Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, page 19
Pages: <<  16    17    18    19  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 137 times


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 01:38 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by NWOwned
OMG, it's 2012, you're not all still going on about "Controlled Demolitions" and "Collapses" are you? Seriously?

At any rate, it's a new year and so I'm trying to look at 9/11 again with fresh eyes after taking Christmas off.

What occurs to me now is a thought, and that is, that the popular 'slips' of the tongues, i.e. "Pull it.", "Flight 93 shot down.", "Missile." were no such unconscious accidental slips at all!

Take Lucky Larry's infamous and much quoted/discussed "Pull it."

Let's say the towers were not Controlled Demolitions at all and that therefore looking for the evidence of it would prove futile. Why then that's perfect you see? You know it wasn't Controlled Explosives so you can throw in a Demolition term like "Pull it" 'by accident', by careless mistake etc. But, not really. It's perfect. No one is ever going to find any evidence of CD so if you let it 'slip' it just looks like that's what it REALLY was, when in fact it was no such thing... Clever, very clever. No?

I mean, why just assume it's a 'slip' (as everyone thus far has done AFAIK) and not that it was intentionally said?

Now you're going to ask me, "Well, if it wasn't Controlled Demolition, why try to indicate that (ultra cleverly) if the Official Story says 'Gravity Collapse'." Right? Why?

Why try to muddy it with a slip? A slip that clearly leads in the direction of CD?

How many of you think, or have ever even considered the possibility, that Lucky Larry said "Pull it" on purpose?


Cheers, and Happy New Year!



Oh, and the BBC's newsreader's foreknowledge that building 7 was coming down was also a slip of the tongue eh?! NOT!


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 01:46 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by malcr
reply to
post by TupacShakur

NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.

If there was a controlled explosion to remove the floors to allow for free fall then all the floors have to have been removed at the moment the building collapses correct? If so how can a controlled explosion remove all the floors without showing any "blow out" through windows. Not one single window on any floor shows any sign of their being an explosion on that floor. Unless we are asked to believe that the explosives used were able to remove concrete and steel structures.....quietly



There are many videos showing smoke blow-out, maybe you need to dig a bit deeper.



reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 01:59 PM by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero



I find this most amusing:

wow, 'proudbird' is trolling hard in this thread!


After reviewing the last half-dozen or so posts by 4hero.......

"Hello pot? This is kettle......how ya been doin'?"


And by the way.....when referring to the long-ago debunked "smoke" puffs, or other things that many seem to think indicate controlled demolition explosives, watch the videos of the collapse again, and much more carefully, and compare to actual controlled demolition video examples.

In the case of the WTC Towers, you will always see the "puffs" only after the initiation of the collapse. Not prior -- as is the case in observed planned demolitions. The "puffs" are ejecta due to the force of the air from inside the building, as it escapes ....it blows out windows, helter-skelter and haphazardly.

Oh, that's another hallmark of the chaos of the collapse, compared to a controlled demolition.

Also, you should know that the video that comprises the OP is a mess of lies, inconsistency and just plain poor "investigative" practice. It is the very, very small opinion and misconception of a tiny minority of people who stubbornly cling to this "CD" fantasy because they have, by now, invested so much effort into it, they have to tweak and twist and lie in order to keep it going, and to save face.

Look at this representative video of actual CD:



Note the marked differences, prior to the onset of collapse.

And, note that the person who posted this on YouTube is also ill-informed....making the same logical mistakes, based on the comments written:


The controlled demolition of Landmark Tower in North Texas provided a stark reminder that WTC Building 7 and the twin towers could not have been brought down by any other means than planned implosion.



In fact, the way the Twin Towers collapsed is the opposite of a "planned implosion"!! Debris was ejected chaotically, and went out in a large radius....exactly what is planned to NOT happen in a CD.

edit on Sun 22 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:05 PM by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero



OK....here's some detail for you. It also directly points out the LIES from the so-called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".



Don't be fooled by the shenanigans of "AE for 9/11 Truth".


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:22 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to
post by _BoneZ_


If a theory that the towers were explosively demoed is postulated, then the theory should contain possible ways it was done so as to test those possibilities.
I see you are still avoiding this and don't want to face up to the fact that no one in the truther movement is able to come up with even one possibility other than the usual hand waving and obfuscation, as you are doing. When pressed for details, it turns out that there aren't any. Apparently, either no one in the organizations promoting the idea of controlled demolition is competent enough to actually describe a possible method in detail or they realize that they really have no case. It appears as though there is no foundation for such a theory other than the beliefs of the deluded few.



Deluded few? Hahahaha! wow! just wow! I cannot put an exact figure on the amount of people that disbelieve the OS, but I live in the UK, and pretty much everyone I know disbelieves the OS!!!

If we knew exactly how they did it then we would be part of the conspiracy, because only those involved in this act of evil know how they pulled it off. They obviously planned it over a long period and took their time setting it up, they had Bush's realtion as head of security, so access was not an issue.

There were numerous motives and gains for the people involved. BTW, do you really think 4 planes could have been hijacked? Supposedly only 4 were hijacked, and only 4 were required for this 'job', what are the chances of all the 'terrorists' getting past security, and 4 planes being successfully hijacked by a few people with limited weapons!?! The mind boggles!

Oh, and then one of the terrorists passports were found blocks away in perfect condidtion! Explain that then debunkers! You cant, like many things in this thread that you cannot explain! The more disinfo you spout, the less believable the OS is!


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:27 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to
post by 4hero



OK....here's some detail for you. It also directly points out the LIES from the so-called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".



Don't be fooled by the shenanigans of "AE for 9/11 Truth".



That video is so full of BS! So what if someone got their 6's and 9's muddle up on one occasion! That proves nothing! I'm sure there are many other references by them with the correct timings. This is a very misleading video, but then it's supposed to be misleading isnt it!


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Reheat
Originally posted by 4hero
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to
post by Reheat



You will never throw people off because the evidence speaks for itself!


Well, I'm convinced. But, why are you the only one except for some of your "truther" buddies who think those are squibs? Again, where is your Pulitzer? That you don't have one must mean something. I think I know what it means, but you obviously don't have a clue what it means, do you? You have special insight that some of the world's most renowned Structural Engineers and Architects don't, huh? You know more than NIST, I see.... Yes, I am impressed.......NOT
edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 04:12 PM by ANOK
reply to post by Reheat



Are we here to debate, or just appeal to authority?

You expect us to take the word of NIST?

Hello! Do have any idea why we're having this discussion?

I'm getting a feeling the 911 forum is just where the lazy incessant debunkers gravitate too, because they never really put much effort into it, and whenever they run out of ammo they just appeal to the same questionable authority that the debate is all about in the first place. Lazy or dense, I can't make up my mind?



reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 04:21 PM by Reheat
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to
post by Reheat



Are we here to debate, or just appeal to authority?

You expect us to take the word of NIST?

Hello! Do have any idea why we're having this discussion?

I'm getting a feeling the 911 forum is just where the lazy incessant debunkers gravitate too, because they never really put much effort into it, and whenever they run out of ammo they just appeal to the same questionable authority that the debate is all about in the first place. Lazy or dense, I can't make up my mind?


There is no debate. You lost seveeral years back... All you have left is the same type of grumbling nonsense and your revealing that you don't understand how to apply physics.


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 05:19 PM by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero



So what if someone got their 6's and 9's muddle up on one occasion!


Is that all that you took away from that video??

Honestly?


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 08:49 AM by MarioOnTheFly
slightly off topic....

People lie...every day.
Governments are made up off people.
Governments lie every day. It has been proven number of times.
Presidents lie. Also proven number of times.

A lie is interwoven in our society. It is almost a normal thing. It's normal not to fully inform the public. Normal to feed the public info in order to gain support for popular issues.

Having this in mind...I don't trust your/mine or any government. It is not here to give you the truth, it here to rule a group of people (nation). There a number of reasons to enter politics, and the most rare of which is, to help people, to justly rule. That's a fairytale. People get in to politics to become rich, or to become richer, or to be more powerful than they already are. All other motives are slowly consumed by the machinery.

It is a well known fact that certain members of a society profit from wars. They play both fields. Sell arms to your army, that sell it to the opposing army. They serve only themselves. Some of those people buy off senators, and congressmen, government officials, agents...to promote their profit mongering.

This is not wild speculation. It has happened before, and it will always happen.

So, having calculated the immense impact of the event. A global impact...you would trust the OS?

Why? Because surely they are not lying this time...this time it's different. As it is every other time...


I don't have proof of 9/11 conspiracy...I don't need it...I do have my common sense to accept the possibility of a cover up...because there is a clear motive to do so, and a hard undeniable fact the president at the time, is...was...and will be a liar (fact). That same man was a busyness partner of a man who is a prime suspect for the attack (fact).

All i'm saying...it stinks. You people of America should be voicing loudly...


reply posted on 28-1-2012 @ 06:14 AM by scrounger
I have read alot of the structural failure of tower 1 and 2 and have noticed something that seems to have slipped past almost unnoticed. Even here.

In the first WTC attack the terrorist used a truck bomb planted in the sub level parking garage.

What I remember is that the crater was (and I may be a little off) at least 3 levels deep and very large across.

Now why do I remember this and view it as important?

The devistation at possibly one of the buildings weak point with no collapse.

Lets look at this example.

Take refrigerator Perry from the 1986 bears (yes I know people are not steel buildings but bear with me). He was a very big and stout guy. I am no slouch at 6'2" 220. But even if I wind up and hit him square in the chest with my fist it would be unlikely to knock him over.

Now even taking 2/3 that force if I hit him in the side of the knee hes going down like a sack of potato's.

Now where this causes me to question the official report is we had a bomb that went off near the buildings main supports in the underground parking garage. The pictures showed one heck of a big and deep crater caused by it.
The building did not even show any loss of structural integrity (that we know of).

Now here comes a plain that is not much bigger or much more fuel that a 707. A plane the builders "guarentee" it could take. Then both towers fell to just one strike from the 737.

Suspicious to say the least.

IMO I think there is a conspiracy. But not what others think.

I think the building in some way was flawed. Either the diesigners were decieving us that it was designed the way they said. Or more tragic it was never built to their specifications. Where short cuts in inspections, or outright non -compliance to plans were done.

Unless "say a plane" hit it no one would know the truth.

Just an idea
Pages: <<  16    17    18    19  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 14 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 5 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 10 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 18 days ago with 13 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 10 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Propaganda Archive
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags