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.

 

Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

page: 19
117
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Yes and within the first 2:25 of the video the Towers were brought down by fire alone according to the narration,they can't even seem to SEE what happened so how can the even talk about the physics!


At 2:25 of the video, the narrator said "the 9/11 official conspiracy theory that the world trade center towers collapsed due to fire alone".

According to the official conspiracy theory, it was not the planes that made the buidings collapse. What initiated collapse were the fires.

And according to NIST final report on Building 7.


The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.



Now David L. Griscom, Phd, has all the credentials to argue that, the conclusions of the NIST report are scientifically impossible.

Of course again. No one was willing to debate him.



(post by jaffo removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
How is it a T&C violation to point out that someone is willfully ignoring relevant and factual information?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ArchangelOger
I'll say one thing, I've always been on the fence regarding the twin towers 'conspiracy' but from watching that particular video it sure looks like a controlled demolition to me.


It is most amazing to me to see those towers pulverize into dust in mid air, and hear people say they are "on the fence".

The towers is WAY more convincing not to mention the lack of a debris pile, the lack of heat, and the cars burnt, flipped upside down, 8 blocks away.

If you would be so kind, could you clarify a couple of things you mentioned in this comment? Specifically the lack of debris and the lack of heat. Do you mean in the footprint of the collapsed towers?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
How is it a T&C violation to point out that someone is willfully ignoring relevant and factual information?

Hey buddy. Let me help you out. I think you called a "truther" a shill. Neither side can call each other names in general, and that term most specifically.

Let's have some honest debate, without name calling and everyone will be fine. Might be too much to ask for.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: hellobruce

But, weren't there testimonies of people saying that they heard explosions before the building collapsed?

Also, you don't need that many explosives. All you need is a couple of explosives that would damage the foundations of a building enough for it to go down...

In my opinion, I don't know how can a building collapse due to fire on a couple of floors and a plane wrecks that hit the upper levels of building.


Haha, don't waste your time. He doesn't listen to reason. I even posted a video earlier in this thread with several minutes worth of live footage from Ground Zero. It was focused on the numerous times people on the scene said they heard explosions; workers in the towers (basement and upper floors) saying they heard multiple explosions; showed firefighters saying they heard explosions; and even had clips with the sounds of explosions in the background, some even interrupting interviews. These were scenes from 9/11 itself & yet dude still insists there were no explosions & that his knowledge of 9/11 is more accurate than the people who were there & the camera footage.

I don't argue that the sound of explosions was apparent in the video, but I believe hellobruce was referring to explosions immediately related to the WTC7 collapse. In a time frame which would clearly indicate that the two were obviously related. The explosions heard in the video don't generally have any particular timestamp to reference against. And in none of the videos is evidence of the building collapse following any sound of explosions. I'm not trying to argue the reality 9/11 one way ot the other, but there simply is no correlation between the sounds and the building collapse in the video compilation you posted. Possibly because of lack of the building being in the background angle, or possibly because the timing of the events was drastically different. I don't know. But I do have to say that if one is trying to demolish a building, widely spaced explosions would seem to be the most inefficient and risky way to go about it.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasoul


The Question is "Cui Bono?"
source: wikispooks.com...

Israel did 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) by Dr. Alan Sabrosky
source: www.youtube.com...

Project for the New American Century
source: www.youtube.com...
source: en.wikipedia.org...



I would like to clarify my reasons for commenting in this thread. I absolutely will not argue the point for either side, but when I see claims directly disputed by the evidence provided by the poster of those claims, or when someone's cited evidence directly contradicts itsself within its own content, I feel is is simply dishonest not to point this out.
The first link you provided begins with the premise that only the CIA and the Mossad have the skill, assets and ability to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks successfully. It then cites Isreal as having the most to gain by the wars that followed by claiming the wars were already planned, and would eliminate the enemies of Isreal. Had the resulting wars been against countries that actually had the capacity to threaten Isreal with anything but words, this premise may have even seemed reasonable.
However, that was not the case.

1) Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
The Taliban government of Afghanistan was capable of threatening Isreal with nothing stronger than words. With an estimated military force of 60,000 prior the Coalition Invasion in Oct 2001, and virtually no armored fighting vehicles, Isreal had nothing whatsoever to fear from this nation.Also, the very conservative Taliban government was not terribly popular amongst it's predominantly more moderate Arab neighbors. Combined with it's lack of any weapons system capable of attacking Isreal from afar, there was no reason for invasion if the motivation mentioned in this source was true.

1) Iraq. Ruling party: Ba'athist
Iraq had participated in unsuccessful military actions alongside other Arab states against Isreal in the past. And prior to the 2003 Coalition Invasion, the estimated military force of the nation was in excess of 1,000,000 personnel. But after the Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, and the subsequent American invasion of Operation Desert Storm, the actual capabilities of the military had been kept at considerably lower levels by American and UN sanctions and limitations.
Iraq had misses with the potential capability to deliver conventional, chemical or biological warheads against Isreal, the Scud, but it was proven vulnerable to missile defense systems in engagements during the first Gulf War. Subsequently, military oversight prior to that war rendered Iraq practically incapable of upgrading their remain missile stockpile. In the meantime, Isreal's missile defense systems were continously improved to remain state of the art. Furthermore, the Israeli Military and Civilian Leadership has steadfastly proved it's view that every external military threat is an existential one. And they have repeatedly demonstrated their self defense capabilities in prior invasion attempts. Add to this the world's worst-kept secret, the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal, and ANY possible threat Iraq was capable of posing at best laughable.

Now, had we invaded Iran, Syria, and Pakistan prior to invading Iraq, this theory would hold considerably more weight.

edit on 24-3-2015 by pfishy because: the were didn't belong in that sentence



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
I would like to clarify my reasons for commenting in this thread. I absolutely will not argue the point for either side, but when I see claims directly disputed by the evidence provided by the poster of those claims, or when someone's cited evidence directly contradicts itsself within its own content, I feel is is simply dishonest not to point this out.
The first link you provided begins with the premise that only the CIA and the Mossad have the skill, assets and ability to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks successfully.


That seems very reasonable. I totally agree with you.

What I do find interesting though is when you say "when someone's cited evidence directly contradicts itself within its own content".

Because of course, you take the argument that



1) Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
The Taliban government of Afghanistan was capable of threatening Isreal with nothing stronger than words.


Now. Of course. Can you not see what you have done here?

According to the official conspiracy theory. The Taliban took down The World Trade Center Towers, miraciously destroyed Building 7 by breaking the laws of physics. Hijacked another airliner, and actually flew an airplane into the Pentagon! The friggin PENTAGON. Of all places.

Of course, the tabliban and Afghanistan defeated the biggest most powerful awesome military on the planet.......but was not capable of threatening Israel with nothing stronger than words.

Do you see how this contradicts your own argument?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Debunkology

Well, first off, it was a terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11/01. Not the Taliban. Second, it is far easier to hijack an airliner, than it is to launch an assault on a country. Third, good luck hijacking an airliner in Israel. Fourth, we invaded Afghanistan because that is where Al Qaeda had taken refuge and the Taliban refused to give them up.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
According to the official conspiracy theory. The Taliban took down The World Trade Center Towers,


Your source for that claim is what exactly?


destroyed Building 7 by breaking the laws of physics.


Please detail exactly which laws of physics were broken....


Hijacked another airliner, and actually flew an airplane into the Pentagon! The friggin PENTAGON.


It is just a office building - why do you think they should not have been able to do that?


Of course, the tabliban and Afghanistan


You seem very confused, why keep bringing the Taliban up?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: jaffo
How is it a T&C violation to point out that someone is willfully ignoring relevant and factual information?

Hey buddy. Let me help you out. I think you called a "truther" a shill. Neither side can call each other names in general, and that term most specifically.

Let's have some honest debate, without name calling and everyone will be fine. Might be too much to ask for.


Top be honest, anyone who does not automatically buy pretty much any theory around here is called a shill daily. Every thread. All day. But whatever, I'll deal with it.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Taliban and Al Queda were constantly mentioned as one of the same by the Bush administration. Taliban military camps and installations were constantly referred to as terrrosit bases. Members of the Taliban were members of Al Queda. Even the 9/11 commision report said that Bin Laden formed an alliance with the Taliban. This was all the pretext for US going to war in Afghanistan.

hellobruce, if you can explain yourself why Building 7's collapse did not break the laws of physics then I suggest you get in contact with Michael Fullerton who is offering a §25,000 reward for anyone who can.

He explains it here..
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall cllapses violates Laws of Physics

And here...
NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics

But you probably won't read it, and you certainly won't take up his offer..... No one has.

And of course, the Pentagon was just another Office building wasn't it.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: pfishy
I would like to clarify my reasons for commenting in this thread. I absolutely will not argue the point for either side, but when I see claims directly disputed by the evidence provided by the poster of those claims, or when someone's cited evidence directly contradicts itsself within its own content, I feel is is simply dishonest not to point this out.
The first link you provided begins with the premise that only the CIA and the Mossad have the skill, assets and ability to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks successfully.


That seems very reasonable. I totally agree with you.

What I do find interesting though is when you say "when someone's cited evidence directly contradicts itself within its own content".

Because of course, you take the argument that



1) Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
The Taliban government of Afghanistan was capable of threatening Isreal with nothing stronger than words.


Now. Of course. Can you not see what you have done here?

According to the official conspiracy theory. The Taliban took down The World Trade Center Towers, miraciously destroyed Building 7 by breaking the laws of physics. Hijacked another airliner, and actually flew an airplane into the Pentagon! The friggin PENTAGON. Of all places.

Of course, the tabliban and Afghanistan defeated the biggest most powerful awesome military on the planet.......but was not capable of threatening Israel with nothing stronger than words.

Do you see how this contradicts your own argument?

The Taliban may have given physical support to Al Qaeda, but it was Al Qaeda which hijacked and flew the planes, according to official reports. Also, one large coordinated effort of terrorism, no matter how shocking, is not going to be an existential threat to a nation.
Isreal, as a nation, is considerably more used to terrorism than is the United States, especially within it's own borders. The 9/11 events would likely have been impossible to attempt in Isreal because their security apparatus is considerably more hardened than was that of the US at that time, and had been so for quite a while.
That being said, other than support for terrorist activities, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had absolutely no ability to effect an attack on Isreal of any sort. Yes, the usual anti-Isreal standpoint and rhetoric was common in their government, as it was and still is in their neighboring nations, but it was merely talk. They had the ability to do nothing more. If defeat of Isreal's enemies was actually the hidden motive behind the attacks and subsequent wars, the invasion of Afghanistan made absolutely no sense.
To give an analogy:
Imagine you are playing American football, and you are in possession of the ball and attempting to score. Does it make more sense to have your offense blockers protect you from the defensive players who can, and desire to, tackle you? Or should they protect you from the team mascot?
edit on 25-3-2015 by pfishy because: I done put some more words up in it.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
Taliban and Al Queda were constantly mentioned as one of the same by the Bush administration. Taliban military camps and installations were constantly referred to as terrrosit bases. Members of the Taliban were members of Al Queda. Even the 9/11 commision report said that Bin Laden formed an alliance with the Taliban. This was all the pretext for US going to war in Afghanistan.

hellobruce, if you can explain yourself why Building 7's collapse did not break the laws of physics then I suggest you get in contact with Michael Fullerton who is offering a §25,000 reward for anyone who can.

He explains it here..
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall cllapses violates Laws of Physics

And here...
NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics

But you probably won't read it, and you certainly won't take up his offer..... No one has.

And of course, the Pentagon was just another Office building wasn't it.

I agree that in the post-9/11 parlance, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were practically interchangeable. And it was no secret that the Taliban had granted Al-Qaeda safe haven in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as well as physical and material support. The one defining issue of the semantics here would have to be that Al-Qaeda was not the ruling party of a nation. And the official reports state that it was Al Qaeda which planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11.
After the attacks, and during the rapid lead up to the invasion, the two entities were one and the same for the purposes of military planning and political jargon. The distinction was promptly ignored.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: jaffo
How is it a T&C violation to point out that someone is willfully ignoring relevant and factual information?

Hey buddy. Let me help you out. I think you called a "truther" a shill. Neither side can call each other names in general, and that term most specifically.

Let's have some honest debate, without name calling and everyone will be fine. Might be too much to ask for.


Top be honest, anyone who does not automatically buy pretty much any theory around here is called a shill daily. Every thread. All day. But whatever, I'll deal with it.


I think that's because ats has changed a lot over the years. I was a lurker here years before I joined. There is an increase of posters here who do nothing but defend official government explanations, and selectively ignore important information that goes against "official theories". But what is interesting are the posters who make fun of "conspiracy sites" and yet we are on a conspiracy forum. That I do find strange.

I think it's pointless to call anyone a shill, even if the UK and US are openly recruiting people to influence debate over the internet, nobody has any proof. But not just that, there is nothing more scary than knowing your government would perpetrate a false flag, that means nobody is safe. So there will be people who will defend anything their government does and would come off as a "shill" just because they are so ignorant of reality because naturally they are scared. It's no good calling anyone a "truther" either.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
Taliban and Al Queda were constantly mentioned as one of the same by the Bush administration. Taliban military camps and installations were constantly referred to as terrrosit bases. Members of the Taliban were members of Al Queda. Even the 9/11 commision report said that Bin Laden formed an alliance with the Taliban. This was all the pretext for US going to war in Afghanistan.

hellobruce, if you can explain yourself why Building 7's collapse did not break the laws of physics then I suggest you get in contact with Michael Fullerton who is offering a §25,000 reward for anyone who can.

He explains it here..
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall cllapses violates Laws of Physics

And here...
NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics

But you probably won't read it, and you certainly won't take up his offer..... No one has.

And of course, the Pentagon was just another Office building wasn't it.

Would you mind expanding on your last sentence? I get that it was stated sarcastically, but I am curious as to it's bearing to the specifics of the last couple of posts.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: jaffo
How is it a T&C violation to point out that someone is willfully ignoring relevant and factual information?

Hey buddy. Let me help you out. I think you called a "truther" a shill. Neither side can call each other names in general, and that term most specifically.

Let's have some honest debate, without name calling and everyone will be fine. Might be too much to ask for.


Top be honest, anyone who does not automatically buy pretty much any theory around here is called a shill daily. Every thread. All day. But whatever, I'll deal with it.


I think that's because ats has changed a lot over the years. I was a lurker here years before I joined. There is an increase of posters here who do nothing but defend official government explanations, and selectively ignore important information that goes against "official theories". But what is interesting are the posters who make fun of "conspiracy sites" and yet we are on a conspiracy forum. That I do find strange.

I think it's pointless to call anyone a shill, even if the UK and US are openly recruiting people to influence debate over the internet, nobody has any proof. But not just that, there is nothing more scary than knowing your government would perpetrate a false flag, that means nobody is safe. So there will be people who will defend anything their government does and would come off as a "shill" just because they are so ignorant of reality because naturally they are scared. It's no good calling anyone a "truther" either.

I lurked here for quite a while myself before joining. And while on most other subjects, I will readily jump in with my insight or opinion, I am extremely cautious what I post about this particular topic. Simply because of what you just stated. If someone gets the idea that I am acting as a mouthpiece for either point of view, or as happens so often here I'm assumed to be too 'stupid' or 'blind' to 'get it', regardless of which particular side it is, I will inevitably lose credibility elsewhere on this site.
I do have my own beliefs and opinions about these events, but they will not be discussed on ATS because it would ultimately serve to lessen the rest of the experience this site has to offer.
So, instead, if and when I do chime in, it is merely for the purposes of promoting intellectual honesty or discouraging claims that are extremely tenuous or plainly false when directly compared to the evidence cited to back them up. From either side of the discussion.
Debate is healthy. Wilfully lying to one's self is not.
edit on 25-3-2015 by pfishy because: Carrots do not taste like workboots

edit on 25-3-2015 by pfishy because: I would never invite a marmoset to dinner.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Some believe that the Pentagon was a heavily armored, heavily defended building with pop up missiles and chain guns. Which it is not. It is essentially an office building. NOW, the deeper you go into the building you will encounter more security, but that is guards, card readers, bioscanners etc...... but while that is great at keeping unauthorized people out of certain areas, it does little against external threats.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: pfishy

Some believe that the Pentagon was a heavily armored, heavily defended building with pop up missiles and chain guns. Which it is not. It is essentially an office building. NOW, the deeper you go into the building you will encounter more security, but that is guards, card readers, bioscanners etc...... but while that is great at keeping unauthorized people out of certain areas, it does little against external threats.


Your point makes perfect sense, and I can also understand where the idea of the Pentagon being at least attack hardened would come from. It was in a long process of renovation to increase the resistance of the external walls to damage. But hardening a structure to be more resistant to small arms and light explosives is far from making it resistant to a jetliner or missile crashing into it.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

And that was precisely what they were doing, they were making the Pentagon more resistant to something like a car/truck bomb. But, not much you can do to harden a building against a high speed airliner.



new topics

top topics



 
117
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join