World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

reply to post by neformore


To each his or her own list. Here's mine (also posted before):

Micronized concrete covering lower Manhattan in a 2-3 inch thick layer

the analysis of the components of this dust show that it included exotic metals which were traced to the building contents, including such things as wiring and computer components

No building contents beyond a fragment of a keypad found in the debris

No human remains beyond bone shards, some found on roofs years later 100s of yards from the towers

Massive core and perimieter columns ejected laterally 100s of yards from the towers

the grey chrysanthemum bloom of destruction as the buildings explosively collapse from the top down.

collapse at near freefall speed

ems, police radio, real-time tv reports and eyewitness testimony of secondary explosions throughout the towers

documented film and eyewitness reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements which wrecked the lobbies (Naudet film)

both towers collapse similarly, though the plane impact areas were very different

the upper building masses explosively disintegrating within seconds after the onset of collapse

the seismic anomalies at the onset of collapse

verified reports (by FDNY, NIST and Gov. Pataki during an on-site visit, captured by CNN even) of molten steel in the cores of wtc 1, 2 & 7 which lingered for months into cleanup

a collapse wave which eyewitnesses--among them NYPD and FDNY members (the heroes) reported was like a volcano wave, hot and loud and filled with debris, which literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards in the air, and melted their protective gear

vehicles catching fire spontaneously as the blast wave swept over them (NYFD & NYPD eyewitness testimony)

the "meteorite" of fused building contents

steel members found later in spaghetti shapes and without stress fractures, which professionals hired for cleanup explain on-camera is an impossibility without being heated to foundry-like temperatures

the collapse of the core "spire" within seconds after global collapse, these massive steel structures falling like burnt matchsticks.

the buildings collapse to the ground at near freefall speed, though the upper building masses were explosively destroyed and thus there was no weight to drive the gravity-driven collapse

the antenna mast of the north tower sinking before the onset of collapse, indicating the core was taken out initially

This list is all verifiable fact, not speculation. Have at it. And feel free to add to it.

[typos]

[edit on 23-12-2007 by gottago]

They need to look at other disasters where the same was said , and they need to realise that - up until the event - what happened on 9/11 was unthinkable - and I can say that because it had never happened before. You cannot, ever, underestimate the human capacity for being able to come up with unique ways to kill other humans.

I disagree, don't forget that the Japanese were famous for kamakazi attacks or that people recieved warnings prior to the hijacking and also that maybe the business of intelligence might be thinking of methods that to most people appear impossible or unusual. Maybe to the average mind something of this nature might be unthinkable, but thinking of Internment camps or concentration camps or what happened during the last century of violent conflict makes this event appear minor in comparison. Wouldn't gas chambers for murdering people seem far more bizarre? I would think think mass murder of people would seem far more unusual than people attacking with a plane, people have done such with cars as well in killing people. In such a scale there maybe difference, but method seems not unusual, the Saudis just remembered Pearl Harbor. Maybe americans forgot about that one or maybe some in power such as Rice never thought about such things but that maybe their mistake and problem. I think I even had a dream once of such a attack with planes, I think some TV show did a episode of such a attack. Many stories have been written describing "kamakazi" style attacks. Maybe America has become so much less free that people cannot imagine possibilites anymore and so in a sense the terrorists win and the Oligarch gains control over this ignorance.

Who cares about the kamikazes. What happened on 9/11 was definitely NOT out of the blue, as the Port Authority had known for years, if not decades, that (a) the underground parking lot was unsecure (it was bombed subsequently in 1993, after the PA knew it was a danger in 1984 when they had a group of experts study the towers' vulnerabilities), and (b) planes being intentionally flown into the buildings was a threat. In 1993 after the bombing, Kroll or some other security company was contracted to beef up security. I don't have time right now to go dig up all the information but I may do it later if someone reminds/asks me. I know it's on GlobalResearch.com somewhere. Point is, everyone saying it was unexpected, hasn't been in touch with the relevant people.

I know this is a bit of a non sequitur, but I don't think my question merits yet another CD thread.

Take a look at the composite below, which shows the impact of FL175 from two different angles.

What I'm curious about is the puffs of gray 'smoke' (circled in yellow), which appear several floors below the lowest point of impact and run in straight lines.

These aren't jet-fuelled expulsions, so what are they? If it's pulverised concrete or other building materials, why a gap of several floors between them and the point of impact?

These aren't jet-fuelled expulsions, so what are they? If it's pulverised concrete or other building materials, why a gap of several floors between them and the point of impact?

Most likely windows being shattered by impact possibly with building debris
(fragments of ceiling tiles/plaster board) being dislodged and ejected.

Originally posted by thedman
Most likely windows being shattered by impact possibly with building debris
(fragments of ceiling tiles/plaster board) being dislodged and ejected.

That was my initial reaction. But why so much lower that the impact, which was around the middle of that fireball; why so uniform; and why was this phenomenon isolated to just one floor?

The 2 lower puffs look like they're on the same floor. Could this be overpressure blowing out the elevator doors on the skylobby? And then blowing out the windows? Is this the 78th floor since Orio Palmer reported seeing dead bodies on the 78th floor? That would explain that right away, why there were dead bodies and only a fire that he thought could be knocked down with 2 lines. It would have to be WTC2, right? Since there's a good photo of this and virtually none of 1's impact.....

The puff on the right looks like it's on the same floor as the impact. This could be a simple result of the fuel explosion inside the building.

Originally posted by MikeVet
The puff on the right looks like it's on the same floor as the impact. This could be a simple result of the fuel explosion inside the building.

What do you know about "fuel explosions"?

The fireballs that appeared during the impacts were deflagrations, and didn't really have any overpressure to them. They didn't even shatter all the windows on the impacted floors.

The second building hit (I believe it was the 2nd hit), anhow, the one with the liquid metal pouring out of the corner (obviously thermite or thermate), just so happened to be where the plane hit, and where the collapse started.

I believe that is one of the bigger smoking guns that some thermite cutting charges were used, and the show was spoiled because the plane actually set one off prematurely, and it didnt explde, it just burned, and poured our of the corner where the building failed.

Many witnesses heared not only bombs but gunfire like sounds. The shape charges clearly in both Towers in this video.

youtube.com...

But like another poster mentioned they are hard to see because the building isn't gutted to just the foundation and frames, and they and hard to heard do to the screams of people right next to every camera with a microphone there. Live CD's are like a show, and everyone is silent, thats why it's so easily heard.

As far as the person/people wanting all the names of the all the 'manchurian's' who set these charges and did all the dirty work. It's actually not that many names, just 2. the "FBI, and the CIA"

Also how do you explained flowing molten steel found 4-8 weeks under the rubble of Ground Zero. Jet Fuel cannot melt steel however melted steel was found EVERYWHERE on the pile, and most of it was directly shipped away, as per mayor Gulliani's orders, probably from above. But some have remained, and I believe they will be used in trials come 2009, 2010. They literally have balls the size of a van of molten metal all fused together , jet Fuel Can not do that.

Also those saying the terrorists have won, yes they have, you are correct, but you the terrorists are our own government, and sadly, they have won, for now.

But these types of things have a way of comeing to light over time. People talk ect, evidence is discovered, (even right now), new investigations are done by "honest" people , and all the sudden these things end up biting you in the behind.

reply to post by bsbray11



Yes, I see your point.

So it could also be a window that was blown out by plane debris and the non-energetic fuel deflagration expanded through the hole left by the window. That indeed sounds like a better explanation.

Thanks for the input.

reply to post by Nola213


let me ask you how do you know what exactly burning jet fuel can or can't do? Because i sure don't know and wouldn't even try to say it can or can't do this or that! But let me give you some thing to think about. All the molten steel was found under the rubble right? So who's not to say that above where the molten steel was there was no way for the trapped heat to escape.

So you have all that trapped heat just sitting there not cooling off melting steel, what do you think that steel is going to do just melt then return to a solid form? I'm sorry But if it stays heated it will stay molten until something happens to allow the trapped heat to escape and allows the steel to cool and retake solid form its common sense and just simple physics.

And the sparks seen falling from the towers that people are sayings is the proof thermite or anything along those lines was used, Until the towers fell all the floors most likely had electricity still flowing, those sparks could and most likely where from the electrical wiring arcing and not molten steel from thermite. But since NONE of us were there were those sparks were at the time NO ONE will ever know for sure.

There are to many varibles that can't be definitely explained to prove either way that we'll never really now exactly how or what made the towers fall.

Buildings do not peal like a banana when falling any more than a tree would turn into sawdust by chopping it down.
At some point during the collapse the undammaged part of the building would have stood and the rest would have fell off the side.
Instead they pile drived down into the bacement through the path of most resistance.
If you break a chair leg the other 3 legs cause the chair to tip over in the direction of the lost leg.
The reason why we don't see and hear the explosions like other demolitions is the main core of 47 steel beems.
Each floor was an acre in size and the center cores were supporting that weight.
As the building started to crumble the weight of the above floors were less not more.
So, what caused floors 20 levels below the damage to turn into dust?
Dust not chunks of concrete show that the buildings were destroyed as they fell one floor after another.
Everything but the steel was pulverised.
You only have to look at the freedoms we have lost to say our government is working with not against the attackers.
Wasn't the official story of why they hated us so much was because of our freedoms?
Google "The Ten Steps To Fascism" and see we are at nine going on ten. The monster under the bed has always been the government.

Originally posted by gottago
The discussions on these boards, led by several dedicated and educated ATS members, are light-years more advanced than the easy targets chosen for this video.

Ever wonder why 9-11 conspiracy theories are so insanely complicated? Because they have to be to have any hope of credibility, or even entertain something possible. When someone like me says "hold on lets really take a look at what we are talking about", we are explained away as not getting it, or naive, or part of the NWO or, my favorite, it's just too complicated for minds like ours.

There comes a point, to my thinking, when the amazingly complicated becomes prohibitive because of it's very self.

Often, the simplest explanation is the correct one. A sophomoric presentation is really all that's needed. It really is just that simple. It's not until we get into some really far out theories that the twisted, convoluted, back-bending exercises in physics theories take place.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


Often, the simplest explanation is the correct one. A sophomoric presentation is really all that's needed. It really is just that simple. It's not until we get into some really far out theories that the twisted, convoluted, back-bending exercises in physics theories take place.

by that logic, you should be able to explain what caused world war two in a sentence or two.
or, world war one.
or, why JFK was killed.
or, why one guy chooses one set of colours in his home, and a different man chooses different ones.

occam's razor only works for single scientific questions, not human sociology.

human's are not predictable.

reply to post by billybob



WWI was caused by unchecked aggression by Germans.

WWII was caused by unchecked aggression (again) by Germany.

JFK was shot.

I chose the colors in my home because I like them. Same with the other guy; he likes his.

The fallacy in your argument is that, borrowing your example, we can't even agree that JFK was shot. Or that there was a gun involved. I think we can all agree that bullets killed JFK. How they got into, or through, his body is up for debate. He was, in fact, shot is not up for discussion (is it?).

For goodness sakes, we can't even agree if planes hit the WTCs. People are speculating, with straight faces, that holograms may have been responsible. We have others stating - as fact - no airplane wreckage was found at the crash site. Or bodies. Or that there is "no way" a plane that size would make a hole that small. Etc, etc.

These statements are just patently untrue. This is why the truth movement is it's own worst enemy. By desperately clinging to what they want to be true, they make absurd claims, ignore context, omit findings that don't support their claims, make blanket statements of "fact" and point to other conspiracy theories as proof of their conspiracy theory and possibly miss what may be a real conspiracy.

By accepting any theory, no matter how absurd only seeks to hide any real truth there may be to uncover. The best thing truthers could do is debunk the truly outlandish, absurd claims by some and focus on real questions that may be out there. If they want to be taken seriously.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


those answers to my simple questions are unsatisfactory as 'reasons'. people don't all just wake up one day and start performing coordinated 'unchecked aggression'. the unchecked aggression is the result of cultural and economic factors, and massive propoganda programs. there is no simple answer to 'what caused world war one or world war two?'.

if there is a simple answer, it goes more something like this, ...'because that's what 'they' wanted'. 'they' being the same shadow rulers that have huddled behind the curtains of human history since time immemorial.

"why JFK was killed" is not answered by "he was shot". that is "how was he killed". "WHY?" is still a mystery, although some researchers have shown it was because he opposed the shadow elite. once again, there can be no simple answer, when there is not even an answer.

the hole that was filmed, which allegedly had flight 93 in it, was shown to be a plane crash crater from many years earlier. i don't have the link, but i've seen the old pics of it, and it's clearly the same hole.

one cannot make good conclusions with poor evidence. in the case of 9/11, poor evidence is all that is available, because of the vast, extreme COVER-UP of all of it. steel from the towers, videos of the pentagon, blueprints.....

it is this lack of evidence that makes 'whacky' theories as feasible as more 'plausible' theories.

to my satisfaction, the best hypothesis for the events of the day, has a very large army of wealthy controllers pulling one off on the sheep. the evidence for this has never gotten smaller. it only grows, and, "move along, nothing to see here" type 'reasoning' has no effect on me other than to make me want to dig deeper and find out just how extensive and populated the 'control grid' is. i think a lot of 'debunkers' are just full time sock puppets, so it seems like there are few 'troothers' and lots of 'normal people'(normal people being those who believe everything they see on (zionist controlled) television, or read in the (zionist controlled) newspaper, or hear on the (zionist controlled) radio, or see at the (zionist controlled) movie theatre). i know for a fact that many of the 'opponents' i've faced on the net, have many identities, and easily conjure up more using proxies to avoid i.p. identification.

which brings me back to the question i asked(not to you) earlier in this thread...

what is mark roberts' ATS avatar's name? why would he not just choose "mark roberts", since he is apparently not afraid to use his real name in association with his activities?

does anyone know? obviously someone does, because it was stated quite matter of factly that he's a member, here.

One video is brainwashing us that the explosives were used, another video is brainwashing us that the explosives were not used.

Probably those guys have some kind of competition whose video is better

So what video they're gonna make to prove that the crash in Pennsylvania was real?

reply to post by billybob


Again, we can't even agree that planes were involved.

Please see some of my earlier posts in which I link to pictures of flight 93's crash site. Please see the above post from someone who personally marked body parts after the accident. Please see the above post from someone who lives in the area that a lot of the planes occupants were in.

Of course you rejected my obvious answers; how could you not? Conspiracy theories require that you positively, under all circumstances and reason, deny any evidence as from "them", and then demand "new" evidence which isn't possible. Which, of course, keeps the conspiracy alive.

Deflections aside, what do you think of the in the open evidence I have linked to? What do you make of eyewitness testimony from those that were there, those that lost family members, those that helped mark the body parts they found? Pictures clearly showing airplane parts?

Just look at this one thread. We have people definitively proclaiming there were no bodies, no wreckage. Easily found documentation of airplane wreckage and personal testimony from someone who was actually there is presented. The response? Totally ignoring the documentation, demanding other documentation and claiming it just has to be a certain way.

On a side note: I don't have a problem with the video calling the loose change guys "Dishonest". They clearly are. In the example shown, they purposefully manipulated what you saw to fit their agenda. If they were after truth, they would have disclosed the sound file as well. They don't because they know any reasonable person will notice the tripod jiggling with no accompanying explosion and dismiss the claim, rightfully so.

I stand by my original assertions that WWI & II were caused by unchecked aggression, that I like my house colors and admit my mistake in reading your post.

You are 110% right - I don't think we know the real why of the JFK assignation. I know, I know....that's another thread but, I wanted to admit my mistake and find something we do agree on.

reply to post by Mikee


I want to know what financial interest Mark Roberts has in perpetuating the discussion. I have always questioned the motives of truthers, so fair play requires that I ask what his stake is.

Why would he go out of his way to name-call his opposition? I don't have a problem with it, per se, but it isn't helpful to the overall discussion or presentation of ideas. I have always thought that the strength of your point will be self evident, or not.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by gottago
The discussions on these boards, led by several dedicated and educated ATS members, are light-years more advanced than the easy targets chosen for this video.

Ever wonder why 9-11 conspiracy theories are so insanely complicated? Because they have to be to have any hope of credibility, or even entertain something possible. When someone like me says "hold on lets really take a look at what we are talking about", we are explained away as not getting it, or naive, or part of the NWO or, my favorite, it's just too complicated for minds like ours.

There comes a point, to my thinking, when the amazingly complicated becomes prohibitive because of it's very self.

Often, the simplest explanation is the correct one. A sophomoric presentation is really all that's needed. It really is just that simple. It's not until we get into some really far out theories that the twisted, convoluted, back-bending exercises in physics theories take place.

Ok, if it's so damn simple, let's hear a convincing sophomoric explanation for all this:

Micronized concrete covering lower Manhattan in a 2-3 inch thick layer

the analysis of the components of this dust show that it included exotic metals which were traced to the building contents, including such things as wiring and computer components

No building contents beyond a fragment of a keypad found in the debris

No human remains beyond bone shards, some found on roofs years later 100s of yards from the towers

Massive core and perimieter columns ejected laterally 100s of yards from the towers

the grey chrysanthemum bloom of destruction as the buildings explosively collapse from the top down.

collapse at near freefall speed

ems, police radio, real-time tv reports and eyewitness testimony of secondary explosions throughout the towers

documented film and eyewitness reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements which wrecked the lobbies (Naudet film)

both towers collapse similarly, though the plane impact areas were very different

the upper building masses explosively disintegrating within seconds after the onset of collapse

the seismic anomalies at the onset of collapse

verified reports (by FDNY, NIST and Gov. Pataki during an on-site visit, captured by CNN even) of molten steel in the cores of wtc 1, 2 & 7 which lingered for months into cleanup

a collapse wave which eyewitnesses--among them NYPD and FDNY members (the heroes) reported was like a volcano wave, hot and loud and filled with debris, which literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards in the air, and melted their protective gear

vehicles catching fire spontaneously as the blast wave swept over them (NYFD & NYPD eyewitness testimony)

the "meteorite" of fused building contents

steel members found later in spaghetti shapes and without stress fractures, which professionals hired for cleanup explain on-camera is an impossibility without being heated to foundry-like temperatures

the collapse of the core "spire" within seconds after global collapse, these massive steel structures falling like burnt matchsticks.

the buildings collapse to the ground at near freefall speed, though the upper building masses were explosively destroyed and thus there was no weight to drive the gravity-driven collapse

the antenna mast of the north tower sinking before the onset of collapse, indicating the core was taken out initially

Sorry to post this list again, but it comes in mighty handy when you need to make a serious point in the face of such patently uninformed comments about how "simple" it is to explain just the WTC part of 9/11.