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.

 

New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Misfit that is talking about the time it took for the first exterior panles to hit the ground. Not the collapse time of the whole building.

And no people it did not fall at "free fall" speeds. I'd post the picture but I'm at work. The debris that was in free fall hit the ground before the rest of the building.




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Whilst this video challenged my skepticism surrounding the 9/11 conspiracies, I still fail to believe that anyone could "pull off" something of this magnitude & keep it secret.

The only comparison I can make, to give some insight in to my thought process, is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Now, if I were a dark government, I think it would be quite easy to justify the second gulf war/invasion by planting, even constructing or at least falsify evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

By comparison I would have thought it would have been incredibly easy and thus appease all of the wars critics around the world, in fact it would probably have generated support and cemented a more unified global war on terrorism.

But I do agree that secrets can't be kept for ever.




[edit on 23-9-2006 by timb3r]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Gools,

Your statement that whether it was 10, 14 or 16 seconds "the towers still fell at almost freefall" is absolutely wrong. That's why it is an important point. At 14 to 16 seconds the towers are falling at 1/3 the acceleration of gravity.

1/3 of something is not "almost" that something. It's 67% less than that something!

SO,

I understand what you're saying. And though I believe moderation in production is valuable to presenting a message (and this one at least attempts to just present and not get dramatic), it is the point that many have not seen this information that is what concerns me. I don't understand why the people putting these videos together don't attempt to validate what they are about to say. So, in essence, when we take your statement into account, we'll have a whole slew of new people who will be presented false information.

That irks me.

If 'good production' is all we're going to use to rate the value of a video, then, okay - it's the best one so far!


AND P.S. P.S. Gools, I'm sorry, but your entire post kind of inflames me. I'm so sick in tired of people deciding they know what some one else's intent is. You apparently don't have any idea where I stand on this issue, and I don't even know how that can occur since the majority of my time over the past nine months has been posting in this forum.



[edit on 9-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
how many times must it be said?
TOWER 7



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I don't know shar, but if we all want to look enigmatic let me try

Tower 7

there - there's one more time it's said.

Unfortunately the 10 second statement is made about WTC 1 and 2. Tower 7 is an entirely different situation. Best I can tell, it fell faster than freefall...lol.

[edit on 9-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
1/3 of something is not "almost" that something. It's 67% less than that something!


Maybe this would be a significant revelation if the buildings were only falling through air, and not hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

67% slower than free-fall is significant in my book, when the collapse should not have gone beyond a few floors in the first place, or at least should have slowed as went on.

I'm not sure that thinking of these collapse speeds in terms of linear differences in velocity are valid.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Well, bsbray, I never said I thought it was linear. But we have to come up with a gross average value just to compare to false statements, now don't we?

And you know darned well that I'm right there with you on

1. Not understanding why the collapse took place at all.
2. Why it didn't stop at some point.
3. Thinking there was explosive help in the collapse of these buildings.

Now, I don't think it was demolition charges. And I think this video does make one valid statement concerning that point right there. The female narrator states "first explosive [versus implosive] demolition in history". That's because (in my humble opinion) it wasn't demolition charges. But I do lean toward planted explosive devices in the building.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Gools, I'm sorry, but your entire post kind of inflames me. I'm so sick in tired of people deciding they know what some one else's intent is. You apparently don't have any idea where I stand on this issue, ...


Just to make something clear, it was not my intention to inflame you and I did not imply ANY intention on your part.

Myself, I'm sick and tired of seeing people dismiss entire efforts simply because someone says something that is mistaken or not perfection (what does the difference between 10 seconds or 16 seconds really mean with respect to the overall picture anyway? - the buldings fell - unnaturally). If it's perfection you are looking for in an explanation of the events of 09/11/01 you have a very long journey ahead of you.

As for you're stance on the issues, I've learned that (especially in your case
) I best assume an objective detachment (as best anyone can muster) on these kinds of matters. I would hope you assume the same for me since you don't see me in the 911 forums.

The fact that it took 5 years to get to the point where a video like this could be produced speaks volumes about the process in getting there and the "material" we are left to work with, but I'll leave it up to each individual to determine what exactly it speaks to.
.


[edit on 9/23/2006 by Gools]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Right O...

And while I wouldn't even know what perfect looks like, I would have appreciated it not containing errors that have been known for well over a year now.

Why is that such a sticking point for me? Because this issue is THAT important.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Unfortunately the 10 second statement is made about WTC 1 and 2. Tower 7 is an entirely different situation.

You are trying to isolate a single aspect about 911. You can argue what color the plane was, for example, whether it was black or blue or pink. It is largely irrelevant. Towers 1 & 2 may have fallen in 9, 12, 16 seconds. But Tower 7 is the key which unlocks the other aspects of the puzzle. If Tower 7 was Controlled Demolition then everything else falls into place - it proves the official story is a lie & a coverup. The 911 commission report even OMITS any explanation for Tower 7. To solve any puzzle you need a key & Tower 7 is it imo. When shown the footage, even Joe Shmoe can figure out that Tower 7 was 'pulled'.

While people who already know better continue to fluff about with stopwatches, the cabal responsible for this atrocity is still in control and getting ready to take it to the next level. 911 was only one more cointelpro in an ongoing series and they've already told you 911 will look like a picnic compared to the next one. They aren't sitting around waiting for us to debate the finer details, they are moving on with their plans. You really should get on with the job, rather than playing devil's advocate. Each of you has an msn/icq/aim contact list, copy the video link & send it out there.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Overall a nice, conservative presentation and a good starter for those new to the burning questions surrounding the events. For that, it serves its purpose. I agree with Val, however, that there are a few factual errors, and numerous errors of omission where information is not presented from an objective standpoint.The presentation style is one of trying extremely hard to convince the viewer, and in doing so completely avoids addressing well-known objections to the arguments put forth within. For those of us who have been debating the minutiae of 9/11 for some time and have read all the arguments from either side, watching something like this can be a little frustrating because a lot of it serves to further cloud already clouded issues.

But as I said, definitely a good starter, and it will be very interesting to see the counter-attack sequel after the debunkers have attacked this first effort and left it bleeding a little and looking for revenge.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Shar,

No, I won't get on with that job, and this is why. To those that won't become open-minded on this topic, and consider all the evidence BEFORE making up their minds, it is passing erroneous information like that that allows those people to dismiss the content (in entirety) of this video.

I will wait and keep watching the videos that are made about 9/11 until one comes out that presents the unresolved issues in a manner that cannot be dismissed readily due to the incorporation of known erroneous information. When that video comes out, I'll pass it on. Because I do want people to consider the important evidence of this topic.

And while I agree that WTC 7 is a very important factor of the 9/11 topic, you are committing what you are accusing me of. It is a SINGLE factor, not a systemic one.

[edit on 9-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I just think it needs to be reitterated, despite the free-fall timing of the towers in the video, this is the better door-opener for people not familiar with the most of the issues surrounding 9-11. We (members of this forum) are defintely more exposed to the details, but for some of us, our friends and family only know what they see on the news or read in the papers (IF they even watch or read the news)

But I agree with Val, "Why is that such a sticking point for me? Because this issue is THAT important."

this issue is THAT important, and there is still a need for a video where none of us can point out flaws, because thats exactly what the skeptics are going to point out and harp on.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The aspect of "how long it took a tower to fall" is almost irrelevant considering that a definitive time frame for the fall has never been accepted, or even offered.

At just what point does each group decide the stopwatch of the fall starts, and stops?

Does it start at the first "bangs" that were heard by many?
Does it start when we see floors collapse?
Does it stop when (as if this can really be timed, considering the smoke/dust debris) the tower mast hits the ground?
Does it stop when the lone columns finally fall?

These points of time, amongst various groups/individuals, can add several seconds of variance.

When there is no definitive "point A to point B" of a fall, how can the one (or more) perspective be wrong, yet another be the only right one?

Misfit



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
THis is a pretty compelling video.

BUT...

If the WTC was bombed (and I'm not saying it wasn't), it would have taken a huge team of people to prep beforehand. Maybe even a hundred people involved in all the aspects of it.
Who are these people?
Surely, they knew what they were doing while they were rigging everything up.
Wouldn't one of them come forward to say something, in a moment of remorse or guilt... or even pride?
Could they be Terrorists? Americans?
Military?
Could they all be dead by now?
Or are they sitting back, thrilled with the results of their work?
I find this aspect of the whole "theory" confusing.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And while I agree that WTC 7 is a very important factor of the 9/11 topic, you are committing what you are accusing me of. It is a SINGLE factor, not a systemic one.

Touche


Well, the only people who know the complete truth are the ones who will never reveal it. Where's the silver bullet video for jfk? We'll never get one. I suspect by the time someone releases a video containing the unimpeachable truth of 911 we'll be swilling martini's with Elvis down at the Mall


So sit on your hands if you feel like it, but there are many reasons to start waking folks up sooner rather than later imo
I support efforts to keep the facts as accurate as possible in these vids btw, but I also think they are helping a LOT of ppl come to terms with what really happened that day. How about someone tabulates a concise list of criticisms so we can move on?

As for who organised it Jupiter869, I'd suggest starting with the folks who were allowed access to the immediate cleanup of the rubble - ironically they are called Controlled Demolition Inc. iirc



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well, just to be clear, I'm not awaiting "unimpeachable" or "irrefutable"...that would take something like Bush addressing the nation and saying "I did it." But then, he'd still be impeachable, now wouldn't he?


I'm just looking for "devoid of known errors". LOL

Anyways, I didn't mean to imply don't watch it. I was just personally disappointed. Just sharing my opinion...it and a quarter will NOT buy you a cup of coffee.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
The aspect of "how long it took a tower to fall" is almost irrelevant considering that a definitive time frame for the fall has never been accepted, or even offered.



Yes it has. Yes it has. And it's not irrelevant if you're wanting to stick with facts. It's not irrelevant if you're wanting to continue on a path toward finding the truth. It might become irrelevant if you're hell bent on hanging on to a theory though!



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Why is it ironic that a group whose work involves implementing controlled demolitions is called Controlled Demolitions inc.?

They are familiar with cleaning up after their work, so they would be the logical choice to clean up after buildings have fallen. I would think very few companies would have the type of experience in cleaning up that type of destruction.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Can't hear a loud explosion. Just a big rumble as its collapsing.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join