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

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sf18443
I would suggest any truther or person falling for this truther nonsense to please read the information at the following:

Author: Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...

Anytime I see someone spouting this nonsense, I like to throw some facts at them.

Thank you. Good read from a common sense and technical point of view. The amazing thing is how easy it is to bring down a building. When I was a kid I had a set of "blocks". I think most kids tried to build a building as tall as they could... its not rocket science to bring down a building. Controlled demo experts on the internet haven't a clue how to build or destroy a building. I guess they never had "blocks" as a kid.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Thats one hell of a "footprint".



Just look at all that "symmetry". Its nearly perfectly everywhere.



And the actual "footprints". Compare those 2 little things with the size of the area around them.



Controlled, huh? Nearly perfect, Imploded, Symetrical, "Footy prints"?



You guys crack me up.

Oh, and don't forget to tell these guys to confess about all the firing train demolition materials they were finding in the rubble. They lost buddies there. You think they wouldn't come forward about that?

Between you and me, I wouldn't ask that to their face unless you want yours rearranged.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sf18443
I would suggest any truther or person falling for this truther nonsense to please read the information at the following:

Author: Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...

Anytime I see someone spouting this nonsense, I like to throw some facts at them.



The funny thing this mthe site isn't even an official UW-Green Bay site. I wonder why? Not a single thing Dutch produced is a fact. All assumptions. No facts. What you should do is copy 'n paste my signature and email it to him to debunk.


Have fun





posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
An excellent assessment. Assuming any ability to differenciate, comparing a deliberate demolition video, there is no explosions in this event. Blatant, unarguable.
I have only read this on one post and have zero verification, however, the poster referred to NY City building codes that were "signed off on"/given exemption to, due to the height of the construction of the towers, so below code materials were used,(lighter).This 'could" be a reasonable explanation and could also be too embarrasing, and costly. for the city to admit to. This may not be true, but I thought it merits mention, just in case....



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
You continue to amaze me. So it's been proven that 7 fell at less than free fall speed, huh? Well, when I watch that building fall, un-impeded, I don't need a stop watch and Isaac Newton to know that something removed the supports that held the damn thing up for thirty years. And we certainly don't need your advice about how to better present our case. If you want to continue to post on this topic, expect derision.


Oh, so now we're talking about 7 again? Can you please stay focused on just one topic, or do you have to bounce around to avoid answering anything? 7 has been dissected extremely well, and you have seemed to purposefully ignore all the data about it. If I so much as make a mention of any detail, you'll spend the next few posts talking about that or you'll claim I'm a disinfo agent again. It's pointless to even discuss it. After you post like this, you've already determined that you won't respond to the initial point. This is why I continue to stop posting at random (well, that and having the wisdom teeth removed does a number on wanting to go on the internet and argue with people who will never consider other possibilities).



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


The key is the 52nd floor which at the time of construction was re-enforced to withstand a collapse of all upper floors with an airplane hitting the building in mind. The re-enforced structure did not even slow down the collapse. SOOOOO mr man explain this feat of engineering.
2nd key if the fires were burning soooo hot then why were people sticking out of the holes the planes made waving their hands and were not succombed to heat exhaustion?
Just stay asleep, we won't wake you.....hush now.....rock a bye baby....



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


These facts are in the NIST report ..you know the one you probably have not read...It also tells of the additional fireproofing that was used in 1973 on top of the 23/4 " that was there when constructed.
The facts do not add up.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy
reply to post by Varemia
 


now that just shows for you, just because it didn't fall at perfect free fall speeds? yet i bloody well explained why that is, so you re post the question, to the answer i gave???

and yet you OSer's have yet to produce one piece of evidence that is in your favor that doesn't have the spin of ignorance, or isn't a blatant lie.

there is nothing that you can throw at us we cannot answer.


The resistance in the few seconds past free-fall (quick research puts the collapse between 10-13 seconds) is significant if you do the energy calculation. Free-fall would be just under 9 seconds for the towers, yet you assert that there was no resistance.

I firmly believe you won't accept ANY evidence that is put forth because it is your BELIEF that it was demolished in the way you have brainwashingly absorbed from the conspiracy sites and videos. They ask questions. They never give answers. The SUGGEST their possible answer to you, and you ACCEPT it with NO EVIDENCE.

That's the problem with the truth movement. It needs to reside in evidence.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by exponent
 


They used SILENT EXPLOSIVES

Consult your NWO manual as laid out by the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon series about formula for silent explosives


In Season 3 of The Bullwinkle show, the storyline of Banana Fuel ran for 9 episodes. It centered on the development of 'hushaboom', a completely silent explosive. The formula is recited by Bullwinkle (who remembers everything he has ever eaten, and ate the banana on which Boris had written the fuel's formula) at the end of installment 3, which first aired on July 24, 1962



Yeah pretty much.... Thermite doesn't make much noise....

Jaden




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by easybreezy
 


Professionals or yes men?
What if I got a bunch of professionals to say the opposite of the "official story" would that be less credible??>>>OH WAIT that has already been done. You just choose to believe the Official story instead of the truth.......Our government would commit this crime in a heartbeat as can be seen in its past. Gulf of tonka, pearl harbor, bay of pigs , and different suggestions by McNamara to Pres Kennedy. etc.......



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Yeah pretty much.... Thermite doesn't make much noise....

Jaden


It makes just as much noise as any other explosive when it is made into a cutter charge. A cutter charge is what is necessary to cut through steel. This is basic stuff, man.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
After careful review of the video, several important observation are immediately visible...

LIE NUMBER ONE: there were no fires in the towers.




aaannddd that's where I stopped reading. Neither myself, nor anybody that I know who question the official story have ever claimed "there were no fires in the towers".



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


He doesn't assert NO resistance, he asserts little to no resistance which is consistent with a 10 second versus nine second free fall. Your assertion requires that there is NO resistance in a controlled demolition, where as his assertion only requires that there is less than the force that would be required to take down the structure from gravity fed collapse.

10 seconds is not enough time to account for the forces necessary to induce gravity fed collapse, that is the statement he is making.

Stop trying to manipulate the evidence in a failed attempt at debunking a postulate.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

It makes just as much noise as any other explosive when it is made into a cutter charge. A cutter charge is what is necessary to cut through steel. This is basic stuff, man.

No, this is a Lie.

2nd line not needed.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by Varemia
 


He doesn't assert NO resistance, he asserts little to no resistance which is consistent with a 10 second versus nine second free fall. Your assertion requires that there is NO resistance in a controlled demolition, where as his assertion only requires that there is less than the force that would be required to take down the structure from gravity fed collapse.

10 seconds is not enough time to account for the forces necessary to induce gravity fed collapse, that is the statement he is making.

Stop trying to manipulate the evidence in a failed attempt at debunking a postulate.

Jaden


The point he was making is that little resistance is proof of demolition. I challenge this theory, as I think it's false. The energy available in the falling floors was plenty to break the floors in less than a second, unless you think that a horizontal truss can resist a vertical load for long enough to cause a noticeable slowing effect. The fact that it was slower than free-fall proves that there was resistance, and any resistance is proof that there was something slowing down the collapse. It really is closer to 12 seconds anyway.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Varemia

It makes just as much noise as any other explosive when it is made into a cutter charge. A cutter charge is what is necessary to cut through steel. This is basic stuff, man.

No, this is a Lie.

2nd line not needed.


Check this out

In order for the thermite to cut through that much steel, it makes a boom. For a demolition of the scale of the towers, there would have had to have been audible booms just before the collapse initiated. This was not recorded on any cameras that day.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Thank God for the truthers! They opened alot of peoples eyes to the lies we have been told about 9/11 and the subsequent events caused by 9/11.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
i have no doubt in my mind after a few years of looking into 911 that it was an inside job. check this song out...



if you really think 911 was carried out by the "terrorist" then..oh man....
makes me chuckle. *gasp
edit on 23-6-2012 by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


Here's proof that an explosion went off in first tower as second plane hit :www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join