VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions

reply to post by lifestudent


Loose Change isn't very good, IMO. It has a lot of holes.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

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 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.

9/11 was not an inside job. That video used circular and circumstantial evidence without any empirical data or established scientists. However, Popular Mechanics gathered top professionals in engineering and physics fields and they, using scientific data, proved that the towers were not destroyed by a controlled demolition.

All that video was good for is the lulz.

I also found additional arguments by an equally credible "documentary"




[edit on 10/26/2007 by alinost]

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]

Chump Change

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 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 have seen buidings fall down and the towers fell so that it has made me think that the only conclusion is that explosive devices were used. Maybe you think differently but consider this before you reply. The buildings fell in on it's self not out like you would think a building would do with such an inner structure of steel. I'm saying that at the very least they would have twicted at some point on the way down. They would have fell outward toward where the metal would have bent. But that did not happen? Why did both of the buildings just rest in the basements. The only logically conclusion is that they were blown up with explosions. I know that is hard to except but that is the truth. Maybe you think you are smart and you buy what the government is saying. I have been in the construction field for about 25yrs. So you can weigh what I have said here with what they say. I know I will upset a few here with this truth but I know what I know and the pancake effect does not fly!!!

reply to post by joeflow



Nice one.

Good to post the video, but a pity it's the same old stuff, with nothing new. It is something of a one-sided rant, and rather predictable with no pretence of being 'even-handed'. Still, all in the name of freedom of speech and looking at every perspective...

The collapse of the WTC does look like, and follow the pattern of, a controlled demolition. It seems the most likely explanation from an engineering point of view. But it's not the only credible explanation, and it's not proof. I remember seeing an interview with Osama on Al Jazeera a few years ago, where he stated that they never expected the towers to collapse when they hit them with the planes - that they just thought they would put two big holes in them, cause a fire and kill a few hundred 'infidels'. And they used engineers in the op planning.

Is the implication that the 'planes operation' was a lucky coincidence? Or that, uniquely, the administration co-operated with Al Qaida on this project, and planned it all? If so, are the constant AQ attacks on US service personnel in Iraq also planned and carried out in collaboration with the Bush Administration? If not, how to explain the contradiction? (this is not rhetorical - I would be interested in some answers, if anyone has any).

To the producers of the video: it would be a more effective piece of propaganda without that irritating muzak on the soundtrack; it almost ruined it for me. But maybe I am too easily distracted when being propagandized.

(By propaganda I don't mean the 'facts' and implications are not necessarily true, just pointing out that it is a finely-crafted piece of one-sided propaganda which sets out to make the viewer end up believing a certain point of view, and it's quite effective in its object.)

Still, frustratingly, there is no proof of anything - just opinions, and what is a more likely and what a less likely explanation.

Has this occurred to anyone (probably has, to a lot of people, but I missed it - sorry): what if the building was planned for future demolition, and charges were laid, in ignorance of 'the planes operation' being planned? That the opportunity was taken to knock it down so there could be an insurance claim instead of a financially ruinous repair bill? Certainly, the towers didn't need to actually fall down to justify invading Afghanistan. Had they been left standing, with 2 huge burned-out holes in them, the constant reminder on the skyline would have been even more effective. So it's possible that the Bush Admin might see the collapse of the towers as something of an unfortunate embarrassment, and would rather it had not been done (by whoever did it).

...Both towers were perfectly capable of collapsing (without assistance) as a direct result of the impact and resulting damage and events. Such a collapse does not violate any laws of physics or any established well accepted science. There is no need for a conspiracy so there is no reason to suspect one without reason. The government would gain minimal if any benefit at all from carrying out such a conspiracy and any such benefit would be overshadowed by the cost and effort involved in pulling off such a conspiracy and keeping it hidden. Any government capable of pulling off such a conspiracy would be quite proficient at what they do yet the current US government have blundered many proportionally simpler tasks. Any government with the audacity, will, and capability of pulling off such a conspiracy would be perfectly capable and willing to plant WMDs in Iraq, and yet there were no WMDs found in Iraq, which was a rather large egg on the current US government's face in the minds of the public. Don't you think that any government who would conspire to effect the events of 9/11 in such a cruel and heartless way, would also plant WMDs to be found in Iraq to save face?

Excellent post, and very thought provoking.

I have to agree that if credence is given to almost any of the 9/11 CTs involving the Bush Administration, then it seems a unique example of an extremely high level of competence for which there has in their other dealings been no visible evidence. I don't know why so many 'Truth Seekers' ignore this fact. Maybe it's not ignored, but I don't hear comment on it.

The point about WMD in Iraq is also a good one. It would certainly have been a thousand times easier to plant and find them than to plan and execute an extremely complex and sophisticated operation like 9/11 and keep it all covered up. Makes me wonder.

What do others think?

One thing that always bothered me about the collapse is what happened to the top sections of the towers above where the planes impacted.

If you believe the official version these top sections smashed down onto the floors below causing the 'pancake' collapse.

If this is so why isn't more of the top floors left at the bottom after the collapse? Surely there would be some recognisable piece of the top section left intact (like a corner section)?

When aircraft crash they often leave recognisable sections of debris (sometimes quite large). Aircraft are made of much thinner and so weaker material than the WTC and fall from much greater heights and speeds, so again why are there no recognisable pieces of the top section of the WTC left after the collapse?

Can anyone answer this?





[edit on 27-10-2007 by ShadesofGrey]

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]

WELL , i got in about 3 minutes before i got sick of it ..
why is it that truthers say fire did it ? in fact , it was PLANES !!!!!!

Originally posted by bovarcher

...Both towers were perfectly capable of collapsing (without assistance) as a direct result of the impact and resulting damage and events. Such a collapse does not violate any laws of physics or any established well accepted science.

Excellent post, and very thought provoking.

What do others think?

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.

Nice try

Originally posted by gen.disaray
WELL , i got in about 3 minutes before i got sick of it ..
why is it that truthers say fire did it ? in fact , it was PLANES !!!!!!

G.D.

This is fairly well addressed in the video,

You are right open flame jet fuel fires are NOT to blame.

nor are planes - as both towers stood LONG AFTER impacts.

Originally posted by alinost
9/11 was not an inside job. That video used circular and circumstantial evidence

"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?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Why can't a 9/11 debate be civil in the least bit?

Listen, debunkers, this is how it is, and the sooner both of us realize it, the sooner we can end the drama. So here's how it is:

You'll never believe us

We'll never believe you

Sucks, but it's the truth.

There's the problem right there. This is not a black and white issue. The us versus them mentality is what causes the drama.

There are lots of people, myself included, that are fairly certain that there was a cover-up of 9/11. 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 that there might have been some kind of government involvement.

The tactic of divide and conquer is alive and well in this debate. When we herd ourselves into these neat little groups it's inevitable that a "herd mentality" is going to result. This is counterproductive to what the main goal of 9-11 research is: to find the truth. The 9-11 forum here at ATS isn't about collecting data, analyzing it, and coming to a conclusion. It's about fighting with an opposing side on an issue where neither has a rock solid argument to fight over.

It's no different than Democrats vs. Republicans or athiests vs. Christians. The 9-11 debate itself has become more important than what actually happened.

Look at what the guy starts this video off with: "I'm a conservative Republican". So? So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence he is going to present me, why is it so important that it's mentioned in the first minute of his video?

He's making the assumption that it legitimizes his findings because he's a Republican and he had to have had a massive revelation to possibly think the government had anything to do with 9-11. That's why.

Everyone has to break down into a group to trust or distrust.

reply to post by PistolPete

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 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:

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.

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.

Citation

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.