Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
i was hoping this video would provide a good set of counterpoints... it doesn't. It's no better than any of the pro 9/11 conspiracy films out there (which I prefer anyways).

I mean, tgis video actually says "there is much evidence explosives were not used." Really, proving a negative now?
Many of the "facts" stated are just wrong. Like it begins by saying nobody heard explosions... really? I've seen more than a handful of eyewitness accounts of people stating they heard multiple explosions. I guess since the video maker says they were mistaken, I'll take his word at face value, over someone else's word at face value?




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
i was hoping this video would provide a good set of counterpoints... it doesn't. It's no better than any of the pro 9/11 conspiracy films out there (which I prefer anyways).


Well since you're friends with a Loose Change developer I would not expect you to like this.


Originally posted by scientistI mean, tgis video actually says "there is much evidence explosives were not used." Really, proving a negative now?


You can. Someone claims something...you can produce evidence to refute that. Mr. Roberts does do this.


Originally posted by scientistMany of the "facts" stated are just wrong. Like it begins by saying nobody heard explosions... really? I've seen more than a handful of eyewitness accounts of people stating they heard multiple explosions. I guess since the video maker says they were mistaken, I'll take his word at face value, over someone else's word at face value?


He does not deny the existance of explosions.... but explosives, there is no such evidence. I am sure "scientist" that you know the difference.

Mr. Roberts simply showed comparisons of explosive devices that are used in demolitions, showed the shock waves these produce, stated how much thermite would be needed, and the obvious residue thermite leaves.

Does it PROVE it was not a CD? Nah... Does this video as my thread title states "pokes major holes?" Yeah, in my opinion it does.

Just a little background on Mark Roberts: He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events surrounding 911. UL "whistle blower" Kevin Ryan, A/E911 Founder Mr. Gage, and Willie Rodrequez have all refused a televised debate with Mr. Roberts.

Mark has written many papers about 911 here are a few:


WTC- 7
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist
911stories.googlepages.com...

Please see:

Mark Roberts Has A Fork, and He's Sticking It Into The Truth Movement
www.democraticunderground.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
since you're friends with a Loose Change developer I would not expect you to like this.


believe it or not, i can be friends with somebody that I do not agree with on everything. Seems like a trivial limitation to put on social interaction, no?


Someone claims something...you can produce evidence to refute that. Mr. Roberts does do this.


and what evidence is that? The lack of reports? That's simply using selective research to omit statements and reports of explosions, just to turn around and use that omission as evidence against what's being omitted? Such a circular flow of logic, it's hard to see how anyone could be convinced of anything using such an explanation.


He does not deny the existance of explosions.... but explosives, there is no such evidence. I am sure "scientist" that you know the difference.


the difference in this context, is opinionated and subjective. He is playing a game of semantics, no more. There are many ways to create an explosion. Guess what - whatever causes an explosion was explosive. Just being "explosive" does not assign a certain decibel value, or list of ingredients. Like I said, semantics. Plus, how much noise does thermite make when it cuts through steel?


stated how much thermite would be needed, and the obvious residue thermite leaves.


and seeing how all of the wreckage was sent out and melted down / exported before any of this residue could be officially documented, this makes no difference one way or another. The documented cases used in the video were not handled in the same manner. There was no analysis of the wreckage to make any type of conclusion regarding thermite one way or another.


Does this video as my thread title states "pokes major holes?" Yeah, in my opinion it does.


for those of us that are a bit dense, would you mind listing the specific holes that have been poked through? I seem to be missing all of them.


Just a little background on Mark Roberts: He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events surrounding 911.


that's not saying anything at all. That also describes many members here on ATS. "encyclopedic knowledge" is not a qualification, nor does it even explain why anyone would bother listening to him.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by scientist]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:35 AM
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



This has to qualify as the most inaccurate and nonsensical post I have ever read. The Jersey Girls would be suprised to learn that they are includsed in the sweeping statement that ' none ' of the people affected have challenged the official story. And WHAT buildings have EVER ' fallen down ' in history from fire and gravity? And what about all of the other REAMS of evidence that has been presented. Posts like this make me want to grab someone and scream : " What is the matter with you? Can't you read? "

It staggers the sound mind to imagine that with all of the evidence that has been presented so far on the IMPOSSIBILITY of the official story beinbg true, that there are still some people who hide their heads in the sane and refuse to examine the proofs all around. This ranks with the most unbelievable posts I have ever read on the subject: It sounds like either someone who has a stake in covering up the facts, or someone who just CANNOT handle the new reality, thats all.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
People that are affected by a tragedy are seldom seeking the truth but more often are looking for someone to blame for their loss including the Jersey Girls
no disrespect to them I would feel the same

I on the other hand take the viewpoint that we are all born with one task at hand and that is to eventually (some sooner vs later) die..

I said the same thing to my family (I lost both of my Grandfathers this year)
they were wanting an autopsy and talking about getting lawyers I just looked at them and said you guys are idiots people die it's a fact of life so get used to it it isn't going out of style anytime soon..


Respectfully
GEO



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Frankly, I think that anybody who trusts videos as evidence amounting to proof that the World Trade Center Twin Towers were or were not felled by controlled demolition are really duping themselves. The fact is that any and all publicly available evidence does not provide conclusive proof of what happened on that fateful day, 9/11/2001. Another fact is that the WTC site was cleared before any forensic investigation could occur. Because of this, neither side of the 9/11 issue can claim to have uncovered the smoking gun. However, each side can call upon evidence to demonstrate whatever coincides with their beliefs. The sad part is that is all they can do. All available evidence permits each side to build equally opposing arguments. The best thing thing to do would be that each side unite with the other and demand a new and independent investigation. That is the only way to even begin moving towards a resolution. Otherwise it's just a stalemate between stale mates.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist


believe it or not, i can be friends with somebody that I do not agree with on everything. Seems like a trivial limitation to put on social interaction, no?


You actually posted that you were "biased" when it came to Loose Change.




and what evidence is that? The lack of reports?


Again, you have zero proff that the "explosions" heard were from explosive devices. If you DO have such evidence please present it.




Plus, how much noise does thermite make when it cuts through steel?

Ask Mr. Gage, he claims the firefighters heard it




and seeing how all of the wreckage was sent out and melted down / exported before any of this residue could be officially documented, this makes no difference one way or another. The documented cases used in the video were not handled in the same manner. There was no analysis of the wreckage to make any type of conclusion regarding thermite one way or another.


You have proof to back this up? Debris and steel were all placed on conveyors, FBI, and other law inforcement agencies were present. I do admit that the steel was shipped to MANY different locations a little faster than I am sure engineers would have liked.




for those of us that are a bit dense, would you mind listing the specific holes that have been poked through? I seem to be missing all of them.


1. At the time of collapse...there are no explosions present
2. At the time of collapse...no audio present
3. Where the collapse initiated, is at the point of impact from the airplane. There is no way any type of charges (for thermate) could survive an impact.
4. CAn you again watch the large building that was demo'd ...and listen? Thats what a building sounds like before it is demo'd.






that's not saying anything at all. That also describes many members here on ATS. "encyclopedic knowledge" is not a qualification, nor does it even explain why anyone would bother listening to him.


Perhaps I was a little vauge. Mr. Roberts has in fact done more research than anyone that I have spoken with.
This includes speaking with first responders, witnesses, scientists, engineers, explosive experts, doctors, medical examiners, contractors, politicains.

Your statement also makes it obvious that you didn't read any of Mr. Roberts writings that I posted. If you would like, please look at his debates with Dylan and Jason. (i posted them here a few times) Also he had a televised debate with Jim Fetzer. To be blunt, he dimantled all of them. This is why all other well know truthers are afraid to debate him on television.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



I'd like to know. What does a tour guide know about structural engineering? Thanks.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

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


You mean like Howard Roark and Agent Smith?

Funny how one day they were here full blast, the next they are gone. Or are they?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
And WHAT buildings have EVER ' fallen down ' in history from fire and gravity?


Actually lots of buildings have fallen from fire damage. I assume you mean what steel framed skyscrapers? None that we know of. But that is of no comparison. What you should be asking is :

What 2 110 story skyscrapers of the exact same construction and materials have EVER fallen due to the exact same event - a JET slamming into them causing massive structural damage and fires that engulfed many floors and raged on without the ability to fight them?

Well I would say WTC 1 and 2, there's a first time for everything.

Oh, and let's not forget :

What 47 story skyscraper has ever had the remains of 110 story skyscrapers fall on it scooping out a 20 story hole and causing fires to rage uncontrolled throughout the building until the FD decided to pull out since it was creaking and they believed it would collapse, which it did hours later?

WTC7 , once again there's a first time and situation for everything.

Simply saying something hasn't happened so it must not be possible is erroneous.

For example, using your logic, tell me please, when has thermite ever been used in the CD of a building? A skyscraper? All by itself with no other explosives? Is there any evidence at all that this has ever happened before?

Welllll, if it hasn't ever happened then this surely can't be the case now can it???



that there are still some people who hide their heads in the sane


Cool, I'm definitely one who hides my head in the sane, for sure, and it's a compliment to do so. We'll let the deniers have all the insanity.



It sounds like either someone who has a stake in covering up the facts, or someone who just CANNOT handle the new reality, thats all.


The "new" reality? LOL! That sounds a little cultish I must say.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

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,


I beg to differ. Ever hear of the Jersey Girls? How about William Rodriguez and others?


and there has never been a published proof of controlled demolition paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal


There has also never been a published peer reviewed proof of the plane damage and fire theory either. Does that make it wrong in your eyes also?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... your not one of the paranoid ones.... are you ??? Being a shill does not pay well.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


He has read the NSIT report...he understands it. He has spoken to MANY members of NISt, and has MANY friends that are scientists and engineers, etc..etc. Please read his papers and I'm sure he would love to hear of any mistakes he has made.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You actually posted that you were "biased" when it came to Loose Change.


way to take things out of context. I was stating the bias, in relation to buying a copy or two, not in agreeing with the conclusions presented in the video. You are simply debating your own false assumptions at this point.


Again, you have zero proff that the "explosions" heard were from explosive devices. If you DO have such evidence please present it.


I'm not trying to prove anything, but you apparently are, so I'm still waiting.


I do admit that the steel was shipped to MANY different locations a little faster than I am sure engineers would have liked.


Good, you agree. So I see no need to back this up with redundant proof. Are you denying that the wreckage was sent out before it could be analyzed?



2. At the time of collapse...no audio present


really... that's strange. In fact, that's much stranger than any other theory I've heard yet.. the silent building collapse theory. That's a new one.


Perhaps I was a little vauge. Mr. Roberts has in fact done more research than anyone that I have spoken with.


oh, ok. so his qualification is that you approve? How about qualifications other than your own opinion?


Your statement also makes it obvious that you didn't read any of Mr. Roberts writings that I posted.


guilty as charged.


well know truthers are afraid to debate him on television.


doesnt that contradict what you just said about him meeting all the truthers you mentioned? If I challenge this guy to a debate, and get no response.. does that mean he's afraid of me?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Where is the part that shows how 110 stories of steel can fall down on itself with no resistance?
...SNIP...
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.


Anok, don't you see a contradiction in what you just wrote? Think about the "resistance". Resistance can be viewed as a channel for energy dissipation. Now, as you said yourself, pieces of the structure were EJECTED with huge energy. That's where the energy went and that's why the building was able to collapse. No mystery here.

BtW I saw that with my own eyes, and it sort of like looked like an explosion in that the pieces were indeed flying off with huge velocity.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
These are the problems I have with this video.

The insulting tone, to the untrained eye the collapse of the WTC towers looks like a controlled demo. The speed with which the WTC fell, and the way it fell straight down is a legitimate reason for suspicion.

The footage of the demo'd building was not followed directly by footage of the WTC tower's collapse. Seems to me that would have made a much better argument, and it also seems to me that the look of the collapsing demo'd building looked very much like the collapse of the WTC towers.

The sound of explosions change drastically when other things like office furniture, and massive amounts of other sound absorbing materials are introduced. Clap your hands in an empty concrete room, and then in a similar room filled with offices and cubicles and furniture, these things create massive differences. Setting off explosives in a car and a concrete truck would sound completely different then setting off explosives inside of an enclosed massive structure filled with sound absorbing materials typical of most offices. This part of the video insulted my intelligence more than the cheap shots of the narrator.

Again, the ending with all the close up shots of the towers collapsing and the commentary, where are the comparisons with actual controlled demo's? Seems like this type of evidence would have been worth a great deal more video time then the silly sounds of open explosions amplified by the type of containers where those explosions took place. Side by side video footage of the towers collapsing compared to buildings collapsing under controlled demo should have much more clearly proven that the towers where not demo'd in a controlled manner. Then again, side by side video footage might have done just the opposite, and shown just how much the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a controlled demo, which are my suspicions.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Thank you for this post - as a 9/11 truth enthusiast I think it is important to observe all the evidence whenever possible.

However I find much of the reasoning in this video to be specious at best.

The comparisons with TNT were completely out of context, and he made no evidencery case that there were not loud explosions heard at the Trade centers - especially when many many witnesses reported them and they are also heard on several videos of the day.

(as well as reported by many different news casts)

Also - the extreme closeups of the top of the building falling were not very useful compared to the many many better and wider angles found on many other videos.

His slandering of Steven Jones was fairly pathetic as Professor Jones has shown many examples of thermate on steel that do not leave anything like the residue he showed on one piece of stell cut (we are expected to believe - with Thermate)

Compare this to the extensive forensic evidence that both S. Jones and FEMA found of substantial thermate residue from all over the the WTC collapse site.

Finally - even if we were to believe (or find despite forensice evidence) that indeed such a total collapse along the axis of highest resistance was possible with a Plane Crash / fire combo - this video does not even account for a fraction of the suspicious irregularities found on 9/11

(i.e. Norads stand down/WTC 7/Flight 93/Pentagon Attack/Bush's Bizarre Behavior, etc. etc. etc.)

So, again, I am pleased that this evidence is presented so that it can be thoroughly debunked by official 9/11 Truth Scholars.

And I don't believe for a minute that the Truth Scholars such as S. Jones won't debate this man - perhaps they won't entertain his unexpert and subjective opinions ad nauseum - but no one who supports a real independant 9/11 investigation is afraid to appear and debate in an impartial and neutral venue.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


While your comments about office contents muffling the explosions are possibly true, there are other factors to consider.

The video was taken from inside a helicopter at a distance sufficent to ensure that the chopper wouldn't be struck by flying debris, a poor environment for taking audio recordings if there ever was one. And of course, the building was prepped beforehand. They would have removed some columns/supports in an effort to minimize the amount of explosives that needed to be used. And still, the explosions are clearly heard.

Presumably, there was no beforehand removal of columns in the Towers. That WOULD have been noticed by the occupants. Or at the very least, would have resulted in the building's immediate collapse when the planes hit, since a common CT theory is that explosives were used at the same place that the planes hit in order to cover up the supposed fact that explosives were used. So that would have resulted in more explosives needed than in a normal CD. So couple that with the sound reflection properties of all the tall buildings there and there's only one conclusion. No explosives were used.

Of course there's also the theory that thermite/thermate was used rather than explosives. So how did the thermate survive the impacts, a question that also must be asked for the explosive theory?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki

The video was taken from inside a helicopter at a distance sufficent to ensure that the chopper wouldn't be struck by flying debris, a poor environment for taking audio recordings if there ever was one. And of course, the building was prepped beforehand. They would have removed some columns/supports in an effort to minimize the amount of explosives that needed to be used. And still, the explosions are clearly heard.


Hi Haroki-

Just a thought- Couldn't the audio have been knowingly recorded in a different area and later spliced together with the video so it would be heard? Not to deceive, just to allow the audience to experience the event with more reality?



Of course there's also the theory that thermite/thermate was used rather than explosives. So how did the thermate survive the impacts, a question that also must be asked for the explosive theory?


Charges probably wouldn't have survived in the immediate areas of impact, but you wouldn't have to take out any of those columns if they'd already been breached. The charges set on the remaining columns that are left to bear the load would be the only ones of any importance. The impacts didn't touch those areas, therefore if charges were present they should have still be intact no? Again, just a thought.

2PacSade-


[edit on 16-11-2007 by 2PacSade]

spelling

[edit on 16-11-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
first off, massive single explosions of comparably small items and vehicles demonstrate nothing, scale does matter and the landmark building demolition f.ex, which he included in the video showed that nicely.

he did not adress the issues with seismic records (WTC7's collapse comes to my mind), the molten metal in all basements, weeks later, the standing cores, see:


www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=2219223#pid2219223


he does not even try to counter video evidence of blasts originating from a few select windows (so much for overpressure) or vdeos of heavy damage to the lobby of one of the towers, which of course cannot be easily explained by an impact 300ft above.

...and, yeah, why did wtc 7 collapse anyway and why did BBC manage to predict it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=2985598#pid2985598





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join