Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Mark Roberts developed a video last summer that I just saw for the first time. There is some pretty impressive videos and comparisons that show MANY reasons why the collapse of the towers were NOT that of a controlled demolition.

If this video has been posted in the past, please forgive me



Google Video Link




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The guy can debate too, he sure gave Fetzer a stomping. And the Loose Change boys too, oh and Alex Jones, even though all those guys can do is talk talk talk , repeating the same tired rhetoric over and over in the hopes that if you say it enough and with enough volume maybe someone will believe you. It's all they have at this point.

Glad we have someone like Mark Roberts out there actually doing something about these silly people, and he appears to do it because it's the right thing, not to sell something like the 9-11 deniers out there marketing their "free truth".

I hope I can catch him out there next time I'm in NYC, I'll buy the dude a beer, it's the least I can do.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
First time seeing that video, very nicely done. I am glad that on ATS I have the ability to view and read stuff from both sides of the 9/11 issue and getting all the information to come to my own conclusions.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Captain,
Thanks so much for this video thread. The one thing I had disdain for here at ATS is the "CT's" about 9/11. I know what took place that day because I watched it happen live. Very refreshing for me it was too come across your thread. Once again, thank you much.
Vance



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
all of the stuff in this video has been debunked. he doesnt have any evidance to back of anything he says just some videos we have all seen before. he looks like a huge idiot also because there is evidance of thermite used. its called molten metal.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
What exactly in that video disproves controlled demolition?

Very weak, created by someone with very little imagination and a lot of assumptions about what CTers actually think happened.

Where is the part that shows how 110 stories of steel can fall down on itself with no resistance? Where is the part that explains how office fires can cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail, at the same time, in less than an hour? Where is the mention of any physics? Just a lot of emotional garbage.

I had to laugh when they said part of the tower 'fell' on another building, the pieces were being EJECTED with a lot of energy! Enough to throw pieces weighing tons 600ft and embed huge pieces in other buildings.

Keep trying VeryObvious, maybe they'll keep you employed a little longer than the other failures...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I think those of us here who are actually fair and honest, and really do want do deny ignorance and seek the truth, appreciate these kinds of threads/posts.

There are far more threads/posts on here in favor of a conspiracy vs. those who support the official story. I think that this has a lot to do with ATS members' desire to find a conspiracy in everything, as well as the political beliefs of the majority of the members here. Obviously we're on a conspiracy site so there's bound to be more posts about there being a conspiracy than not.

Anyway, good video and good post. And before anyone bashes me for being a debunker or a government mouthpiece, I actually believe that there was a conspiracy on 9/11. I'm just not one of those who believes in holographic planes, thermite, etc. But as someone with an open mind and someone who cares more about the truth than justifying my political beliefs or pretending that terrorists don't exist, I like seeing all sides and all aspects.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I think those of us here who are actually fair and honest, and really do want do deny ignorance and seek the truth, appreciate these kinds of threads/posts.

There are far more threads/posts on here in favor of a conspiracy vs. those who support the official story. I think that this has a lot to do with ATS members' desire to find a conspiracy in everything, as well as the political beliefs of the majority of the members here. Obviously we're on a conspiracy site so there's bound to be more posts about there being a conspiracy than not.

Anyway, good video and good post. And before anyone bashes me for being a debunker or a government mouthpiece, I actually believe that there was a conspiracy on 9/11. I'm just not one of those who believes in holographic planes, thermite, etc. But as someone with an open mind and someone who cares more about the truth than justifying my political beliefs or pretending that terrorists don't exist, I like seeing all sides and all aspects.


ok we have established that you are a great person looking at all sides blah blah blah. the guy who made the video openly insulted 9/11 truthers multiple times, he didnt even have all of his facts straight just biased opinions on what he thought was correct. if the guy who made the video wants to deny ignorance he should look at all the facts first.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by truthwillneverberevealed]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Landmark Tower Demolition

Now THAT'S what demo squibs look and sound like, boys and girls!

Should be required viewing for anyone who calls the handful of smoke puffs from the WTC "squibs".



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
watching these videos makes me cry after all these years.



I have to hold my tongue when I post in these forums, I just can't understand why people refuse to acknowledge such simple and obvious physical evidence that the towers simply fell down from the steel weakening from the heat. It's really that simple.

There were no blast waves, no detonation booms, and no evidence of blasting caps, detonators, wiring or any other controlled demolition equipment, and of all the firefighters, police officers, medical workers and family members directly effected by the tragedy, not one of them has ever challenged the official story, and there has never been a published proof of controlled demolition paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Landmark Tower Demolition

Now THAT'S what demo squibs look and sound like, boys and girls!

Should be required viewing for anyone who calls the handful of smoke puffs from the WTC "squibs".


except the fact that both towers did in fact have many squibs. so i dont really understand where your going with this. also, you think that the goverment spends billions of dollars on topsecret materials and research into topsecret fields of study be it explosives, aircraft, missile capabilitys ect to tell the public about it? you think if they developed small charges be it chemicle or a type of small detonating device that can cut through thick steel almost immediatly they would let the whole world know about it? i think not. open your eyes.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You don't know much about Mark Roberts do you "truthwillneverberevealed."

Try going to a couple of those links Mark provided, read them, THEN tell me he doesn't have his facts straight.. What a preposterous claim!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
watching these videos makes me cry after all these years.



I have to hold my tongue when I post in these forums, I just can't understand why people refuse to acknowledge such simple and obvious physical evidence that the towers simply fell down from the steel weakening from the heat. It's really that simple.

There were no blast waves, no detonation booms, and no evidence of blasting caps, detonators, wiring or any other controlled demolition equipment, and of all the firefighters, police officers, medical workers and family members directly effected by the tragedy, not one of them has ever challenged the official story, and there has never been a published proof of controlled demolition paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal



actually dozens if not hundreds of people that were directly effected by the tragedy challenge and straight up dont believe the official story at all. i have no idea where you got that information from but i suggest you research the 9/11 truth movement more than make sweeping generalizations.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
You don't know much about Mark Roberts do you "truthwillneverberevealed."

Try going to a couple of those links Mark provided, read them, THEN tell me he doesn't have his facts straight.. What a preposterous claim!


on the contrary, i think you need to research the 9/11 truth movement. also the one fact he insulted the 9/11 truthers with about thermite he was completly wrong. look at the facts taxi-driver. even for the most hardenend anti truth movent person they still have to except the fact that not everything is explainable with the collapse of the wtc's.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
2X Post

[edit on 11/16/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The main claim that is being made in this video is that people are saying explosives were used in the demolition. This video's example of explosives were TNT. I don't think anyone believes TNT was used in the demolition of the World Trade towers.

People are NOT saying that the building 'exploded' or were brought down by an 'explosion'.

The planes hit the buildings and a huge fireball came from each plane hitting its respective building. The beams of the towers had thermite rope wrapped around them that when ignited, burns straight through the steel structures they are wrapped around. The impact and explosion of the planes hitting the buildings combined with the slicing of the steel beams in the building brought the building down under its own weight.

WTC 1 & 2 were not brought down with explosives, they were collapsed under their own weight by cutting through internal support structures using a pyrotechnic composition that produces immense heat.


[edit on 11/16/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I love the tear jerking music played the whole time to appeal to the saps who nostalgically think the USA was attacked by cave dwellers that day. Come on how does the almighty US of A let them through the gates and not intercept them ?

I think the real conspiracy here is that the average Joe Smith on the street fell for the press's story that Al Quaeda come and got ya's!

This day was carefully planned for at least 5 years by specialist teams compartmentalized with every detail planned, the only short fall was that the plan fell short of decapitating the US government and a plan B for bringing in martial is now in effect....the slow way.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Few issues I have with the video.

The common theme isn't really that high explosives were used but rather a thermite type explosive to cut the beams with, it may have created explosions, but I don't think they dropped 1100lbs of TNT worth C4 in there, that would definitely be noticed.

They show the outer wall buckling when the top of the tower starts to come down on it. Of course it does, it wasn't that high explosives were theorized to have been used, it's thermite that would have cut the inner beams folding the outer shell as it collapses.

At the end he speaks of no evidence of thermite used, instead he shows a picture of a beam that was cut by a torch, and a distance shot of the remains at ground zero claiming not only is there no evidence of thermite used, the people that promote such claims are "incompetents and frauds" This picture is echoed over and over again that offer a different look at the beam's condition at ground zero:
worcester.indymedia.org...

I personally think it is of low tact to attack the intelligence of someone directly in an attempt to win over the audience. Let it be a battle of wits, not ego stroking.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Comparing TNT to the WTC collapse ... why didn't I think of that - oh that's right they're two completely different things.

Why do people insist on comparing the WTC collapses to controlled demolition collapses? If 9/11 was an inside job, they certainly wouldn't place the explosives in such a manner that would make it look like a controlled demolition (heh, WTC7 anyone? - but how much coverage did that get?)... perhaps they would do it to make it look like a complete collapse (something our minds would easily accept).

I can imagine solutions to most of the "evidence" he presents ... But I cannot explain everything.

If the top 25 floors of the north tower can collapse (completely and symmetrically) through the bottom 85, the building would have collapsed once it was filled with 20,000 people (at 150lbs each that's 1500 tons) and all the office furniture etc.

Where'd the top 1/3rd of the south tower disappear to? It just kinda vanishes off the face the earth while falling...

Way too many problems to solve. Kudos for making a decent video though, it's always good to question everything and makes us all better when we're willing to examine our own paradigms


[edit on 11/16/07 by Angry Danish]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Being a FAIR SKEPTIC, I have to say, after reading this thread... You all are the same kind of warring camp as the UFO family. A large, and largely dysfunctional family, at that.

Seems t ome that rather than trying to rub each other's noses in the pig doodoo, you ought to set aside the name calling and putting down, and try to see each others points. You may decide then that some POVs are possible, and some are just plain silly...And I suspect that there is enough IQ here to get through it all without calling names and detracting from one another's ancestry.


All this talk about "Squibs"... My first question to the folks who are saying that there are squibs would be the same question to those who say there aren't... Have you ever seen these "squibs" in real life? Have you ever seen them in this sort of setting? What's different? What's the same.

To simply sit behind your keyboard and declare for the validity or invalidity of squibs is no good if you don't have actual, hands on, first person experience. To do it any other way is simple bloviation, and an attempt to insert your personal point of view and best guess on top of everyone elses point of view and best guess.

I realize that it makes for a lot less fun on forums to do something other than call each other stupid, but if you "ALL" want to get to the truth, then I suspect you "ALL" are going to have ot work at it in a spirit of cooperation.

I say that, because now, all of you, on all sides, appear to be acting like a gang of kindergartners, who have no other vision than to have controlling interest of the sand box.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join