The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 1
172
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+150 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Yo, this video brought to my attention by Hijaqd is rock solid proof that the official story is impossible. Despite dozens of repeated requests for official story believers to debunk it, nobody has even attempted to fully debunk this video, but they're more than happy to change the subject and call me crazy.



I did my best to break the video up into statements, evidence, and facts, but it's a little scattered. Lots of my commentary, evidence, and so on will be included, so I would recommend watching the video and then looking at the summary to make your debunking easier.

Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron:


Statements: NIST speculated that the molten metal seen dripping from the tower before the collapse was some type of an aluminum mix, but provided no experimental confirmation of their theory.


Evidence: NISTs Explanation:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
Since NIST performed no experiments to back up their theory, Steven Jones did their job for them: stj911.org...
stj911.org...

Molten Aluminum:
The following video is the only one that I've seen which shows molten aluminum with an orange glow:
Looking at that one video which shows molten aluminum as orange, the theory that's it's aluminum can't be ruled out completely just yet.

More Evidence: NASAs Infrared Imaging Spectrometer located the molten metal, and found large amounts not just in the rubble of the twin towers but also WTC7:
How can molten aluminum from the airplane possibly be in the rubble of WTC7? Did a large chunk of the fuselage fall from the towers while covered in burning jet fuel, land inside of the farthest building in that complex, and turn molten? Nope, so now the molten aluminum theory can be ruled out. Plus NIST, the organization that official story believers fight tooth and nail to defend, even said it themselves: "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery", and Steven Jones debunked their theory that molten aluminum mixed with solid inorganic material would appear orange.

Also, dozens of witnesses saw molten metal in large amounts. Probably the most notable testimony is that of Firefighter Captain Philip Ruvolo:

You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.


There were many images of the molten metal as well:


Facts: Molten aluminum is silver, and molten steel is not silver. The molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not silver, therefore the molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not aluminum. Furthermore, the presence of molten metal in the debris of both the twin towers and WTC7 cannot be explained by the frame of the airplane turning molten.

Statements: Iron rich spheres were found throughout the dust, confirming temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Evidence:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Facts: Iron microspheres can only be formed in temperatures high enough to melt steel. Jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, therefore jet fuel did not create the iron microspheres. Iron microspheres are a natural biproduct of a thermitic reaction.

Evidence:


Speculation: Jet fuel office fires which burn 1000*F colder than what is needed to melt steel, somehow created the molten metal seen dripping from the towers and created the iron microspheres.

Facts: Jet fuel office fires burn 1000*F cooler than what is needed to melt steel, so the creation of molten steel and iron microspheres from jet fuel fires is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated. Molten steel and iron microspheres are biproducts of a thermitic reaction.

Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration:


Statements: The media told us that the collapse of the towers was caused by a pancaking effect, but as you can see in this image they never explained what caused the steel core to collapse.


Facts: In order to bend, crush, or move something below, any falling object must first experience a jolt, or a momentary deceleration, in order to apply a force that is larger than its own static weight. This jolt has been clearly measured in a natural gravitational collapse, and as the falling floors contact the stationary structure below, the downward acceleration reverses momentarily imposing a jolt, or force, larger than its static weight, destroying the structure below.

Evidence: Newtons Laws of Motion.
Here's a video of that gravity driven collapse and the measurements to go with it:
But when the fall of the tower was measured, there was no jolt at all:


Statements: In other words, the instant after the falling floors should have impacted the lower undamaged floors, the upper floors actually sped up, meaning that the force from the falling floors was less when accelerating down than when they were at rest.

Facts: Some other force must have weakened the stronger lower structure first allowing the roof to continually accelerate down. A downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit C: The fall of the spire:


Statements: Just after the towers collapsed, the wind blew the dust exposing some inner core columns that some call the spire.

Facts: Office fires cannot cut steel, yet white smoke trailed from cut segments of falling steel, and the top of the spire was not bent from any impact above. The spire stood as a free standing structure with columns swaying but resisting like a flagpole. Rather than tipping over like a tree, this structure dropped straight down even though there was no load above.

Evidence:


Facts: A freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory:


Statements: A month after the collapse of the towers, Bazant and some others published a paper explaining how the towers fell, even though NIST could not explain it after years of study. Their paper described how the upper smaller blocks of floor crushed down the larger undamaged structure below down to the ground, and then the upper block crushed itself up.


Facts: Not only was no upper block observed impacting the lower sections, but why the spire was not crushed as the upper block fell was not explained. Newtons Third Law tells us that interactions between colliding objects are always equal and opposite, meaning that at any upper smaller block of floors would have also destroyed itself when impacting the larger structure below, well before it could have crushed all the way down to the ground. No experiment has ever demonstrated this crush-down/crush-up theory endorsed by NIST.

Evidence:


Bazants paper got torn to shreds:
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis


Facts: The theory of a smaller top block crushing down a stronger larger lower structure of similar material is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel:


Statements: Some unique razor sharp steel that looked like swiss cheese was found at ground zero. Fire-wise professors found eutectic formations, a phenomenon never before observed in building fires.

Evidence:


Facts: After doing some analysis in a laboratory, they identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen, the same materials found in thermate which causes similiar eutectic formations. NIST never solved where the sulfur came from, yet the media claimed that the sulfur game from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverized and burnt in the fires, even though gypsum is routinely used as fireproofing around steel. NIST and the media experts never conducted any experiments to back up their claim. But when gypsum and building material was packed around a steel beam and burned at similar temperatures for long durations, nothing of the sort happened.

Evidence:


Facts: An experiment with thermate on the other hand (The Great Thermate Debate) did make the steel razor shape and look like swiss cheese. Since eutectic formations have not been replicated experimentally, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration:


Facts: WTC7 was never hit by an airplane or even mentioned in the official investigation.

Statements: It looked exactly like a controlled demolition

Facts: NIST said it was a progressive collapse caused by normal office fires. It fell for over 100ft at total free-fall, meaning that the underlying supports had to be removed first allowing it to fall freely.

Evidence::


Facts: Since a progressive collapse will not allow free fall, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit G: Nano-thermite:


Facts: The USGS and independent physicists analyzed lots of dust, collected by some inside of buildings near ground zero. In addition to iron microspheres, active nano-thermite was found, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on.

Evidence:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

Facts: Being an engineered material with a special matrix, it cannot form naturally because that would defy the Law of Entropy (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). And it's not just primer paint, because it does not have the properties of paint, react like paint, or even look like paint.

Evidence:
Here is Steven Jones igniting a dust chip from the sample: journalof911studies.com...

Facts: The formation of nano-thermite naturally is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Is collapse inevitable?:


Facts: NIST never looked at the actual collapse mechanism and just assumed that collapse was inevitable. However real world experiences have demonstrated that collapse is not inevitable, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Evidence:


What is not impossible?


Statements: Could 9/11 have been planned as a new Pearl Harbor necessary to galvanize popular support for preemptive wars using our military to secure trillions in oil and mineral wealth? Were explosives allowed in the towers by the security company that the Presidents brother was on the board of (Marvin Bush--Director of Stratesec)? Could cutter charges have been placed in the core when the elevator upgrades were made in March 2001? Could nano-thermite have been sprayed by unsuspecting workers in the towers when upgrades were made? Could computer controlled explosives have brought down the towers at almost freefall in an attempt to hide the action behind a curtain of falling debris? Was this a shock and awe event intended to scare Americans into giving up their liberties, and control dissent while making billions for the security and military-industrial complex? Could it have been used to remove obsolete towers and avoid costly asbestos removal, allowing modern structures to be built in there place? Was it used to hide financial issues, destroy key SEC files, address the Iraq petro-dollar problem, or murder those investigating over $2 trillion lost in the Pentagon? Are people talking, but we're not listening? Were those in the towers exploded into thousands of pieces just collateral damage for a much larger operation?

Facts: All of those things are not impossible But according to the official story, this--(Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron), this--(Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration), this--(Exhibit C: The fall of the spire), this--(Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory), this--(Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel), this--(Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration), and this--(Exhibit G: Nano-thermite) are all impossible. Yet every single one of those are a result of incendiaries, explosives, and controlled demolition.



+9 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Nobody has ever answered why they would go through all the trouble to stage 9/11 and at such great risk to exposure when something far simpler would have achieved the same results.

Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act when a simple plan would have acheived the exact same results with a far less risk of something going wrong?

A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.

If the government asked you to create something that would mobilize the American people is 9/11 what you would come up with? There are 1000 different things that have to go perfectly right for this to be pulled off. The amount of people with knowledge is far too large for comfort.

Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.

Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers.

Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown

Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?

Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.


+71 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



Every point you brought up is an irrelavent strawman, you didn't even attempt to debunk any portion of that video. Like the OP said:

Despite dozens of repeated requests for official story believers to debunk it, nobody has even attempted to fully debunk this video, but they're more than happy to change the subject and call me crazy.


edit on 19-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Don't derail your own thread my friend.

If you want discussion then discuss whatever is brought up. Swatting away comments that don't align with what you want will get you nowhere.

Try to stay focused.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Did you read my post?

I debunked the whole thing by declaring it implausible that the government would do such an extreme thing when something simple would have worked. This is the main reason why it probably wasn't a government plan.

I also mentioned that getting hung up on things you can't explain is not looking at the whole picture. I've seen a tornado wipe out every house on a block except for one bathroom wall that had shelves and those shelves had knickknacks and those knickknacks didn't move a milimeter.

Can you explain that?

Neither can I but it doesn't prove a conspiracy of any sort it just means that sometimes in crazy situations there are things that don't make sense. Because that one wall was standing is no evidence that that the tornado was staged.

This is exactly what truthers are guilty of. Focusing on the knickknacks on that bathroom wall.


+43 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



Don't derail your own thread my friend.

If you want discussion then discuss whatever is brought up. Swatting away comments that don't align with what you want will get you nowhere.

Try to stay focused.


I'm focused, and I'm focusing on my OP. The purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss the flawed common sense stance that official story believers always take when confronted with evidence, it was to post a video that proves how the official story is impossible, and see if people can prove the impossible to be possible. I'm not the one derailing the thread, the OP isn't "Point out some things that you believe would make an inside job impossible", it's "debunk this video that proves the official story impossible".

I thought mods were here to ensure that threads don't get derailed, not encourage me to talk about something that I didn't even mention in the OP.


reply to post by kro32
 

Did you read my post?

I debunked the whole thing by declaring it implausible that the government would do such an extreme thing when something simple would have worked. This is the main reason why it probably wasn't a government plan.

I also mentioned that getting hung up on things you can't explain is not looking at the whole picture. I've seen a tornado wipe out every house on a block except for one bathroom wall that had shelves and those shelves had knickknacks and those knickknacks didn't move a milimeter.

Can you explain that?

Neither can I but it doesn't prove a conspiracy of any sort it just means that sometimes in crazy situations there are things that don't make sense. Because that one wall was standing is no evidence that that the tornado was staged.

This is exactly what truthers are guilty of. Focusing on the knickknacks on that bathroom wall.
Yes I read your post, and it wasn't even mildly relavent to the OP.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
You don't have to believe the official story but that doesn't mean it was staged by the U.S. government either. Perhaps they got their facts wrong about what happened when they investigated it.

I think i've shown why our government wouldn't attempt something as complicated as 9/11 and also how they wouldn't be able to pull it off if they did.


+6 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



You don't have to believe the official story but that doesn't mean it was staged by the U.S. government either. Perhaps they got their facts wrong about what happened when they investigated it.

I think i've shown why our government wouldn't attempt something as complicated as 9/11 and also how they wouldn't be able to pull it off if they did.
I understand how you would think that the government wouldn't go to all that trouble, and you made some good points in your post, however the evidence presented in the OP proves the official story to be impossible.

But here is one thing for you to consider: The airplane attack heavily increased airport security, infringing on Americans Constitutional rights, the fourth amendment- protections against unreasonable search and seizures, did it not?


Now please, try to focus on the OP, can you do that?

Bonus question: Is that a male or female being groped in the above image?
All in good fun.
edit on 19-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


+16 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were. Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers. Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?


Thank you for pointing out the propensity of our government to be deceitful.

9/11 hasn't been completely successful either, that is why organizations like A&E for 9/11 Truth and many other organizations like it came to exist in the first place.


+55 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


The rule of the forums is to discuss the points in the OP. Discussing "whatever is brought up" does not keep the flow of discussion of the topic in the OP and derails the original discussion.

If people started topics and instead of discussing the points in the topic, everyone just started discussing "whatever is brought up", then there would really be no need for thread topics and we should just have one big chat room. Discussion is based off of the points in the OP. Not "whatever is brought up". That's my understanding of the forum rules, anyway.

The OP is not derailing his own thread. The person that replied and didn't comment about the actual points in the topic at hand would be the droid you're looking for.

Whether you meant it or not, your post comes off as showing a little bias against a 9/11 researcher while telling him to "stay focused' all while the person who replied was the one that needed to be focused on the points discussed in the OP.




To the OP: great rundown of some undeniable facts. And although aluminum can be orange while molten, it is nowhere near as bright as what is seen coming out of the south tower.





edit on 19-7-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I'd say 9/11 was successful if it was done by the government.

Kennedy was shot, Johnson didn't run again and Nixon resigned.

Bush got 4 more years.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Very well put together. Thank you. I can understand both sides of the argument - but have progressively leaned towards the conspiracy. This thread has added to that progression. In regards to the question of why or how the government would do something like this without the truth coming out.... No, I don't think the gov could cover up something this large.... which is why there are so many holes... and why there is so much proof and speculation about it being an inside job. And for why? As others have stated - war. oil. politics. money. power. Who knows why the government does half the things they do.
And at the same time, the honest person inside me wants to continue wondering how and why....because it is too appalled at the scale of what I consider betrayal.


+17 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
You don't have to believe the official story but that doesn't mean it was staged by the U.S. government either.

It also doesn't mean it wasn't. Never forget about the other half of that equation.



Originally posted by kro32
I think i've shown why our government wouldn't attempt something as complicated as 9/11 and also how they wouldn't be able to pull it off if they did.

Sorry, but you haven't shown anything. No links, no evidence, no testimony, nothing. All you've done is give your opinion based on your understanding of the logistics. The logistics of how it was pulled off, how many people, etc. does not matter. The only thing that matters is the evidence in front of everyone, that you can't deny, and that you can't debunk.


Now, if you click on the link in my signature "What is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist?", you'll see NIST's credibility shot down. If you believe the "official" version, you're believing in a conspiracy theory, just as much as any other conspiracy theory that is available today.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




To the OP: great rundown of some undeniable facts. And although aluminum can be orange while molten, it is nowhere near as bright as what is seen coming out of the south tower.


I agree:

It looks more yellowish while the molten metal coming out of the south tower had a bright orange look to it. But I'm not here to argue which color matches it better, because the simple fact is the presence of molten metal in WTC7 is proof that the molten aluminum airplane frame theory is a big load.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OP, I applaud all the work you put into these 9/11 threads, but I have to ask.....who are you trying to convince at this point? You are not going to convince the numerous government shills that frequent these 9/11 forums, and there are few on ATS at this stage in the game that seem to me to be your average, everyday skeptic.

My point is, here we go around and around again about the same issues that have been debated so many times already on ATS. All the info you have presented here is well known already. All this does is bring out the shill squad. Of course, you're free to post what you wish....It just seems it would be time better spent on something else, considering how it is obviously gonna play out.

These threads always rack up stars and flags, however. I have to wonder if this might be part of what motivates you.


+10 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 



OP, I applaud all the work you put into these 9/11 threads, but I have to ask.....who are you trying to convince at this point? You are not going to convince the numerous government shills that frequent these 9/11 forums, and there are few on ATS at this stage in the game that seem to me to be your average, everyday skeptic.

My point is, here we go around and around again about the same issues that have been debated so many times already on ATS. All the info you have presented here is well known already. All this does is bring out the shill squad. Of course, you're free to post what you wish....It just seems it would be time better spent on something else, considering how it is obviously gonna play out.
Hey I thought I knew most of the information about 9/11 until I saw the above video a few weeks ago, so surely if I didn't see it and I've researched this topic quite a bit, those who just apathetically brush over the occasional 9/11 thread haven't seen it.

And this video is a bombshell, it proves the officials story to be impossible in several different ways, I think that's worth taking the time to post so others can see it, spread the word, and open some more Americans eyes to the facts. If even one person wasn't aware of this information before reading the thread, then I've done my job.


These threads always rack up stars and flags, however. I have to wonder if this might be part of what motivates you.
I put lots of work into my threads and include lots of evidence, and people appreciate that and voice their appreciation by starring and flagging. I'm not going to spend hours making threads to see a number next to my name increase, that's not worth it at all, I want the truth and facts to be out there. Despite the sarcastic comments that people make like "Oh yeah, you sit on the internet and blab on conspiracy sites, that'll get us a new investigation
", I disagree, because more and more people come to the internet for alternative news nowadays, especially this site, so hopefully lots of people will have the chance to read this thread, understand how the official story is impossible, and spread the word.
edit on 19-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.


Hahaha! Funny you should say that......as it is those "details" that you speak of that bring the big picture into clear view.

Of course you don't want people to see the "details."

And by the way, you debunked your own theory that big conspiracies can't be pulled off when you brought up Kennedy's assassination.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





And this video is a bombshell, it proves the officials story to be impossible in several different ways, I think that's worth taking the time to post so others can see it, spread the word, and open some more Americans eyes to the facts. If even one person wasn't aware of this information before reading the thread, then I've done my job.


Okay, Tupac, fair enough.......I can't argue with that.

Like I said, I think your threads are very detailed and I know you put a lot of time into them. It just seems like we wind up with the same bunch in here arguing the same points for days on end. I hope you are right. I hope at least one person comes out of these threads more informed.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Have you ever thought in your head about what you would do if the government asked you to create an event that would trigger the Iraq war and the Patriot Act without getting anyone involved caught? Serioiusly sit down and think about it and tell me if you would have come up with something as intricate as 9/11.

Think about how you would start going about this. How many people are you going to have to contact to be involved on all levels for this to work. How are you going to begin contacting them and making sure they don't leak your plan. What are your security concerns.

Not one single person other than terrorists have been connected with this and the only proof people have is things like what color the molten metal is.

The odds of this actually happening with no one getting caught are astronomical. But as I said I won't argue your guy's proof so i'll just have to leave it at that.

Thanks for the lively debate though



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





The OP is not derailing his own thread. The person that replied and didn't comment about the actual points in the topic at hand would be the droid you're looking for.


Thanks, BoneZ....

You beat me to the punch....





new topics
top topics
 
172
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join