reply to post by lifestudent
Loose Change isn't very good, IMO. It has a lot of holes.
VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions, page 3
privacy
reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 10:47 PM by lifestudent
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
It seemed to have info and raise more questions than offer theories to me. What "holes" do you feel it had?
It has a lot of holes.
It seemed to have info and raise more questions than offer theories to me. What "holes" do you feel it had?
reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 11:08 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by lifestudent
Been a while since I watched it, but saying there was no plane debris on the Pentagon lawn is false. There was debris. Saying the Towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds is false. It was 18-20 seconds. Just different stuff like that. I can't remember everything point after point, I'd have to watch it again.
Been a while since I watched it, but saying there was no plane debris on the Pentagon lawn is false. There was debris. Saying the Towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds is false. It was 18-20 seconds. Just different stuff like that. I can't remember everything point after point, I'd have to watch it again.
reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 11:17 PM by lifestudent
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by lifestudent
Been a while since I watched it, but saying there was no plane debris on the Pentagon lawn is false. There was debris. Saying the Towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds is false. It was 18-20 seconds. Just different stuff like that. I can't remember everything point after point, I'd have to watch it again.
Hi NovusOrdoMundi,
Might make sense to watch it again. This is the second edition, and perhaps there was an earlier version.
In this one, they describe the debris and evidence at the pentagon that was found and analyze it against what it was claimed to be, even including conflicting eyewitness testimony. On the 9-10 second drop, they time the actual drop of the tower in question and calculate the "freefall" time against the measured time. Nothing seems to be sped up to me, and it's consistent with time quoted in the video on this thread. I don't purport to know the answers, just wondering where you think the holes are in this version. I would be interested in an argument for the actual holes. It would certainly be more comforting than some of the conclusions "loose change" or this thread's video could lead one to.
[edit on 26-10-2007 by lifestudent]
reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 11:27 PM by Majic
Chump Change
Contributions to these forums are restricted to individuals honest and intelligent enough to honor the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.
That's all. It ain't rocket science.
And now, back to the topic:
VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions
All opinions expressed in accordance with the house rules, regardless of what they might be, are welcome.
Originally posted by monst3rtruck
Note to the trigger happy moderators:
I'm sure some moderators will be all too quick to ban this account and perhaps delete this post before anybody gets the chance to read it, so I'll give you a little advice, don't bother. The more you censor me the more you fuel the fire, and there's only so much you can delete before people start questioning your intentions. Have no worries though, there are plenty of chumps who will blindly dismiss me as a troll and return to worshiping the ground you walk on.
Contributions to these forums are restricted to individuals honest and intelligent enough to honor the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.
That's all. It ain't rocket science.
And now, back to the topic:
VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions
All opinions expressed in accordance with the house rules, regardless of what they might be, are welcome.
reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 11:27 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by lifestudent
I've only seen the second edition out of the Loose Change videos.
They're saying the Towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds and that's simply not true. The angle they use has the view of the Towers blocked by falling debris in 8-10 seconds, but this by no means is the collapse time.
In other videos where you can see the Towers, you can see that they collapse in 18-20 seconds.
About the Pentagon, I must have mis-quoted it. I'll probably get around to watching it again sometime. But another thing wrong with their Pentagon argument is that they say the hole was like 16 feet or something, when in fact, it was 90 feet across.
I've only seen the second edition out of the Loose Change videos.
They're saying the Towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds and that's simply not true. The angle they use has the view of the Towers blocked by falling debris in 8-10 seconds, but this by no means is the collapse time.
In other videos where you can see the Towers, you can see that they collapse in 18-20 seconds.
About the Pentagon, I must have mis-quoted it. I'll probably get around to watching it again sometime. But another thing wrong with their Pentagon argument is that they say the hole was like 16 feet or something, when in fact, it was 90 feet across.
reply posted on 27-10-2007 @ 06:40 AM by lifestudent
reply to post by alinost
OK, I watched your video and have to say it was very funny
It's a nice break, but IMO, it's off topic. Rather than posting videos that, though admittedly fun to watch, are intended to insult the intelligence of people who ask questions, why not just find answers to the questions posed in the 2 serious videos? It seems to me there must be logical explanations for them, but when people use ad hominem arguments against facts, it usually implies the lack of any counter-argument.
The facts do not seem to fit the official story, so why does anyone asking questions get ridiculed?
Unless the steel did not melt, which it did, or there is an explanation of why weeks later the heap of waste from a fallen building was over 1000 degrees, or the fireman saying they'd be able to quench the two isolated fires was mistakenly viewing a blast-furnace level inferno, or the explosions that everyone there heard and registered on richter scales prior to collapse did not occur, or Rudy Giulliani could have known within minutes of collapse that the first steel frame building in history to collapse from fire was about to, or the engine found at the Pentagon was a 757's, which evidently it wasn't, or a plane could almost entirely vaporize while leaving behind remains of 184 people, or people weren't fired for disagreeing with the official story, or people weren't ridiculed endlessly for asking questions, or lots of other seeming questions/paradoxes raised by these videos can be explained by the official story, then there is likely more to learn. Who knows what the real answer is? What's wrong with trying to understand?
The only reason we found out about Abu Ghraib and subsequently a network of prisons where all reasonable people now agree that "enemy combatants" are/were being tortured was because they were outed by a small number of people out of the thousands who were involved, likely the least trained and indoctrinated of the bunch. Even general Janet Karpinski, a reservist who was made the patsy for Abu Ghraib, said these issues went to the top in spite of complete denial, denial which we later learned was untrue. We were told then that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, that no one knew, etc., which now we all know was not true either. Of course, Karpinski was just another casualty of the machine, like Valerie Plame and the CIA field agents and programs likely seriously damaged by deliberate outing of a covert agent working on WMD because her husband told the truth.
Yesterday, FEMA was caught staging fake press conferences with FEMA employees (agents?) pretending to be press and asking old soviet style softball questions designed to make people feel better about the fires than they did when Blackwater was aiming guns at people like Anderson Cooper during Katrina and mortally threatening them to not enter certain areas or film any bodies. Why should we not ask questions? Because we are scared, or because we are ridiculed?
Why not just try to understand how to make sense of the facts? Perhaps Survivor is more interesting? Maybe another celebrity gets arrested for drunk driving? Is what happened at WTC an important enough question to investigate until the facts match the explanation? I knew people working at the WTC. I also talked to a senior government official who worked there and he was very lucky not to have gone to work on time.
I grew up believing in a country that respects freedoms, that safeguards them. When I was young, we were not afraid of the authorities or speaking our minds. Our neighbor on the police force was as much part of the community as anyone. Now we have people concerned that just by asking questions, they'll get on a list? Is that just an irrational fear? One of many? If we haven't explained what happened, how can we be sure our response made/makes sense?
[edit on 27-10-2007 by lifestudent]
OK, I watched your video and have to say it was very funny
It's a nice break, but IMO, it's off topic. Rather than posting videos that, though admittedly fun to watch, are intended to insult the intelligence of people who ask questions, why not just find answers to the questions posed in the 2 serious videos? It seems to me there must be logical explanations for them, but when people use ad hominem arguments against facts, it usually implies the lack of any counter-argument.
The facts do not seem to fit the official story, so why does anyone asking questions get ridiculed?
Unless the steel did not melt, which it did, or there is an explanation of why weeks later the heap of waste from a fallen building was over 1000 degrees, or the fireman saying they'd be able to quench the two isolated fires was mistakenly viewing a blast-furnace level inferno, or the explosions that everyone there heard and registered on richter scales prior to collapse did not occur, or Rudy Giulliani could have known within minutes of collapse that the first steel frame building in history to collapse from fire was about to, or the engine found at the Pentagon was a 757's, which evidently it wasn't, or a plane could almost entirely vaporize while leaving behind remains of 184 people, or people weren't fired for disagreeing with the official story, or people weren't ridiculed endlessly for asking questions, or lots of other seeming questions/paradoxes raised by these videos can be explained by the official story, then there is likely more to learn. Who knows what the real answer is? What's wrong with trying to understand?
The only reason we found out about Abu Ghraib and subsequently a network of prisons where all reasonable people now agree that "enemy combatants" are/were being tortured was because they were outed by a small number of people out of the thousands who were involved, likely the least trained and indoctrinated of the bunch. Even general Janet Karpinski, a reservist who was made the patsy for Abu Ghraib, said these issues went to the top in spite of complete denial, denial which we later learned was untrue. We were told then that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, that no one knew, etc., which now we all know was not true either. Of course, Karpinski was just another casualty of the machine, like Valerie Plame and the CIA field agents and programs likely seriously damaged by deliberate outing of a covert agent working on WMD because her husband told the truth.
Yesterday, FEMA was caught staging fake press conferences with FEMA employees (agents?) pretending to be press and asking old soviet style softball questions designed to make people feel better about the fires than they did when Blackwater was aiming guns at people like Anderson Cooper during Katrina and mortally threatening them to not enter certain areas or film any bodies. Why should we not ask questions? Because we are scared, or because we are ridiculed?
Why not just try to understand how to make sense of the facts? Perhaps Survivor is more interesting? Maybe another celebrity gets arrested for drunk driving? Is what happened at WTC an important enough question to investigate until the facts match the explanation? I knew people working at the WTC. I also talked to a senior government official who worked there and he was very lucky not to have gone to work on time.
I grew up believing in a country that respects freedoms, that safeguards them. When I was young, we were not afraid of the authorities or speaking our minds. Our neighbor on the police force was as much part of the community as anyone. Now we have people concerned that just by asking questions, they'll get on a list? Is that just an irrational fear? One of many? If we haven't explained what happened, how can we be sure our response made/makes sense?
[edit on 27-10-2007 by lifestudent]
reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 05:19 AM by lifestudent
reply to post by PistolPete
PistolPete,
Nice post. In fact, I hadn't heard the term "truther" until seeing it on this thread. I've seen a lot of "theories" or wild speculations and also seen some information that doesn't seem to add up. Things are always spun both ways, but why be divisive when discussing the possibilities?
Regarding your comments about the video production quality and opening statements, I agree on both points. He could have simply left out the part about "conservative republican", and would have gotten a more clear, less politicized point across. It was also way too long and a bit rambling at times.
[edit on 28-10-2007 by lifestudent]
But a lot of us don't buy all the other crap the "truther" camp throws at us. And on the other hand, we beat our heads against the wall when we see the proverbial "debunker" that won't view any evidence"
PistolPete,
Nice post. In fact, I hadn't heard the term "truther" until seeing it on this thread. I've seen a lot of "theories" or wild speculations and also seen some information that doesn't seem to add up. Things are always spun both ways, but why be divisive when discussing the possibilities?
Regarding your comments about the video production quality and opening statements, I agree on both points. He could have simply left out the part about "conservative republican", and would have gotten a more clear, less politicized point across. It was also way too long and a bit rambling at times.
[edit on 28-10-2007 by lifestudent]
reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 01:56 PM by destination
reply to post by Majic
Adherence to a set of rules does not imply one's honesty nor is it a measure of one's intelligence.
Implying that one is dishonest or unintelligent is a defamatory attack and is in violation of the ATS Terms and Conditions of Use:
An attack is an attack no matter how indirect or ambiguously worded it is.
Given that the introduction to this video is clearly misleading, is SkepticOverlord not in violation of the terms:
Or are ATS Staff and moderators 'above the law'?
reply to post by ShadesofGrey
That is incorrect. The official conclusion refutes the 'pancake collapse' theory.
You might want to read it some time.
reply to post by scrapple
What?
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Can you tell me what type a fallacy you just commited?
I wonder how many of you have actually bothered reading the official conclusion before commenting on it's validity.
Adherence to a set of rules does not imply one's honesty nor is it a measure of one's intelligence.
Implying that one is dishonest or unintelligent is a defamatory attack and is in violation of the ATS Terms and Conditions of Use:
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
An attack is an attack no matter how indirect or ambiguously worded it is.
Given that the introduction to this video is clearly misleading, is SkepticOverlord not in violation of the terms:
1) Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Or are ATS Staff and moderators 'above the law'?
reply to post by ShadesofGrey
If you believe the official version these top sections smashed down onto the floors below causing the 'pancake' collapse.
That is incorrect. The official conclusion refutes the 'pancake collapse' theory.
Citation
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
You might want to read it some time.
reply to post by scrapple
One may think that 'some' possess a symptomatic attention disorder which renders the modern mind incapable of sitting through and concentrating on a fairly lengthy (yet reasonable) presentation of information….
…a symptom which can then be counted upon by 'some-other' to justify activity, made confident by change and deferment of the initial reasoning rendered.
What?
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"That video didn't (in my mind) didn't have a absolutely rock solid case... therefore 9/11 wasn't an inside job."
Can you tell me what type a fallacy you just commited?
I wonder how many of you have actually bothered reading the official conclusion before commenting on it's validity.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
You know how when you Press Your Eyes, you get interesting effects?? Well,
Science & Technology, Posted 1 hours ago
Science & Technology, Posted 1 hours ago
Frozen continent! Europe's rivers, lakes and even seas are iced over
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 hours ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 50 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 50 flags
Thomas Jefferson, A man of the past who may have seen the future
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 28 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 28 flags
***Programming The Nation FULL Video- Limited Time Only!!***
Education and Media, Posted 10 hours ago, 21 flags
Education and Media, Posted 10 hours ago, 21 flags
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 10 hours ago, 12 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 10 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 111 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 111 replies
U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 99 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 99 replies
Hollow Earth Theory Using Cold Fusion as evidence of the possiblity.
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 77 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 77 replies
The Illuminati and the Free Masons and their TRUE relationship
Secret Societies, Posted 17 hours ago, 68 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 17 hours ago, 68 replies
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 62 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 62 replies
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 50 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 50 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.241 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.241 seconds
