It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 3
18
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Mickles
I'm not saying that explosives were used but was just looking for a plausible answer. Also you said it would have been obvious if explosives were used, well what about what the firefighters and news reporters who stated they heard loud booms just before and during collapse? Just looking for your thoughts as I am somewhat new to all of this.

Well the firefighter accounts are difficult to know what they're referring to. There are definitely firefighters who mention explosions, but these refer to events even including bodies of jumpers hitting the ground.

I'm more taking issue with assigning the 'perimeter panels were ejected' to explosives. We can easily do some calculations here, a 4000kg panel at 20m/s (reasonable values) has energy E=0.5mv² so E=2000*20² or E=2000*400, so we know it has E=800KJ of kinetic energy.

Now, lets assume a perfect explosion where it puts a full 50% of its energy into accelerating a panel. We know that the explosive release must have been 1.6MJ in that case.This is per perimeter wall section.

If we then assume there were only say 20 of these explosives on a level, then we know we have to detonate about 32MJ worth of explosives at the extreme minimum. This is almost 10kg of TNT equivalent per level. NIST did the calculations for this in the WTC7 report and with less explosive than we're talking here a single detonation should have been as loud as a gunshot up to 1km away. The videos of the collapse don't have anything remotely like this on, and we also don't see any high speed shockwaves or other indicators of detonation.

It doesn't make any sense at all. Why would someone go to all of this trouble to hide a demolition, but then use extremely loud and obvious explosives. If they were going to take the building down there are much saner attack methods. This is in extension to my above post as it seems common for people to assign suspicion to every element and then use that suspicion to doubt any explanations.

I hope we can come to a good agreement on what any shadowy conspirators would want to achieve, I don't think they had any need to put such huge explosives in place (nor any practical way to do it!)

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by easybreezy
depends on what kind were used, watch the video i put up ffs it explains all!!!!!!!!!

other wise stfu you know nothing because you have not done the research

I've been researching 911 for over 6 years at this point. Explosives are not magical. They make loud booms or they don't explode, the very mechanism of exploding is what creates the boom, they are inherently connected.

Dave has yet to disprove that there are martians living in my sock drawer. Doesn't mean that there are any!

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:25 PM
Splitting hairs again eh Dave?

Lie number 1: Conspiracy theorists claim there were no fires in the towers

I could go on but meh...

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by hdutton

You seem educated, so you must be right about the concrete.

Hah, I wish it was that simple. The majority of floors in the WTC were framed this way though, it's very public knowledge.

There was a lot of 'moment" in the upper floors. I watched them fall so fast, it was like the floors below them were not even there. They started down and didn't even slack up. All those concrete slaps were just not enough to slow them down.

Actually you'd be surprised. The rate of acceleration of the WTCs top sections was determined to be 2/3g and 3/4g in WTC2 and 1 respectively. This was calculated by a 'truth forum' and I can point you to them if you like.

As a result we know that the bottom sections absorbed the energy of 1/3g and 1/4g acceleration. This is a lot of energy in the towers, as the top sections weighed tens of thousands of tons and dropped over a full floor directly onto the weaker floor sections.

But I still don't know about the "sulfidation" of the steel found in the rubble. If the gypsum board was the only material which could have contained sulfur, and the gypsum board does not burn, how did this occur ?
edit on 22-6-2012 by hdutton because: (no reason given)

The suspected mechanism for this is that other objects were burning (carpet, desks, paper etc) and heated the gypsum up to the level where it broke down chemically. This released some sulphur and it attacked the steel because of the heat and layout of the debris.

What most conspiracy sites won't tell you is that NIST did analyse a second piece of this steel, and discovered that it originated from around the 50th level of the towers, and could only have sustained the damage it did while horizontal (ie post-collapse). It's clear as well from the research that this is a fairly slow attack, and would have taken hours to 'whittle' its way through the beam.

I hope that answers any questions, feel free to ask any more or tell me I'm wrong

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:27 PM

Many conspiracy sources (First Loose Change for an example) claim the fires were 'burning out' and were at very low temperatures because of the black smoke.

It seems reasonable to want to debunk this.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM

dude watch the video i put up, i think you will find that your reasons for beveling the OS has been debunked ...
or is there something stopping you from being able to physically view it

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by easybreezy

dude watch the video i put up, i think you will find that your reasons for beveling the OS has been debunked ...
or is there something stopping you from being able to physically view it

AE911truth don't really do any 'debunking'. The reason I can't view it at the moment is that it's 2 hours long and just repeats all of the same claims they've been making for years.

If it convinced you, you were already convinced. If you're not already convinced, it's unlikely to convince you.

Do you have anything specific you want to talk about? Or do you expect me to debunk 2 hours worth of video in a single post?

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:47 PM

id like you to cite key points that make you anymore right then there massive team of professionals. that show more than a few points to there argument, extensively explain how the OS inst what it is cracked up to be.
followed by more points that further there argument, debunked your explosive use copper argument with hard evidence. shall i continue?? or will you dig your own hole further
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:49 PM
Ah.. what ol Dave is doing here is just creating noise.. Noise to drown out what really happened on that day. The general populance has been fed that some terrorists flew planes into building and that was offically what caused all the distruction. So nothing more to see just move on with your lives.

The reality is that 4 major things points to this not being a planned terroist attack -

1. The twin towers should never have fallen.
2. A crashed plane does not get fully swallowed up by the ground.
3. A plume of smoke does not break the Pentegon.
4. WTC 7 should not fall at free fall speed due to fires.

How most people do not connect these points is a white wash investigation and a complicit media who intrests was America going to war. Its that simple and the majority of the poor American people have bought it,

Theres nothing Good about Good Ol Dave. A heavy object does not crush down on itself if you take away
a few beams... Especially a well built building.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:53 PM

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by easybreezy
depends on what kind were used, watch the video i put up ffs it explains all!!!!!!!!!

other wise stfu you know nothing because you have not done the research

I've been researching 911 for over 6 years at this point. Explosives are not magical. They make loud booms or they don't explode, the very mechanism of exploding is what creates the boom, they are inherently connected.

Dave has yet to disprove that there are martians living in my sock drawer. Doesn't mean that there are any!

in the video there is plenty of evidence regarding explosions in the video.. these tactics of putting your fingers in your ears and going nanana will only get you so far.
......

dave wont even attempt to find flaw,
either will you..
........................................
BTW ya programmers need to start coming up with different anecdotes, sticks out like a sore thumb
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:17 PM

Originally posted by easybreezy
id like you to cite key points that make you anymore right then there massive team of professionals. that show more than a few points to there argument, extensively explain how the OS inst what it is cracked up to be.
followed by more points that further there argument, debunked your explosive use copper argument with hard evidence. shall i continue?? or will you dig your own hole further
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

Nobody is 'digging a hole' here. You posted a 2 hour video and expect me to go over every single point and debunk them 'extensively' for what motivation?

If you want to discuss a specific point, I will do, but I'm not about to bother with the same claims they've been making since before they even had many signatories.

in the video there is plenty of evidence regarding explosions in the video.. these tactics of putting your fingers in your ears and going nanana will only get you so far.

The irony here is palpable. Have you read the NIST report in full?

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:22 PM
The fact that people still accept the official story, tells you exactly how the unofficial story can happen so easily. Thinking is overrated, though.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by AzureSky

Originally posted by forall2see

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the upper section of the south tower actually toppled over and fell down approximately at a 45 degree angle while dramatically caving inward.

Looks more like a 20 (ish) degree tip to me.

I can see a bit of a collapse and the kinetic energy applied through the plane making it tip this way, but... it still doesn't explain how the entire building below it became a pile of rubble.

It just doesn't make sense.

It might not if you dont understand the forces of a collapse look here

www.nmsr.org...

A little video from the site to explain a DYNAMIC load.

The floor height of the twin towers was 12ft when the collapse started you had all the mass above the collapse drop it would reach 19mph in that 12 ft drop which in turn creates a massive dynamic load the buildings were doomed from that point!

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by exponent

Many conspiracy sources (First Loose Change for an example) claim the fires were 'burning out' and were at very low temperatures because of the black smoke.

It seems reasonable to want to debunk this.

Ah they were 'burning out' now were they? Yea I coulda sworn Dave said 'truthers claim there were NO fires' in his OP. Somebodies not telling the truth (or should I say spreading disinfo) here.

Looks like someone needs to be sent back for reprogramming..

edit on 22-6-2012 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:48 PM

how about this you put forth what point you are trying to make, and ill smash it to bits, with correct information

come at me bro

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:52 PM

I'd LOL it it weren't so tragic. That's conclusive? It's what we've seen for the last decade. It's what we've been debating. Steel frame structures don't collapse from fires. In many cases, it's the reason steel is used.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:00 PM

yes ignore the fact it continued to gain speed at free fall rate, as if the lower floors were not there, energy meeting resistance looses energy duh, so it should of taken alot longer to fall and even possibly stop due to the age old rule of path of least resistance
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by exponent

Many conspiracy sources (First Loose Change for an example) claim the fires were 'burning out' and were at very low temperatures because of the black smoke.

It seems reasonable to want to debunk this.

Ah they were 'burning out' now were they? Yea I coulda sworn Dave said 'truthers claim there were NO fires' in his OP. Somebodies not telling the truth (or should I say spreading disinfo) here.

Looks like someone needs to be sent back for reprogramming..

edit on 22-6-2012 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)

You're arguing semantics now. It's well known that the truth movement claims that the fires were not very hot or almost out at the time of collapse. This is directly disprovable, hence Dave's post.

I find the fact that the conspiracy folk in this thread aren't even arguing points to be telling. Nobody is trying to say Dave is lying. They are just attacking his character and making generalizations about "Official Story Supporters."

When the conspiracy theorists actually learn the topic and argue the points using evidence and supportable theories, the movement will pick up momentum. Playing the blame game and accusing everyone of diverting the movement is going to get you guys nowhere.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by easybreezy

yes ignore the fact it continued to gain speed at free fall rate, as if the lower floors were not there, energy meeting resistance looses energy duh

That's a lie. The towers have been conclusively proven to have fallen at slower than free-fall. I'll not have lies from you guys now.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM

he started it by making the mistake that it even matters that the fires were even lit or not, as all other evidence has superseded it.
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

top topics

18