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.
Originally posted by homervb
This doesn't mean 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Um, no. I know you don't think they planted them. Which leaves you with kind of a problem right?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by NWOwned
What you just read was speculation but it fits most if not all the evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Biggest face palm in history...I never said these were Israeli art students. Holy god.
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.