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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Sorry for the triple post, this movie is ridiculous.


They seem to basing their demolition proof on the ten second time, making it that much more important that they do some basic research.

They did so little fact checking that they couldn't even correct this small mistake, what makes you think they did any better research for the rest?

Using their logic, since it took longer than 10 seconds, it obviously was not a controlled demolition, but a progressive collapse.

What I'd really like to see is a movie that actually takes an objective view and shows these claims along with the counter claims.

Why do these conspiracy videos rely so much on ignoring some evidence and presenting their reasoning as the only possible explanation for what we see.

I grant you that none of the "official" documentaries cover the CT's, so why hasn't anyone made an attempt to present both in a video?

Is it that conspiracy vids sell better?

Edit:

Then they bring up the 9-11 eyewitness video. Why is it that we can hear the loud bangs in that video, but the next video they show, with the camera shaking, we don't hear the bang, yet we can hear people screaming?

I think it's because the bang is from somewhere around Seigel, or the wind, which would explain why no other footage records those sounds.

The smoke at the base was shown in a thread a while back to be a burning car next to the building.

And what really do explosions in the basement have to do with anything? The collapse clearly starts at the point of impact.



Edit again, further along in the video:

If you watch just the part about pyroclastic flows you will see that they clearly prove a new theory.

It wasn't explosives. There were volcanoes beneath the towers and the plane impacts caused the volcanoes to erupt making the towers collapse.

Easy to prove if you ignore evidence to the contrary, much like most of the things presented in this video.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Watching the video now.

A few problems.

Valhall already covered their ten second fall mistake.



10 second thing, yea that was a mistake, but I don't think its a knowing type of mistake, the debre makes it so hard to tell what has already collapsed and what hasn't collapsed yet.



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.


yes there were flames, but yes it was weak. The towers did have fire in them for sure. I would say every floor hit by the plane had some mean fire in it. That doesn't change the fact that the jet fuel was burned up within the first 5 minutes, and the temperature of the fire went down, not up from the initial collapse.

And they are right about the fire. The fire smokes a great deal when its having a hard time staying alive. Fires that are burning while wet also create alot of smoke because of steam.

www.cityofclovis.org...


Ionization smoke alarms respond first to fast flaming fires. A flaming fire devours combustibles extremely fast, spreads rapidly and generates considerable heat with little smoke.

Ionization alarms are best suited for rooms, which contain highly combustible material. These types of material include:

1. Cooking fat/grease 2. Flammable liquids 3. Newspaper 4. Paint 5. Cleaning solutions


These types of fire don't create much smoke and are the ones that really generate the flames. You don't see much smoke from the jet fuel.



A smoldering fire generates large amounts of thick, black smoke with little heat and may smolder for hours before bursting into flames.

Photo-electronic models are best suited for living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens. This is because these rooms often contain large pieces of furniture, such as sofas, chairs, mattresses, counter tops, etc. which will burn slowly and create more smoldering smoke than flames.


now first off lets think about whats in the world trade center. alot of papers right? Well how much of those papers aren't in a metal filing cabinet? Any paper thats in a filing cabinet can pretty much be taken out of the equation.

desks, chairs, etc. that stuff burns slow. Contrary to belief, just because lighter fluid is put on something doesn't mean it will stay burning. Even with the jet fuel fire, it will catch, then die back down before really catching again.

the tower in madrid is the result of a long standing fire. Those flames had the time needed to create such a fire in the building. The WTC simply didn't have the time frame to create a big enough fire that could cause the amount of flames your talking about. The Fires in these buildings are caused by whatevers burnings EMBERS most of the time. These embers slowly burn and burn something untill it starts to smoke. eventually it catches then starts to burn. This takes time though. even if I were to take a bunch of logs, toss some gasoline on them, and a couple pieces of paper, then light them...they wouldnt stay burning. Ive done many campfires before, I know for a fact that embers is the key to starting a big fire. Without all the embers burning, the fire wont stay lit.

The Madrid fire is what an office fire in full force looks like. It is the true maximum office fire. You see the huge flames, thats an office fire in full force. The WTC building didn't have that. It had thick black smoke, which a smoldering fire gives off.



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.


it didn't get worse, it actually died down. The initial impact and immediately after was the worst of the fire. Once that jet fuel was gone, the fire was dying quickly. Anyone whos built enough fires knows that without either more fuel or embers, the fires going to die. embers are usually always created, but it takes time, which is what we lacked here.



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


compared to the madrid fire, an office fire at full force, the WTC was nothing but 90 minutes of smoke pretty much. Sure there was fire, but the most danger were the embers created by the first 5 minutes of the burning jet fuel.



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.


and you know this how? Assuming? Well lets not assume ok? All he says is there are two small pockets of fire we can knock out with two lines. It doesn't say where, or what he meant. All we know is there were to pockets of fire, and he thought they could take em out.



This is disingenous, and decietful.


not really.



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.


where does it say running out of fuel? Why would they assume it was running out of fuel, assuming your claim right here is true? How stupid would they have to be to do that?



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.


so just who is this"DeMartini" guy anyway, and what does he know? Well lets check out the victims of 9/11 list provided by Newsday.com

cf.newsday.com...


Frank De Martini was sharing a cup of coffee with his wife, Nicole, on the 88th floor of the north tower when the first plane hit.

A Port Authority architect and manager of construction projects within the towers, DeMartini urged his wife to leave. She refused. He insisted. His wife made it out of the building safely. DeMartini, who stayed behind to help evacuate his colleagues, died in the collapse.

"That would be just like him," said his older sister, Nina De Martini-Day.

DeMartini, 49, always threw himself into everything he did, his sister said. On Sept. 11, despite the damage and the smoke, reports show that he succeeded in getting almost everyone on his floor to the stairwell. Later, he freed people in an elevator by prying the door open with a coat rack. "It wasn't in his nature to not try to help," his sister said.


so heres a guy who watched the tower get hit, and stayed. Why? Because He didn't believe it would collapse. Why? Because he was the Port Authority Architect and Manager of the construction projects in the towers. Now what gives you reason to question him? Any actual proof? Any proof of his exaggerations. Not to mention his exact word were "I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure...." he never once says, its a proven fact. He says it by his own understanding of the towers, which he was in the position to say.

You obviously didn't even bother to look this guy up, because he probably has more knowledge of the construction of the WTC then robertson. Robertson just helped build it, this guy managed it.



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


why would you question this man character without any evidence, or even bothering to look up who he is. Why would you do this if you were being objective?


[edit on 23-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The reports of things that sound like explosives are not proof of explosives.


and they are not proof of lack there of, they are evidence of something exploding in the building. That is something gone unexplained. Would you care to show fact that you know what caused them?


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

yep, but if you care to explain them, with proof, then be my guest.



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.


agreed.



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


clearly? obviously? who are you trying to kid here? Your making it sound like its clear as day to make it seem like your side of the arguement is more reasonable. Its not "obvious" of "clearly" the falling building.



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


why don't you show us the footage your talking about?



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


second post of debunking, and yet Ive only found one thing you have said to be agreeable with. The CBS lady. Other then that, you show you care little about investigation and more about agenda.



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".


If you would please show us, mathmatically how the collapse shot the debre as far as it did?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes there were flames, but yes it was weak. The towers did have fire in them for sure. I would say every floor hit by the plane had some mean fire in it. That doesn't change the fact that the jet fuel was burned up within the first 5 minutes, and the temperature of the fire went down, not up from the initial collapse.

And they are right about the fire. The fire smokes a great deal when its having a hard time staying alive. Fires that are burning while wet also create alot of smoke because of steam.


Really?

Then why do have the fires clearly grown when you compare the towers after impact to right before the collapse?



Then later.



Regardless of the temperatures the fires were burning at, the fires are clearly stronger and burning more area later on. It is not "90 minutes of smoke" as they would have us believe.

There was a lot of smoke, but there was also a lot of clearly visible flames on multiple floors, meaning over acreage of office space. It is clearly misleading to characterize this as "90 minutes of smoke".



The Madrid fire is what an office fire in full force looks like. It is the true maximum office fire. You see the huge flames, thats an office fire in full force. The WTC building didn't have that. It had thick black smoke, which a smoldering fire gives off.


The building in madrid was not hit by airplanes, and it's fires were not started on acreage of floor space all at once. And sorry, there was more to burn than paper.



it didn't get worse, it actually died down. The initial impact and immediately after was the worst of the fire. Once that jet fuel was gone, the fire was dying quickly.


See above, the fire was clearly much worse before collapse than it was after impact.




"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."

and you know this how? Assuming? Well lets not assume ok? All he says is there are two small pockets of fire we can knock out with two lines. It doesn't say where, or what he meant. All we know is there were to pockets of fire, and he thought they could take em out.


No this has been talked about before.


www.911myths.com...

It seems Palmer did only see “two isolated pockets of fire” at this point, although whether there may have been fire elsewhere on the floor isn’t clear. So does this prove the fires were much weaker than claimed? Well, no. Not even close.

NIST do not claim that the 78th floor was a “raging inferno”, for instance. In fact the NIST fire reconstruction report says “there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor”, page 109). No surprise: pictures in the same document clearly show this floor was at the base of the fire-affected area..





where does it say running out of fuel? Why would they assume it was running out of fuel, assuming your claim right here is true? How stupid would they have to be to do that?


Did you watch the video? They play an interview with Robertson when he says this. Why don't you watch the video so we can discuss this without having to clear up what is shown in the viedo.




You obviously didn't even bother to look this guy up, because he probably has more knowledge of the construction of the WTC then robertson. Robertson just helped build it, this guy managed it.


You are kidding right?

Right?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

If you would please show us, mathmatically how the collapse shot the debre as far as it did?


How about you watch the video so we are on the same page.

After that sure I'll do that, as soon as someone can show me how the towers were rigged with explosives on every floor of both buildings without anyone noticeing.

Finding problems with official story doesnt' mean you can ignore the gaping holes in your own theories.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I haven't ever heard any one suggest every floor on the towers was rigged with explosives.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Really?

Then why do have the fires clearly grown when you compare the towers after impact to right before the collapse?



Then later.



Regardless of the temperatures the fires were burning at, the fires are clearly stronger and burning more area later on. It is not "90 minutes of smoke" as they would have us believe.

There was a lot of smoke, but there was also a lot of clearly visible flames on multiple floors, meaning over acreage of office space. It is clearly misleading to characterize this as "90 minutes of smoke".


To me this is no different than the support for the argument in the film. Two different pictures with no timestamps taken at two different angles. I could reverse the pictures in this post and say "SEE! THE FIRES ARE DYING DOWN ... LOOK AT THIS CLOSEUP!".

Granted "90 minutes of smoke" is a bit dramatic (probably the most dramatic statement in the film) but these pictures don't prove much either (other than there was some fire at some point(s) in the building as evidenced by more than one camera).



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sorry for the triple post, this movie is ridiculous.


sorry for the triple response, but you debunking is horrible and lacks almost any evidence whatso ever. It is ridiculous as well.



They seem to basing their demolition proof on the ten second time, making it that much more important that they do some basic research.


no they aren't basing it on the ten second time completely and solely. They used it as one of the legs. fortunately this arguement has more then two legs, so kicking one out hasn't brought it down. But as for doing basic research, Id take your own advice and start reading about fires and steel.



They did so little fact checking that they couldn't even correct this small mistake, what makes you think they did any better research for the rest?


youve done such little research into fires and who Demartini was, why should I believe that your statements are credible at all?



Using their logic, since it took longer than 10 seconds, it obviously was not a controlled demolition, but a progressive collapse.


No not really, Valhall just mentioned something that you could harp on, so now your focusing on it because your lack of anything else to disprove.



What I'd really like to see is a movie that actually takes an objective view and shows these claims along with the counter claims.


what the official story? Sorry but this is pretty objective, your just not being objective which shows in the previous posts.



Why do these conspiracy videos rely so much on ignoring some evidence and presenting their reasoning as the only possible explanation for what we see.


I ask the same, why do debunkers rely so much on ignoring some of the evidence, and debunk one thing like the "10 second collapse" to try and disprove the whole video?



I grant you that none of the "official" documentaries cover the CT's, so why hasn't anyone made an attempt to present both in a video?


what do you mean?



Is it that conspiracy vids sell better?


has nothing to do with it. Well for some people it does sell better yes, but this video is free to anyone who wants it, so whats the point?



Then they bring up the 9-11 eyewitness video. Why is it that we can hear the loud bangs in that video, but the next video they show, with the camera shaking, we don't hear the bang, yet we can hear people screaming?


My guess is underground explosion. How would you explain it. The person shaking the camera because the camera person has ESP and knew the tower would collapse so the camera person came up with the idea s/he would shake the camera before it fell? not to sure about that.



I think it's because the bang is from somewhere around Seigel, or the wind, which would explain why no other footage records those sounds.


Hmm the wind huh? Ive never seen wind that shook a camera like that, and the microphone picked nothing up. In fact I have never seen a camera shake like that from such a light wind ever. Im not sure where seigel is so I cant say. You don't know where the camera is located or what you would or wouldn't be able to hear though. Especially if its underground.



The smoke at the base was shown in a thread a while back to be a burning car next to the building.


link?



And what really do explosions in the basement have to do with anything? The collapse clearly starts at the point of impact.


wow you really didn't bother to watch the video at all. explosions at the base are needed to make the building fall into its own basement. Please actually watch the video objectively this time.



Edit again, further along in the video:

If you watch just the part about pyroclastic flows you will see that they clearly prove a new theory.

It wasn't explosives. There were volcanoes beneath the towers and the plane impacts caused the volcanoes to erupt making the towers collapse.

Easy to prove if you ignore evidence to the contrary, much like most of the things presented in this video.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]


yea sure thats funny. clearly ignore why they mention it. kind of like the rest of the posts youve made so far.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Valhall,

Isn't that exactly what's being suggested when someone points out squibs all over the place. Or when they talk about a free fall collapse? Or in the video when they say that it would take bombs blowing out each floor before the collapse hit?

If however you believe explosives only initiated the collapse, then half of the evidence in that video is nonsense anyway, since what they are claiming happened would require just about every floor to be wired up.

Fiverz,

I agree, those were just two quick shots, however check it out for yourself, the fires grew much larger than what they started as. And no matter how you put it "90 minutes of smoke" is misleading.

Grim,
post something of substance about the video as opposed to ranting and we can discuss.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
No, that's not what I've seen people suggest when they are talking about the squibs. Primarily because the squibs occur about every 10 floors or so, so there wouldn't be any reason to suggest explosives on every floor. Nor would there be any reason to plant explosives on each floor from a practical/operational standpoint.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
If it only required them every ten floors, doesn't that ruin the "evidence" that collapse wave travelled near free fall? I always thought that one of the biggest problems people had was the speed of the collapse?

How does explosives every ten floors speed up the collapse like it has been claimed?

Wouldnt that make the collapse stagger?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I guess you missed the part where it was discussed that there aren't very many people using speed of collapse as an argument anymore. Since nobody's arguing it, it kind of would be silly to counter-argue on that point.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If it only required them every ten floors, doesn't that ruin the "evidence" that collapse wave travelled near free fall? I always thought that one of the biggest problems people had was the speed of the collapse?

How does explosives every ten floors speed up the collapse like it has been claimed?

Wouldnt that make the collapse stagger?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]


Depends on how it was done. Here is a good example of a controlled demo:

youtube.com...

I can see having a computer-controlled demo where you have the initial collapse at the top, then fire off 20 stories below, then 20 below that etc.

Regardless if the space between is 5, 10, or 20 I'm sure there's a way to do it so that the building will fall in its footprint (due to the weight of previous floors and pancaking, which occured according to the report). Now in the same manner in which WTC 1 & 2 fell? I don't know. Times are misleading and pretty much invalid as a determining factor in this equation, as Val mentioned before.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
And perhaps you missed the part where this thread is about a video that is using the speed and look of the collapse to imply that every floor was blown out with bombs.

If we aren't discussing the video, perhaps we should take it to another thread.


Fiverz,

Agreed, but then if most of the collapse is accomplished with gravity, then whats the point of planting explosives at all?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And perhaps you missed the part where this thread is about a video that is using the speed and look of the collapse to imply that every floor was blown out with bombs.

If we aren't discussing the video, perhaps we should take it to another thread.


Fiverz,

Agreed, but then if most of the collapse is accomplished with gravity, then whats the point of planting explosives at all?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]


My main issue is not whether or not the buildings fell in a time frame or even that they fell at all. My issue is the footprint and the WAY in which they fell (but that is getting into topcis that agan have nothing to do with this video).

As I stated earlier in this thread this video has worth to me because it made me think about a few factors in a different light. Whether or not other parts of it are valid or not are of no consequence to me ... there has not been a video that I've agreed with 100% completely, nor will there ever be.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
When you said this to grim,




After that sure I'll do that, as soon as someone can show me how the towers were rigged with explosives on every floor of both buildings without anyone noticeing.

Finding problems with official story doesnt' mean you can ignore the gaping holes in your own theories.


You were talking about the video?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Really?

Then why do have the fires clearly grown when you compare the towers after impact to right before the collapse?



Then later.



Regardless of the temperatures the fires were burning at, the fires are clearly stronger and burning more area later on. It is not "90 minutes of smoke" as they would have us believe.


nope the temperature the fires were burning at means everything. They aren't burning stronger. they are burning more area, but that is expected. Again, its nowhere near a full force office fire, which the official story is saying it was. If it isn't a full force office fire, the steel would remain MORE intact then it already was.

Fact is your first picture zooms into the direct area of where the plane hit, ignoring all the areas around it. Of course more area will be on fire if you exclude all the area around the crash, compared to the second picture.



There was a lot of smoke, but there was also a lot of clearly visible flames on multiple floors, meaning over acreage of office space. It is clearly misleading to characterize this as "90 minutes of smoke".


lots of smoke is right. Not lots of fire. Visible flame, of course there is. Comparing this fire to other fires, it is nothing more then a small fire with mostly smoke. watch the madrid office fire again. Compare them, then tell me how the WTC was a full force office fire or even close. Its a smouldering fire, and thats a fact by the think black smoke. This means the fire is getting weaker not stronger.



The building in madrid was not hit by airplanes, and it's fires were not started on acreage of floor space all at once. And sorry, there was more to burn than paper.


sorry the fact it was hit with an airplane means nothing. the fire was its most fierce in the first 5 minutes when there was jet fuel. After that the fire was dying out, not gaining momentum. The smoke shows this. The smoke is an indicator of the fire, not the other way around. It doesn't matter if the fire was started all at once, or within on office. Fact is that the WTC fire never achived a full force office fire like madrid office building did and withstood. The WTC couldn't withstand a fire that wasn't even at maximum force?



See above, the fire was clearly much worse before collapse than it was after impact.


please, for the sake of use all, do some research. you use the logic "I see more fire, it must be getting worse!" and that simply isnt true. The black smoke showed that the fire was dying down. Yes if it was left unattended it would have gotten alot bigger and became a full force office fire, but it didn't. Instead the building collapsed. By what, smoke?




No this has been talked about before.


www.911myths.com...

It seems Palmer did only see “two isolated pockets of fire” at this point, although whether there may have been fire elsewhere on the floor isn’t clear. So does this prove the fires were much weaker than claimed? Well, no. Not even close.

NIST do not claim that the 78th floor was a “raging inferno”, for instance. In fact the NIST fire reconstruction report says “there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor”, page 109). No surprise: pictures in the same document clearly show this floor was at the base of the fire-affected area..



alright, so we can agree that from where he was, the fire was not bad? Im not saying anything about where the plane hit, Im talking about where he was.

now again I have already said why I am positive the fire did not get stronger. Paper catching on fire is not a long burning source. You burn alot of paper, you get a short lived fire. You have to burn chairs, desks and other large items to get a full force office fire, which takes time.

You cant have it both ways. You can either have a fire that spread fast, and wasn't at full intensity, or a large fire that was. This was a fast spread fire, that didn't burn at full temperature. It couldn't be burning at full temperature because a majority of the items burning, were short fire starters, not fire "holders" paper and such burn for about 15 second. the bigger the pile of course the longer, but most large objects show by the smoke coming out of the tower that these objects weren't completely engulfed in flames. The fire doesn't burn at full force till these objects are completely engulfed in flames.

Overall what your proving is we had a weak, spread fire that quickly spread. Yes that is true. It is weak though, so that doesn't explain how the structural steel was weakened so much then. If it is the quick spreading fire you explain, then it was a very weak temperatures. That means the steel should have had NO PROBLEM withstanding the fire.



Did you watch the video? They play an interview with Robertson when he says this. Why don't you watch the video so we can discuss this without having to clear up what is shown in the viedo.


haha ok, just watched every Robertson part over again. Well lets quote him on this ok?
"the airplane we were envisioning was the largest airplane of its time, flying slowly and low, lost in the fog. We designed the buildings to take the impact of the boeing 707 hitting the building at any location."

"to the best of my knowledge, the considerations of the fuel in the airplane, in terms of an explosion or a great fire was not considered. Now, we were not responsible for the aspect of that design"

what you did was twist his statement. he said they didn't take it into consideration. They didn't design it for a large or small explosion fire. They didn't anticipate any fuel explosion. mainly because that wasn't their job. You made it sound as it was made for a plane out of fuel, and thats misleading. They made it for a plane hit, to withstand the hit. They were not incharge of what fire the fuel would cause, so they didnt have anything to do with preparing for fires from fuel, that was some one elses job.

either way, your statement that they prepared for an lowly fueld jet is misleading. They prepared for a boeing 707 and weren't in charge of preparing for fire protection.





You are kidding right?

Right?


the type of response I would expect. I did exaggerate accidently. He was part of the design, from 30 something years ago. He was not involved with any of the more rescent reconstruction with DeMartini headed. He has some knowledge of the design of towers, and this was his opinion of the towers, as Robertson had his expectations.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Grim,
post something of substance about the video as opposed to ranting and we can discuss.



cant say Im surprised by this response. Why don't you address some of the basic facts. I brought you facts about fire, you ignored them. I brought you the fact that DeMartini was the manager of construction at the WTC and an architech, you ignore that too. Cant say Im surprised by the lack of response.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Yes Valhall, in the video they talk about explosives being used on every floor. They play a clip with some guy talking about how bombs had to have been used on every floor to cause them to pancake like they did. Then they present why they think this is what happened througout the video.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Okay, so why did you ask grim to prove a theory that is from the video, but not something he's suggested? Why is he required to prove some one else's theory to you? And why did you follow up with stating he could not avoid the gaps in his own theory - implying that the lack of proof of bombs on every floor some how was a gap in his theory?

That's the part that's confusing me.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join