It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
To be very clear, I'm not promoting it at all. I felt our members should be aware of it and discuss it. If conspiracy theorists ignore debunking efforts, then we ignore all tools available for refining and improving the delivery of our concepts.

I think that is fair. We have to keep listening to what they are saying, even if we dont like what they are saying. Often debunkers actually help as they make people become aware of certain popular lies that are often put forward in the truth movement. But this actually helps us, as we are then sure what areas the debunkers really cant debunk.

I haven't watched the video yet, when i do i will post the probable innaccuracies in it. I can guess at what the main ideas in the documentary will be about;

> There will be a lot of time wasted on the obscure topic of fireproofing

> No mention of the laws of momentum

> No mention of other laws of physics and how they apply to the collapse

> They will say that once collapse started, global collapse was inevitable, but they wont actually analyse the way the building collapsed after the initial movement.

> They will pick their witness testimony to suit themselves, and leave out testimony from William Rodriguez and others

> They will not mention the molten metal at ground zero and all the witnesses, or they'll outright denying it was even there

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by Mercenary2007

Also the steel failed for 2 reasons, 1) major sections of structural steel was damaged by the impact of the planes. 2) the heat produced from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel. and as the steel heated it bowed under the weight of the floors above it or snapped and cause the build to collapse under the force of the floors falling in on themselves.
If this were true wouldn't the undamaged floors cause some resistance?And the floors that were supposed to be doing the "crushing" of the floors below were turning to dust,and the steel can be seen hurling outward away from the buildings.I don't buy this explanation,there was little or no resistance when those buildings came down.That means all the bolts and welds on ALL those steel beams and columns had to fail ALL AT THE SAME TIME to get the results we saw on 9/11.That is VERY hard to believe imo.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
#1 if all this was done by terriosts...then why would the government not make all the data available, to the public. #2 why was only 19 million spent on the investigation of 9/11 and 50 million spent on the shuttle disaster. #3 who were the people that benefitted from this. #4 why were only democratic members of congress sent laboratory weapons-grade anthrax. #5 during the hearings of the 9/11 commission, any design or structual engineer with an opposing view as to how the buildings came down, were not even invited or allowed to testify. #6 why would the undamaged half of building WT7, fall as uniformly as the half that was damaged and on fire. #7 if bin laden and his followers are the ones responsible, why does the government refuse to go into pakistan with massive amounts of troops and equipment and kill or capture these people

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:23 AM
i know nobody is going to like this...but...the terrorists DID win...people in this country are now terrified...hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent...the dollar has devalued over 30%...america is now seen as a threat to other countries...laws in this country have been passed that resticts our freedoms more then anytime in our history. we have "lost" to fear...and THAT is the goal of terrorists.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:59 AM
from what i seen in this video is bluiding blowing up mmm nice video,my question is none of the bluiding are as tall as the twin towers, so with that taught in mind how would you bring down a tall building in a metro area mmmm
if i start from the top less damage from here u need a scientsist to explain how its done now the video from the brigdes of course the explosen will be loud you are in the country echo
wow and for the rest of it commen sence a airplane vs steel no way in hell have a nice day
just my taught

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

Whos research? Eric Huffschmitt's? The computer geek anti-semite that spawned the controlled demolition theory in 2002? Why is this dude so "qualified?" BULLOCKS!

OH! Is that who started it?

I always wondered, now I have something to research, thanks.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by Mercenary2007

Thank you !!

You know the terrorist won something else they hadn't planned on, or maybe they did, I do not know,

The heat is off them, because we are looking now to blame the wrong people, let down our guard, and bingo they can pull off another, keep us looking in the wrong direction, maybe they even started the conspiracy.

I think the only thing our government did wrong was to underestimate them.

And we are doing the same thing.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:28 PM

Who Exactly do you want to be strung-up on the gallows for high treason and commiting 3000 counts of capital murder? Ok, Henry Shelton (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), William Swanson (CEO Raytheon) Of course Dick Cheney ( VP and Halliburton), anyone named Rockefeller.. Anyone else? What about the dude that shot off that cruise missle at the Pentagon? Or the legions of mindless manchurian candidates that rigged the towers... Do you have any names of all the people within American Airlines, United Airlines and ATC, FAA, And NORAD that conspired and colluded for the gain of some rich guy..with unwavering dedication..even after they could see that their actions caused the deaths of thousands? What about the first responders on the ground in New york and Washington. I mean are they to be punished as they would have had to repress information in order for this to flow without a hitch- ( barring a few, brave, nay, fearless - narcissistically keen minds that are all to proud to have negotiated the fictional labyrinth of sophmoric deception and figured this whole thing out --WITH CERTAINTY- all from the comfort of their momma's basement and the welcoming confines of YouTube and Google search functions!)- All those poor sheeple. They cannot elevate to this lofty position, this enlightened intellect..not even if they do all their "research"...................

MY god that's brilliant!

I would like some names too.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by mybigunit
and the truth shall set u free. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. There is no doubts in my mind that the government did not plan 9/11. You guys give our government to much think they are smart enough to pull something like that off???? Now as far as knowing before hand and not doing anything about it to go forward with an agenda that is debatable but for the people who cant cope with the fact it wasnt the government hey I got news for you.....Elvis & Tupac are alive too in fact I heard they were chilling in Californias San Fernando Valley.

This is exactly what 'they' want you to think!

If you are implying Bush 43 set this up, then I would tend to agree with you.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:29 PM
I am new to ATS and find it very interesting and full of great information. I have never believed in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 but I have read a lot of these posts here and think there might be some truth to what is being said. Could someone please tell me the basic concepts of these theories and why is what the government telling us about 9/11 a lie?

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:45 PM
what this lame excuse for a debunking video reveals is that there were detonations. In the twin tower buildings you can see the explosions popping out like plumes on the sides, much like on the Glasgow demolitions.

That's all you need to look at. The plumes of the detonations going off on the lower floors, proves there were explosives. Thanks for posting this video that only proves this. I think this is a poor excuse for the "lead Truth Movement debunker" as described by ats, it is in my opinion the best evidence to compare with the towers that reveals "proof of 9/11 detonations". I also turned the video off when he starts calling people names, he shows how amateurish he really is. He did bring up valid evidence though you have to hand it to him. More valid evidence proving an inside job.

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:26 PM
Everyone ready for a topical post relating to the video?

I will talk about the first few minutes I watched, those should always be the most important and set the tone for the entire presentation.

A controlled demolition is a spectacle designed to be impressive, with much planning and a lot of ka-boom like a fireworks display. It is meant to be a crowd pleaser, note the crowd gathered. They even have a male youth 'push the button' for kicks in one of the examples and a little girl there in another to watch the display. It is for show and not even a close comparison to the events of 9-11. What does a building being demolished under safe, controlled conditions for entertainment value have to do with a mass murder that killed 2000+ possible witnesses?

9-11 was intentionally discreet and the demolition of the twin towers was done within a timeframe for psychological effect. Every good story has a beginning (planes), middle (news banter) and end (collapse). Ever heard of the term "Shock and Awe"?

WTC 1: 8:46 am - 10:28 am : 1 Hour 42 Minutes
WTC 2: 9:03 am - 9:59 am : 0 Hours 56 Minutes

At least we got fed fish everyday since 9-11-2001.

red herring

Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

If Gravy wants to debate someone in person I'll do it, but it must be done on personal research and not "parrot talk" (repeating what you have been taught to say). I'll travel anywhere I need to go on someone else's dime. I'm well spoken and easy on the eyes, should be a drop in the bucket.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by Spoodily]

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by NIcon
But I couldn't get through half of this video. I stopped watching when he started calling everyone "dishonest", "deceitful", and "incompetent."

Excellent point... which is one of the key factors I had hoped would spring forth in regards to discussion about this video. It's alarming to see how much the "sides" to this debate feel they need to insult each other to make their point. So much so, that it has become habitual.

to be fair, this IS WAR. it is hard to not to call your enemy a 'kraut', or, 'nip', or 'gook' to help seperate him from the 'human race', and make it easier to not empathize with him. it is harder to hate and kill something you empathize with.
we are still scared, stinking animals under our armani suits and exotic perfumes.

however, as an empathetic, diplomatic-ish type, i believe it best to keep things 'civil' so that the pure idea can outweigh the pure emotion, because only ideas will fix the nasty conundrum we ALL share. namely, runaway power in the hands of too few.
mark roberts has poor logical skills, and relies on "i know you are, but what am i?" to "prove" that he is right and conspiracy researchers are wrong. pathetic, methinks.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

And as a conspiracist I am convinced that these "9/11 was an inside job" sites and videos are a planned and consorted effort by anti establishment activists to push their own political goals. An attempt to revise and pervert history with innaccurate, incompetent, and intentionally erronious information.

i instantly KNEW that the powers that be were staring WWIII as soon as i turned on the teevee, 9/11/2001.
i watched them explode and crumble and knew that they were blown(because of the physics involved).
i am proudly anti-establishment, as the 'establishment' is a bunch of unbelievably rich bankers that easily manipulate history and political systems.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Griff

Griff ~

Mark is a member here and has posted.

what's his member name here?

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:18 AM
What has seemed the worst part of the WTC7 demolition could be that "Silverstein" said they "pulled" the building. Maybe Silverstein didn't mean to destroy but to evacuate, but why would he not be clear in his expression. I find most of the evidence of government involvement to be rather vague but compelling. Nothing makes less sense than to place all responsibility for an investigation into the hands of a tiny commision with such little money. How can someone find a murderer if the budget and time frame are mostly arbitrarily limited. Investigations go on and don't really ever end, due to the fact that so much of life happens outside of our preception and awareness. For the commission to be certain of something just seems to lend credence to the idea of a cover up and then to have people making videos saying mean things or directly using insulting words to describe people that don't trust the government on everything seems a bit absurd. Maybe there could be truth to a 911 coverup but maybe there could also be truth to Bin Laden associated and Saudi financed cooperation. That maybe why the whole event seems so bizarre, the Saudi's and Bin Laden were sore over low gas prices, felt they were robbed of 30 trillion. THat would be one very large motive to setup an attack, but what bothers me the most could be complict behavior or the likelyhood of Saudi dishonesty towards the Bush Administration and the subsequent results, an Iraq invasion, Bin Laden effectively untouched and overpriced gas, these seem more like Saudi demands than actual independent actions on the part of the US.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by bubbabuddha]

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:35 AM
Obviously, the building started to callaspe from where the plane hit, but then again not many people out there are intelligent enough to understand this.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 02:50 AM
Ok When you have the weight of around 30 floors falling on the floors below there will be hardly any resistance simply because the weight of 30 floors will be way over the max weight limit for the floors below. you have to remember yes its made of steel but its still a house of cards weaken any part of it enough and apply the force of 30 floors with all the office furniture falling on it and its going to fail! All the actual support of the twin towers was in the center of the building not the outside like a normal skyscraper!

As for the squibs seen below the collapsing floors as the building is falling that is the air pressure being forced outwards as the floors fall on to the next lower floor pushing the air out of the center of the building. the dust is most likely the drywall being crushed into powder under the weight of the steel and concrete.

Yes you can see large chunks of steel being throw out away from the building, and the only explaination i can give is this is from the force of the air being pushed out of the building at probably the force of a hurricane. But you don't see the steel being throw upwards like you'd see if explosives were used, the steel was pushed to the sides of the building.

Another thing you have to look at is the buildings didn't start to fall straight down. the tops actually fell towards one of the corners of the building pulling the top of the building with it and over loading that corner forcing a total structural failure. then the building fell straight down into its foot print.

I'm not saying the official story is 100% right and the truthers are 100% wrong. But if explosives were used wheres the proof? wheres the explosive residue that would be left on the steel? wheres the demo cords? wheres the mass of people coming forward that saw people planting explosives? or even better yet where the people that saw a contractor running new wiring thru the building in the weeks, months up to 9/11?

And don't give me the government covered up the explosive residue and demo cords during the clean up! If you really believe that then i got some swamp land in Texas i'll sell ya! there was to many people from all over the country that was there during the first few days looking for survivors and then helped with the clean up.

Yes the truth is out there however we'll never live to see it if both sides keep fighting each other and not working together. And yes the government needs to come clean with everything also But that will never happen in my lifetime!

Like everyone here i want the truth! and i'll listen to even the wildest story and give the person the benefit of doubt. and probably even ask them why they think that. But When you start name calling no matter which side your on your just being immature and not worth listening to. and thats something Both sides need to realize.


posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 02:53 AM
Interesting stuff, as always.

I've said this before in another thread - what gets me about 9/11 and the ensuing debate it this;

9/11 was the first time in history anyone had taken two wide bodied aircraft and flown them at high speed into the side of two structures that were built as uniquely as the WTC towers.

What that means is that the events of 9/11 were the rule, and not the exception. Unique circumstances, unique buildings.

Basically, what that means is - despite various peoples claims to the contrary - no one knows what happened, and anyone who claims that they do know is working purely from theoretical standpoints, and does not have "actual" knowledge at all.

Alot of "truthers" single things out and look at points seperately, rather than looking at the whole event in one action.

People pick on the planes, people pick on the fires, people pick on the structure. Its a natural reaction to try and compartmentalise something on this scale but, in reality, you need to look at the whole thing.

The other thing that gets me is that no one ever seems to talk about the overall structural condition of the towers. Anyone who thinks that they were constructed perfectly (you've never worked in engineering!) or were in perfect condition (you've never worked in engineering!) is living in their own fantasy. Mistakes get made, people get tired. Metal fatigues. Welds can be of varying quality depending on the conditions they are carried out in and the experience of the operator. Bolts - and there were lots of them used in the WTC - can be of varying quality. Yes there are design tolerances, but what that means is that a percentage random sample is tested, and not everything is looked at. Put it all into a structure and the structure will stand, and be perfectly safe. Submit it to a massive impact force however, and things might be different.

None of us have any idea what the tower structures went through. You can computer model it all you like but unless you know the exact condition of every bolt, weld, steel plate, concrete floor pan, truss support, dampener and beam in those 28 year old buildings you are - pardon the expression - pissing in the wind.

Messing with the variables 10 times will get you 10 differing results - and thats just the basic structural mechanics.

What about vibrations and harmonics through the structure? - there was an awful lot of energy resisted by the buildings in order to stop those planes cold. How did that transfer through the columns? What kind of shearing forces and lateral stresses did that induce?

Now add the fires in too. Add in thermal dynamics and heat transfer through steel elements.

Add in countless other factors - hell even the windspeed, the weather and god knows what else.

What I'm saying is that what was seen, and what was actually happening are two completely different things, and people either don't understand that, or choose to dismiss it.

Then to muddy the waters even more with 9/11 theres the language that gets used.

"Thin Aluminium tube" vs "218,000lb mass"

"Solid steel wall" or "Hollow box steel construction"

"Boeing 707 at cruise speed" vs "Boeing 707 lost in the fog looking to land"

(love the last one. massive bone of contention, 520mph as opposed to 230/250 mph - fantastic difference in kinetic energy, towers may have stood at a lower speed impact)

My favourite 9/11 phrase is "that can't happen". Oh really? Well the people who say stuff like that need to think back a couple of hundred million years and ask what the chances were of those amino acids forming at the same time in a pool were, and whether lighting does strike twice. They need to look at other disasters where the same was said , and they need to realise that - up until the event - what happened on 9/11 was unthinkable - and I can say that because it had never happened before. You cannot, ever, underestimate the human capacity for being able to come up with unique ways to kill other humans.

[edit on 23/1207/07 by neformore]

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by bubbabuddha

I think your right on Silverstein didn't mean to destroy but to evacuate when he said "pull" the building. again another figure of speech that has been taken literally. But unless he publically says thats what he meant then that is just speculation on what he actually meant.

The Government needs to set up an independant panel give them the funding they need, the time they need, and the subpoena power they need. And there should be no government interference! and not like that circus act the called the 9/11 commission.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in