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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

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.

Then please share this conglomerative agreement of a start to stop time scale.



It might become irrelevant if you're hell bent on hanging on to a theory though!

Insinuations are not neccessay.

Misfit




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
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.


It is ironic because of the name of the company exactly mirrors the controversial theory that the buildings were 'pulled'. Take a look at their website www.controlled-demolition.com... & read some case studies. They have close ties with DoD, Bechtel, Rockwell, and others, and they clearly state that they can organise and execute "sensitive projects" in a very brief period.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I am aware of what they do.

They are one of the biggest controlled demolition contractors in the world.

So it is not ironic at all that their name is Controlled Demolitions Inc.

That is like saying it's ironic that a company that supplies materials for builders is called Mutual Materials Inc.

FYI, controlled demolition was not a term coined for 9-11 theories.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
you missed the point entirely. life goes on.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
People will show you pictures of the debris chunks falling ahead of the collapse as proof that the collapse did not proceed at free fall rate.



Technically they are correct, but they're missing the point. Videos such as the ones below show that confluent rows of what looks like explosive ejection of debris and concrete dust proceed down the sides of the towers at a constant velocity AHEAD of the collapse zone and the free falling debris. Since the debris is accelerating under gravity while the expulsions are at constant velocity, it eventually passes the expulsions. But the fact remains that the explosive ejections proceed downwards ahead of the falling debris for some time - in that sense "faster" than free fall - which would seem to be a physical impossibility if gravity is the only force at play.

Vid 1

Vid 2

But the debate isn't helped by those who insist the towers fell at free fall rate, and erroneous, insistent arguments like that only serve to cloud and cover the anomalies like the one I've described here, providing a convenient strawman for repetitive debunkers to shoot down. And that's one of the many reasons why serious 9/11 researchers are sticklers for accuracy and honesty.


[edit on 2006-9-23 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
When I see videos of the twin towers collapsing and other buildings being demolish, its way different. Its like point out my hand to stop high pressure water and its being resisted and the water goes around my hand. Its similar to what I see on the twin towers where the bottom part of the towers are trying to resist the falling top floors and the debris goes outward.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit




It might become irrelevant if you're hell bent on hanging on to a theory though!

Insinuations are not neccessay.

Misfit


The insinuation was not directed to you personally, only to those who would dismiss an important scientific data point because it doesn't fit their theory. If that applies indirectly, then so be it, but I wasn't implying you were doing that.

Here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

you'll find it in various locations.

I'm not going to argue this point with you. This is a readily achievable data point that almost every 9/11 "truth movement" type group has accepted and moved past. And by the way, with the newest video released on the collapse of WTC 1, we now have three videos that can be used to establish the collapse time.

[edit on 9-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its like point out my hand to stop high pressure water and its being resisted and the water goes around my hand.


Except the structure was solid, and welded, rather than fluid.

What I think is interesting is that most of the mass of the Towers was lost over the sides of building as you can see in the image above, all during both collapses, and yet the Towers managed to keep falling at a constant speed nonetheless.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
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.



In the Iran-Contra testimony, Oliver North stated he doesn't see any thing wrong with what he did. There are candidates like Oliver North in the military that can be recruited.

Covert agencies, such as the CIA has advanced mind manipulation and control programmes, ex. MK-ULTRA. Experimentation in narco-hypnosis, mind altering drugs with hypnotic programming. Research in programmable assassin. Interrogation techniques in the use of narcotics, marijuana, '___', heroin and sodium pentathol. Brainwashing through torture.

Operatives could have been programmed to think they are attacking an enemy. After the operation, the operatives could have been re-programmed with no memory of their actions. It's just a guess. We don't really know how.

Watch the Manchurian Candidate, the film sheds some light into this covert world.

The notion that people are free thinkers and in control of themselves is an illusion. Just average everyday people are programmed by advertising agencies on brands and manipulated through news media and Hollywood movies.



[edit on 23-9-2006 by tazadar]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tazadar
In the Iran-Contra testimony, Oliver North stated he doesn't see any thing wrong with what he did. There are candidates like Oliver North in the military that can be recruited.


Right.

Except that Oliver North was not commiting mass murder of american citizens.





It's just a guess. We don't really know how.

Watch the Manchurian Candidate, the film sheds some light into this covert world.



Just guessing and fictional movies do not equal proof of anything.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
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.



Does anyone know if there is a list of the "workers" that were at the WTC complex during the power down weekend? There must be, right? We could surely find out if they were dead or not. These workers were supposedly "upgrading" or "installing network cable" or something to do with network infrastructure.

What company was used? Were these internal WTC computer folks?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
All maintenance logs held within the WTC Towers, security videos, etc., were destroyed during the collapses. The Port Authority may have had records, but they haven't been publically released as far as I'm aware.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All maintenance logs held within the WTC Towers

Is it not feasable that not only maintenance, but other Tower relevant logs and documents as well, would be as any other large scale firm/corp does - as offsite backup?

Misfit



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by bsbray11
All maintenance logs held within the WTC Towers

Is it not feasable that not only maintenance, but other Tower relevant logs and documents as well, would be as any other large scale firm/corp does - as offsite backup?

Misfit


One would certainly hope that there were off-site back-ups being made. Wasn't the main computer room on the 22nd floor of WTC 1? Can anyone confirm that?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right.

Except that Oliver North was not commiting mass murder of american citizens.

I was using Oliver North example to point out the fallacy to apply or expect one's own moral, innocence, compassion, and conscience in others.

We certainly have treason committed on our country in the past, have we not? If someone offers $1 million to kill 3000 fellow Americans, you don't think there are takers? How is that even far-fetched?




Just guessing and fictional movies do not equal proof of anything.

I didn't say it was proof.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by tazadar]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Wasn't the main computer room on the 22nd floor of WTC 1? Can anyone confirm that?


The WTC Operations Control Center (OCC) was in the B1 level of 2 WTC, if that's what you're referring to.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I don't know if that's what I'm talking about...lol. I wonder what that means? Operations control center = computers? I don't know.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The Port Authority Command Post was on floor 22. I'm not sure what you're speaking of when you say "main computer room", as I was under the impression that any/all corporate systems in the towers were contained within their respective floors.

??



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Watching the video now.

A few problems.

Valhall already covered their ten second fall mistake.


Why do they attempt to make the fires so weak? They say that the buildings were smokeing for an hour without flaming up. This is patently false. There are numerous pictures showing clearly visible flames.

Instead of showing these, they show us pictures from shortly after the collapse with lots of smoke and then insinuate that the fires never got worse.

They even later compare it to the madrid fire, calling the fires "90 minutes of smoke".

And the two lines to control the fire was obviously talking about the lower levels and cannot be seriously attributed to the multi story fire at the time.

This is disingenous, and decietful.


Why do they contradict their own evidence?

They show Robertson talking about how the impact of a slow moving 707 running out of fuel was taken into consideration.

Then they quote the guy, Demartini?, who exagerates and claims that it was expressly designed to withstand multiple impacts from a 707.

I think that Robertson, who actually helped build the towers should be taken more seriously than the other guy, who probably was exagerating, as there is no evidence that they were designed to take multiple hits from airplanes.

Despite this, the video runs with the second guy's ideas as if they never showed Robertson talking.

Why would they do this if they are supposed to be objective?



[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The reports of things that sound like explosives are not proof of explosives.

Saying something sounds like explosives does not mean there were explosives.

The CBS woman being interviewed is obviously talking about one of the plane impacts since she saw a fireball, she was not talking about bombs.

There explosion before the collapse is clearly the beginning of the collapse in other clearer shots.

Makes you wonder why they didn't use that footage.

Twenty minutes in and so far this is the same misinformation presented elsewhere.

About the only new thing I see is that they attempt to make us believe that the official story says that fire, not collapses, caused the ejection of debris, and that the fires were "90 minutes of smoke".

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join