You just can't debunk this

These people are there, were there, they are telling YOU what happened.

www.youtube.com...

DENY IGNORANCE

It's totally obvious the US government planned everything I seriuosly don't know how anyone can still go along with the "official" story. People are fools.

Pretty convincing to say the least. I noticed they keep saying "there was an explosion, then the building came down". This shows that the explosion sounds were NOT the building falling because the sounds were BEFORE the building was collapsing.

Of course you can't debunk this!!

The lack of responses to this thread says it all. I normally don't do this, but I INVITE Howard, AgentSmith, curio, and the other "debunkers" to debunk THIS!!

Great find, promomag! You get a way above from me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact a plane hit the towers and also that the towers came crumbling down. This is all that your footage seems to prove. The contentious issue is whether or not the towers came crumbling down as a result of the plane hitting them and whether Osama, Al-Quaeda and Co masterminded the whole thing.

In my opinion the lack of responses relfects the fact the people on ATS are sick and tired of going of the same thing on countless other threads posted prior to this one. Deduce what you will from what you see.

[edit on 9/3/06 by mytym]

What?

How about from what you HEAR? Why did you not say anything about all those people describing explosions? Firemen, news reporters, regular citizens, cops. Oh...right...you watched the video on mute...

Whoa - why you mention me there for!? I'm totally on the fence when it comes to 9/11. For the record, I'm currently about, oh, 70% sure the towers were demolished and still 50/50 on the whole Pentagon attack. Just because I don't agree with a lot of what Merc/Narc & Co come out with doesn't mean I'm a debunker. I don't agree with a lot of what AgentSmith and Howard come out with either. This fence is comfy and I aint moving

Anyway, I'm off to watch this video. Lets see which side I come down on this time

I'm glad I watch this particular video. It really backed the demolition theory. The third tower was something I heard nearly nothing about.

If this was indeed a demolition job, then the pancake theory for sure is a coverup. Because you know that there are intellegent investigators in high places that would know that this was a demolition job. The common man can see that all three buildings collapsed near perfectly straight down. And if there was honesty coming from those in high places, the true story would have been told.

Bush isn't that dumb. He imself could examine other buildings being demolished, noticed the similarities, and he could have pushed for the truth to be told about the buildings.

Troy

Yes, I have also heard and seen little footage of the third building collapse. That has demolition explosion written all over it. Very interesting video overall. Talks about many things that I have always wondered about myself. Like how did the concrete just turn to dust like that. Actually this is the first I have heard of a demolition theory, but it just all makes sence now when watching the collapses. Now what comes to mind is the question, who set these charges?.....well i would not like to go there cause im ticked off as it is..

Oops.

My fault curio. I just thought I saw you posting in one of those Pentagon threads debunking stuff. Really, my fault on that one, especially since I lumped you in with Howard and AgentSmith.

truthseeka:
I must apologise. You are right, I was only able to see the vision, as I was at work on lunch and my computer doesn't have a sound card. The impression I got from the previous posts were that the footage proved the official story. I saw the same footage I've seen many times before, thus there was nothing new to sway my view that the collapse was due to explosives. With this mindset I didn't see how anything that anyone said on the footage could prove contrary to this. I was actually debunking the official story. I have now watched the video with sound and realised it was saying completely the opposite thing. Next time I will wait to watch it properly before commenting.

No worries. It was actually quite a big honor...

...for them

As for the video - it was very good. I'd not need seen any of the lecture footage before....very compelling. WTC7 still sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb - every time I see it neatly collapse like that after such minor damage I literally LOL

I must say I'm surprised at how many people haven't heard a lot about the third building (WTC7), because as far as I'm concerned, that's what cinched it for me. That building was demolished for sure and knowing that, helped me to look more critically at the other 2 (WTC1 & 2)and see the little squibbs exploding out the side all the way down followed by the collapse in both towers.

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can see these films (and others I've seen) and believe 100% that the story we've been told for years is complete truth. I don't get it...

Thanks for posting this.

I found another documentary on this by Steven Jones.. It may give some more light on how the othet guys can ahhhh well I guess not debunk this.. anyway here is the link.

Link

Its a bit torrent so you need a bit torrent client or something.

[edit on 3/10/2006 by ThichHeaded]

That video proves nothing! All it shows is the towers falling, and comments from people who are trying to describe the death and destruction they had just seen.

Just because somebody put together a fancy video on the internet does not prove anything.

People are fools.

-- Boat

Promomag that is an awesome documentary you found. Just stunning.


I never doubted from the second those planes hit that it was an inside job - and you just gave us the documentary evidence needed to back up any theories.
Im just saddened that this has not been seen world wide, so people know just how evil a goverment can be against its people. A very very dark day for those involved, and for those it would of gone on to effect.

Can you prove otherwise?

A. The burden of proof is not on him. Unfortunately, it's on those of us who claim that the official story isn't true.

B. He obviously didn't watch the whole movie, because there is so much more than the buildings crumbling and witnesses descriptions.

C. Some people just don't want to see it. They don't want to know the truth.

Why do people (and horses) wear blinders? Because what's beyond them is so frightening and distracting, that they cannot function normally unless they have blinders securely in place.

external image

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. -Wizard of Oz

I'll bite..

THose 'explosions' are natural gas lines and electrical componants of the building that exploded, this has been stated numerous times in books, reports and online, yet for some reason people still continue to belive the inital reports of the survivors. Read 102 minutes, the story of the survivors of the WTC, and you will get a first hand accoutn of what was going on. People reported explosions becasue they did not know a plane hit the building,that is where the reports of explosions came from. They are in the Port authority and 9/11 transcipts. You are basing your arguement of the confused ramblings of people that were trapped in the towers. THat is the only proof.

WTC 7 suffered the same fate. Debris from the crashes and the collapse casued fires that reached the basement of the WTC 7 and burned for hours,. along side gas storage and lines inthe basement. Building burned or over 7 hours, it was evacuated and it collapsed.

2 planes hit the WTC, they collapsed taking the lives of close to 3000 people, It is not a conspiracy. I love how these tapes or something similar comes up every few weels and someone thinks they solved the mystery. There is no mystery.

THe 9/11 commision was actually a very good read, you should try it.

Again, I ask howver, where is the smoking gun that explosives were used? Is there any physical evidence?

Technically the burden of proof should be on the government to prove the official story true beyond the shadow of a doubt. Hell, they're the one's who used it as a pretext for war. They better be DAMN sure about it. I'm not saying they have to prove the truth movement wrong, but they should be able to prove their theory correct.