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.
That many people witnessing it first hand would produce THOUSANDS of videos and photographs, many on negatives which could be used to remove any doubt the images are genuine.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
That many people witnessing it first hand would produce THOUSANDS of videos and photographs, many on negatives which could be used to remove any doubt the images are genuine.
Prove it. How many people in NYC had a camera at their disposal at that time? Your getting 2001 confused with 2011. Today just about every cell phone has a camera, that was not true in 2001. And negatives? And video cameras? Besides, your a hard core conspiracist I am sure you've got an excuse ready to dismiss anything that may disrupt your delusions. Hell, I'm a rational human being and I can think up a few if I'm not tied down to reality. But, unfortunately I am well anchored in the real world and must deal accordingly.
Ever been to Manhattan?
There was a camera shop on practically every block when I was last there.
Disposable cameras were sold in grocery stores, especially in the tourist-thick area of the WTC.
Are you capable of discussion without insults?
I've had many posts deleted for far, far less...you must be a fixture on this site.
So? You're running from the towers before the collapse.
Originally posted by -PLB-
When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by -PLB-
When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.
This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by -PLB-
When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.
This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.
Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, but science shows they're full of BS.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by -PLB-
When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.
This is an interesting point, but I'd go further. I think the notion of an "OS" is a precondition of a conspiracist mindset because it assumes a created narrative produced from a single source on high. In fact no such thing exists.
Have you read the OP? The police claim the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, but science shows they're full of BS.
What do you want me to do about it? The media is involved, every person of any standing in society knows about it, almost all professional people, firemen, police, the military. Everybody in the government. Pretty much everyone except you and me.
Can I come round your house? We can sit in the basement and watch reruns of the Golden Girls and never go out.
Wait...what collapse? No one thought the buildings would collapse.
Millions of people running to the aid of the victims, thousands of camera-shutters clicking.
Originally posted by samkent
When you boil it down you have not proven that the substance surrounding the guns is actually concrete.
So you don't know if they are lying or just mistaken.
Melting point: 100-150°C (See Notes)
Originally posted by Furbs
A clump of material.
Is it concrete? That is what the placard says.
Is that a gun? That is what the placard says.
Concrete was powderized.
Water was being used to fight fire.
Gypsum is liquid at a far lower temp than steel.
Powdered concrete mixes with water becoming free flowing sludge that picks up a dropped gun. This gun and water/powder hits the gypsum, cooling the gypsum and steaming the water. Gun gets trapped in the hardening powder/gypsum mixture. Is found and goes to live in a museum. Is immortalized by septic in a thread that is now over.
"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by hooper
Add to that people in Brooklyn and most of Northern New Jersey
People in upper floors of my building watched the 2nd plane strike the South Tower, My boss came down
and told us what had just seen
Thats some hologram enabling it to be seen from up to 20 miles away......
My money goes with "just mistaken".
They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.
How do you know its a lie? You do realize what a lie is, correct? Someone saying something that may be wrong is not a lie. In order to prove it is a lie you must first prove exactly what the truth is, second you must prove that what is being said or written is not the truth as has been proven in step one and thirdly you must prove all involved had perfect knowledge of the truth and purposely and materially provided something other than the truth for the express purpose of causing deciept.
Have fun!
Any one with metal smelting experience can tell you in a heartbeat that this is a picture of slag from the melting of various metals in the basement(?) furnace of 911.