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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

I don't feel you wasted my time. I have to admit I didn't watch the video (sorry SO) , however the debate has been quite a lesson in sides being taken. Also plenty of shots being taken, this is human behavior at its purest level. We are tribal and as we get older and experience more, become skeptical of ideas that don't concur with our own.

Is there reason to believe something's wrong with the explanation that the NIST gave for the collapses? I'm my mind YES! Now that being said, do I have a better explanation NO!

Thanks for watching the whole video and presenting your opinion Sublime620. I think its to late to do a proper investigation of the collapses, (evidence long since removed and destroyed) but we should all question the direction our government has chosen in the aftermath of 911.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

  1. There does appear to be a valid argument for too much dust, too large a cloud and too wide the debris field
  2. Dust samples only measure fine dust and do not provide a sample size indicative of all the concrete present, only the size of the particles sampled. Which, by the nature of a dust sample, is fine dust. Meaning, the anything larger than a few hundred microns (really small) was not included in the sample
  3. Arguments galore and finger pointing between the mathematicians. Each side seems to use figures or assumptions that are favorable to the desired outcome
  4. Each of the equations run through appear to have assumptions included, no matter which side. What this means to me is that until a basis can be agreed upon, no real, total consensus can take place
  5. Each side tends to claim the others' calculations are incomplete and use "faulty" or is missing components that take into account all the present factors
  6. The sample size in Lioy's study are ridiculously small (3) and by no means representative
  7. I haven't been able to find a work-through including the contents of the building itself (furniture, dry walls, stairwells, doors, computers, etc)
  8. This needs further investigation
  9. Neither side, to me, has "proven" it's case

And that's the truth and I will admit it to you.

Now having said that, I think once a widely accepted explanation has been put forward rabid truthers will ignore it and rabid debunkers will cling to it.

A very good anaysis of the current state of affairs, I agree with all of those points. No matter who writes the science paper, whether they are a 'truther' or agreeing with the official account, the opposing side has always found assumptions in their models. It is a matter of perspective, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn form any paper.

Most of the scientists that have looked at the collapse have noted this also. David L Griscom (Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society) has got the solution to all of this, someone with supercomputer facilities needs to model the collaspes to know what happened for sure. The trouble is computers that powerful are hard to come by.

Therefore, I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

This paper, by him, is also a good read, and shows well how easy it is to disprove peoples modelling of the collapses, unless a supercomputer is used to find out exactly;

[edit on 4-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Just finished watching the video, cool song at the end. Thanks for presenting this for revue SkepticOverlord, it's not as bad as some suggested. I'm a fence sitter at this point having reeled in my emotions about what I consider a coverup by the people who should have prevented 911 to begin with. (The real conspiracy!)

Mark brings up good points how some video makers edit audio/video to lead the observer down the path the maker wants them to follow rather then present the "evidence" unaltered and let the viewer decide.

Still his bias is quite evident in his belittling of his opposition with posting labels across their pictures in bold red lettering.

The top down crumbling of the twin towers suggests collapse rather than demo IMO. Why they fell straight might be explained by the steel mesh outer skin containing the collapse jest long enough to prevent toppling.

I still believe we're being lied to though, one day the lies will come to light.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I'd like to offer kudos to SO and the ATS team for posting 9/11 Mysteries and Who Killed John O'Neill? on ATS video. Quite early in this thread I was critical of the Mark Roberts video as unbalanced by opposing viewpoints and want to offer thanks for now being able to say that I stand corrected.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by gottago

As before, you are obviously a good, honest guy. Star for you (would applaud if I could).

[I know we have had heated debates in the past, this post was made with a sincere heart - nothing condescending or nasty in my remarks. They are genuine]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by infinityoreilly

I still believe we're being lied to though, one day the lies will come to light.

Would you believe I completely agree with you? I really do! Obviously, I think the whole CT, hologram, et al is nonsense and a waste of time.

How this happened, how UBL was in a position to do such a thing, where he has gotten his money, what involvement he had with our government before the attack, etc are where the lies......well.....lay.

new topics

top topics
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in