continue choosing, it only makes people research further.




Why should anyone bother discussing the facts with you, when you're obviously only willing to believe something as long as it contradicts the 'official story', even if you don't even understand what the official story is at the time.


You don't want to discuss any real facts, just the ones that you know can't be proven. Like thermite in the towers, even though some claim to have the proof, I personally cant discuss it because i don't know anything about thermite. And that's why you really, really want to discuss it.



Do you not feel embarrassed that despite believing you have all the information needed, you can't even answer a simple question?


The only thing I feel embarrassed about is that American people are allowing this bullsh** to continue for so long.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


More information about Ground Zero....


Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.


Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plane hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection both before and after detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differentiation capability.



edit on 4-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Not might have covered something up, but DID cover something up. innocent people don't.

Of course they do. I might leave my front door unlocked and return to find my house ransacked. If I lock the door and claim it was locked, or break a window to show signs of forced entry, then I am covering something up.

Using your logic, we'd have to assume I ransacked my own house.


I have no expertise in explosives so I don't need to choose anything. To me the crime of 9/11 is obvious in the prior knowledge and the cover up that follows . But you go ahead and continue choosing, it only makes people research further.

But you're not researching further. You said you had all the information you needed, but it isn't even enough information to pick what sort of controlled demolition they employed. If you don't have this sort of information, how can you say with confidence that it was a controlled demolition?


You don't want to discuss any real facts, just the ones that you know can't be proven. Like thermite in the towers, even though some claim to have the proof, I personally cant discuss it because i don't know anything about thermite. And that's why you really, really want to discuss it.

What do you think is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? I doubt I will disagree with it if it truly is.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Of course they do. I might leave my front door unlocked and return to find my house ransacked. If I lock the door and claim it was locked, or break a window to show signs of forced entry, then I am covering something up. Using your logic, we'd have to assume I ransacked my own house.


If you would do that, i would not call you innocent. because you either did ransacked your house or you are committing an insurance fraud. And therefore you are committing a crime. Not innocent at all.



But you're not researching further. You said you had all the information you needed, but it isn't even enough information to pick what sort of controlled demolition they employed. If you don't have this sort of information, how can you say with confidence that it was a controlled demolition?


yes because having all the information that I need in order to say that members of our government is covering up a crime doesn't include what destroyed the building. Maybe that's what they are covering up in the first place? Or did you uncover everything that they could be covering up?




What do you think is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? I doubt I will disagree with it if it truly is.


A cover up.
edit on 4-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
If you would do that, i would not call you innocent. because you either did ransacked your house or you are committing an insurance fraud. And therefore you are committing a crime. Not innocent at all.

So if someone covers up their incompetence, then they deserve to be prosecuted as if they committed the whole crime? The fact that you ignore the distinction there is troubling.


yes because having all the information that I need in order to say that members of our government is covering up a crime doesn't include what destroyed the building. Maybe that's what they are covering up in the first place? Or did you uncover everything that they could be covering up?

So hold on, you're now saying that the only thing you're certain about is that something is being covered up? I'm not going to argue that point as I can easily believe that the USG was very interested in covering up their own incompetence.

This is a far cry from your claims in other threads though, where you seem to believe a whole manner of nefarious actions were taking place.


A cover up.
edit on 4-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Of what?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by maxella1
 


More information about Ground Zero....


Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.


Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plane hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection both before and after detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differentiation capability.



edit on 4-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


Poor dogs


This is convincing for sure.

I would like to ask a few questions and make a few comments.

First where did you get this from? I'd like to read the whole thing.

Second what type of explosives were the dogs trained for?

If thermite were actually used (not saying that it was, i have no clue about thermite) would the dogs detect it ?

And third he says that building 6 was pulled ( I know he means pulled by cables). I found this
and the truck that is pulling it appears to me more like this
than pulling cables.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




So if someone covers up their incompetence, then they deserve to be prosecuted as if they committed the whole crime? The fact that you ignore the distinction there is troubling.


First the example you posted is not covering up incompetence but instead a crime.




So hold on, you're now saying that the only thing you're certain about is that something is being covered up? I'm not going to argue that point as I can easily believe that the USG was very interested in covering up their own incompetence. This is a far cry from your claims in other threads though, where you seem to believe a whole manner of nefarious actions were taking place.


No you are claiming that I claim something in other threads. I have always said that because they are covering up nobody except them know what actually happened. Not that I believe the whole thing, because questions remain unanswered due to a cover up. It could be anything they are covering up including control demolition. But we'll never know unless the people that are covering up are investigated by law.




Of what?


Don't know, although I'm pretty sure it's something that would be very unpleasant for them if uncovered.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
First the example you posted is not covering up incompetence but instead a crime.

Even if it is criminal fraud, the fact remains that I would not have ransacked my own house, and so by believing that a cover up could be evidence for controlled demolition you would be making a logical mistake.

Like I said, I have every reason to believe the US Government happily covered up their incompetence post-911. I would love to see Bush face criminal trials (and most importantly, discovery) for his role in starting the War on Iraq. This doesn't mean that I think there's any credence to some ridiculous conspiracy involving nanothermites.


No you are claiming that I claim something in other threads. I have always said that because they are covering up nobody except them know what actually happened. Not that I believe the whole thing, because questions remain unanswered due to a cover up. It could be anything they are covering up including control demolition. But we'll never know unless the people that are covering up are investigated by law.

You say this, but in the post above you are asking questions about nanothermites. I suppose the simplest way to solve this is to ask you directly: Do you believe there is any verifiable evidence of controlled demolition?


Don't know, although I'm pretty sure it's something that would be very unpleasant for them if uncovered.

I don't really disagree, but I feel you give a lot of credence to some very spurious claims.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Even if it is criminal fraud, the fact remains that I would not have ransacked my own house, and so by believing that a cover up could be evidence for controlled demolition you would be making a logical mistake.


Wait a second... Regarding to your example. If you are committing criminal fraud by faking a forced entry why would anybody believe you that you didn't ransacked your own house ?



You say this, but in the post above you are asking questions about nanothermites. I suppose the simplest way to solve this is to ask you directly: Do you believe there is any verifiable evidence of controlled demolition?


I think there is enough evidence to consider a controlled demolition, and I think there's enough evidence to believe that our government was involved in some way. and I believe that they might be covering up a controlled demolition because it appears to be that some kind of explosives were use in the way the buildings collapsed. And since they are lying about their incompetents why wouldn't they lie about everything else?




I don't really disagree, but I feel you give a lot of credence to some very spurious claims.


You feel wrong.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Poor dogs


This is convincing for sure.

I would like to ask a few questions and make a few comments.

First where did you get this from? I'd like to read the whole thing.

Second what type of explosives were the dogs trained for?

If thermite were actually used (not saying that it was, i have no clue about thermite) would the dogs detect it ?

And third he says that building 6 was pulled ( I know he means pulled by cables). I found this
and the truck that is pulling it appears to me more like this than pulling cables.





This was written on a blog. I have confirmed most of what is written (the poster chose to be anonymous)
ronmossad.blogspot.com...

You can easily confirm the dog presence at Fresh Kills here:

www.qrz.com...

www.findingoneanother.org...

and:

Cynthia Otto, DVM, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania Vet Working Dog Center studies the health of 9/11 search and rescue dogs deployed to the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon, and a 9/11 landfill site to understand the health issues of the dogs.
occupational-therapy.advanceweb.com...

There was also a book written:

Dog Heroes of September 11th: A Tribute to America's Search and Rescue Dogs

In regards to the building being pulled, it was cranes. They can be seen in this video:
video.google.com...

The firetrucks were spraying water I assume to avoid fires.


edit on 4-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Thanks for the links, i will definitely check them out.



In regards to the building being pulled, it was cranes. They can be seen in this video: video.google.com... The firetrucks were spraying water I assume to avoid fires.


Only it's not a firetruck in this gif




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Only it's not a firetruck in this gif



I guess I'm confused? The truck looks like a water spray truck...like in this picture:

www.vpr.net...

You had said the truck doing the pulling looked like a firetruck. I had assumed there was a firetruck there doing the spraying.

I hope you're clear on this.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





I guess I'm confused? The truck looks like a water spray truck...like in this picture:


yeah it does look like a water truck. thanks



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

yeah it does look like a water truck. thanks



You're welcome... I seemed to have found the anonymous blogger from my above link. (regarding the K-9's) His name is Capt. Jim McGee of Haiku Kennels in Florida.

www.webpal.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
So they found no human bodies but they found the body of their dog?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join