New Series - Debunking the Debunkers - Chapter 1 - WTC Demolition Explained

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Hello Guys,

I just came across this video. This video is using the newly released video of 911 (FOIA requests) to create a working theory on how the trade center towers 1 & 2 were demolished using audio and video evidence of eyewitnesses and actual collapse videos.



/discuss!




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This is my take on this video...

Very possible that the demolitions of the WTC towers were carried out in a way such as the author of the video explains. take 20 minutes out of your day and give this video a try. hopefully it will open your eyes to the 9/11 was an inside job theory.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Have you seen the videos from the 2011 conference in Toronto. Very interesting to say the least. I was going to search for debunking videos today and look at the reasons and now I come on and see this posted. Just what I was looking for thanks. I am going to watch this later tonight and I will come back and give a review.

Check out this thread if you are interested in the Toronto videos. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


"Possible" is not proof.
10 years an still no proof of a conspiracy. It's just a witch hunt.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Hello Guys,

I just came across this video. This video is using the newly released video of 911 (FOIA requests) to create a working theory on how the trade center towers 1 & 2 were demolished using cherry pickedaudio and video evidence of eyewitnesses and actual collapse videos.




I fixed that for you.

Thank you,

Six Sigma



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Cherry picking? Have YOU gone through all of the FOIA releases that support YOUR version of events?

Also... please do not misquote me. If you cant handle the truth of this conspiracy in general... go find another forum!



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 



I gave up at 1:35 the first thing that they begin with is a theory that loads of bombs in big cases were planted near the core columns by a team (of ninjas lets say), immediately before the impacts. The problem with this theory, like most of those concerning demolitions is the utter abscence of evidence in support. Not even a basic discussion to point any testimony nor other supporting evidence. Then they moved on to Richard Gage. He's a charlatan.

It's a pure excercize in conjecture. The authors of the video also insert sound effects on top of video of the collapses without mentioning it. I feel this is a dishonest practice



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


You miss the point. Everything doesn't have to be 'evidence' to make a point.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


In the beginning of the video it asks would you run out of your office if you saw 1 or 2 of these things in your room or basically some thing like that.

No I would not.

I would walk up to it and ask, " Who brought in the goodies for us"? Is it snacks or some kind of treats? maybe some cold refreshments in this odd looking cooler?

The problem is that the vast majority of the people escaped the towers alive that day and I have yet to hear one single one of them comment about some odd looking boxes that mysteriously appeared in their office that day.

This continual grasping at straws is becoming more and more ridiculous with each passing year.

edit on 4/18/2012 by Classified Info because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
My biggest issue with the "Truth" Movement is this dependency on cherry-picked quotes, quotes taken out of context, and twisted quotes. As soon as I started watching this video, I had to stop once the "eyewitness accounts" came up. It's the same crap from Loose Change, Sept. Clues, and all the other "Truth" videos. Quotes out of context. Cherry-picked quotes. Etc.

I knew something was up when I decided to go and actually read or listen to the actual entire quote or comment, and see how much the "Truthers" decided to leave out, so that what the person said, is only 10% of what they actually said.

This video is just a rehash of the same junk that was debunked before, just with snazzier new graphics, and newly reworded and twisted accounts, to make it look like "NEW" evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info

The problem is that the vast majority of the people escaped the towers alive that day and I have yet to hear one single one of them comment about some odd looking boxes that mysteriously appeared in their office that day.

This continual grasping at straws is becoming more and more ridiculous with each passing year.



Hear, Hear.
Well said.

I'd like to add that the title of the video is misleading, and does not much deal with debunkers/ skeptics at all.

ANOK: sure not everything has to be evidence to make a point. But when people present a theory of the crime, more than conjecture is in order.
edit on 4/18/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028

Cherry picking? Have YOU gone through all of the FOIA releases that support YOUR version of events?

Also... please do not misquote me. If you cant handle the truth of this conspiracy in general... go find another forum!


My version? What are you talking about? Are you saying you only read FOIA releases that somehow support your ridiculous conspiracy theory? LMFAO...

Oh... your video was removed BTW. In that video, there were explosions added prior to the tower collapse. In the post above it's at the 7:05 mark. Watch the video below that shows this.

www.youtube.com...

I didn't miss quote you.... I fixed it for you so that it would be more "truth"- ful.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


This in my opinion is one of the smoking guns of 9/11.

WTC North Tower fallling in its own footprint
in a controlled demolition, spewing a pyroclastic dust cloud.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDujhl2OsQ



WTC South Tower falling in its footprint, in a controlled demolition.


www.youtube.com...

And here is WT7 falling in its footprint, in a controlled demolition.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



WTC North Tower fallling in its own footprint

None of the buildings fell in their own footprints. None.

in a controlled demolition, spewing a pyroclastic dust cloud.

It was just a cloud of dust, it was not pyroclastic. Had it been pyroclastic there would have been tens of thousands of dead.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Plainly the Towers didn't fall in their own footprint because the whole WTC site and adjacent off-site buildings were damaged or destroyed.

What is your assertion of cd's worth as against qualified professionals ( i.e NIST ) ?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Hello Guys,

I just came across this video. This video is using the newly released video of 911 (FOIA requests) to create a working theory on how the trade center towers 1 & 2 were demolished using audio and video evidence of eyewitnesses and actual collapse videos.



/discuss!



Frankly,
the supposed investigation that supposedly took place that supposedly closed the case should have unsealed all of the incontrovertible evidence presented in the supposed investigation that sealed the deal -that it was a majority of Saudi nationals who committed their lives to the 9-11 cause?

Evidence was confiscated, not investigated. Everything pertaining to 9-11 has been buried in rhetoric.
If Saudis did this, why are we still rubbing elbows?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by burntheships
 


Plainly the Towers didn't fall in their own footprint because the whole WTC site and adjacent off-site buildings were damaged or destroyed.

What is your assertion of cd's worth as against qualified professionals ( i.e NIST ) ?



Were they qualified in Controlled Demolitions ?? Or planes hitting buildings ??

Your own laughable logic owns you.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by burntheships
 


Plainly the Towers didn't fall in their own footprint because the whole WTC site and adjacent off-site buildings were damaged or destroyed.

What is your assertion of cd's worth as against qualified professionals ( i.e NIST ) ?



Were they qualified in Controlled Demolitions ?? Or planes hitting buildings ??

Your own laughable logic owns you.


Well this is what a demolition expert, Mark Loizeaux, thinks about cd at the WTC :-

www.youtube.com...

There don't seem to be too many "planes hitting buildings " specialists in the phone book.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by burntheships
 


Plainly the Towers didn't fall in their own footprint because the whole WTC site and adjacent off-site buildings were damaged or destroyed.

What is your assertion of cd's worth as against qualified professionals ( i.e NIST ) ?



Were they qualified in Controlled Demolitions ?? Or planes hitting buildings ??

Your own laughable logic owns you.


Well this is what a demolition expert, Mark Loizeaux, thinks about cd at the WTC :-

www.youtube.com...

There don't seem to be too many "planes hitting buildings " specialists in the phone book.


Ofcourse you're not going to find them in the phone book, you might find them here though.

E. Objectives.
1) ATC operational errors are reportable but are not investigated by AFS. However, there may be cases when an ASI is investigating a pilot error and discovers the error was made by ATC or was the result of a coordination error between ATC centers. If this should be the case, contact one of the navigation specialists for guidance (paragraph 7-90).

2) Successful completion of this task results in the closing of an error investigation or verification of authorization for operation in the oceanic SAO and with reporting the results in the Air Traffic Quality Assurance (ATQA) database and in Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS). In coordination with a navigation specialist, the inspector should recommend action to prevent future errors, such as equipment replacement, remedial training or counseling. Reporting the cause of the error on the appropriate form(s) is very important. It is the cause of the error that helps determine trends, training deficiencies, etc.

3) Completion of these tasks may require a cooperative effort between certificate management offices (CMO), FSDOs, International Field Offices (IFO), certificate-holding district offices (CHDO), navigation specialists, maintenance inspectors and avionics inspectors.

4) Although oceanic error investigations are not intended to be enforcement actions, they can result in enforcement, if the Enforcement Decision Tool (EDT) indicates an Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) is warranted. If an EIR is necessary, the inspector will initiate and complete the report according to FAA Order 2150.3.


One more source





top topics
 
10

log in

join