It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
double post/removed

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gottago]




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
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 building was abandoned early on, so there was nothing left to pull.
the fact that "the decision was made" and "and then we watched the building fall" indicates a sequence of events.

if i say, "i slammed on the brakes, and then slid into a concrete wall", would you assume there were several hours between the two events?

he would have said something like, "we decided to stop fighting the fires, and get the men out. a few hours later, we watched the building collapse".

i think it was either a desire to get caught, or he was just rubbing the public's collective face in it.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Hi there,
To answer your questions:
Just on the surface: wild speculations, proclamations and cited "evidence" (which is nothing more than you claiming something to be true because you heard it from....).

Your post, IMO, is a classic example of how truthers operate: Make a huge bundle of claims, assert they are all true, then demand others prove they are not. That's a common argumentative technique but, a fallacy. It is not up to me to prove your statements are false, it is up to you to prove they are true. Asking me to prove a negative is nothing more than argumentative technique and gives zero credence to your argument(s). Incidentally, this is the exact argument used by those who really don't have anything to say beyond their initial claims.

For instance, in another thread I was taken to task for suggesting Flight 93 did indeed wind up in Pennsylvania and not "hidden" somewhere else. Someone who disagreed with me came into the thread, claimed he lived in Cleveland (no way to prove that) and his very own mayor, as well as the Associated Press reported Flight 93, in fact, landed in Cleveland. Sounds convincing, no? Well a very, very quick search found out....guess what.....that's all true.

Here is the important part that truthers refuse to acknowledge, don't know about or don't care about: The initial story was a rumor, posted by the AP, carried by local news on a web site and almost immediately retracted as being in error. Not enough evidence? Well, the Mayor in the very same news conference where he said he THOUGHT the plane that landed at Cleveland MIGHT be 93 said he had new information and that the plane was Flight 1989 and not 93. This was literally moments after he first reported what his speculation was. Still not enough evidence? I also found an e-mail written by someone actually on Flight 1989 who, in great detail relates her, her husbands and several other co-workers experience of landing in Cleveland, being detained on the end of the runway for several hours and FBI questioning. Still not enough evidence? The reporter who ran with the unproven AP story and has posted a blog, her personal blog, where she goes into the craziness that has "...gotten out of hand..."by her mistake.

Of course, there was no response from the OP. Keep in mind he also stated what he was claiming was absolute, irrefutable fact. And of course, it was. The "facts" just left out any context what-so-ever and the most important details that changed the entire story.

And that's how (most) truthers operate. Make wild speculative claims based on other wild, speculative claims and these claims are always presented as fact. When presented with real evidence that utterly refutes their claim, they ignore it, change the target to some new "evidence", dismiss your claims out of hand and demand you prove their claims aren't true. It's a total catch 22.

You are looking for evidence on a subject you have long ago made your mind up on. It's like when new soldiers learn to navigate on foot, with a map. The most common mistake new soldiers make is making the map fit the terrain, rather than observing their terrain carefully and orienting the map correctly. They get positively convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are in a certain spot because they force the map to match what they are seeing. When, in fact, they aren't anywhere near where they think they are and will doggidly stick to their impressions and (literally) walk the wrong direction.

A map, compass and known starting location mean nothing
if you have already made your mind up.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS:


The Rense Web Site that reprints the origonal news story without ANY context

Liz Foreman, administrator of the web site that ran the AP story
***For a really, really clear example of the types of behavior I am talking about, read what some of the posters have said in the comments section of her blog***

A passangers' account of what happened with Flight 1989 - thought to be Flight 93

Supporting news story from a different source

And yet even more supporting data from yet another outside source
***this story does an excellent job of presenting truthers claims, and then the actual, whole context of their claims.***

[edit on 27-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Never mind, debate with you is pointless. If you dismiss that list with a rambling rant that it's wild tinfoil hat claims, when it's all documented, then fuggedaboudit.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gottago]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Never mind, debate with you is pointless. If you dismiss that list as wild tinfoil hat claims, when it's all documented, then fuggedaboudit.


Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
And thank you. Sincerely. You've more than made my point. The list still hasn't been addressed. Even glancingly. Just scattershot venom.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


It's not up to me to prove your conspiracy theories are false, it is up to you to prove they are true.

Again, it's a burden of proof reversal. You've made a bunch of claims, stated they are well-documented and then demand that I prove that your list isn't true. Can you not see the absurd nature of your position?

The only claims I have made, I documented for your review.

As I said in my OP: choose just one thing, offer some information (other than you saying it's true) and let's talk about it.


EDIT: the reason I am insisting on you defending your points and me defending mine is because of history. Typically when someone uses the burden of proof reversal it's not to get into a debate, it's to avoid one. By making the issue me, rather than the actual subject matter, you're hoping to side-track the discussion. When people on ATS take the bait, IMO, with threads like this, they post lengthy, well reasoned, well documented information. In turn, the person who baited the responder simply name calls, changes the discussion subject and and constantly shifts the target. That's if the OP responds at all.

Basically, if you want your opinions, I think that's great - fantastic even. I welcome divergent ideas and opinions. The reason I am so sensitive about truthers is the movement relies on half-truths, mis-information, lack of understanding and sometimes - not all the time - purposeful deceit to propagate a financial stake.

Of course, this is just my opinion and nothing more.

So, here we are. You have provided a list of what you claim is irrefutable facts. I am asking you to choose just one, and lets talk about it. Your response? No, I need to provide a burden of proof you are not willing to provide for your own assertions.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Thank you for the reasoned reply, and here I am very sincere.

I think--no, actually I'm certain--though, that what you see in that list that you characterize as either false claims or speculations are nothing of the sort. They are well-documented anomalies that are not in dispute. They come from much investigation of official reports, from NIST to Lawerence Livermore Labs, and many of them are simple observations of the video evidence.

I don't need to prove them, nor I do pretend to have answers for them. But the sheer weight of them, taken together, speaks so loudly that it can be unnerving to some.

Take some time to read it through carefully. Even if you throw out the items based on eyewitness testimony from NYPD and FDNY, you are still left with observations of the events that must be taken into account, as they are, quite simply, what happened.

Blaming the messenger by questioning his character and/or motives while not addressing the message is simply avoiding the message and diverting the argument.

The whole thrust of this thread has been that the original video picked and chose its rebuttals like 9/11 was some kind of box of chocolates. Obviously it's not. It was a complex event purposely obfuscated and negligently investigated to the point of criminality. That list shows the gaping holes in the official story by simply laying out what happened, and asking How?

It's unnerving to many because jet impacts, burning jet fuel and a gravity-driven collapse become obvious impossibilities in explaining any of the items. Well, don't turn away or dismiss it because of that. Think very seriously on all the implications instead of thinking how to dismiss them, because they won't go away so easily.

[typos]

Edit to add: What sort of financial stake could someone here, making such a post, hope to gain from the tragedy of 9/11? This I'd glanced over originally and am completely baffled by your reasoning.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gottago]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Hi Gottago,
Thanks for responding!

Let me clarify; financial stake reference: selling videos, making money from appearances, speaking fees, notoriety, etc. I was wondering, out loud, what financial motive he may have in this? I have always maintained that certain truth movement types, like the Loose Change guys, have a real, large and vested interest in not finding out any sort of actual truth. Meaning; the discussion itself is profitable. No need to actually get to the bottom of anything. Just keep offering new "evidence" and continue to sell books, videos, speaking engagements, seminars, etc. So, in the interest in being honest, I wanted to know what financial interest the video producer may have in all of this.

If I routinely question the financial motives of popular truthers, then if I am being honest I must question people I tend to agree with as well.

Fair enough?

You may not believe this but, I am totally willing to accept a conspiracy theory if presented with information that is at least in the realm of grounded reality and somehow plausible and stands up to context and basic scrutiny. To date I have seen much presented as evidence of a conspiracy. Much of this, on the surface, I find very interesting. I haven't seen anything presented that stands up to the scrutiny of reason, amassed evidence and complete context.

Please understand, I don't think my hurdles are insurmountable or unreasonable. I am certainly open to new ideas. It's just that I haven't seen anything new in quiet some time. Most of what I see talked about here has been hashed over many, many times or, is a permutation on old themes.

Let me take one of your previous statements as an example. This is not a quote but I think I have the intent of your statement intact: nothing bigger than a keyboard was found at the WTC site. I know you believe this to be true. I also know this is patently untrue and the person who reported that as fact to you, knew it was. I don't know why things like this are repeated, amplified and stated as fact, when they very clearly aren't. Millions of tons of skyscraper crashed down upon itself literally pulverizing millions of tons of all the different things in an office building. That doesn't mean everything was turned into dust but, a lot was. if 90% of the building turned into dust, that means millions of tons of materials did not. Is that reasonable?

I did not mean to attack you personally and if I did, or even if you think I might have, I apologize. I was trying to point out the kind of thinking I believe lends itself to being taken advantage of. You are no doubt a kind, intelligent, sincere person. No doubt there.

WTC wreckage pictures


[edit on 27-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's not up to me to prove your conspiracy theories are false, it is up to you to prove they are true.


Be careful, because this is double-edged. It's the person making the claim that has to prove that what they're saying is correct. This also applies to NIST or FEMA or anyone else who tries to take it upon themselves to explain the building collapses, or supports any kind of theory.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Completely agree with you.

My point of contention comes when mainstreamers point to the collected works of say, the NTSB and Flight 93, which is based on thousands upon thousands of pages of expert testimony, witnesses, engineering reality and it is summarily dismissed by truthers because the Loose Change guys said it isn't true.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Hi Gottago,

The following are your statements. As I have said all along. I don't think i have all the answers, but I know enough to know this was not an inside job.



Micronized concrete covering lower Manhattan in a 2-3 inch thick layer.

what is the problem here? The concrete that made up the floors at the WTC were light weight. Please explain why this is an oddity that screams Inside job? Or that it is proof of a controlled demolition. Please read this paper:The Pulverization of Concrete

This will explain the pulverization.


the analysis of the components of this dust show that it included exotic metals which were traced to the building contents, including such things as wiring and computer components

exotic metals? such as? Was there anything that didn't belong? Again, I don't understand what your issue is here.

No building contents beyond a fragment of a keypad found in the debris

Do stairwells count? 16" Gypsum wallboard?Please see:

Stairwell Picture

No human remains beyond bone shards, some found on roofs years later 100s of yards from the towers

Massive core and perimieter columns ejected laterally 100s of yards from the towers




the grey chrysanthemum bloom of destruction as the buildings explosively collapse from the top down.

Your statement about the buildings collapse as "explosively" is not accurate. See above link to paper explaining the pulverization and energy that was created during collapse.

collapse at near freefall speed

This statement is FAR from accurate. Most truthers have accepted that fact that this statement is WAY off.

ems, police radio, real-time tv reports and eyewitness testimony of secondary explosions throughout the towers

Obvious fogs of war.... Explosions do not always mean explosives.This statement is also misleading: "eyewitness testimony of secondary explsoions" There were ZERO eyewitnesses to explosions. People claimed to have heard explosions... no one saw any.

documented film and eyewitness reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements which wrecked the lobbies (Naudet film)

again... misleading. No one SAW an explosion. The explosions heard in the basements have been all but proven to be fireballs. How about Willie Rodgequez? Here is his statement to NIST:


The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th


both towers collapse similarly, though the plane impact areas were very different

the impacts were different. And the onset of collapse was different. the timing of the collapses were different.

the upper building masses explosively disintegrating within seconds after the onset of collapse

another misleading statement. "explosively" You are trying to push your biased belief buy using these terms. Disintegrate

the seismic anomalies at the onset of collapse

I am not sure as to what your are talking about, but there were a few issues raised. I reached out to NASA Scientist Ryan Macky about this. Here is his response. (it was to LabTops points)

It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. As the conspiracists note, the collapse doesn't slow much as it passes through the building.

It is also no coincidence that the time for the collapse wave to reach the ground is ~ 10 seconds after initiation, ~10.5 according to BLBG. It's also preceded by large assemblies falling clear of the Tower and hitting the ground beside, which does take about 8.2 seconds -- as reported by NIST itself.



verified reports (by FDNY, NIST and Gov. Pataki during an on-site visit, captured by CNN even) of molten steel in the cores of wtc 1, 2 & 7 which lingered for months into cleanup

I have to admit, I havent read the FEMA report (sorry Griff) As far as NIST and GOV. Pataki and CNN. They might have seen a molten material. This was NOT proven to be steel. If it WERE Steel, what does that prove? Does Thermate keep on going? Does it keep metals hot?

a collapse wave which eyewitnesses--among them NYPD and FDNY members (the heroes) reported was like a volcano wave, hot and loud and filled with debris, which literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards in the air, and melted their protective gear

Who said it was like a volcano wave? Who was near a volcano to compare? Not that it matters. The survivors of the collapses were stating that they had strong winds at their backs in the stairwells... obviously from the air pressures from the collapses.

vehicles catching fire spontaneously as the blast wave swept over them (NYFD & NYPD eyewitness testimony)

Um, what? What blast wave? What "spontaneous" fires!? please provide a source

the "meteorite" of fused building contents

you mean the ball of building materials? So? Not sure what this proves?

steel members found later in spaghetti shapes and without stress fractures, which professionals hired for cleanup explain on-camera is an impossibility without being heated to foundry-like temperatures

I am not a metalologist, but the "Spaghetti shapes" can happen without foundry like temperatures. I will need some time for the source.

the collapse of the core "spire" within seconds after global collapse, these massive steel structures falling like burnt matchsticks.

Please explain why this is an anomoly.

the buildings collapse to the ground at near freefall speed, though the upper building masses were explosively destroyed and thus there was no weight to drive the gravity-driven collapse

mass is mass. If I take a cookie and make it into crumbs, it still weighs the same. Kind of like 10 pounds of feathers and 10 pounds of lead. Again, your near free fall speed quote is wrong.

the antenna mast of the north tower sinking before the onset of collapse, indicating the core was taken out initially

This video shows that there is initial rotation in the north tower collapse but that the antenna comes back. If the core has been "taken out" would the antenna then show up again?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I appreciate the post SO and it is nice to have something that shows an opposing view.
However, this guy cherry picks his information.He did exactly what he accuses CTers of doing and I dislike dis-info/skewed info whether it's from one side or the other.
I'm still on the side of controlled demolition because I find this a weak video.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
My point of contention comes when mainstreamers point to the collected works of say, the NTSB and Flight 93, which is based on thousands upon thousands of pages of expert testimony, witnesses, engineering reality and it is summarily dismissed by truthers because the Loose Change guys said it isn't true.


Well that's an awfully poor reason to say such a thing, wouldn't you think?

In fact, can you link me to the specific example you're talking about?

[edit on 29-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


It's not up to me to prove your conspiracy theories are false, it is up to you to prove they are true

This was pointed out why? If he asked you to prove anything false would you be so kind to site.



What "theory" would that be exactly?

Fallacy = Denying the antecedent
This fallacy looks similar to affirming the consequent. An example might be:All evidence is proof; but that isn't a evidence so it can't be proof.


Again, it's a burden of proof reversal. You've made a bunch of claims, stated they are well-documented and then demand
that I prove that your list isn't true.


He has no burden unless this forum is a criminal court proceeding. He is merely an agent of investigative data, clues, evidence etc.

You are not a Judge, it is no more incumbent on him to assume the burden then it is your instruction to give. If this was a civil matter which is more likely the best avenue to take, then he merely is obligated to prove his theory by the preponderance of the evidence and that entire list is just that.

If it's good enough for established protocols of jurisprudence then it really doesn't matter if it isn't good enough for you. It is indicative of the typical antagonism I see in most of the 911 circumlocution marathons between debunkers and anyone with a theory. He wasn't "claiming" anything he was reciting a list of well documented historical events. If you have issues regarding their credibility or you can impeach any testimony, then by all means please proceed.

He didn't accuse nor did he allege anything you have confused his list of mainstream media accounts, eye witness accounts, ear witness accounts, photographic images, establishing proof of physical evidence allegations that are self proving just because he listed them. I recognize them as just some of the great aggregation of the many deliberatly ignored compelling evidence that this needs a REAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATION and not some underfunded study fitting a models data to a theory to placate the most uncanny chain of events setting more precedents, breaking more records for what the day before would have anyone screaming "Help me with the math!"

His list would be part of the discovery process in addition to being introduced as testimony. You have established you can not be impartial disclosing your bias not to mention prejudice for your antagonism of truthers.

That list is compelling on its face for probable cause in a new investigation but given the carte Blanche immunity any suspects a grand jury might indict, a license to commit obstruction without prejudice will keep that evidence from ever becoming proof prima facia much less convict anyone.




Can you not see the absurd nature of your position?


Argumentative, if he could see absurdity, you wouldn't have to ad hom his position. Please site the absurdity so we will know how it is you can see what he doesn't. If that brings up your unwillingness to prove HIS conspiracy theories, I would suggest that it is only his absurd position requiring clarification.



EDIT: the reason I am insisting on you defending your points and me defending mine is because of history. Typically when someone uses the burden of proof reversal it's not to get into a debate, it's to avoid

No one is obligated to observe Roberts rules or the legalese of a Criminal Court so perhaps this is

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance usually involves assuming that something is true because it has not yet been proven false. For example:

You say that faeries don't exist, but you can't prove that they don't.




Fallacy = Affirming the consequent

If it is a truther I get burden of proof reversal ; I am getting burden of proof reversal so you must be a truther.



The reason I am so sensitive about truthers is the movement relies on half-truths, mis-information, lack of understanding and sometimes - not all the time - purposeful deceit to propagate a financial stake.


Of course, this is just my opinion and nothing more.

No that is proof that you should recuse yourself from this as you have just presented enough sweeping generalizations casting an obvious bias affecting your impartial objectivity. This explains why his list was completely oblivious to genuine serious consideration and quickly rebuffed as merely "claims he thinks are true"



So, here we are. You have provided a list of what you claim is irrefutable facts. I am asking you to choose just one, and lets talk about it. Your response? No, I need to provide a burden of proof you are not willing to provide for your own assertions.



mmm Ya nailed em if he can't and in cases like that I wish there were a website with a list of ip addys and names of already debunked theorists
[edit on 27-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Well 7 years later and 911 is still going and going and going and hehe

- Con




[edit on 29-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Thanks for your reply, I very much appreciate it.

As for the contention that prominent truthers are in it for the money, I think this is unfair and misinformed at best, just as the time-worn contention that anyone who writes a book about something is "in it for the money" and therefore the content of the book is automatically suspect. We live in a capitalist society and the best way to present a complex thesis is by writing and publishing a book, or producing a dvd. I think most people have not the slightest clue about all that entails, in time and effort, and the paltry sums most authors will see in return. I've published five books in my field so far and let me tell you they do not make you rich. And it is a total crap-shoot if they become popular or not, and you have better odds playing the lottery.

Also, it's the nature of the beast. These people started on a path, from fire and conviction, and became known for something, originally working in obscurity. They were not guaranteed success to start; just the opposite, by the odds of things. But they succeeded, and became known for their work. The found their lives changed by the experience, and because of the subject-matter, they pretty much cut themselves off from "going back" to a normal life as a bank teller or whatever. They believed strongly enough to start this process, so they continue with it and expand it. And they have to live; so they write a book that people can buy or a dvd they can watch. They need to support themselves and their work; no one is giving them government grants, after all.

What is so evil about this? Why are only truthers not allowed to make money in this fallen world? I just don't get it and I just don't buy that reasoning one bit.

As for the "keyboard" item, this is a well-known quotation and I used it as shorthand for the pulverization of the building contents. It is nitpicking, really. The truth is that nearly everything inside the towers heavier than paper was pulverized. That is bizarre, even if the towers were among the largest in the world, that just shouldn't happen. Compressed and smashed, yes, but almost everything turned to dust, just no way.

Even the floorpans, which are structural elements. Acres and acres and acres of them, just not there. (Another item for the list!
)



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


I was very impressed with your post and frankly I wouldn't mind with your permission, using it as an example of posts by people like yourself who feel unsatisfied with the "you don't get the justice you ask for you get the justice we give ya:" emptiness from a festering open wound in the social conscience of this country.

I used to think that how the towers fell was the way to get to the truth.

It isn't it's by getting subpoenas, setting well defined protocols to make clear cut and dry distinctions between whackos with space men theories or as I like to call them debunkers posing as truthers practicing their very successful campaign to cast truthers as incredulous nutcases not to be taken seriously I knew at least 40 of them at Jref that would create memberships at every forum they could Google and do just that.

I never went back after they included me into the "Clique"

That HAS been a very bad lable to have as the millstone around your neck as you know.

It is time for a change of venue

and a very fresh new angle to substantiate criminal action be taken in grand jury indictments.

It will never be done beating this dead horse of how the towers fell.

Example is the ben veniste questions and omissions solidly proving flt 98 was shot down. That case would alone would have been enough to open much more as there is much more there.

Why it is so hard to postulate that our Government's complicity in that event is hard to accept much less explain but the same lies, deception and co-conspirators have managed to pull off the war in Iraq the same way and with out near the outrage that should be the description of every American

- Con





[edit on 29-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Hi Cap'n! Had a feeling you'd rush in!

Okay, let's get to it:

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The following are your statements. As I have said all along. I don't think i have all the answers, but I know enough to know this was not an inside job.

Micronized concrete covering lower Manhattan in a 2-3 inch thick layer.


what is the problem here? The concrete that made up the floors at the WTC were light weight. Please explain why this is an oddity that screams Inside job? Or that it is proof of a controlled demolition. Please read this paper:The Pulverization of Concrete

This will explain the pulverization.


the analysis of the components of this dust show that it included exotic metals which were traced to the building contents, including such things as wiring and computer components

exotic metals? such as? Was there anything that didn't belong? Again, I don't understand what your issue is here.


I'm lazy today so will not provide links posted in previous threads ad nauseum (as the French say, tant pis; there's always the ATS search engine.) If you don't find the micronization of the concrete while the buildings are falling to be an anomaly, well we live in parallel universes. And if you don't find it bizarre that analysis shows that that dust included metals ( a lot of iron) as well as all the exotics identified as coming from computer components--meaning obviously that these computers were also mironized--well then really what would constitute an anomaly for you?

Explain to me please how any of this could happen by means of a gravity-driven collapse?


No building contents beyond a fragment of a keypad found in the debris

Do stairwells count? 16" Gypsum wallboard?Please see:

Stairwell Picture


Contents, as in the stuff inside the buildings. Filing cabinets, computers, chairs, desks, water coolers, etc.. Flattened, smashed mangled, whatever. Where'd all that go? Why is it almost all dust? Great, a stairwell survived. My bad.


No human remains beyond bone shards, some found on roofs years later 100s of yards from the towers

Massive core and perimeter columns ejected laterally 100s of yards from the towers


Please fill in the blanks here...


the grey chrysanthemum bloom of destruction as the buildings explosively collapse from the top down.

Your statement about the buildings collapse as "explosively" is not accurate. See above link to paper explaining the pulverization and energy that was created during collapse.


We've all seen the pictures and videos of the collapse. That was not a gravity-driven collapse, that was an explosive collapse. The towers didn't topple--initially the tops did at least, but then the tops just disintegrated into big blossoms of grey explosively projecting fragments and dust, as did the rest of them. Lots of big heavy structural members were ejected laterally for huge distances, getting impaled in neighboring buildings.

In a gravity-driven collapse, things do not pulverize themselves in mid-air. buildings do not consume themselves and spew themselves out explosively. This is pretty obvious, basic stuff. They topple and slump and fall. They do not explode. And call a spade a spade, those flower-blooms were explosions.


collapse at near freefall speed

This statement is FAR from accurate. Most truthers have accepted that fact that this statement is WAY off.


I wrote "near freefall speed." Exactly how is this "WAY off?" Explain (caps unnecessary, my eyesight is good).


ems, police radio, real-time tv reports and eyewitness testimony of secondary explosions throughout the towers

Obvious fogs of war.... Explosions do not always mean explosives.This statement is also misleading: "eyewitness testimony of secondary explsoions" There were ZERO eyewitnesses to explosions. People claimed to have heard explosions... no one saw any.


documented film and eyewitness reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements which wrecked the lobbies (Naudet film)

again... misleading. No one SAW an explosion. The explosions heard in the basements have been all but proven to be fireballs. How about Willie Rodgequez? Here is his statement to NIST:


The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th


Again, you have numerous threads examining this. Massive evidence of it. Resorting to Magic Jet Fuel and the dismissive "fog of war" to explain them away is feeble, at best. They are also corroborated as occurring over time. The smashed lobby in the Naudet film--still holding to that debunked idea of jet fuel from an airplane impact 70-odd stories above? I admire your persistence.


both towers collapse similarly, though the plane impact areas were very different

the impacts were different. And the onset of collapse was different. the timing of the collapses were different.

The results were the same, the variations minimal. Very weak response.


the upper building masses explosively disintegrating within seconds after the onset of collapse

another misleading statement. "explosively" You are trying to push your biased belief buy using these terms. Disintegrate


I understand why you dislike those words but the upper building masses are recorded disintegrating after starting to fall as cohesive masses, and they disintegrate explosively--in a cloud of projecting structure and dust. So they explosively disintegrate. What exactly do you see?


the seismic anomalies at the onset of collapse

I am not sure as to what your are talking about, but there were a few issues raised. I reached out to NASA Scientist Ryan Macky about this. Here is his response. (it was to LabTops points)

It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. As the conspiracists note, the collapse doesn't slow much as it passes through the building.

It is also no coincidence that the time for the collapse wave to reach the ground is ~ 10 seconds after initiation, ~10.5 according to BLBG. It's also preceded by large assemblies falling clear of the Tower and hitting the ground beside, which does take about 8.2 seconds -- as reported by NIST itself.


Do only "conspiracists" note that the collapse doesn't slow as it proceeds? Are you yourself willing to accept this? Strange comment there.

Here it is clear that the waters have been so muddied by subsequent revisionism that you can argue anything at this point.

cont.

[edits for quote herding]

[edit on 29-12-2007 by gottago]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


...end:



a collapse wave which eyewitnesses--among them NYPD and FDNY members (the heroes) reported was like a volcano wave, hot and loud and filled with debris, which literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards in the air, and melted their protective gear

Who said it was like a volcano wave? Who was near a volcano to compare? Not that it matters. The survivors of the collapses were stating that they had strong winds at their backs in the stairwells... obviously from the air pressures from the collapses.

vehicles catching fire spontaneously as the blast wave swept over them (NYFD & NYPD eyewitness testimony)

Um, what? What blast wave? What "spontaneous" fires!? please provide a source


FDNY and NYPD survivors said all this, and other survivors. It does matter, why do you dismiss it so casually? Because it is convenient to ignore these people's testimony only when it suits your arguments? It was extensively discussed in one of the nuke threads, with all pertinent links, again, I'm lazy today, go dig. But don't take my unwillingness today to regurgitate this stuff yet again as some sort of proof it all doesn't exist. It's all there.


the "meteorite" of fused building contents

you mean the ball of building materials? So? Not sure what this proves?


I want to know how a gravity-driven collapse created this thing.


steel members found later in spaghetti shapes and without stress fractures, which professionals hired for cleanup explain on-camera is an impossibility without being heated to foundry-like temperatures

I am not a metalologist, but the "Spaghetti shapes" can happen without foundry like temperatures. I will need some time for the source.

Until you find someone willing to disprove it, I will take your non-metallurgist opinion about that with a grain of salt.


the collapse of the core "spire" within seconds after global collapse, these massive steel structures falling like burnt matchsticks.

Please explain why this is an anomoly.


Quite simply, why would such massive structures collapse like that? If you can't get your head around that one, well...


the buildings collapse to the ground at near freefall speed, though the upper building masses were explosively destroyed and thus there was no weight to drive the gravity-driven collapse

mass is mass. If I take a cookie and make it into crumbs, it still weighs the same. Kind of like 10 pounds of feathers and 10 pounds of lead. Again, your near free fall speed quote is wrong.

Continuing with your I-won't-characterize-it-but-only-note-it analogy, if you dropped a crumbling cookie on a stack of cookies below, how are those crumbs going to destroy the stack of cookies? Want milk?

And just what is it with near-freefall speed? You're disputing 2 to 3 seconds tops, which is about the time it takes to type "two to three seconds." What's the point?


the antenna mast of the north tower sinking before the onset of collapse, indicating the core was taken out initially

This video shows that there is initial rotation in the north tower collapse but that the antenna comes back. If the core has been "taken out" would the antenna then show up again?

www.youtube.com...



Not my point; the antenna slumps before onset of collapse. It is held by the hat trusses and tied by them to the core and the exterior walls. Since the walls do not also slump, ergo the core did.

[typos]

[edit on 29-12-2007 by gottago]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join