WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
i first turned on the footage before i read your post, and i was really surprised to see you arguing for it being a natural occurrence, Dave. i wonder what would be a good approach to speak about these broad ideas of how the towers traveled to the ground. it appears as if the moment we start to identify a specific point, we all lose sight of what's right in front of our eyes.

i see two things here that stand as general rules of thumb. first, it all came down as dust. i happened to notice that a lot of the footage doesn't show the scene when the smoke clears. there was nothing left in comparison to what was standing. the bits and pieces that remained were hauled off and discarded before anyone could truly investigate the crime scene. more importantly, even if the direction of the collapses weren't linear (and especially if they weren't!), the path of destruction was. if the top truly fell over at an angle, the bottom 40+ floors would be left intact. it's simple physics. steel buildings don't collapse this way. if i am wrong about this, then i would easily be able to be shown many other examples of building collapse akin to the three fallen towers. i would love to see this footage, so if anyone can dig this up, it would be a very eye opening demonstration.

the second is a lot shorter and to the point - world trade center 7. i don't know if i have to say much more than that. no planes, minimal office fires at worst, and yet it had the cleanest and most "linear" freefall of them all.

such physical instances weigh infinitely more than argumentation - all efforts should be appointed towards evidence and investigation.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by facedye
 


Sorry BUT it didn't all come down as dust!!!!!



Another set of pictures

Look at 2 and 3 what do you see.

www.stevespak.com...

Re the south tower collapse the top levels dropped and swung in you can see it on the videos and it's strange you dont seem to notice it failed like the North Tower at the plane impact point.

As for WTC 7 you haven't looked hard enough

Quote from firemen on the seen


Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.


You can see here why that side was damaged.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by facedye
 


Sorry BUT it didn't all come down as dust!!!!!



Another set of pictures

Look at 2 and 3 what do you see.

www.stevespak.com...

Re the south tower collapse the top levels dropped and swung in you can see it on the videos and it's strange you dont seem to notice it failed like the North Tower at the plane impact point.

As for WTC 7 you haven't looked hard enough

Quote from firemen on the seen


Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.


You can see here why that side was damaged.



Maybe YOU will have the intestinal fortitude to respond to this?

Everyone else is ignoring it.

merln.ndu.edu...

George W. Bush, September 15, 2006:


"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
edit on 6-7-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Why is 9/11 the demolition exception?


Because they wanted to fool you, and they succeeded it seems.

The 911 demolitions can not in any way on this Earth be described as normal demolitions.

You could in theory cause a building to collapse over a period of hours depending on the placement and timing of the explosives. Obviously normally that wouldn't be what you'd want.

It's really silly to try to dismiss the obvious because it doesn't fit exactly your preconceived ideas.


Excuse me, but what the heck is this?

The whole damn conspiracy theory rides on the assertion that there were explosions, and that the building came down like a demolition.

Now, you're telling me that the issues that make it decidedly NOT like a demolition... make it a demolition by exclusion? That makes NO sense!

You say I'm dismissing the obvious, but you're the one who is ignoring all the gaping holes in your belief. You are not allowed to simply make up stuff and expect me to accept it as if you were some all-knowing deity. I give both the OS and the Conspiracy Theories the same chance at proving their point. The OS uses observed evidence while the Conspiracy Theories use imagined evidence. THAT is the problem here.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
As if Bush's neanderthal logic isn't enough (the higher up the explosives were, the more people would be trapped....maybe they should have just put them on the top floor, that would kill everybody
.... and then we would get to see one collapsing floor pile-drive the whole building
.....

The Spire Proves Demolition

edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The Spire Proves Demolition

edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, are you advocating that the towers were demolished by mini nuclear weapons??!

If so, then that's just hilarious and I don't think anyone even needs to address it. Leaving aside the fact that these weapons don't exist, how could they be vapourising everything but steel (despite the fact that this makes no sense as well) but leave firefighters intact at the base of the towers? You realise that people survived there right?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I'm sorry, are you advocating that the towers were demolished by mini nuclear weapons??!


Oh no no no, it was jet fuel that vaporized the steel. Remember?


Nobody falls for your obfuscating crap. I have stated repeatedly that I don't know what did it. But if you think mini-nukes don't exist, you are beyond help. What the hell do you think took out all those kids in the Bali blast?
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
This is a deliberately misleading thread OP, but it also give people the opportunity to expose that fact, and to present truthful evidence to cancel the objective of this thread out.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by exponent

I'm sorry, are you advocating that the towers were demolished by mini nuclear weapons??!


Oh no no no, it was jet fuel that vaporized the steel. Remember?


Nobody falls for your obfuscating crap. I have stated repeatedly that I don't know what did it. But if you think mini-nukes don't exist, you are beyond help. What the hell do you think took out all those kids in the Bali blast?
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


The steel wasn't vaporized...

This is why nobody respects your views.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oh no no no, it was jet fuel that vaporized the steel. Remember?


Nobody falls for your obfuscating crap. I have stated repeatedly that I don't know what did it. But if you think mini-nukes don't exist, you are beyond help. What the hell do you think took out all those kids in the Bali blast?
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Only truthers claim that 'jet fuel vapourised steel'. It's never been part of any official story, but I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference.

Your fantasies about exotic weapons show how little attention you pay to reality. The idea that nuclear weapons can be set off anywhere in the world without detection especially. You realise just how sensitive radiation monitoring is right?

(This is where you claim it's actually a fusion device and undetectable by every means, somehow!)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mickles
 


This is quite common with most building collapses and dare I say it explosions however when we are talking about two massive structures such as the World Trade Center's chunks of metal and other materials are bound to fly off in all different parts especially when the towers collapsed from such a great height.

I really don't think 9/11 was an inside job and I do tend to keep away from this forum due to flamming from other members. But, I will say this: to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job is disrespectful to all the families of those that sadly perished on that day. I have watched various videos, most of them clearly doctored to try and strengthen the arguments of the conspiracy theorists that show no proof whatsoever that 9/11 was indeed an "inside job".

Nonetheless I do keep an open mind so if anyone is able to direct me to fully sourced videos and websites I will more than happy to cut my losses and apologise.
edit on 6-7-2012 by ProfessorT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by facedye
 


Sorry BUT it didn't all come down as dust!!!!!



Another set of pictures

Look at 2 and 3 what do you see.

www.stevespak.com...

Re the south tower collapse the top levels dropped and swung in you can see it on the videos and it's strange you dont seem to notice it failed like the North Tower at the plane impact point.

As for WTC 7 you haven't looked hard enough

Quote from firemen on the seen


Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.


You can see here why that side was damaged.



wmd, it appears as if you've misunderstood what i have tried to convey, or that you are trying to sideswipe the point altogether. the pictures you showed me were of the ground level. this has nothing to do with what i was talking about. if you mean to put up these pictures to show that there was actual debris instead of pulverized matter on ground level, i find that kind of shifty - of course there will be debris on ground level, regardless of how it was brought down. this does nothing to serve or take away from what i was saying.

i will try to make myself as straight forward as possible - they CAME DOWN as dust. as the buildings traveled to the ground, not only were they meeting no resistance whatsoever from the floors below, but they were ejecting huge white clouds of smoke floor by floor. where is the office equipment? where are the desks, tables, chairs, half burned bodies, carpets, elevators, computers? this is hopefully the clarification that can work. AS they came down, they pulverized everything on the way there. showing me a picture of debris and a few BENT (!) steel beams won't do much against a conversation about how they traveled, not how the ground looked afterwards. i hope i'm being clear here, let me know if i'm stirring more confusion.

have you taken any introductory physics courses, by the way? i've had the opportunity of having all of these insights before taking a physics class myself. through conversations with my professors and study of the science, it was very easy to see how two planes can't eviscerate two buildings into dust. two planes also cannot make a building come down in 9 seconds (which is the accurate freefall speed of an object dropping from that height without any resistance below it). this is important, because when an object meets no resistance, it just picks up speed as it travels downward with gravity. if the towers "pancaked," they would have either both been partially standing, or it would have taken MUCH longer for them to... disappear.

it's very simple, really. if the planes hit the towers, and the tops of the towers fell over on an angle, you'd have most of the towers still standing. this is, dare i say, a mathematical certainty with all measurements considered.

same thing goes for world trade center 7. if there was as you say a 20 foot hole on one side, and that side gave way to the rest of the building, it would have toppled over. it would not have come straight down.

relevant: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Your fantasies about exotic weapons show how little attention you pay to reality. The idea that nuclear weapons can be set off anywhere in the world without detection especially. You realise just how sensitive radiation monitoring is right?

(This is where you claim it's actually a fusion device and undetectable by every means, somehow!)


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not privy to the Pentagon's latest toys, But as for the radiation, the jury is still out on that one. You can decide for yourself:

The Nuclear Scare Scam | Galen Winsor

www.youtube.com...#!
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
This is why nobody respects your views.


Doing a little mind reading of the entire readership of this site are we?

Holy cow there is no limit to how you will embarrass yourself.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
What the hell do you think took out all those kids in the Bali blast?


A non nuclear bomb, of course


The bomb The Mitsubishi L300 van bomb was initially thought to have consisted of C4, a military grade plastic explosive which is difficult to obtain. However, investigators discovered the bomb was made from potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, and sulfur. For the Sari club bomb with the L300 van, the terrorists assembled 12 plastic filing cabinets filled with explosives. The cabinets, each containing a potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, sulfur mixture with a TNT booster, was connected by 150 metres (490 ft) of PETN-filled detonating cord. Ninety-four RDX electric detonators were fitted to the TNT. The total weight of the van bomb was 2,250 pounds (1,020 kg).[12] The large, high-temperature blast damage produced by this mixture was similar to a thermobaric explosive,[13] although the bombers may not have known this.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

Why do you think it was a mini nuclear weapon?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 





The perimeter wall held half the load?


Anyone who says this is just stupid. The perimeter curtain wall is structured to capture the glass facade of the building only. It does absolutely nothing in the way of structural support. 0.
Architectural aluminum extrusions with no load bearing capacity. Period.

Google curtain wall.
edit on 6-7-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So you are saying that terrorists using explosives, obtained from the pentagon, wired the 3 buildings to come down?

If your answer is yes then my question is.........were the terrorists who wired the buildings the same terrorists who hijacked the planes?


No, I'm saying that conventional explosives normally used in controlled demolitions including thermite/thermate cannot explain the type of destruction we saw. There were exotic weapons used that we cannot pinpoint exactly what they are simply because they are covert black-ops that the Pentagon has in its possession.

Bush admitted in the 2006 speech that the buildings had explosives in them and said that it was due to operatives [getting into the building to do this at some point prior to 911]. What I am saying is that the "terrorists" could not have had access to the type of technology that caused the pulverization of steel and concrete and the toasted cars and all the other anomalies, meaning that this was completely and totally an inside job carried out by a rogue faction within the US Government.

As for the terrorists, I don't believe that there were 19 hijackers that hijacked the planes. That's simply the story we've been told by the actual perps.


So you are saying that operatives of a rogue faction in US government planted exotic weapons, which nobody knows what they are because they are covert black ops pentagon issued, to take down the towers shortly after terrorist hijackers flew commercial airplanes into them. Am I understanding you correctly?

You also brought up your opinion that there werent 19 hijackers, and that the "parties responsible" want us to believe that there were 19. I don't understand the signifigance of there being 19 or any other number of hijackers. Please enlighten me.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
What the hell do you think took out all those kids in the Bali blast?


A non nuclear bomb, of course


The bomb The Mitsubishi L300 van bomb was initially thought to have consisted of C4, a military grade plastic explosive which is difficult to obtain. However, investigators discovered the bomb was made from potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, and sulfur. For the Sari club bomb with the L300 van, the terrorists assembled 12 plastic filing cabinets filled with explosives. The cabinets, each containing a potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, sulfur mixture with a TNT booster, was connected by 150 metres (490 ft) of PETN-filled detonating cord. Ninety-four RDX electric detonators were fitted to the TNT. The total weight of the van bomb was 2,250 pounds (1,020 kg).[12] The large, high-temperature blast damage produced by this mixture was similar to a thermobaric explosive,[13] although the bombers may not have known this.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

Why do you think it was a mini nuclear weapon?


Wikipedia?

Please.

Dig deeper.

I'm not derailing this thread. Start another one.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So you are saying that terrorists using explosives, obtained from the pentagon, wired the 3 buildings to come down?

If your answer is yes then my question is.........were the terrorists who wired the buildings the same terrorists who hijacked the planes?


No, I'm saying that conventional explosives normally used in controlled demolitions including thermite/thermate cannot explain the type of destruction we saw. There were exotic weapons used that we cannot pinpoint exactly what they are simply because they are covert black-ops that the Pentagon has in its possession.

Bush admitted in the 2006 speech that the buildings had explosives in them and said that it was due to operatives [getting into the building to do this at some point prior to 911]. What I am saying is that the "terrorists" could not have had access to the type of technology that caused the pulverization of steel and concrete and the toasted cars and all the other anomalies, meaning that this was completely and totally an inside job carried out by a rogue faction within the US Government.

As for the terrorists, I don't believe that there were 19 hijackers that hijacked the planes. That's simply the story we've been told by the actual perps.


So you are saying that operatives of a rogue faction in US government planted exotic weapons, which nobody knows what they are because they are covert black ops pentagon issued, to take down the towers shortly after terrorist hijackers flew commercial airplanes into them. Am I understanding you correctly?

You also brought up your opinion that there werent 19 hijackers, and that the "parties responsible" want us to believe that there were 19. I don't understand the signifigance of there being 19 or any other number of hijackers. Please enlighten me.


I don't mean to chime in on this conversation intrusively, but it seems to me like you're really in disbelief that things can really happen this way, therefore you are skeptical. it would be hard to get to the facts of the matter if we are in disbelief about them before we can examine them, no?

also, it is not an opinion that there weren't 19 hijackers. there actually weren't 19 hijackers. a good number of them have been found alive doing unrelated things in different parts of the world.

news.bbc.co.uk...

strange days, indeed.






top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join