Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 34
172
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Archirvion
 



This topic is finished for a long time ago. The US might even be charged for it in a court of law,and that was in the CNN news in 2007!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? I never heard about that, could you link me to an article or something? I don't think the people resposible will ever be held accountable, because if people are shown all of the evidence and still believe the official story, then there's really no hope for the future of this country. The people behind it will buy their way out, postpone the trial, or do whatever it takes to dodge the consequences.

Hopefully the AE911 Truth documentary that's coming out next month will open lots of people's eyes, because it's all licensced engineers, architects, demolition experts, and just a bunch of really credible experts who know more about those subjects than anybody. But I know that even after that is released, people will still say stupid stuff like "Oh yeah, 2000 experts vs. millions of experts that believe the official story" and continue believing in the impossible. It's messed up really, the evidence is there and it proves that the official story is false, but people continue to believe it.

But at least there's a good percentage of people that know the official story is bogus and our government was behind it, because when people look back to this time period in the future, at least they'll know we weren't all a bunch of braindead fools.


Everybody knows it was an inside job.
Nah man not everyone, there are still tons of people that buy the official story and fight tooth and nail to defend it.
edit on 13-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
i dont understand how anyone can really argue with that evidence, very thorough and compelling stuff.

the thermite found in the adjacent apartment building is particularly damning.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by snarfbot
 



i dont understand how anyone can really argue with that evidence, very thorough and compelling stuff.
Denial. The inability to accept the fact that our government was behind these attacks in order to justify the invasion of the Middle East and the Patriot Act which widdled away our rights and crapped on the Constitution.


the thermite found in the adjacent apartment building is particularly damning.
I agree, but I think the collapse of WTC7 is the most obvious piece of evidence. It matches up with a controlled demolition because of the free-fall during the collapse, the symmetrical collapse, the kink during the collapse meaning that the core columns failed first in order to have the building fall in on itself which is how implosions are performed, and the explosions heard during the collapse.

The only explanation for the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


oh yea, it definitely looks like demolition job but that isnt enough for some people. on the other hand physical evidence of incendiaries is pretty much irrefutable, and i had not seen that piece until now.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Mocker. I bet you don't like correction do you? I bet too, that you don't consult anyone with wisdom, you know it all all ready.
edit on 24-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Denial.



Denial. The inability to accept the fact that our government was behind these attacks in order to justify the invasion of the Middle East

No they invaded Iraq. Supposedly because of WMDs. If TPTB could bring down all the WTC buildings without leaving any clues don’t you think they could have planted a few WMDs to support their reason for going into Iraq?




The only explanation for the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition.



Here is the National Demolition Association.
They have almost 1000 member companies each with dozens of employees. None of them are crying foul over 911. Are you saying they are all on the payroll? All it would take in one fired employee to blow the whistle. Or are you saying each employee is on the payroll as well? I suggest that if any of them felt that any of the WTCs were CD they would have gotten the word out with concrete proof.

All we have are foolish basement engineers on here.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I don't think this video is undebunkable at all.

As the towers collapsed two things made the debris "accelerate" (and btw that's a pretty dishonest word to use IMO)

1: AS the building collapsed it became less able, as a whole to maintain it's rigidity. A large part of the building's structural integrity was based in it's outer skin, as more of the skin was destroyed, the floors became less able to hold up their own weight... this affect obviously "accelerated" as more of the outer skin was destroyed.

2. The amount of debris crushing the floors increased as more and more floors collapsed. In other words, the weight of the floors above the stable building grew as the collapsed part grew.

The "acceleration" This is not only not weird, it's would be expected. Once the building below was totally unable to sustain the downward momentum and the weight above the debris reached free-fall speed.

So the debris "accelerated" up to free-fall.

Not a big mystery there.

And debunked.

BTW: In a REAL demo, the ENTIRE building ESSENTIALLY collapses at free-fall. So floor 10 and floor 100 would all start collapsing at the same time. This OBVIOUSLY didn't happen on 9/11 and as such the towers don't even look like and demo on record...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



1: AS the building collapsed it became less able, as a whole to maintain it's rigidity. A large part of the building's structural integrity was based in it's outer skin, as more of the skin was destroyed, the floors became less able to hold up their own weight... this affect obviously "accelerated" as more of the outer skin was destroyed.
There would still be resistance during the initial impact, which would cause a deceleration.


2. The amount of debris crushing the floors increased as more and more floors collapsed. In other words, the weight of the floors above the stable building grew as the collapsed part grew.
This is where the camps split, there are the pancakers and the people who think that wouldn't work.


The "acceleration" This is not only not weird, it's would be expected. Once the building below was totally unable to sustain the downward momentum and the weight above the debris reached free-fall speed.

So the debris "accelerated" up to free-fall.
But it accelerated while it initially collided with tons of steel and concrete which would have provided resistance, so yes, there is a "big mystery" there.


And debunked.
.....No.


BTW: In a REAL demo, the ENTIRE building ESSENTIALLY collapses at free-fall. So floor 10 and floor 100 would all start collapsing at the same time. This OBVIOUSLY didn't happen on 9/11 and as such the towers don't even look like and demo on record...
I don't think you can conclude that, there's not one type of demolition. It could have been set up in a top-down manner.
But since you claim that in a demolition the whole building collapses as free-fall speed, does that not apply to WTC7 then? Since WTC7 collapsed at free-fall speed and the whole building collapsed, it was a "REAL demo", no?
edit on 29-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 



Here is the National Demolition Association.
They have almost 1000 member companies each with dozens of employees. None of them are crying foul over 911. Are you saying they are all on the payroll?
No, why would you assume I think that?



All it would take in one fired employee to blow the whistle. Or are you saying each employee is on the payroll as well?
I have said nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting.


I suggest that if any of them felt that any of the WTCs were CD they would have gotten the word out with concrete proof.
Lots of people don't even know that WTC7 collapsed, but you bring up a good point though. Maybe they don't want to put their reputation/companies reputation on the line and risk being fired or ridiculed, maybe they don't want to be seen as a crazy, unpatriotic conspiracy theorist, I don't know.
But are the hundreds of experts not good enough? You need more experts? But thanks for that link, I'm going to e-mail some of the members with a link to a YouTube video of the collapse of WTC7 and the Twin Towers and ask if they think it looks like a Controlled Demolition. I'll get back to you when I get some responses.
edit on 29-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


First, there's this myth that such a thing as a top down demo exists. It doesn't. There's a few extremely odd examples of top down demo type things, like a casino boat, but those aren't demos of multi storied buildings. I saw one truther posting a demo that miss-fired (the timing was off) and claiming it was top down. It wasn't.

While you're emailing people, find a demo expert that's seen a tall building down via top down. You won't.

Second: explosions are visible and make noise.



Again, truthers claim a few untimed booms, or an explosion in the basement of a building = hundreds of timed, audible and visible explosions. Guess what it doesn't.

The towers look NOTHING like demos. NOTHING.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


replying to this in bits...

the steel wasn't a big chunk of steel. It was welded and bolted steel and the structure was only was strong as those welds and bolts. Once enough momentum and weight was above the remaining structure the resistance would be meaningless... and guess what, it was.

here's some people that understand this phenomena... if it wasn't possible this wouldn't work



So again, that video has been debunked. It's obvious that guy is either lying, and many truthers lie... I wish they didn't 'cause lots of you guys ARE honest, but many aren't. OR that guy is an idiot.

take your pick.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


One final reply.

You said there would be resistance during the initial collapse, and of course their was. The buildings didn't start in free fall. The hit free fall when the amount of resistance the weakened floor below was negligible compared to the weight and momentum of the debris above.

If you drop a brick on an egg, is their resistance? Yep. Does it meaningfully slow down the brick? Go try it and report back.


edit on 29-8-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by hooper
 


Mocker. I bet you don't like correction do you? I bet too, that you don't consult anyone with wisdom, you know it all all ready.
edit on 24-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo


No, no I love correction, I do it all the time! Like when people talk about how the buildings were "crushed" or how they found a passport on top of the pile of rubble or when they talk about the battery of anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon or how there was no blood at Shanksville. In fact correction is pretty much all I do.

As for consulting with wise people - I do have a bad habit of talking to myself.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You can't try to debunk that and not look ridiculous in the process. It won't cause the US government to ever reopen the case, and it won't force the media to stop being idiots about the obvious facts of the case, but it makes the case that the official conspiracy theory is a deliberate lie.

The problem in all of this is that a week after the 9/11 attacks, the same folks who attacked us with jet planes attacked the media and the Congress with Anthrax. They did it to shut down any investigation, and to announce to those with the power to expose the truth about the attacks, that no one spends 3 1/2 years engineering weapons-grade Anthrax for an attack, and only makes enough to sprinkle into a half-dozen envelops. The message was very clear. There's plenty more where that came from. As to what message followed that very public message, I'm sure that only a handful of media C-levels and high-level government bureaucrats could fill us in on that, but the rest of the media and the government immediately fell into line, so it had to have been a pretty compelling message.

Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar. There's a lot of that Anthrax waiting to be spread around in public if the media or the government ever moves on the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Sadly, that same gang of criminals has since made another run at our Treasury (in 2008), and likely has more such operations planned for the future. It's hard to stop when the pickings are so easy and so plentiful. Only problem is in restraining oneself, and not killing the golden-egg laying goose by being too greedy. India and China haven't developed into stable markets yet, so the scuttling effort is delayed for the time being.

Nice video, though. It makes the case, even if there's nothing that will ever be accomplished as a result of having done so.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.


I guess that means it's you - since you mention both of them!

Oh no - now it's me too - I did it as well! Look what you made me do - yo made me part of bothconspiracies by mentioning them together!!




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Christ. I'm surprised that these idiots are re-registering on this board and still tossing out this kind of trash as if this were still 2004 and there were still people interested in this issue who hadn't already realized that the official conspiracy theory is a complete retarded mess that'll never be anything other than a complete retarded mess.

It's like a goddamn time-warp in these threads. I did my time in this debate, and discovered that it's a complete waste of time. Take out the known perpetrators, and get as much interconnections information before doing so, and forget the idea that the government is ever going to get involved either way. The FBI knows what really happened. The Congress (in general) knows what really happened. The media sure as hell knows what really happened. Everyone knows what really happened. Take out the known perps, and play connect the dots. The official departments can't due to the Anthrax that's being dangled over the rest of us, but no one has any power over a patriotic citizenry.

Hell, even the US government never went after WikiLeaks over what it did. Ever wonder why?

Maybe what they're hoping for is a little help from the nation itself?

Or, you can crybaby about how terrible things will remain as long as the real 9/11 perps are out there having their way with everything you've built for yourself and your families. Your call.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.


I guess that means it's you - since you mention both of them!

Oh no - now it's me too - I did it as well! Look what you made me do - yo made me part of bothconspiracies by mentioning them together!!



This is the best you got?

Seriously?

Do you think it worked?

Y'know...they pay more for posts that actually attempt to debunk what a "truther" states as fact. You're like one of the geek tent OCT posters. Simple irritation and not much else. I bet your mom had higher aspirations for you. It's sad to see the lower rungs of that ladder your on. Pathetic stuff, but it's a tough economy, isn't it.

Well, you go along and have some fun. Long technical posts fetch the best word rate, and video links might even get you a small kicker if you're working for one of the marketing firms and not just trolling as a temp. They offered me a buck a word because I'm pretty good at effing with people, but then a buck a word is crap when you consider how much blood you have to ignore to work for those ghouls.

It must suck to be available for such cheap money.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





One final reply.

You said there would be resistance during the initial collapse, and of course their was. The buildings didn't start in free fall. The hit free fall when the amount of resistance the weakened floor below was negligible compared to the weight and momentum of the debris above.

If you drop a brick on an egg, is their resistance? Yep. Does it meaningfully slow down the brick? Go try it and report back.



Hahahahaha!



You realize that you just, in all seriousness, cited several examples of DEMOLITIONS?

The Balzac-Vitry example is actually is prime "truther" example precisely BECAUSE there is appreciable and readily observable deceleration at the initial impact, something not observed at the WTC.

The first example you cited is not even a complete collapse (you can see the remaining building just before the smoke completely obscures the view), demonstrating precisely what "truthers" are saying: Local failure =/= Global Collapse.

Finally, both of these examples demonstrate that thermite was more than sufficient to initiate collapse, there is no need for loud explosions.



Just who's side are you on?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.


I guess that means it's you - since you mention both of them!

Oh no - now it's me too - I did it as well! Look what you made me do - yo made me part of bothconspiracies by mentioning them together!!



This is the best you got?


No - but you seem immune to actual evidence, and it was at the same level as the post I repleid to so I figured you'd be able to understand it.


Seriously?

Do you think it worked?


I'm sure it must have - because it followed the same logic as your original conclusion that mentioning something makes you part of the conspiracy - or are you sayng that were not quite truthful when you wrote that?? Hmmm....??



Y'know...they pay more for posts that actually attempt to debunk what a "truther" states as fact.



cool - that's easy money then - where do I apply??


edit on 29-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
If you drop a brick on an egg, is their resistance? Yep. Does it meaningfully slow down the brick? Go try it and report back.


Here is your fundamental problem with the whole issue, it wasn't a brick dropping on an egg more like 15% of a brick falling on a whole brick, or 10% of an egg falling on a whole egg.

You go wrong when you try to equate two completely different objects, with massively different mass to each other, with 15 floors falling on 95 floors of the same construction.

It's not even close as an analogy for the resistance that should have been obvious.

I can tell you why there was no resistance, the majority of the mass was being removed, ejected, by an energy that has not been investigated for. That removal of floors was not just removing the resistance ahead of the collapse wave, it was removing the mass you require for the collapse to be caused by the mass of the floors.

We know the floors had to have been ejected during the collapse because otherwise we would see them stacked up in the footprint. You can't have the floors both cause a downward collapse, and be removed from the downward direction at the same time. At some point, if the floors stayed intact as they collided, they would have stopped as the floors built up in a pile, a stack of 'pancakes'. If they didn't crush when the collided then there is no other time for them to do that, as that would be the most force they received during the collapse.

You can easily prove me wrong, drop 2 concrete slabs on 8 concrete slabs, and see if the 2 slabs can crush the 8 to the height of the 2 slabs (20% mass falling on 80% mass, of ten floors). Scale it anyway you want, that's just a suggestion. Take note of where all the debris goes when they collide, also take note of whether the dropping floors stay intact while crushing the static floors. Go try some real science, you might learn something.

edit on 8/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo





new topics




 
172
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join