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.
The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by maxella1
Not might have covered something up, but DID cover something up. innocent people don't.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What do you think is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? I doubt I will disagree with it if it truly is.
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.
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?
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)
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)
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.
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.
Of what?
Originally posted by maxella1
First the example you posted is not covering up incompetence but instead a crime.
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.
Don't know, although I'm pretty sure it's something that would be very unpleasant for them if uncovered.
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.
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 don't really disagree, but I feel you give a lot of credence to some very spurious claims.
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.
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.
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:
Originally posted by maxella1
yeah it does look like a water truck. thanks