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 esdad71
I read nowhere in your posts where you established a timeline bs. You gave us vague descriptions of where you thought the sun was and that's all.
Originally posted by Inannamute
I'm reasonably sure none of us are speaking in such terms, we're merely discussing and analyzing..
In science and rational thought, there really is no place for belief, only for proof.
If you think we're wrong, offer some concrete answers to questions - eg the ones I posed, which asked how you could have fire damage in both pictures but only the structural damage in one, despite the fact that essentially both types of damage would have been caused by the collapse of one or both towers, ie, a very short time period.
I can assure you I'm a reasonable person, and will not respond with ridicule or attacks, and would ask you not to do the same.
Discuss the issues calmly and rationally and far more people will respect your point of view.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Is the position of the sun not a good indicator of the time?
Originally posted by Diplomat
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Diplomat
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?
These are the kind of worthless rants I'm talking about. Off-topic, and confused.
Very simple question, man: do you see the difference, or don't you?
Do you see that they're not the same in the boxed areas?
I haven't seen you post much around the 9/11 forums so I'm just assuming you don't grasp the significance between NIST and the WTC7 report.
Originally posted by Inannamute
Since we're all so delusional, why are you wasting your time with us?
If you don't actually have anything to add to the topic, please, take your insults elsewhere.
You so far have yet to say anything beyond "You guys are crazy, the official story is all true, shut up"..
Just because an authority figure tells you something, does not mean it's true. They often have many reasons, both benign and malevolent for doing so.
Or do you still believe in Santa just because mommy told you?
Originally posted by Diplomat
Can you please show me some sort of source for these pictures?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Diplomat
Can you please show me some sort of source for these pictures?
One is from the NIST preliminary report for WTC7, and it's the one that shows more damage.
The other was taken by a guy named Aman Zafar if I'm not mistaken, and he has a site on the net of a bunch of pictures he took on 9/11. Not a conspiracy site, just a bunch of personal photos he took of the event.
So I take it that you're just going to assume that the faked one is the one with less damage, and Mr. Zafar faked it with the intention of someone noticing 6 years later? I don't know why it still surprises me, the crap that people come up with to continue justifying what they already believe.
Originally posted by Diplomat
Hmm, well first of all I don't believe those sources to be true 100% just because you say so, but I guess I'll take your word for it.
Second of all, I am no photo analyst, but neither photo looks doctored to me.
Are you 100% sure that both photos are even the same building?
Are you 100% sure that both photos are of the same exact part of WTC7?