It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Wrong "again"?


Yes, you are wrong again


You didn't cite a source

www.nbcnewyork.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by r2d246
I think this best describes what actually happened


Oh no, beam weapons from space!
How silly do the conspiracy theories actually get?


You're either ignorant or lying, my guess is lying. After citing a source for your updated 911 identified body count, maybe you'd also like to provide a source where "space beams" are ever mentioned by Dr Wood.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by easybreezy

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by easybreezy
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


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.


Ok then show me how much slower and why?
not much is it?
i think it can be easily explained by there being some resistance, and if you compare the rate of descent to building's that have been demolished by explosives they wont fall at full free fall speed but close to it, as they use the weight of the building coming down to finish off the remaining supports

all tho remaining building fits better as how much explosives were used
edit on 22-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)


So what you're saying is that even if it is proven to you that the towers fell slower than free-fall, you'll still claim it was demolition? That's some fine logic you're using there, captain.


He explained his point quite clearly, that controlled demolitions are slightly off from free fall speed. If it was a pancake collapse from fire, if that were even possible, would exhibit an unmistakable delay and clearly visible resistance. Many experts estimate that in an actual pancake collapse the main towers could have taken up to a minute and a half to fall to the ground. But again, that is even if it were possible as a result of fire. It isn't.

It's amazing how you guys will continue trying to polish a turd after the flies have eaten it.
edit on 23-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: typo



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Wrong "again"?


Yes, you are wrong again


You didn't cite a source

www.nbcnewyork.com...


I don't have a problem with being "wrong," but to say so without being specific is a little low-rent. I appreciate the link with the updated identified body count info. So that only leaves 1067 souls (40% of the victims), and 1 million tons of material, vanishing without a trace.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
and 1 million tons of material, vanishing without a trace.


Still wrong, 1 million tons of material did not vanish, what is your source to state that?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Many experts estimate that in an actual pancake collapse the main towers could have taken up to a minute and a half to fall to the ground.


Care to name these "experts"?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
It basically comes down to you point #3, was it a demolition or not. That is the debate, and it's been going on since Sept. 12, 2001.

Point #1) No fires? Of course there were fires in the WTC buildings, I've never heard this as being a serious argument of proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone with eyes can see the fires. It's just that jet fuel, and aluminum and office materiels together do not burn hot enough to explain the molten steel.

Point #2) This is actually odd because your actually supporting a fact that most rational people who believe 9/11 was an inside job point to as a smoking gun. How does the top 1/5 of the building fall off to the side, when the 9/11 commission report and Popular mechanics says that the top area (above the airplane imapcts) 1/5. or 1/6 or whatever, is suppossed to be the power that drove through the remained of the stucture, hecne the whole "pancakecollaspe" theory. So thanks for that point.

....so that leaves point #3 demo or no demo. Well were there demo charges, or thermite/thermate cutters planted inside the towers during the months leading up to 9/11? My investigating says yes there's a strong case for demolition.

The unprecedented power downs, the late night maintenance, and shady Security actions, as well as the molten metal seen pouring out of the still standing tower as well as the molten metal at ground zero that lasted for months, the visibal ejections, pyroclastic(sp?) clouds only seen in volcanic ejections and building demolitions, the microscopic evidence of thermite, as well as your point #2 which makes "pancake collapse" impossible, total building collapse at near free fall speed, explosions in the basement levels, eyewitness testimony of people in the basement, eyewitness testimony of Firefighters that GZ look like a foundery for over a month, WTC 7, ect ect ect, (could go on for a whole paragraph with reasons to support demolition), all lead me to believe that there is a more than strong case for demolition.

But this has been argued over and over, I think most people have picked thier theory at this point and nothing short the government releasing more information to the public in the form of video that was seized,flight data recordings that were only played for the families, and Bush/Cheney's statements that were made together in secrecy, and forget about all the WTC steel evidence that was shipped off within days and sold just as fast. Ground Zero should have been treated as a crime scene and it wasn't. So unfortunately I don't see the government realesing any of the evidence they've been withholding from the public. Maybe in 50 years?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
It basically comes down to you point #3, was it a demolition or not. That is the debate, and it's been going on since Sept. 12, 2001.

Point #1) No fires? Of course there were fires in the WTC buildings, I've never heard this as being a serious argument of proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone with eyes can see the fires. It's just that jet fuel, and aluminum and office materiels together do not burn hot enough to explain the molten steel.

Point #2) This is actually odd because your actually supporting a fact that most rational people who believe 9/11 was an inside job point to as a smoking gun. How does the top 1/5 of the building fall off to the side, when the 9/11 commission report and Popular mechanics says that the top area (above the airplane imapcts) 1/5. or 1/6 or whatever, is suppossed to be the power that drove through the remained of the stucture, hecne the whole "pancakecollaspe" theory. So thanks for that point.

....so that leaves point #3 demo or no demo. Well were there demo charges, or thermite/thermate cutters planted inside the towers during the months leading up to 9/11? My investigating says yes there's a strong case for demolition.

The unprecedented power downs, the late night maintenance, and shady Security actions, as well as the molten metal seen pouring out of the still standing tower as well as the molten metal at ground zero that lasted for months, the visibal ejections, pyroclastic(sp?) clouds only seen in volcanic ejections and building demolitions, the microscopic evidence of thermite, as well as your point #2 which makes "pancake collapse" impossible, total building collapse at near free fall speed, explosions in the basement levels, eyewitness testimony of people in the basement, eyewitness testimony of Firefighters that GZ look like a foundery for over a month, WTC 7, ect ect ect, (could go on for a whole paragraph with reasons to support demolition), all lead me to believe that there is a more than strong case for demolition.

But this has been argued over and over, I think most people have picked thier theory at this point and nothing short the government releasing more information to the public in the form of video that was seized,flight data recordings that were only played for the families, and Bush/Cheney's statements that were made together in secrecy, and forget about all the WTC steel evidence that was shipped off within days and sold just as fast. Ground Zero should have been treated as a crime scene and it wasn't. So unfortunately I don't see the government realesing any of the evidence they've been withholding from the public. Maybe in 50 years?

Star for you

well said , you took the words right out of my mouth



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
maybe you'd also like to provide a source where "space beams" are ever mentioned by Dr Wood.


Easy, on her own webpages!

www.drjudywood.com...

also read www.journalof911studies.com... -the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf

And it has been posted many times here before
edit on 23-6-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Everyone knows it was an energy weapon of some nature. Youtube Judy wood



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Everyone knows it was an energy weapon of some nature. Youtube Judy wood


No need to use Judy Wood since the OS'ers wrote her off as a whack job long ago. I don't agree and its interesting that she has claimed death threats... she must have the neocons squirming a little....

It's more than likely mini-nukes. The Pentagon has the technology, they used it in Fallujah in 2004.... this is most likely the weapon used on the Twin Towers:

New Bombs and War Crimes in Fallujah

www.veteranstoday.com...
edit on 23-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Everyone knows it was an energy weapon of some nature. Youtube Judy wood

Yes fire!

But you think laser/maser don't you?

Consider this:
How much energy would it take to bend a steel beam? Just one.
Physics would dictate that the energy would have to be 'x' amount whether it came from hammer blows, explosives, lasers or even drills.
How many watts?
An A/C drill uses 700 watts. You have a basic idea of how much damage a standard home drill would do to a steel beam. This energy beam would not be pinpoint down to 1/4 inch like a drill would. It would have to cover many dozens of feet at the same time.
So spread this 1/4 inch damage over dozens of square feet and multiply the 700 watts accordingly. I'm calculating over 1.6 mega watts per square foot.

Where is all this energy comming from?
Space based weapon? Google the total power output of the ISS.

Judy Woods is off her rocker. But she will sell you a DVD on her website. Can you say profiteer?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
and 1 million tons of material, vanishing without a trace.


Still wrong, 1 million tons of material did not vanish, what is your source to state that?


It's public record that the towers weighed 500,000 tons each.
www.nysm.nysed.gov...


"Vanishing without a trace" is what's called "hyperbole." The point is, there was not a 1 million ton pile of rubble representing two 110 story steel frame buildings (and contents) at ground zero. Look at photos of other "pancaked" buildings. Pancaked buildings collapse in discernible pancake "layers." Except, apparently, on 911. If you're quibbling about the "exact" amount of material missing, granted, it was not "100%." But I think even you would admit that the vast majority of the buildings "vanished," that is, were obliterated, one way or another.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 


It not only pains me, but down right confuses me that people still believe this was anything other than demolition. It's a real shame the official story doesn't mention WTC7 because people like the OP can just blank that little anomaly out of their minds and explanations.

Perhaps the OP should forward this video on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth so they can finally put their movement to rest and sleep easy at night? (/sarc)

It does make me happy seeing everyone who knows the true story still propagating the truth and standing up for what they believe in.

Peace



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
maybe you'd also like to provide a source where "space beams" are ever mentioned by Dr Wood.


Easy, on her own webpages!

www.drjudywood.com...

also read www.journalof911studies.com... -the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf

And it has been posted many times here before
edit on 23-6-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)


Bull#, you're lying or lazy. I've been to her website and read her book. Nowhere does she say "space beams" were used. Directed Energy Weapon doesn't not necessarily mean "space beams." You are putting words in her mouth.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Nowhere does she say "space beams" were used.


I never said "space beams" - you are the one with reading and comprehension problems!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Judy Woods is off her rocker. But she will sell you a DVD on her website. Can you say profiteer?


More ad hominim attacks, as usual. God forbid she should be compensated for 10 years of research. Whatta dumb ass thing to say.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
No this only exposes what you said the truthers said as a lie. I dont recall a truther saying there were no fires in the tower. Thats something you said. Clearly you are hoping to fool new readers to this site.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Nowhere does she say "space beams" were used.


I never said "space beams" - you are the one with reading and comprehension problems!


I said, show me where she uses the expression "space beam," and you said check out her website. Show me from her website where she uses the expression "space beam" to describe or otherwise explain her theory. You can't, because she doesn't.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by r2d246
Everyone knows it was an energy weapon of some nature. Youtube Judy wood

Yes fire!

But you think laser/maser don't you?

Consider this:
How much energy would it take to bend a steel beam? Just one.
Physics would dictate that the energy would have to be 'x' amount whether it came from hammer blows, explosives, lasers or even drills.
How many watts?
An A/C drill uses 700 watts. You have a basic idea of how much damage a standard home drill would do to a steel beam. This energy beam would not be pinpoint down to 1/4 inch like a drill would. It would have to cover many dozens of feet at the same time.
So spread this 1/4 inch damage over dozens of square feet and multiply the 700 watts accordingly. I'm calculating over 1.6 mega watts per square foot.

Where is all this energy comming from?
Space based weapon? Google the total power output of the ISS.

Judy Woods is off her rocker. But she will sell you a DVD on her website. Can you say profiteer?


This is a problem I have with the official story, and by extension those who support it ( this is not by any means a personal attack on you). We are told that the enormous amount of energy required, the sheer quantity of explosives necessary, logistics etc. makes controlled demolition impossible, yet the theory that one hour of burning furniture and kerosene brought those buildings to the ground is beyond reproach.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join