An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
 

This doesn't mean it never happened.


You're right, it doesn't. The fact that so many people on familiar terms with the culprits saying it never happened is what means it never happened.


The act was deemed a criminal act due to structural breach therefore Gelitin was removing every trace of it from their website. And again, you missed my point. An intelligence agency can manage to disguise themselves as ANY type of personnel, hence moles within the government. I'm not saying these were Israeli art students. I'm saying if MOSSAD can pose as something as simple as art students, they can damn well pose as employees within the building or even maintenance. If you can't fathom that idea than you're severely undermining the capabilities of intelligence agencies around the world.


I think it's safe to say that it's still beyond the capabilities of intelligence agencies around the world to cause all the physical evidence left behind after a bombing (shattered steel, remains of det cord wiring, the occasional unexploded ordnance, whatever) to be spontaneously sucked into the 23rd dimension so that ground crews clearing otu the wreckage wouldn't find even a microbe of anything suspicious.


The only real security in the WTC was on the ground floor and the basement. I'm pretty sure intelligence agents would be able to manage moving items (explosives) through out the WTC over a long period of time whether they're disguised as personnel of the WTC or employees with in it. Do you really think it's that impossible of an idea?


I see you conveniently ignore the one tiny detail that unravels your theory; "Doing this without anyone noticing anything going on". The longer these controlled demolitions sat around waiting to be set off, the greater the chance becomes that one of the custodians, inspectors, electricians, etc would discover them in their regular day to day operations, particilarly when these demolitions would need to be planted in the same spots these other employees needed to go. All it takes is one, count it, one, controlled demo charge to be discovered for the entire plan to unravel.

Or, are you suggesting 100,000 secret agents rushed into the building, planted these secret demolitions, ran out, and then blew it up in the time span of fifteen minutes?




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


So you're saying that this is evidence that it's possible for agents to get into the WTC? But not that they planted any explosives. Indeed that it's unlikely that they did.

I'd say that's not very revelatory. Presumably a Mossad agent could have got a job at a WTC company as well?

Proving that things such as this are possible is a bit of a waste of time, frankly. It's possible that 9/11 was perpetrated by disgruntled women tennis players from Azerbaijan. But it's not particularly instructive.

And the point still stands. Why would agents going into the WTC build a work of art to draw attention to themselves?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by homervb
 


So you're saying that this is evidence that it's possible for agents to get into the WTC? But not that they planted any explosives. Indeed that it's unlikely that they did.

I'd say that's not very revelatory. Presumably a Mossad agent could have got a job at a WTC company as well?

Proving that things such as this are possible is a bit of a waste of time, frankly. It's possible that 9/11 was perpetrated by disgruntled women tennis players from Azerbaijan. But it's not particularly instructive

And the point still stands. Why would agents going into the WTC build a work of art to draw attention to themselves?


lol I love how you people doubt everything except the 9/11 Commission Report. You throw in ridiculous statements such as "It's possible that 9/11 was perpetrated by disgruntled women tennis players from Azerbaijan" to throw everything off track. And none the less you have yet to discover that I never stated these art students were the ones planting explosives yet you still question why I think these art students could have been the one planting explosives.

If Susan Lindauer is right about these white vans showing up weeks in advance of the attack you can connect this to:

Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, who pulled out of the WTC right before the attack.

The white vans Lindauer refers to could have been those of Urban Moving System. Vans that had traces of explosives within them when those driving them were detained. While Urban Moving Systems is moving things out of the office they're simultaneously bringing up all equipment to rig for controlled demolition.

It's all a hypothetical connecting of the dots.

edit on 18-10-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think it's safe to say that it's still beyond the capabilities of intelligence agencies around the world to cause all the physical evidence left behind after a bombing (shattered steel, remains of det cord wiring, the occasional unexploded ordnance, whatever) to be spontaneously sucked into the 23rd dimension so that ground crews clearing otu the wreckage wouldn't find even a microbe of anything suspicious.


Well not for nothing man but there was no one really investigating the rubble for evidence minus steel beams and what not left over. The clean up crew wasn't sifting through the rubble looking for these things, even the NIST says they didn't search for signs of controlled demolition. If you have all that rubble and you're main goal is to remove the rubble ASAP, of course you're not going to find any of it, especially if you're not instructed to do so. That fact that you say "sucked into the 23rd dimension" is a sad attempt at facing the reality of the lack of investigation into the rubble, and the fact that the NIST deemed it unnecessary to search for any signs of controlled demolition. If everything worked out the way the official story says, who's not to say "al-qaeda" didn't manage to place any type of explosive in or around the world trade centers? Why are those options completely negated? When 3 buildings fall, all in the same day, who's not to say there could have been some type of assistance to the airliners crashing into them?



I see you conveniently ignore the one tiny detail that unravels your theory; "Doing this without anyone noticing anything going on". The longer these controlled demolitions sat around waiting to be set off, the greater the chance becomes that one of the custodians, inspectors, electricians, etc would discover them in their regular day to day operations, particilarly when these demolitions would need to be planted in the same spots these other employees needed to go. All it takes is one, count it, one, controlled demo charge to be discovered for the entire plan to unravel.


A rather good point my friend. I can't deny that you're right on this issue. But then again, you're forgetting the idea that agents could pose as ANY type of personnel, maybe even personnel who have access to sensitive areas in the building in which personnel of this type can only go to. Hypothetically, if a good portion of the janitorial service within the WTC turned out to be MOSSAD agents undercover, then who's not to say this could have been done by them? They'd have access to a majority of the building, most likely places in which every day employees would never go to.

I came across this HYPOTHETICAL theory:



The explosive charges, disguised to look like lighting fixtures, are placed on the roofs of elevator cars and installed on the inside walls of the elevator shafts by a technician riding on the elevator. There are no security cameras inside the shafts to capture this operation. A controller is placed on each floor to signal the dozens of charges on that floor via short-distance radio links



The demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 are accomplished through the detonation of high-explosive charges inconspicuously installed in all three buildings' elevator shafts, and, in the case of Building 7, small cutter charges placed adjacent perimeter columns near the building's base.

The number of explosive charges used in the Twin Towers is far less than would be employed in conventional demolitions of such large buildings, but their aggregate explosive energy is much greater. Each charge is contained in a capsule weighing about 40 pounds and encased in an impact- and fire-resistant casing similar to the casings that shield aircraft black boxes.

Each demolition charge has a detonator that goes off when it detects a radio signal that matches its unique code. Each charge is assigned to the nearest of a score of radio repeater clusters also hidden in the elevator shafts. During each tower's demolition sequence, a radio in Building 7 sends signals for the various explosive charges in rapid succession through the repeater clusters, forming a 2-level hub-and-spoke network. Software on the demolition-controlling computer allows the technicians to make last-minute changes to the programmed demolition sequences, such as to account for the positions at which the aircraft struck.

The high-explosive charges resemble conventional thermobaric devices, in which an initial charge disperses an explosive aerosol without detonating it, and a second charge ignites the aerosol, producing a strong blast wave. The delay between the dispersal and detonating charges is about five seconds, allowing the aerosol to traverse the distance between the elevator shafts and perimeter walls before being detonated. The explosive is designed to have almost no flash.

edit on 19-10-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

lol I love how you people doubt everything except the 9/11 Commission Report. You throw in ridiculous statements such as "It's possible that 9/11 was perpetrated by disgruntled women tennis players from Azerbaijan" to throw everything off track. And none the less you have yet to discover that I never stated these art students were the ones planting explosives yet you still question why I think these art students could have been the one planting explosives.


I have said many times I don't believe "the official story" so if you can't comprehend that I don't believe "the official story" then there's really no point in my saying it again. After all, it's your credibility that suffers from making things up to suit your purposes, not ours.

I know you never stated these art students planted any explosives. What I also know is that you're using what these art students claimed to do as a basis for allowing these imaginary agents of yours to get away with planting explosives. The problem for you is, their stunt was a hoax that was heavily embellished by the paranoia mongoring of Alex Jones (these art students weren't even Israeli!). Come to think of it, ALL the spooky-scary conspiracy events supposedly going on is heavily embellished by the paranoia mongoring of one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. "Pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions", "no interceptors were scrambled", "the Pentagon had anti-aircraft batteries", the list of internet myths they're perpetuating goes on and on.

So when we see the conspiracy proponents spreading lies like "no aircraft wreckage was fount at the Pentagon" do you really think we're going to spontaneously believe everything you say without question simply because you accused us of " "we accept everything the 'official story' tells us"?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb


lol I love how you people doubt everything except the 9/11 Commission Report.


Where did I even mention the report?


You throw in ridiculous statements such as "It's possible that 9/11 was perpetrated by disgruntled women tennis players from Azerbaijan" to throw everything off track.


I mentioned this because you claimed to have proved that it is possible that agents can infiltrate buildings. You seemed to think this somehow helped yourpoint, even though you admit that those agents couldn't have planted explosives.

My assertion is literally correct. 9/11 COULD have been pulled off by anyone. proving that is just pointless though. And very easy.


And none the less you have yet to discover that I never stated these art students were the ones planting explosives yet you still question why I think these art students could have been the one planting explosives.


Um, no. I know you don't think they planted them. Which leaves you with kind of a problem right?


If Susan Lindauer is right about these white vans showing up weeks in advance of the attack you can connect this to:

Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, who pulled out of the WTC right before the attack.

The white vans Lindauer refers to could have been those of Urban Moving System. Vans that had traces of explosives within them when those driving them were detained. While Urban Moving Systems is moving things out of the office they're simultaneously bringing up all equipment to rig for controlled demolition.

It's all a hypothetical connecting of the dots.


It's just a meaningless dead end. Any reading of the events that tries to go further than "this is just hypothetical" and "isn't it possible that..." falls to bits.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I mentioned this because you claimed to have proved that it is possible that agents can infiltrate buildings. You seemed to think this somehow helped your point, even though you admit that those agents couldn't have planted explosives.

My assertion is literally correct. 9/11 COULD have been pulled off by anyone. proving that is just pointless though. And very easy.


Wrong. My point was saying if agents of the MOSSAD could pose as personnel that work for the building then they could accomplish this. Posing as personnel of the building would mean they credentials that granted access to the building. Therefore your statement on tennis players is meaningless and a sad tactic in shooting down my theory.


Um, no. I know you don't think they planted them. Which leaves you with kind of a problem right?


You repeatedly asked me about the art student example I gave Dave. And no there's no problem.



It's just a meaningless dead end. Any reading of the events that tries to go further than "this is just hypothetical" and "isn't it possible that..." falls to bits.


It's only a dead end if you look at it that way. I might not have a paper trail to go by, but that doesn't mean I can't connect the dots from what was reported in the media. It's funny how not a ounce of curiosity arises in you when you look over what you've been told about 9/11.

Able Danger....documents explaining how the government was tracking the hijackers before 9/11, all files destroyed

The Death of bin Laden...the death of the "#1 responsible for 9/11" includes killing him and throwing his body off a navy vessel with not one consistent story released about the raid or evidence to corroborate it even happened.

The trial of KSM and other "conspirators"...all testimony and everything said within the trial is completely concealed by censors to the point where families of 9/11 victims have to watch from a closed circuit television which includes a 40 second delay to hide the fact that these "conspirators" were tortured so much it's obvious they could have confessed to ANYTHING the CIA wanted them to.

One of the most heinous crimes in US history and the American people are kept in the dark about the government's apparent "justice" being served to those responsible. Such a joke.

What about the Oklahoma City Bombing's terrorist Timothy McVeigh? He wasn't tortured, nor was his trial censored to any degree. What's the difference? Because he's not Muslim? What if he had accomplices? What if there was more to his story that he wasn't telling?





edit on 19-10-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


I have said many times I don't believe "the official story" so if you can't comprehend that I don't believe "the official story" then there's really no point in my saying it again.


You can say it as much as you want, it's your actions and how you respond to every single post that shows you're embellished in the OS.




I know you never stated these art students planted any explosives. What I also know is that you're using what these art students claimed to do as a basis for allowing these imaginary agents of yours to get away with planting explosives. The problem for you is, their stunt was a hoax that was heavily embellished by the paranoia mongoring of Alex Jones (these art students weren't even Israeli!). Come to think of it, ALL the spooky-scary conspiracy events supposedly going on is heavily embellished by the paranoia mongoring of one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. "Pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions", "no interceptors were scrambled", "the Pentagon had anti-aircraft batteries", the list of internet myths they're perpetuating goes on and on.


See here you go bro, claiming this was a hoax when indeed nobody knows if it was or not. And I could give a rats ass if Alex Jones used this story and twisted the words, I don't follow him nor do I care to. Though you do have an obsession with using him in almost every reply you make to a post, I'll tack on the words "sinister secret agents" while I'm at it.


So when we see the conspiracy proponents spreading lies like "no aircraft wreckage was fount at the Pentagon" do you really think we're going to spontaneously believe everything you say without question simply because you accused us of " "we accept everything the 'official story' tells us"?


Spontaneously believe everything I say? I told you it was all hypothetical, you don't have to believe anything. And the theory I proposed incorporated official reportings within the media, it did NOT include denying what the media has reported. So obviously you really do have some kind of bias against any theory going against the OS. You take my "connecting of media stories" as "denial of media stories" right off the bat and have to immediately include Alex Jones, "damned fool conspiracy websites", and internet myths in an attempt to belittle my theory just like you do to everyone else.




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Well not for nothing man but there was no one really investigating the rubble for evidence minus steel beams and what not left over. The clean up crew wasn't sifting through the rubble looking for these things, even the NIST says they didn't search for signs of controlled demolition. If you have all that rubble and you're main goal is to remove the rubble ASAP, of course you're not going to find any of it, especially if you're not instructed to do so.



All right, then, here's your chance. If you would be so kind as to go back a page or two, you will see several photos I posted of a core column retrieved from the wreckage. This is relevent becuase this is one of the very columns that needed to be sabotaged for the building to come down in the way you describe, and as you can see, there isn't anything on the column that cannot be explained by the mechanical force of the collapse itself. It has no blast marks, there are no scars from melting...heck, there isn't so much as a hole drilled in it. Would you mind explaining how this is the case?

I can post the photos again if you cannot find them. The point is, you don't have to specifically be looking for something to be able to find it when it's conspicuously lying there in front of you.


A rather good point my friend. I can't deny that you're right on this issue. But then again, you're forgetting the idea that agents could pose as ANY type of personnel, maybe even personnel who have access to sensitive areas in the building in which personnel of this type can only go to. Hypothetically, if a good portion of the janitorial service within the WTC turned out to be MOSSAD agents undercover, then who's not to say this could have been done by them? They'd have access to a majority of the building, most likely places in which every day employees would never go to.


All right, suppose a custodian did come by and slap a bomb somewhere. Why wouldn't the inspector looking for water leakage from a previous night's rain stumble across it? If both the custodian AND the inspector are in on the conspiracy, why wouldn't the technician running computer wires through the area stumble across it? The same for the electricians, the security guards, the bomb dogs, the romantic couple sneaking off into the closets for their trysts, and so on.

It seems to me that for every actual bomb technician planting demolitions, you're essentially claiming there were ten other people in the building covering for him, so the conspiracy theorists' claim that only take a handful of people would be needed to pull this off is being unrealistic.




The explosive charges, disguised to look like lighting fixtures, are placed on the roofs of elevator cars and installed on the inside walls of the elevator shafts by a technician riding on the elevator. There are no security cameras inside the shafts to capture this operation. A controller is placed on each floor to signal the dozens of charges on that floor via short-distance radio links


You can theorize all you'd like, but at the end of the day you still need to be able to account for a) why noone else saw any such suspicious activity and b) why there isn't a microbe of physical proof that supports it. For one thing, so many light fixtures in such weird areas would definitely get the electrician's attention.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You know, lack of detonator wires in the rubble doesn't automatically mean the 'detonations' were "wireless".

Right? Am I right? Think it through.

But see what I did there, I put the word detonations in single quotes. It's like when I type the word 'collapse' and put that in single quotes. What does it mean? It means I think something is up with both collapse and detonations.

Let me explain.

I was walking down the road thinking about "Controlled Demolition" of the towers...

Also yesterday I was reading an article about the evolution of cell phones.

In the article was this here pic:


Isn't that pic cool? It shows the evolution of cell phones over the years...

Why am I bringing that up? Well while walking down the road I was thinking about the evolution of explosives you see?

Now I'm going to talk SPECULATION here and just generally, but hopefully I will make a case for what I'm saying that you will see as we go along etc.

Way back in the old days when they needed to build a railway tunnel through the Rockies or open up a mine shaft they used things like dynamite. You know, those sticks that were all taped together and had wires sticking out that had to be placed and all wired back to one of those push handle boxes. Like in The Road Runner cartoon. Right?

This was 130 years ago. Time goes by. Pretty soon we hit the 1980s or whenever it was, circuit boards and radio signals come along. Then we don't need no wires and no push box no more because we got wireless. Oh you still have to place the explosives but you don't need wires or the push box to blow something up. So that's evolution.

So at first you need explosives, then you need to place them, they need to be strung together with wire and routed out to a central switch.

Next, as time goes by, you need explosives and you need to place them, but you no longer need wires or a central physical switch.

With me so far? Ok. That's a bit of evolution there, probably takes us up to 1989.

Now think about the rubble.

One person will say: "There's no evidence of detonation wire in the rubble!"
Another person will come along and say: "That's because it was wireless!!" Right?

Well watch this:

One person will say: "There is no evidence of explosives in the rubble!"
Another person (Me, freely speculating logically) comes along and says: "That's because it was explosivesless!!"

Right? Follow me?

Let's go back to the evolution of explosives.

From the beginning you had to have physical explosives and place them meticulously by hand. You had to string them all up with wires to a push box etc. That's OLD SCHOOL. Circa 1880.

A century goes by and we eliminate the wires and the physical push box. That's evolution, but evolution keeps on EVOLVING. In fact, it doesn't stop.

Why? I ask myself (speculating) would blowing something up in a hi tech way in the present have anything to do with physical explosives that need to be placed meticulously?

Where is the evolution in that?

Did we just stop at "wireless"? I don't think it stopped at wireless. I think wireless was developed because it was a pain to wire everything. I also think it would be a pain and time consuming to have to physically place actual explosives meticulously etc.

And *someone* would look for a way around that. If you can blow stuff up easily using wireless as opposed to wired how much more easier would it be to blow something up explosivesless and not have the physical explosives or the need to place them? Hmm.

The towers look like they were blown up but there's no det cord or explosive residue. Hmm. The towers look blown up but the audio clips don't have big bangs on them. Hmm. People claim to place that much explosives would be impossible because it would involve many 'secret agents' and would be likely to be found out by an average office worker or cleaner. Hmm. It would take a lot of time and effort to place all the explosives (1880 style) to even get the job done. Hmm.

Do 2001 "explosives" need to be wired? No.
Do 2001 "explosives" need to be placed? _____



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
What you just read was speculation but it fits most if not all the evidence.


You made some great points, but remember that this is already one of the theories. Note Judy Wood. She says with zero evidence (and outright false interpretations of the dust cloud and fires) that the collapse was an explosiveless event caused by an energy beam from outer space.

There is always another theory to fill the hole caused by evidence to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


That's exactly what I'm talking about. Good Ol Dave can only imagine within the limits of his knowledge. Of the Israeli operatives rounded up there were several of them who were specialists in "explosive ordnance". IF the towers were rigged for demolition it could have been some not-widely-known type of explosive. #, for all you know these explosives could have been placed inside heaters or something of that magnitude.Dave thinks within the realm of people slapping demolition charges in the most conspicuous manner in which anyone would be able to detect it. He cannot, for the life of him, imagine that a state sponsored intelligence agency might have something more high-tech then old school dynamite with wires coming out of the building.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, then, here's your chance. If you would be so kind as to go back a page or two, you will see several photos I posted of a core column retrieved from the wreckage. This is relevent becuase this is one of the very columns that needed to be sabotaged for the building to come down in the way you describe, and as you can see, there isn't anything on the column that cannot be explained by the mechanical force of the collapse itself. It has no blast marks, there are no scars from melting...heck, there isn't so much as a hole drilled in it. Would you mind explaining how this is the case?

I can post the photos again if you cannot find them. The point is, you don't have to specifically be looking for something to be able to find it when it's conspicuously lying there in front of you.


What makes you think this one photo of this one piece of column has to include marks? What if there were other methods? What if there were other parts of columns that were sabotaged?


A
All right, suppose a custodian did come by and slap a bomb somewhere. Why wouldn't the inspector looking for water leakage from a previous night's rain stumble across it? If both the custodian AND the inspector are in on the conspiracy, why wouldn't the technician running computer wires through the area stumble across it? The same for the electricians, the security guards, the bomb dogs, the romantic couple sneaking off into the closets for their trysts, and so on.

It seems to me that for every actual bomb technician planting demolitions, you're essentially claiming there were ten other people in the building covering for him, so the conspiracy theorists' claim that only take a handful of people would be needed to pull this off is being unrealistic.


Because you don't have the exact layout of each floor, each room on each floor, what each room had in it, how do you know there was no inconspicuous place to put these explosives? You my have structural schematics but you don't know what each floor contained or how it was layed out.





You can theorize all you'd like, but at the end of the day you still need to be able to account for a) why noone else saw any such suspicious activity and b) why there isn't a microbe of physical proof that supports it. For one thing, so many light fixtures in such weird areas would definitely get the electrician's attention.


If an intelligence agency did in fact use CD to bring the towers than I'm pretty they'd go to every extent and go through every schematic to pick the perfect place to equip the building with explosives so nobody would notice. The lack of evidence to support it could be the fact that whatever could have been used to bring the towers down didn't leave behind evidence. Who decided to save certain pieces of the rubble? Who's not to say there was a picking & choosing of certain things from the rubble? We only see what the media wants us to see, which is in fact controlled by those who were at ground zero. I've seen pictures of ground zero which have signs posted all over the place, "NO CAMERAS ALLOWED". There were FBI agents scoured all over the place. This was a controlled environment in terms of coverage, press, and investigation.

And you say there isn't a microbe of physical proof that shows controlled demolition? Yet the NIST could only manage to explain the initial collapse, not the full collapse. So basically you're backing the Official Story's version of how the towers were brought down, which doesn't have a full explanation within itself. The NIST pretty much said "well we modeled the initial collapse, but you can just tell by the video how the rest of it happened." That's like reenacting a murder in court, and then right when you get to the actual murdering part you pause the tape and say "Well the rest is pretty self explanatory". It's B.S. bro and you know it . If the NIST can't tell me what caused the total collapse then how am I suppose to believe that the airplanes themselves were the only factor in bringing the towers down? What if these "terrorists" had people get into the buildings that morning and detonate bombs after the planes struck? Why wasn't there any investigation into secondary explosions within the towers? Are these type of things just overlooked when America's worse terror attack occurs? Are they not important?

It sounds like the NIST was asked to present answers as to "how airplanes brought down the buildings" instead of "how did these buildings fall down". If they just randomly collapsed and there was no airplane would they test for explosives? Or would they just say "well just watch the tape, it's self evident? "



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by homervb
 


Typical Truther debate tactic. Misunderstand the specific points and quickly open up to a general (and ad hominem) approach.

And you wonder why you're getting nowhere.


Explain what you mean, obviously if I misunderstood than than there's no "typical" behavior going on. I just misunderstood. And what is my general approach?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
reply to post by NWOwned
 


That's exactly what I'm talking about. Good Ol Dave can only imagine within the limits of his knowledge. Of the Israeli operatives rounded up there were several of them who were specialists in "explosive ordnance". IF the towers were rigged for demolition it could have been some not-widely-known type of explosive. #, for all you know these explosives could have been placed inside heaters or something of that magnitude.Dave thinks within the realm of people slapping demolition charges in the most conspicuous manner in which anyone would be able to detect it. He cannot, for the life of him, imagine that a state sponsored intelligence agency might have something more high-tech then old school dynamite with wires coming out of the building.


In a way I wish it was 1880 then there would be no 767s, no thermite, no wireless and no satellite pics of a hurricane off the coast.

I'm not exactly saying there is a big building wrecking super weapon but we are 30 years beyond Star Wars SDI and who knows what they put up there and what it can do.

If it were 1880 when 9/11 happened it would be crazy talk to even suggest it. But circa 2001 we have to at least entertain these types of things. A super duper ray gun weapon, like your average drone, might only require a lone operator in a tiny cubicle somewhere. So no planting "explosives", nobody finding anything pre collapse or post collapse, and it would not involve thousands of 'secret agents', just one guy with the know how and the equipment.

But when you look at the videos of the towers it looks like "explosives". That's what it looks like. It looks like they start where the 'planes' hit and go down smoothly from there. Right?

Who among the CT crowd is going to argue with that?

1. The towers look like explosions.
2. Many people think they "fell too fast".

I think these two things.

I also think that if there was no one pointing out all the dynamite duct taped to all or any columns, that means that what explosives there were were completely concealed.

3. The "explosives" were totally concealed.

The progressive destruction looked smooth and timed. Like a candle with its wick (only faster) or like a Sparkler the kids light. It didn't look to me like there were any major gaps on the way down, as if 2 floors blew and then there was a jump and then they blew out some more further down.

No. It 'looks like' every floor blew progressively in a smooth action.

Now some say mini-nukes, me, I don't go for that. And I certainly don't go for the big ones in the basement.

Some theorize about the elevator shafts, all I know is the videos show perimeter explosions at the outer walls. There are no elevators or elevator shafts there. So therefore the "explosives" were on every floor all the way out to the perimeter walls.

4. The "explosives" were on every floor right out to the outer walls on each floor.

So were they in the ceiling? I don't know about you but I wouldn't relish moving 20 000 ceiling tiles to set that up. And besides, someone would notice that.

5. The "explosives" were not in the ceilings.

That only leaves the floors. When they built the towers were they really thinking 30 years ahead and put like "explosive" concrete in the towers? Seems unlikely. No special concrete, no installed explosives during construction. Check.

So what? Were the floor slabs hollow? Right? Never mind the Hollow Towers, were the floors hollow in some way? Or were they just regular slabs of poured concrete? Seems to me the floors would be a good option to conceal "explosives" (explosions can be seen on each floor all the way out to the perimeter etc.) but to do that the floors would have to be hollow in some way to allow for placement.

I'm thinking like heated tile floors you can get in your bathroom renovation that I see on the home shows. Like wires in the slabs etc. Hidden, unknown, detonated at will progressively. But not 30 years old and waiting for the day but installed a few months before the day. But the floors would have to be hollow in some way. Were they?

Hollow floors people, not hollow towers.

What do you guys think?

As for the satellite pics of Hurricane Erin, Judy Wood seems to try to implicate the power of the storm into an idea of field effects and seems perplexed why the hurricane was not mentioned much on 9/11. It seems strange to me too. But it could be that Judy Wood is disinfo and goes on about Erin because the MSM didn't report on it on purpose so that later she could point it out and imply it was significant and powering *something*.

What would be easier? Use regular explosives and under report a weather item (later to imply it's involved) or use it to power a super ray gun?


Cheers



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
We only see what the media wants us to see, which is in fact controlled by those who were at ground zero. I've seen pictures of ground zero which have signs posted all over the place, "NO CAMERAS ALLOWED". There were FBI agents scoured all over the place. This was a controlled environment in terms of coverage, press, and investigation.

Just to follow up on this point, that's one of the questions I find interesting about this; the media coverage. If we take the word of the president of the SEAU in October of 2001 one of the "interesting facts" up to that point was:

"All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were pre-approved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

- from page 3 of old.seau.org...


I'm not sure if this person was actually in a position to know, but did the media actually give the FBI this extraordinary power over what they showed?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Originally posted by homervb
We only see what the media wants us to see, which is in fact controlled by those who were at ground zero. I've seen pictures of ground zero which have signs posted all over the place, "NO CAMERAS ALLOWED". There were FBI agents scoured all over the place. This was a controlled environment in terms of coverage, press, and investigation.

Just to follow up on this point, that's one of the questions I find interesting about this; the media coverage. If we take the word of the president of the SEAU in October of 2001 one of the "interesting facts" up to that point was:

"All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were pre-approved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

- from page 3 of [url]http://old.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf[/ur]

I'm not sure if this person was actually in a position to know, but did the media actually give the FBI this extraordinary power over what they showed?


Well think about it. This is an alleged "crime scene" and whatever the FBI doesn't want you to see, then won't let you see. They could be withholding a lot more pictures of ground zero than you know. There were signs all around ground zero that said "no cameras allowed" yet the media was broadcasting select few segments with coverage of ground zero. These definitely had to be allowed with permission of the FBI



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
 

You can say it as much as you want, it's your actions and how you respond to every single post that shows you're embellished in the OS.


I'm "embellished" in the OS? Do you mean "entrenched" here?

Before continuing it would be a good idea for you to point out exactly what you think the "official story" actually is, since I'm rapidly finding out each conspiracy proponent has his/her own individual idea of what the "official story" actually is the same way that each conspiracy proponents has his/her own "truth" of what happened on 9/11. For example, when I quote eyewitnesses who specifically saw a plane hitting the Pentagon, am I quoting the eyewitnesses or am I quoting "the official story" that a plane hit the Pentagon?


See here you go bro, claiming this was a hoax when indeed nobody knows if it was or not. And I could give a rats ass if Alex Jones used this story and twisted the words, I don't follow him nor do I care to. Though you do have an obsession with using him in almost every reply you make to a post, I'll tack on the words "sinister secret agents" while I'm at it.


In case you don't understand...and it's clear that you don't...if you're going to repeat the information that Alex Jones is putting out then you ARE following him, regardless of whether you consciously know he's the one this whole conspiracy innuendo came from to begin with. Just because it's being posted second hand by you rather than from him directly, it doesn't spontaneously give it any credibility.

If you're going to use my lexicon then "Sinister secret agents" probably wouldn't apply to Jones. "Spooky-scary" and "Damned fool conspiracy web site" would be a better fit.


Spontaneously believe everything I say? I told you it was all hypothetical, you don't have to believe anything. And the theory I proposed incorporated official reportings within the media, it did NOT include denying what the media has reported. So obviously you really do have some kind of bias against any theory going against the OS. You take my "connecting of media stories" as "denial of media stories" right off the bat and have to immediately include Alex Jones, "damned fool conspiracy websites", and internet myths in an attempt to belittle my theory just like you do to everyone else.


You misunderstand me. I'm open for random theorizing just as the next person is. Personally I like to wonder what someone from 300 years ago transported to the present would think of our modern society (I'm thinking he would not see us favorably. Whatever). My beef is when someone takes the theory and then deliberately lies and changes other events around in order to give the theory false credibility in order to sucker other people into believing it. Case in point- once "Austrian art students" gets reengineered into "Israeli art students" I know right away I'm about to be served a baloney sandwich on BS bread.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'm "embellished" in the OS? Do you mean "entrenched" here?

Before continuing it would be a good idea for you to point out exactly what you think the "official story" actually is, since I'm rapidly finding out each conspiracy proponent has his/her own individual idea of what the "official story" actually is the same way that each conspiracy proponents has his/her own "truth" of what happened on 9/11. For example, when I quote eyewitnesses who specifically saw a plane hitting the Pentagon, am I quoting the eyewitnesses or am I quoting "the official story" that a plane hit the Pentagon?


Well Dave, you seem to shoot down every single post on this forum. I have yet to see you even consider anyone's opinion outside of the idea that 19 muslims with boxcutters killed 3,000 people.



In case you don't understand...and it's clear that you don't...if you're going to repeat the information that Alex Jones is putting out then you ARE following him, regardless of whether you consciously know he's the one this whole conspiracy innuendo came from to begin with. Just because it's being posted second hand by you rather than from him directly, it doesn't spontaneously give it any credibility.

If you're going to use my lexicon then "Sinister secret agents" probably wouldn't apply to Jones. "Spooky-scary" and "Damned fool conspiracy web site" would be a better fit.


lmao, Okay this is how this went.

1.) I hypothesize that it's possible for MOSSAD agents to enter the buildings. I back this up by saying it's possible because they penetrated government government facilities WHEN they were posing as art students.

2.)Then what you did, for no logical reason, is ask me to provide you an example of FOREIGN art students in the WTC

3.)I then fulfill your useless request with that news story of Austrian art students in the WTC.

4.)You then manage to twist everything around and make it sound like I said "Israeli art students were in the WTC".

5.)Then after you put all those words in my mouth then accuse me of being a follower of Alex Jones.

Do you see where you're wrong? And how you say conspiracy theorists turn everything around to fit their argument when in fact you did that in this thread.


Case in point- once "Austrian art students" gets reengineered into "Israeli art students" I know right away I'm about to be served a baloney sandwich on BS bread.
Biggest face palm in history...I never said these were Israeli art students. Holy god.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join