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.

 

The Zapruder film of 9/11 - Actor Daniel Sunjata

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave, why would 'conspiracy people' edit out evidence of a controlled implosion demolition?


Nice attempt at twisting my words around, but after all this time posting here, I've become immune to your disingenuous game playing. The only way this is "evidence of controlled demolitions" is becuase you people have intentionally manipulated the evidence to make it look like controlled demolitions.

The conspiracy people are editing out the footage of the penthouse collapse becuase they want people to think the entire structure collapsed in "classic controlled demolitions" style near the base, even going so far as comparing it to footage of true CD collapses, as Bonez attempted to pull. The reason is obvious- a) they can milk the "mysterious explosions" heard within the building before the collapse, which is instantly explained once it's been revealed that the internal structure collapsed, and b) conceal the fact the towers started falling higher up in the structure, rather down at the base as controlled demolitions will do.

Just WHERE has any supposedly "classic" controlled demolition ever caused a three story high bulge in the side of the building and a delayed collapse from the inside out, the way that WTC 7 had collapsed? Please, point it out to me.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
NIST does, why can't you? NIST says in their own report that the damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in it's collapse.


You are LYING. NIST specifically said the damage from the falling wreckage from WTC 1 destroyed the power grid and cut off the water for the fire suppression, which specifically allowed the fires to burn out of control...and this didn't even come from them. They got this from eyewitnesses like Deputy chief Hayden, whose interview I posted earlier.

So for your outer space conspiracy stories to be true, it necessarily means Deputy chief Hayden is a disinformation agent and co-conspirator to the murder of 343 of his fellow fire fighters. Are you so blind in your zealotry that you'll happily drag his name through the gutter to keep your conspiracy stories alive, too?.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave, why would 'conspiracy people' edit out evidence of a controlled implosion demolition?


Nice attempt at twisting my words around, but after all this time posting here, I've become immune to your disingenuous game playing. The only way this is "evidence of controlled demolitions" is becuase you people have intentionally manipulated the evidence to make it look like controlled demolitions.

The conspiracy people are editing out the footage of the penthouse collapse becuase they want people to think the entire structure collapsed in "classic controlled demolitions" style near the base, even going so far as comparing it to footage of true CD collapses, as Bonez attempted to pull. The reason is obvious- a) they can milk the "mysterious explosions" heard within the building before the collapse, which is instantly explained once it's been revealed that the internal structure collapsed, and b) conceal the fact the towers started falling higher up in the structure, rather down at the base as controlled demolitions will do.

Just WHERE has any supposedly "classic" controlled demolition ever caused a three story high bulge in the side of the building and a delayed collapse from the inside out, the way that WTC 7 had collapsed? Please, point it out to me.


Dave I twisted nothing, you are living in a fantasy.

There is no reason for 'truthers' to edit out anything from the WTC 7 collapse videos. How could 'truthers' edit the video to make it look like a controlled demolition? Did 'truthers' edit every single copy of all the hundreds of vids of the collapse that are out there? You are really getting desperate in your BS claims Dave. Are you going to say 'truthers' put the 'penthouse kink' in there next? 'Cause you know that one piece of evidence is the first sign of the controlled demolition implosion right? Of course you do, and you're not happy that your so called evidence for a natural collapse has been proven to be the opposite.

You know that we know that the penthouse kink is a classic sign of controlled demolition implosion. Only you still pretend that is a sign of natural collapse, and to pretend you we think you're right is ludicrous.

The bulge you talk about is BS, and yes controlled implosion demolitions start on the INSIDE of the building, right in the middle. I have already pointed that out, and you know it. Neither bulges, nor collapses starting inside the building, are signs of a natural collapse Dave.

Now unless you have actuall proof of any of your claims...



edit on 9/13/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


Can you prove that WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition ?


Can you prove that all four outer walls can land on top of the debris pile, land in its own footprint, from a natural collapse?


If not , then all of your other points are irrelevant .


Back at ya, see above reply.


And , I don't care to see all of the same old tripe . I want you to show me absolute , irrefutable proof of CD . Something that will actually hold up in a court of law .

If you can't convince me , how do you expect to ever convince the court ?


Sorry it's not tripe, otherwise you wouldn't care so much. Why are you concerned about court? Convince you? Nothing is going to convince those in denial. I don't care about convincing you. Is this what you guys are all about, trying to keep anything that could work in court quiet? You are all getting pretty angry and desperate over my WTC 7 claims.

You couldn't even answer my questions and you ask me for proof? All the evidence points to controlled demolition and you know it, otherwise you could answer the questions I asked you.


edit on 9/13/2010 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you prove that all four outer walls can land on top of the debris pile, land in its own footprint, from a natural collapse?


Very easily, just have a look at WTC7!


All the evidence points to controlled demolition and you know it, otherwise you could answer the questions I asked you.


How does the Fire officers putting a transit on WTC 7 to watch it being deformed hours before it collapses, and them stating it looks like it will collapse point to a controlled demolition? It doesnt of course, but you refuse to admit that!

You know that, otherwise you could answer the questions you have been asked, but you just ignore them as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no reason for 'truthers' to edit out anything from the WTC 7 collapse videos. How could 'truthers' edit the video to make it look like a controlled demolition? Did 'truthers' edit every single copy of all the hundreds of vids of the collapse that are out there?


Are you for real?!? Manipulating the evidence to their own liking is all the conspiracy people do! The reason is obvious- they have to! they have no real tangible evidence otherwise so they need to make up their own.

Case #1) the often repeated, "bomb dogs were mysteriously withdrawn from the WTC shortly before 9/11". The part they deliberately leave out is that these are the NYPD bomb dogs, which were on loan to investigate a false bomb threat. The NYPA always had their own bomb dogs and these were never withdrawn. One of them, named "Sirius" was killed in the collapse

Case #2) The often repeated "Bush's cousin was in charge of WTC security". The part they leave out is that SecureComm lost their security contract for the WTC in 1998

Case # 3) The often repeated "Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11". This is entirely due to his being able to instruct the secret service who in turn can influence NORAD maneuvers around presidential aircraft. The real person in charge of NORAD on 9/11 was General Ralph Eberhart.

...and on and on it goes. So it comes as NO surprise at all that you conspiracy people are now heavily editing a video to get people to think what you want them to think. I first found out this cute little game of yours when I watched Loose Change and saw Dylan Avery trying to pass off a group of emergency personnel carrying a triage tent into the Pentagon complex as some mysterious blue thing being carried out of the pentagon, all so he can ask, "what are they carrying". You people are notoriously shameless at this stunt so if you try to deny you're manipulating the evidence to suit your agenda then you're lying through your teeth.



The bulge you talk about is BS, and yes controlled implosion demolitions start on the INSIDE of the building, right in the middle. I have already pointed that out, and you know it. Neither bulges, nor collapses starting inside the building, are signs of a natural collapse Dave.


Are you saying Deputy chief Hayden is lying...? Go ahead, accuse the deputy fire chief in charge of fighting the fires at the WTC of beign a liar. I double dog dare you.

Good grief, talk about getting desperate.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
dbl post sry


edit on 13/9/2010 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Dave, please compare the Nist facts with reality:



So, why do you wonder there is so many people questioning the OS ?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Very easily, just have a look at WTC7!


LOL thats rediculous because you first have to prove WTC 7 was a natural collapse. Not even NIST has done that.



How does the Fire officers putting a transit on WTC 7 to watch it being deformed hours before it collapses, and them stating it looks like it will collapse point to a controlled demolition? It doesnt of course, but you refuse to admit that!


OK I admit it, now what? Did the fire officers put all those walls on top of the debris pile after it collapsed?
I don't think so, they landed there and there is only one way to achieve that, controlled implosion demolition.


You know that, otherwise you could answer the questions you have been asked, but you just ignore them as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!


No they don't. All four walls being on top of the debris pile, in other words the majority of WTC 7 landed in its own footprint, destroys your silly official story...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kloejen
Dave, please compare the Nist facts with reality:


Dude, you've just been lied to by those conspiracy web sites AGAIN. There were *two* videos NIST released that modelled the WTC 7 collapse, one with the assumption that falling WTC 1 wreckage damaged it, and one with the assumption it was undamaged. The video that con artist is using in this snake oil is the model without any impact damage from falling wreckage. Here's the full video showing both:

NIST modelling the WTC 7 collapse

The guy is so unrepentently dishonest he snipped off the bottom section of the video that specifically identified it as the collapse model without damage from the wreckage so you won't know what it is. He's even pulling the exact same stunt Bonez did in snipping out the video of the penthouse collapse into the interior to make it look the way he wants it to look. This video is a LIE, regardless of whatever pretty word you want to refer to it by.



So, why do you wonder there is so many people questioning the OS ?


I don't wonder why in the least- the entire conspiracy movement is based completely on lies, innuendo, and misrepresentations being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites to get people all paranoid over shadows, and you just single handedly proved me right. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Can anyone find a controlled demolition video that looks more perfect than Building 7?

controlled demolitions collapses at higher speed?

Controlled demolitions collapses more into their own footprint than bulding 7?

More complete destruction than building 7?

Okay maybe you found a controlled demolition that looks pretty close to bulding 7.

ok, now find a building that collapses and is completely destroyed due to an office fire. completely destroyed.




edit on 14-9-2010 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kloejen
Dave, please compare the Nist facts with reality:


Dude, you've just been lied to by those conspiracy web sites AGAIN. There were *two* videos NIST released that modelled the WTC 7 collapse, one with the assumption that falling WTC 1 wreckage damaged it, and one with the assumption it was undamaged. The video that con artist is using in this snake oil is the model without any impact damage from falling wreckage. Here's the full video showing both:

NIST modelling the WTC 7 collapse


Dude.. the video posted did contain both the animated models from NIST. Ok, i agree its cut a bit early, but i'm pretty sure we have all seen the entire NIST fairy tale collapse.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The guy is so unrepentently dishonest he snipped off the bottom section of the video that specifically identified it as the collapse model without damage from the wreckage so you won't know what it is. He's even pulling the exact same stunt Bonez did in snipping out the video of the penthouse collapse into the interior to make it look the way he wants it to look. This video is a LIE, regardless of whatever pretty word you want to refer to it by.


Hmm.. do you mean this video:


It shows a controlled demolition. Or are you about to claim that the fires in wtc7, and the damage from wtc1&2, resulted in a freefall collapse ? Then you better dish out some facts that would support your theory. Nist gave up!


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So, why do you wonder there is so many people questioning the OS ?


I don't wonder why in the least- the entire conspiracy movement is based completely on lies, innuendo, and misrepresentations being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites to get people all paranoid over shadows, and you just single handedly proved me right. Thank you.


It's the exact opposite dude. I won't thank you. I just hope you might re-consider your conclusions on the events, since the evidence against your view on the event, is completely overwhelming.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
take a close look at this video to see the sublimating steel fall through space.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
...we have all seen the rubble pile of WTC7 after it collapsed . It is CLEAR that the outside walls DID INDEED "cave in from not having any support" . This is why the outside walls (for the most part) came to rest on top of the debris pile .


Nice attempt to spin the evidence.

let me explain why you're wrong.

Before I even start you have NO proof whatsoever that fire caused the center of the building to fail, only opinions, so quit claiming this as fact.

The outer sections of a building, or any part of a building, does not need any other part of the building for support. I again present the picture of WTC 6...



Why did building 6 not collapse into its own footprint with all the 'support' missing?

So we go from building 6, with none of the outer walls on top of its debris pile, to WTC 7 with ALL four outer walls on top of the debris pile. Do you not understand the odds of that?

Ok let me help you...


This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

What is that quote referring to? This...


Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Now does that not sound like it could be what caused the 'penthouse kink'?
Or is fire still the more logical explanation?

Read some more...


The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Yes that's right even a using a controlled method of demolition it is easier to make a building fall to one side.
Still think its logical for a building to collapse straight down from fire?

When timed explosives are not detonated in the correct order a controlled implosion will fail...

www.youtube.com...

Still think a building landing in its own footprint from fire is logical?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
there is only one way to achieve that, controlled implosion demolition.


Care to prove that?


No they don't. All four walls being on top of the debris pile, in other words the majority of WTC 7 landed in its own footprint, destroys your silly official story...


No it does not, what facts do you have to state that? Please provide proof.


edit on 15/9/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by ANOK
there is only one way to achieve that, controlled implosion demolition.


Care to prove that?


Did you read anything in my last post, and all the others about this? Do I have to keep repeating it?


No it does not, what facts do you have to state that? Please provide proof.


Proof? Again are you following along here?

This is all the proof needed that all four outer walls landed on top of the rest of the demolished building...


Can you see them?

Can you prove that a building can do that from an uncontrolled collapse? If you can then when are you going to let the world know that controlled implosion demolition, with all the work and time and expense needed to set up, is a con of some kind and unnecessary. Is THAT the real conspiracy?


Let me remind you...


This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Are you saying the Discovery Channel is also a part of this con to fool everyone into thinking that buildings don't collapse into their own footprint unless the collapse is controlled?


You don't need 'proof', you need to use a little logic. In light of all this evidence is fire and asymmetrical damage (unsubstantiated damage) really the logical explanation for the collapse of a 47 story building into its own footprint?
(btw rhetorical question I'm not really interested in your spin).



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Did you read anything in my last post, and all the others about this? Do I have to keep repeating it?


A truther repeating a lie... where have we seen that before!


Can you prove that a building can do that from an uncontrolled collapse?


Yes, just look at WTC 7


with all the work and time and expense needed to set up,


So when did they have the time to set WTC 7 up for demolition, and no one working there noticed?


(unsubstantiated damage)


What unsubstantiated damage... you are ignoring the bulge that was so bad firefighters put a transit on it, and knew the building would collapse so they pulled all the firefighters out of the area!

So again you have nothing at all.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kloejen
Dude.. the video posted did contain both the animated models from NIST. Ok, i agree its cut a bit early, but i'm pretty sure we have all seen the entire NIST fairy tale collapse.


You can't be serious. Over and over this guy played an an inaccurate computer model that NIST never claimed was the way WTC 7 collapsed, while playing HALF of the actual collapse mode ONCE. You can see right away this guy edited the video to strip off the "damaged by falling wreckage" and "not damaged by fallign wreckage" labels which were on the originals. This is NOT "showing both videos". It's a strawman argument- he's attributing claims to NIST that NIST never made, all so that he can gripe that NIST is trying to pull a fast one. If this guy isn't trying to be dishonest, then why is he editing the material to his liking rather than showing it in its original form?

You were posting disinformation. There's no way you can spin this for damage control. Get over it and move on to the next conspiracy theory already.


It shows a controlled demolition. Or are you about to claim that the fires in wtc7, and the damage from wtc1&2, resulted in a freefall collapse ? Then you better dish out some facts that would support your theory. Nist gave up!!


Insisting a dog is really a horse does not mean it really is a horse. These buildings weren't abandoned or out in the middle of the desert. These were fully occupied buildings in the middle of downtown Manhattan. Claiming that sinister secret ninjas could sneak in and rig an occupied building with CD without anyone noticing anything and leaving no evidence behind in the wreckage is just Wile E. Coyote saturday morning cartoon nonsense.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Dave!

I just put your own video up against you. You have still not answered any of my questions, yet you poor out the same OS garbage to hang on to, so we might miss the big picture?


So WTC7 collapsed due to fire, and or fire/wtc1+2 damage ?
HOW could this happen in (almost) FREE( 98,8%) fall ?
Was there noting in the building to resist a free fall collapse? Did'nt people work there ?

Please stay on course.




edit on 15/9/2010 by kloejen because: (no reason given)




edit on 15/9/2010 by kloejen because: (no reason given)




edit on 15/9/2010 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
this is how the plane caused the damage to the towers fyi.
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join