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.

 

Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
And for further support of BSBray11 on his comments, if the building's air pressure was being relieved in what you claim that "aren't" squibs, it would of completely shattered out the windows below it with the force it was coming down at but yet you see little jets of "smokey" air getting jettisoned out from the sides of the building only mere floors below the collapsing effect. Not to mention with the amount of force it was comign down, if it INDEED was air tight, you'd have a huge amount of air pressure blowing out through the basement and first floors of the World Trade Center.




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
One school of thought states that only massive well placed explosions could have "pulverized" all that material. Another school of thought is that the building were rigged and the pics show signs of a controlled demo..evidenced by expulsive "squibs".


One in the same. The 'squibs' were either off-timed or ill-timed.


There is no visual evidence of this in the pics.


Check out what I just posted:




I'm sure you're capable of seeing the same things I am in there. I even circled the things I'm looking at in red so you can compare to the first image.

Now whether or not you believe those are demolition charges, what do you think they should look like, if they were charges?

Because this is what they've always been known to look like:



Or



And where have I seen that dust cloud before?

Geez.


If this is the case, the resulting debris cloud would be a natural product of the failure and not "massive explosions" as controlled demos use the least amout of explosives needed for obvious reasons.


If this is true, then you should be able to show us naturally-collapsed buildings that have had virtually all of their concrete pulverized by their own falling. Can you do this?

It's unprecedented. Literally -- there's no precedent for this. The least amount of explosives needed is not the same as 'not very many' explosives or 'not enough to pulverize much'. The expulsions you see in the above building, for example, are only the outer charges that you can see. They're all through that building, ripping up a lot of material that's soon going to be flying around through the air. It makes a mess in the air.


If its CD then the dust cloud has nothing to do with it and the only real disagreement between the CD people and the offical "pancake theory" people is one side claims it was artifically induced by explosives and the other side states it was a natural byproduct of physics.


A pretty faulty conclusion. I can go down a lot more differences between the two sides than that, and I don't see how your dust cloud argument can be a logical one.


The only visual evidence to CD would be the manner in which it fell--straight down-- which it DIDN'T at all fall straight down into its footprint.


It's my understanding that the centers of gravity for all of the debris came back to the buildings' footprints. So, you're right, they didn't fall straight down, per se, but only because so much was being ejected laterally and fell outside of the footprints. That's a pretty trivial point. The buildings, unquestionably, came straight down, as opposed to toppling over or anything else.


But will you just concede one thing, to show that you know where we're coming from? I mean that the expulsions that I'd outlined above in red -- you'll at least admit that you can see how those can be taken for demolition charges, won't you? Whether or not you believe that's what they are, it's at least what they look like, right?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
And for further support of BSBray11 on his comments, if the building's air pressure was being relieved in what you claim that "aren't" squibs, it would of completely shattered out the windows below it with the force it was coming down at but yet you see little jets of "smokey" air getting jettisoned out from the sides of the building only mere floors below the collapsing effect. Not to mention with the amount of force it was comign down, if it INDEED was air tight, you'd have a huge amount of air pressure blowing out through the basement and first floors of the World Trade Center.


Exactly, but ONLY if the windows could hold significant pressure, which they can't. Five PSI is probably more than they will take. Jets of dust like we see take 150 PSI minimum, likely more for the distance they travel.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Netvocates?

So, um... somebody mentioned an outfit called Netvocates a while back.

I wonder whatever happened with that?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Damn, Christophera, I'd never thought of that! Good thinking man!



That would literally have to be the result of some jet of supercompressed air rocketing across a floor and smashing a window instantly -- which is also impossible -- to occur from air pressure, based on the fact that you just pointed out: windows would blow way before reaching that much PSI. Multiple windows, too, and not just singular bursts of easily over 100 feet into the air.

Another thing to keep in mind: the only air shafts were in the core. Therefore, a whole floor would have to pressurize that greatly before it could exhibit such an expulsion from the perimeter columns. Again, the windows would've given out much sooner. The squib you're looking at above was hardly the result of just overwhelming a window there; it was no contest for that small section of the building, and a far cry from only breaking it. Pulverized solids and all spewing out there.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
So, um... somebody mentioned an outfit called Netvocates a while back.


Oops, lol. Can mods like break off posts to form new topics or something of that sort? Or would it be easier to just start another and repost?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Branch Office


Originally posted by bsbray11
Oops, lol. Can mods like break off posts to form new topics or something of that sort? Or would it be easier to just start another and repost?

We don't have any split or merge features (that I know of), so the best thing to do when a topic diverges is to move that aspect of discussion to an existing thread (there are many) or, if you prefer, start a new thread based on the subtopic.

If you want to include some existing posts from this thread, I doubt any of the 9/11 mods would give you a hard time.

We do discourage "spamming" of the same posts, but we love it when members try to keep threads on topic.

If you need any help with post editing or threads in this forum, please contact any of these mods:

ADVISOR, UM_Gazz, dbates, Djarums, JAK, Mirthful Me, Umbrax, 12m8keall2c

Or, if you prefer, the Ideas/Complain feature is also there whenever you need assistance with anything, and we are always happy to help try to keep things organized around the ATS house.


Thanks!



Edit: And by all means, be sure to post a link in this thread to the other thread so members can find it.




[edit on 6/27/2006 by Majic]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'll restart a thread with the info provided.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Uhhhhh lmao.

>.<

Here's one I just made: www.abovetopsecret.com... .

That's just a literal reposting of the posts here, though, that were off-topic anyway. If you're offering another presentation of the info, maybe you can just post it there. Wouldn't want it to be locked for being redundant, and I seem to have beat you without knowing you were out to do the same sort of thing.

Ahhhh too late. Nevermind.


And actually, if less clutter was the goal, you could just delete mine, since, like I said, I just reposted a bunch of stuff.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Nothing Personal

The topic is Netvocates, not each other.

Personal attacks are prohibited by the T&C (Item 2), and they are off-topic.

Let's please stay on topic and avoid the personal commentary.


I would venture the topic is broader than Netvocates (psyops disinformation) and that Netvocates is an example of activity that the topic is about. More specifically that the subject of the topic, is a bunch of people (similar, actually indiscernible in one sense from "each other" here without personal attacks or some related "testing" method) have become organized covertly and work against citizens trying to utilize free speech for its higher purposes.

The opposition to sincere 9-11 discussion has become organized. I saw it and knew it about 3 years ago. Recently I've recieved 2 advanced courses in it.

forums.randi.org...

forum.physorg.com...

I am not a troll or anything like a troll as people think it means. It means trolling as in fishing. We are all trolling, fishing for discussion. If we are sincere citizens we have our issues but have the interests of our nation, its Constitutional democracy at heart (something a disinfo will almost never say, meaning it is a good test.) To "test" is the only way to discover if perhaps a posters position is sincerely held or if it is artificially held.

We poster/members are faced with a near impossible task if indeed we are correct, if this disinformation actually exists on the scale we non dumb/afraid citizens assert. Meaning moderators, if they are sincere in seeing the board serve the higher purposes of free speech, they will have noticed the deceptive, insincere, irrational, collusive behaviors and be quite eager to discuss with the sincere, citizen member, the issue of disinformation, psyops campaigns in action on their board.

My site is,

algoxy.com...

Notice please, 9-11scenario is in the /psych/ directory. The biggest problem with 9-11 is psychological. This post is partially about that as well as logic to address it.

Keep in mind I am very cognizant of the difficulty that the moderation i would like to see in place would be very challenging to conduct here, if even functionally possible. For that reason some years ago I came up with this.

algoxy.com...

the above link describes an automated function the board users control with their numbers, opinions and usage that may provide a highly functional, self moderating environment with some experimentation/modification.

I seek to learn if you understand the "Poll to Post" concept. If you do, then to learn if you evaluate it as a functional proposal. If you do not see it as being so, why?

I'm presenting this here, because this process between a board user and a moderator in this thread with this topic and this post, regarding your comments in the thread, supports you in the idealogical aspects of your purpose here. If you understand that, I'd like to know it and I'd like the others to know it.

Christopher A. Brown

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Oops, lol. Can mods like break off posts to form new topics or something of that sort? Or would it be easier to just start another and repost?


No, why? i mean we have a classic case of stout, in-your-face, unwaivering denial of the obvious. i mean it's not the only thread where this happens, the picture gallery LabTop posted was dissed much the same way. y'know everybody knows this guy's a fraud, but never ever post a picture and dissect it one by one without attributing the (seemingly) 1000ft high washington monument standing in the pentagon's backyard to 'viewpoint' - it does not get any clearer.

A: There's an elephant in the living room, folks...

B: No, that's a commode. you're just paranoid.



what gives, if you're intimidated by this stuff or even thrown off track, you're way beyond redemption anyway,



edit: no matter if our resident 'debunkers' are being paid for their sloppy job or not (let the threads die, it's more reliable and doesn't require constant attention - btw, how many disinfo agents does it take to turn on a computer ? ?), it remains a classic example of what people have to face everyday on the web if they want to keep their conscience intact, that is.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
no matter if our resident 'debunkers' are being paid for their sloppy job or not (let the threads die, it's more reliable and doesn't require constant attention - btw, how many disinfo agents does it take to turn on a computer ? ?), it remains a classic example of what people have to face everyday on the web if they want to keep their conscience intact, that is.


RE: DISINFOS
I have a very hard time imagining people arguing with no evidence, against all reason when notified and obvously aware that government failed to apply due process in the event of 3000 capitol crimes. In other words you cannot find that many totally ignorant and stupid Americans that will agree and conduct a denial campaign such as we see here, for example.

forums.randi.org...

It only looks half credible because they are in agreement! This is how black becomes white, night becomes day. The average public does not want to believe that elements of government conspired to blow up the towers, let alone that the infiltrators had the towers built to demolish. So, ..... as distasteful as an unaware viewer finds the nonsense "debunker" behavior; seeing the collusion, seeing the evasion, seeing the deception and misinfo; they turn away unaware that a sophisticated, organized psyops campaign has completely fooled them and they feel as though the 9-11 truther, frantically trying get a rational exchange going, just has not made a case for what they say they have. Whereupon that average American just get's that much more tired of seeing 9-11 discussion.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
you'd have a huge amount of air pressure blowing out through the basement and first floors of the World Trade Center.



"Banging so hard that we fell down on our knees," he said. "I'm looking south, at the building, Arti's looking at me, we locked eyes and he is screaming at the top of his lungs...I can barely hear this guy. He's screaming, "What the f? is that?", and I am screaming back at him, that I think it's another plane".
In reality, as the two were kneeling in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center, its sister building, 2 World Trade Center, was crashing down upon them.
"The building was just bouncing and bouncing, the floor was bouncing. I figured another plane already hit the building". Mike related. "I'm looking ahead and I see all the windows, either three story tall windows or four story tall windows, 10 feet wide; shatter. All of them broke at the same time. All the glass flew over my head. I'm looking up, on my knees, with my hands on the floor, and I saw all that glass. You're talking glass three inches thick, go right over our heads. I saw that some of the firemen who was standing on the perimeter (mezzanine) was blown right off the top. They just flew over the top. I can't put a number on it, maybe ten. Bunch of firemen were guarding doors there. They got blown off. Don't know where they went. I saw pieces of debris as big as cars go right over my head without stopping. Like a line drive right over my head," he said, raising his hand to indicate an approximate 4 foot level.
"I put my head down, put my hands over my head. I still had gloves in my hand. I put the gloves over my head and there was a wind that came through the revolving doors that blew me 100 feet to the far wall, right by the visitor's desk. The floor was covered with sheetrock (powdered) and water so it was like a soup. It was very slippery".


www.chiefengineer.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Howard, post that in the squibs thread, instead of this one, will help out more.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I've been describing the disinfos, posters that WILL NOT reason. People paid to interfer with reasoning, to prevent it, intervene in it. I'm quite certain that some of those actually cannot reason with this information but they are mixed in with the professionals, the pros' and the pros use them as cover.

It is not that they are disabled generally from reasoning, it is that they are speciifcally disabled from reasoning. There are emotional, unconscioius barriers to their reasonably using the information of the "collapse" (demolition) in any way which would build conclusions that end up identifying a demolition rather than a collapse.

What would happen if all the major news broadcasts, one morning, started broadcasting the truth about th edemolition of 9-11? Would they go insane? Would they commit suicide? Would they all call psychologists seeking treatment? Catatonia? What?

And how many are there like that? How many of them are on the web and how many are just out walking around upset that some citizens question the comfortable version and for that reason never deal with the issue at all?

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
All I can say is that if there are still people out there who think a plane hit the pentagon, then humanity has indeed become warped and we are a country of fools. They paid one photographer to snap a photo of scrap metal with blue and red paint on it. That is the only evidence. All those cameras !!! no plane...a narrow damage section...when a plane is actually much wider...but the remnants of the plane? disintergrated they say !!!.....now you know why americans are the worst in physics.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
All I can say is that if there are still people out there who think a plane hit the pentagon, then humanity has indeed become warped and we are a country of fools. They paid one photographer to snap a photo of scrap metal with blue and red paint on it. That is the only evidence. All those cameras !!! no plane...a narrow damage section...when a plane is actually much wider...but the remnants of the plane? disintergrated they say !!!.....now you know why americans are the worst in physics.


So true,

There is more to the origin of the problem. Before America we were also quite foolish, but then that was only to survive so that perhaps make sense. Survive what?

The crusades, "Be A Fool Or Die" or, forget how secrets are made and kept.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I would like to see this thread back on track. I am also bumping this so others can see it!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join