Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 2
172
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

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.
I don't know how it was orchestrated. I don't believe that Dick Cheney and George Bush went to the Pentagon, gathered everyone in a big auditorium, and said "Listen up mother******s, we're going to kill thousands of American citizens, and some of you will die in the process. Any questions?", but based on my knowledge of how false flag attacks are orchestrated (zero), that is just as likely as a leprechaun in a spaceship pulling it off, because any opinion that I give on what it would take to pull this off would be just that: an opinion, based on nothing other than speculation.


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.
I have no clue what it would take to pull something like this off, and anything I say would be purely speculation with no evidence backing it, and that would get torn to shreds by the official story believing piranhas that are just waiting for me to slip up and say something silly like that so they can single it out and turn it into four pages of discussion.


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.
Maybe you missed this: "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."


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.
The odds of 7 impossible things occuring in the same day are impossible x 7, not just astronomical. Take a tennis ball, and toss it in the air, it falls down, right? Now imagine if you took that tennis ball, threw it up, and instead of falling towards the earth it kept going up and shot right through your ceiling. Then what if in that same day you tried it again and 6 more tennis balls did that?
edit on 19-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
As an ironworker I knew the night of Sept.11 2001. The official story was bogus. To believe it is retarded.
As an ironworker I also suggest you work on your avatar.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Nice post OP; I see those who believe the official story only have the 'but why?' stance to fall back on when commenting, which is the last stand in the face of such undeniable evidence.




posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Great thread Tupac, it is encouraging to see a more cohesive picture develop that gets to the heart of what really happened. If the MSM did wake one day and decide to show it there would be a big push to clean this mess up. With threads like this it does provide a simple and well formed argument to start digging deeper.

reply to post by kro32
 




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.


The military is under suspicion for part of this and they have there own ways of dealing with leaks and security, including legal execution when working with some high levels of sensitive information. Another theory that is a very difficult one to come to terms with is the Monarch project and other mind control technologies. These have been under research since at least the 1960's with a couple of congressional inquires that established their existence, but did not go deep enough to uncover it all and put an end to it.

Maybe there are other reasons for how this happened, but this is why a decent investigation is needed to put a stop to this problem before it resurfaces again.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Great thread! And it would be great if you came out of hiding and made an album about this. Thug Life: Volume 9-11
Seriously though... I'm bookmarking this to show others. It has all the good info laid out and with pictures and diagrams. People like pictures... And diagrams. Peace!



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure 9/11 wasn't manufactured by the government. The government was waiting for someone (Saudi Arabia) to do something, and once they heard it was going to happen, they prepared for the reaction and solution. A new Pearl Harbor.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



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.

Fact: You are assuming, based on YOUR opinion, that the stuff in the video seen dropping from the building is, in fact, molten. Please provide some evidence for this assumption. Also, please provide some evidence that aluminum combined with other materials and brought to a motlen state will not be consistent with what is seen in the video. Also, please provide some logical basis for the relevance of the statement that the alleged molten material in the debris cannot be explained by the planes airframes.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Fact: You are assuming, based on YOUR opinion, that the stuff in the video seen dropping from the building is, in fact, molten. Please provide some evidence for this assumption.
It's all in the OP big guy.


Also, please provide some evidence that aluminum combined with other materials and brought to a motlen state will not be consistent with what is seen in the video.
Here ya go, these are the experiments that NIST didn't do to back up their theories:
stj911.org...
stj911.org...


Also, please provide some logical basis for the relevance of the statement that the alleged molten material in the debris cannot be explained by the planes airframes.
From the OP:

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.
A plane never hit WTC7, so the presence of molten aluminum from a non-existant airplane frame is impossible.

There's a link to dozens of witness testimonies all saying they saw "molten metal", plus there are a few images of it as well.
edit on 20-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



It's all in the OP big guy.

No, its not because it can't be. Its all speculation based on looking at a video.

Here ya go, these are the experiments that NIST didn't do to back up their theories:
stj911.org...
stj911.org...

You realize, of course, that this is all pretty much useless and actually pretty funny. You really think there is an "experiment" that can eliminate the possibilty that the material seen falling from the building is a mixture of many materials. Please think that through.

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.
A plane never hit WTC7, so the presence of molten aluminum from a non-existant airplane frame is impossible.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the only possible source for aluminum was the airplane frame? This is both wrong and irrelevant!

There's a link to dozens of witness testimonies all saying they saw "molten metal", plus there are a few images of it as well

So? Some folks think they saw real hot material at a fire scene and used the word "molten" to describe it. So what? In fact, I think some may have actually described it as molten steel, but we know that can't be proven. This is some pretty silly stuff.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
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.


What makes you an authority on public psychology and staged terrorist acts to control it?


Originally posted by kro32
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?


Things did go wrong, as shown in the OP's video. Here we are coming up on 10 years later and most people still aren't questioning the official story. TPTB control the media, therefore they control thought. They knew they could get away with this mass murder and they did. Point nullified.


Originally posted by kro32
A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.


They wanted to get rid of the buildings, removing the asbestos problem, they wanted to collect the full insurance on the buildings and they wanted to destroy evidence of this crime and other crimes, as well as silence (i.e. kill) people that opposed them. Dirty bomb doesn't accomplish any of that.


Originally posted by kro32
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.


And again, it was pulled off, even with mistakes. You reiterated the same moot point. In addition to the obvious thermite, Building 7 collapsed without anything hitting it. I suspect the "4th plane" intended to hit it but never did. However, that's supposition based on the fact that to me, it's incredible that they could convince the public that building 7 would collapse due to fire. Yet they did it. They convinced the public an apple was an orange. That's what you can get away with when you control all media, addressing a nation of people whose public school system has failed.


Originally posted by kro32
Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.


JFK.


Originally posted 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.


Explain the molten metal pouring out of the towers. Explain building 7 being the first ever steel building to collapse like a controlled demolition, due to fire. Oh wait, you can't.


Originally posted by Peteos
Nice post OP; I see those who believe the official story only have the 'but why?' stance to fall back on when commenting, which is the last stand in the face of such undeniable evidence.


Not true. They can also look directly at clear video of molten metal pouring out of the towers and say "that could be anything." In addition, they can conveniently ignore all points they can't refute, refuse to offer plausible explanations for the damning evidence brought up, close their eyes, keep their fingers in their ears, and continue to believe that our government isn't the hideous monster it is.
edit on 20-7-2011 by Observer99 because: addendum



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If you take away the molten metal all together, 9-11 still has too many holes.

And I don't think I could imagine a better event to stage than dropping of the World Trade Center towers.

For one, it's got a great name. You bring those down, it looks like you assault the very nature of business, human togetherness, and great american triumphs. The emotional ties here in people will make further arguments much more difficult to base on fact. I mean, after all, it is a "patriotic" act.

Two, you kill civilians so retaliation is "necessary". The blame could be put to anyone so you get to pick your next favorite foreign business adventure you're after and remove all resistance to it.

Three, thinking about it, you could use a whole bunch of planes, really. The chaos will be huge in the public sector but as simple on your end as the setup, steering a couple planes, and controlling media so...

...Four! Bonus! You could get rid of any bothersome evidence you may have lying around, too!


If you're going to ask questions like that, I would ask, what false flag scenario would be better?



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


So you think giving your opinion on what the government are capable of or what they aren't is debunking something?



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
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.


Incorrect. Typical office floors are designed to support a load of 60 PSF. This is plenty for typical office loading, but it is not enough to support the weight of an upper floor's structure collapsing down. When subjected to the entire load of an upper floor collapsing down, the next floor will in turn collapse. Then BOTH of those floors collapse down onto the next floor, the weight is now doubled and as such it will collapse the next floor that much more easily. As this continues the weight keeps increasing and basically the floors will collapse with little to no visible resistance. You simply have no idea of the kinds of loads we're talking about here, they're tremendous. Something similar happened in the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City, the upper walkway failed and when it fell onto the lower walkway that one in turn collapsed with no resistance. I'm in the construction industry and have some formal education in structural engineering by the way, so I'm quite familiar with collapses as it's something that gets discussed heavily in engineering classes.


Originally posted by TupacShakur
Statements: It looked exactly like a controlled demolition


I can only assume that people who make such comments have never been on the site of a building being demolished, because if they had they'd realize how patently absurd statements like this are. Demolition cannot be performed via radio signal because it's far too risky, instead every single charge must be physically wired separately to a single control panel. It requires literally miles of wiring and weeks of work to get it all installed. The idea that any of the WTC buildings could have been quietly rigged with a demolition system without any visible wiring and without anyone in the building noticing is completely ridiculous.


Originally posted by TupacShakur
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.


This is exactly the problem I have with so many of these conspiracy theories regarding the WTC, you make an incorrect assumption and then establish it as some kind of "evidence". Your incorrect assumption is that aluminum could only come from the aircraft, but the WHOLE SKIN OF EVERY BUILDING IN THE AREA IS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT!!!! And there is a MUCH greater quanitity of aluminum in a high-rise building's storefront system than there is in an aircraft. There is no surprise at all in seeing so much puddled aluminum at the base of the buildings, it's simply storefront that melted in the fires.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


If you think there is aluminum siding on the towers then your point of posting is hilarious, tell us what stores put this on them.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

No, its not because it can't be. Its all speculation based on looking at a video.
Yeah, that's why I actually included more of my own evidence backing up molten metal than what was taken from the video summary. You claim it's all "speculation"....did you miss all of the evidence in the OP backing up that speculation?
Do you even know what speculation is?


You realize, of course, that this is all pretty much useless and actually pretty funny.
What about putting a theory to the test using an experiment is useless? Would it be better to not test NISTs theory and just take their word?



You really think there is an "experiment" that can eliminate the possibilty that the material seen falling from the building is a mixture of many materials. Please think that through.
I don't need to think it through because I'm not an idiot, of course there is an experiment that can either prove or disprove their explanation. NIST had a theory that they didn't test, so their theory was tested and proven to be false. That eliminates their explanation of what the molten material was.


Are you seriously trying to argue that the only possible source for aluminum was the airplane frame? This is both wrong and irrelevant!
That's what I've been hearing from official story believers and NIST. Tell me, where did all of that aluminum come from then? Printers? Computers? Picture Frames? Staplers? Paper Clips? Zippers? File Cabinet Handles?


So? Some folks think they saw real hot material at a fire scene and used the word "molten" to describe it. So what? In fact, I think some may have actually described it as molten steel, but we know that can't be proven. This is some pretty silly stuff.
So we have dozens of witnesses describing it as molten metal, but you don't believe them? That's your analysis?
I don't really understand what you're saying anyway, first you claim that the molten metal is aluminum, then you're saying there is no molten metal and the witnesses are wrong by describing it as molten? Are you for or against molten metal? You can't argue that it exists and doesn't exist, you have to pick a side.

Don't forget the images of the molten metal that dozens of witnesses describe:


So we have dozens of witnesses who all describe it as molten metal, several images showing molten metal which matches their description, and a satellite image of the hot-spots which show it not just in the twin towers but WTC7 as well. And you say believing that molten metal was there is "silly".



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 



Incorrect. Typical office floors are designed to support a load of 60 PSF. This is plenty for typical office loading, but it is not enough to support the weight of an upper floor's structure collapsing down. When subjected to the entire load of an upper floor collapsing down, the next floor will in turn collapse. Then BOTH of those floors collapse down onto the next floor, the weight is now doubled and as such it will collapse the next floor that much more easily. As this continues the weight keeps increasing and basically the floors will collapse with little to no visible resistance. You simply have no idea of the kinds of loads we're talking about here, they're tremendous.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about something that weighs one gram or six trillion pounds, the laws of motion apply to it regardless of the mass. Emphasizing the large amounts of mass we're dealing with doesn't debunk the universal laws of motion.

Newtons Third Law: for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Those laws are universal, they apply to falling buildings as much as they apply to car crashes, pool balls or hockey pucks.

Newton Vs NIST:

But if you think I'm wrong, and believe NIST, the media, the authorities, and our politicians, then prove me wrong, by experiment. Because either all of those authorities are wrong, or Newtons fundamental laws of motion are wrong. It's your choice, and you can believe what you want, but both Newton and NIST cannot be right.



Something similar happened in the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City, the upper walkway failed and when it fell onto the lower walkway that one in turn collapsed with no resistance. I'm in the construction industry and have some formal education in structural engineering by the way, so I'm quite familiar with collapses as it's something that gets discussed heavily in engineering classes.
The Hyatt Regency walkway "collapsed with no resistance", what are you basing this statement off of? Did you take the security cam footage of the collapse, take some measurements, and plot a distance vs time graph to find if there was resistance or not? Because it sounds to me like you're making an assumption, which has no evidence backing it other than your construction/engineering credentials. That's very nice that you're experienced in construction and engineering, however a high school physics textbook would tell you you're wrong. Do they not teach you high school physics in engineering college?

Compare:

Notice a difference? Both are gravity driven collapses, but in the first one there is a momentary deceleration when it makes contact, but in the WTC it speeds up when it should slow down. You can emphasize the masses that we're dealing with to try and convince some people that the laws of physics don't apply in such conditions, but the fact is the collapse of the towers defies Newtons universal Laws of Motion.
edit on 20-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


You are trying to argue from a point of logic. These people are based in emotion.
Logic doesn't work with smokers.
Logic doesn't work with the religious.

In their hearts they FEEL there must be something more than a handful of people.
Because it's too complex for those 'simpletons'.
In their hearts they FEEL it must have happened for reasons of money or power.
Because isn't everything done for reasons of money and power?

The concept of people killing innocent people for a cause is beyond belief. Ergo there must be something else going on. This also explains people distaste for the TSA actions.

They'll grasp at anything to support their FEELINGS.

edit on 20-7-2011 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Yes arguing from a pre-decided logic point, that has NO basis in reality or even in theory.

Keep smoking sir...maybe you will find your way.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
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.


I'll be glad to answer your question. The reason 9/11 needed to be complicated because they tried a simplified version of it in 1993 on the WTC building. A simplified plan involving a truck bomb was meant to destroy both buildings, with one knocking into the other, but the truck was parked in the wrong spot, so the building did not fall down.

So the answer to your question is, the simple plan failed, so they made it more complicated (planes + explosives), and more causalities.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The 'world' remembers well Pearl Harbor,
The "world' remembers well The Twin Towers,

The SIZE of the event contributes to its LENGTH in memory,
there are thousands of incidents and events globally that we forget faster than the next one to come along,
there's a reason for the grand scale.

S&F Tupac





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join