Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

Originally posted by himselfe
Can you cite the exact post that proves why as part of a controlled demolition the explosions are cascading downwards rather than upwards? because I can't find it.

ITS CALLED HIDING THE EVIDENCE. Why on Earth do you debunkers think the masterminds of 911 would NOT try to hide the explosives?????? They even used jets to hide the explosives. They knew a jet wouldn't take down a building that was designed to have a jet crashed into it. They just used the jet to hide fact of the explosives.

We have professional CD experts saying they can bring down a building in 1000's of different ways. 911, was one way, TOP-DOWN.

Originally posted by himselfe
For some reason I can't cut and paste from the PDF document I cited earlyer, however it is worth reading as it provides a credible and logically sound argument from independent demolition professionals that backs up the already available technical evidence put forward by official investigations.

Here is the problem with debunkers, they are looking for logically sound arguments. You people don't care what makes sense or not, you just care if it sounds like it makes sense. Thats why 911 commission and NIST got their believers. They pile a bunch of CRAP in it that sounds logical, but in reality, they didn't even finish the investigation.


I tired to read your little PDF you show, and I got to their first argument and couldn't make myself read any more of their DISINFO. Here let me show you their DISINFO in plain sight...

www.implosionworld.com...

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (were not talking about dust plumes or debirs, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact untill they were consumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assesment, and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visualy indisputable.

Hmm, so THIS picture below doesn't contradict anything they just said?


Actually it DOES contradict what NIST claims, and NIST claims the floors collapsed many floors below to create these squibs. As you can see, the very top plume of that picture is right on the "mechanical service" level. This level has no windows, but LOTS OF VENTS. Why didn't all the "air" come out of the vents? Why did the air feel that there was least resistance 50+ floors below a full level of vents? Also, all the elevator doors stay closed and sealed untill an elevator car is on that level, how does someone propose "air" could travel through sealed elevators and doors? There are stairways too, but, how is that "the path of least resistance"?

IMHO, your PDF which was written only 12 days ago, is the biggest piece of disinfo ever, and they claim it in their opening statement.

www.implosionworld.com...

This report will not, nor is it intended to, address the much wider scope of unanswered questions regarding those events.

This PDF was written by one person, and he clearly announces his position on his beginning statements that he is a FULL BELIEVER of the offical reports. It is clearly obvious that he is not talking from experiance, he is talking from beliefs.

I guess one man's rants is another mans beliefs....








[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by Gorman91
why does the building only pop out at the blackend part of the outer building, is this a construction flaw? I'll admit it went down too fast, just what caused it is the question

wtc.nist.gov...

reply to post by himselfe


Yawn. Then we can go off into an unprovable never-ending argument about how the South Tower should have fallen over at the break zone instead of it fell thru itself with such amazing speed. Ever hear of the path of least resistance? Anyways, wasn't that Fairbanks clip of the South Tower? Didn't know "calculations" about such complex systems are proof, perhaps we should all freak out about those apocolyptic global warming computer models? Now before you go off on a tangent don't forget that I didn't declare that bombs had to start the collapse, but they still could have contributed and that's not something that you can prove didn't take place.

No, they were wired to the desks so that there wouldn't be any desks left afterwards.
Of course they'd be wired into critical structures, just not necessarily into the entire structure from top to bottom inside and out to fall it like we're used to seeing. It always has to be either they were absolutely like all standard demos, or no bombs at all? Absolutism binary mentality is rational and logical alright.

I asked for proof. A PDF from O.V. apoligists is hardly proof. Hypothesis/theory, and complete rejection of things like witness reports of whatever is hardly proof.
Here's some logic for you to try out:
"Most of the plumes were obviously dust from the collapse event, therefore all plumes resembling such had to be the same no matter what. "
Can you tell me what type of fallacy that is?

Are you actually suggesting that the planes crashing alone had the same mass-psychological effect as after the towers crumbled to pieces and thousands of civilians including 300 firefighter rescue heros died instantly? If so I'm done even wasting time with you, sorry.

reply to post by himselfe




You know, I'm officially going to leave this topic. As I am completely irritated and tired of debating with someone that only uses NIST and other rant, as their mind. Maybe someday when people think for themselves, they will find the answers.

Have a good lop-sided debate.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
ITS CALLED HIDING THE EVIDENCE.

I couldn't agree more!

Originally posted by 11 11
Here is the problem with debunkers, they are looking for logically sound arguments. You people don't care what makes sense or not, you just care if it sounds like it makes sense. Thats why 911 commission and NIST got their believers. They pile a bunch of CRAP in it that sounds logical, but in reality, they didn't even finish the investigation.

You're misinterpreting the English language there. Sound in the instance of "logically sound" is used as an adjective.

Originally posted by 11 11

www.implosionworld.com...

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (were not talking about dust plumes or debirs, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact untill they were consumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assesment, and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visualy indisputable.

Hmm, so THIS picture below doesn't contradict anything they just said?

If you read the statement you quoted carefully you would find that it doesn't. That image shows no evidence that the floors where controversial plumes of smoke appear are collapsing.

Originally posted by 11 11
IMHO, your PDF which was written only 12 days ago, is the biggest piece of disinfo ever, and they claim it in their opening statement.

Opinion noted and discounted.

I guess one man's rants is another mans beliefs....

And you differ from such conduct how?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Didn't know "calculations" about such complex systems are proof, perhaps we should all freak out about those apocolyptic global warming computer models? Now before you go off on a tangent don't forget that I didn't declare that bombs had to start the collapse, but they still could have contributed and that's not something that you can prove didn't take place.

And that rebuttal does not apply to your arguments right?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
No, they were wired to the desks so that there wouldn't be any desks left afterwards.

Of course they'd be wired into critical structures, just not necessarily into the entire structure from top to bottom inside and out to fall it like we're used to seeing. It always has to be either they were absolutely like all standard demos, or no bombs at all? Absolutism binary mentality is rational and logical alright.

Sorry I misinterpreted "without it actually being wired to the core as in conventional commercial demos" as an implication that the bombs did not have to be 'wired' to critical structures.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I asked for proof. A PDF from O.V. apoligists is hardly proof. Hypothesis/theory, and complete rejection of things like witness reports of whatever is hardly proof.
Here's some logic for you to try out:
"Most of the plumes were obviously dust from the collapse event, therefore all plumes resembling such had to be the same no matter what. "
Can you tell me what type of fallacy that is?

Granted that document alone is not proof of anything, however it does independently concur with the official findings, and such arguments from professionals in the industry hold far more weight than the illogical conjecture of conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Are you actually suggesting that the planes crashing alone had the same mass-psychological effect as after the towers crumbled to pieces and thousands of civilians including 300 firefighter rescue heros died instantly? If so I'm done even wasting time with you, sorry.

Not at all, I'm questioning what beneficial cumulative effect it could have on an already devastating event.

Originally posted by himselfe
And that rebuttal does not apply to your arguments right?

I'm not the one declaring things in irrational absolutes.

Granted that document alone is not proof of anything, however it does independently concur with the official findings, and such arguments from professionals in the industry hold far more weight than the illogical conjecture of conspiracy theorists.

And the 'global consensus' "is in" on "Global Warming". I guess it's time we start rounding up and slaughtering humans and their methane producing food-stock animals huh?

What's wrong with my arguments and questions? All i see you doing is parroting other peoples views while skipping over and ignoring mine and others that contradict theirs.

Not at all, I'm questioning what beneficial cumulative effect it could have on an already devastating event.

Not that there's much to question: changed skyline from something that millions were used to seeing everyday of their lives, at the minimum. Towards the maximum, thousands die instead of hundreds, with hundreds of millions of people watching OVER AND OVER the towers collapse in addition to the plane impacts that caused them, and the uber-emotions the media were able to broadcast in comparison to had they not fallen.
www.google.com...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not the one declaring things in irrational absolutes.

No you're quite right, you're declaring things in irrational assumptions.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And the 'global consensus' "is in" on "Global Warming". I guess it's time we start rounding up and slaughtering humans and their methane producing food-stock animals huh?

Mmhm, as I said...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What's wrong with my arguments and questions? All i see you doing is parroting other peoples views while skipping over and ignoring mine and others that contradict theirs.

The problem is they're baseless conjecture that plays right into the hands of pop-culture and serves no beneficial purpose. You sit around trying to pull a rabbit out of a drawing pin and you do nothing to actually make this world a better place. You cant even give a rational argument as to why anybody would even bother with such a conspiracy, sure you throw in a psyop here and there but it adds no rational value to the argument. But I'm sure you'll tell me how I'm an ignorant moron who doesn't know about psyops. You moan about how I don't provide any proof and parrot what other people have said, well of course, I'm not an expert on what caused the two towers to collapse and I don't pretend to be, I'm just googling as I go along and basing my argument on rational judgement and the input qualified people have provided to the research. What you fail to realise is since you are the people who are challenging and disagreeing with the established findings, it is you who has the burden of proof. Baseless assumptions and conjecture are not proof nor are inaccurate pretty pictures. You need to prove to us with facts and evidence why the established findings are wrong.

But I'm sure you'd happily tell me how the above statement somehow makes me not worth talking to.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Not that there's much to question: changed skyline from something that millions were used to seeing everyday of their lives, at the minimum. Towards the maximum, thousands die instead of hundreds, with hundreds of millions of people watching OVER AND OVER the towers collapse in addition to the plane impacts that caused them, and the uber-emotions the media were able to broadcast in comparison to had they not fallen.
www.google.com...

That doesn't answer my question. What possible benefit does maximising the damage in an already devastating incident have for a conspiracy who's aim is to justify a war? Emotions were already high, the second plane hitting was enough to secure in most minds that it was an intentional terrorist attack, and even if the buildings had just partially collapsed (which was inevitable given the dynamics involved) people would have been distraught. If NIST can run a model and conclude that the impact and resulting damage and fire was sufficient to initiate collapse then I'm sure that any conspirators with government backing and the resources needed to pull off what you're implying could run the same model.

If you really wanted to make a positive difference in this world you wouldn't be engaging in propaganda about conspiracies and subterfuge, you'd be working to establish the core education required to enable the mass population to be intelligent, you would be working to establish the resources needed to help the mass population enable them selves and diminish poverty, and you would be working to enable the mass population's ability to choose intelligently, because those are the qualities that would enable the world to be free and wholly wealthy. By mass population I mean of Earth, not just the people in your local group or nation.

You should all know by now whatever it is we are told by the mass media will be edited, watered down and cropped for mass consumption. Can you imagine how many complaints they would recieve if they actually told the truth and showed us the graphic reality? Its no different than how the edit swear words or violent scenes from footage.

Revealing the truth would be like putting on an snuff for your kids, its real alright but do you really want your kids seeing it? No. Its better to put on Walt Disney instead!

reply to post by himselfe


ARGH! I had just sit here for a good 45mins typing up a response. Went to go find a post in another thread to link in here and and clicking in "My ATS" in another window made it load in this - zapping my writeup. I'm not about to rewrite everything when your mind is made up anyways. In summary of what I was going to say before:

If your mind is made up it's all pointless. I study bias and I know:
www.google.com...
Call me irrational all you want but I'm not the one who's mind is made up about this matter, nor am i the one rejecting and ignoring data that contradicts the version of it that was provided by our establishment media and government accounts.

9/11 was exploited by the people in question for global domination. That's a fact and there is no debate unless you're politically biased or ignorant to the full story of things that happened before and after.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Since it was exploited, it's not much further off to assume they allowed it to happen on purpose. When you look at the rest of the story and facts that's actually the likely case. In light of what's in this thread an others that view becomes like giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, in my view, the "MIHOP" isn't nearly as rock hard of a case as "LIHOP".
See the links in my sig for a view that doesn't merely fall on invading iraq was the as you apparently assume all "conspiracy theorists" would assume. Note they're not even about 9/11. Be sure to attempt to debate those issues in those threads. Here's some threads related to the exploitation reality:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
From there, see these other items to see more perspective, of mine which is rather unique, that is if you actually want to understand 9/11 in terms that you wont see on TV anytime soon:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Note that you're not supposed to debate in that 'contest' thread. Here are some others where you can debate:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And dont forget to take your psyop doubts to the proper place:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you'd like to debate the 911 issue in general feel free to bring up your talking points in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
, which is designed for free-for-all red herring discussion, which might also answer some of your assumptions.

The thread we're in now is about a specific issue. I didn't provide those links to give you derailment red herring ammo, so lets stay on the topic of this thread from now on.

The prima fascie was for most 'look planes and jet fuel knocked down the towers'. In the time since close observations and scrutiny makes that not such a rock hard view.

A] Your paper, like NIST and others, rejects and ignores the witness testimonies of explosions. I've looked closely at them (there's lots of mashup videos out there) and some can be explained as their perception of the collapse etc, many cannot. For this reason, answers need to be established.

B] The speed of the collapses, etc.

C] The lack of what is known as the path of least resistance:

Which is very relevant to the video this thread is about.

D] The molten metal found months afterwards, including under WTC7.

A-D are mostly topics for discussion in other threads, and there are plenty, but none the less, because of them it's irrational to make up your mind in terms of there being 'nothing to see here'. These issues, and the other evidence in this thread deserve careful consideration.

So without further ado, how about you talk about the evidence presented, instead of me or others or your doubts about alternative views of 911...


[edit on 18-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Simply no explosons, just pressurized dust.

Insteresting observations.

I'll remind you that there's some differences however.

A] That literal controlled demolition you have there was gutted out like all commercial CD's. A great deal of the months they typically spend on those projects are involved with gutting out every possible thing from the building(s). This leaves some fudge factor room for it being more visable in that instance.

B] The angle of prespective could play a role in the ability to see light in that fasion.

Strong case you have there tho, for explaing the 'squibs' in question with this particular video.

Originally posted by himselfe
Also could you explain to me how buildings the size of the WTC towers could possibly remain standing for any period of time after having an entire row of lower level support systems blown away? And how the collapse originated from the point of impact high up if the lower supporting structures were destabilised, or why they would bother destabilising the bottom row at all if their intent was to collapse the building from the point of impact?

This is what I would do if I was to do it. Have shaped charges in the basement set off to weaken the building but not near enough to collapse when the planes strike. This would weaken the core and be masked by the planes.

Have a plane slam into the top portion. Also weakening both exterior and core in that area.

Finish with a final weakening of the core and you have the towers falling from the impact zone with nothing inside to hold them together.

Just some thoughts I've been having lately.

Nah, more light would have been visible in the WTC becasue there would be more crap to burn. I still think that pressurue was a lot to do with it becasue you never saw it happen before the structure came down. Stuff started spitting out about half way down; plenty of time for presure to build. I still think their hiding something though.

Originally posted by himselfe
Also could you explain to me how buildings the size of the WTC towers could possibly remain standing for any period of time after having an entire row of lower level support systems blown away? And how the collapse originated from the point of impact high up if the lower supporting structures were destabilised, or why they would bother destabilising the bottom row at all if their intent was to collapse the building from the point of impact?

What support systems were blown away? There is no proof at all that any of the central columns were even damaged let alone blown away. We only have the word of the government for that and they are the ones in question here.
Don't you think if a whole floor of columns were 'blown away' the building above that floor would have crashed down onto the floor bellow it immediately, not wait for an hour?

The floors in the towers were taken out starting from just bellow the impact points one by one, taking away the resistance allowing the building to appear to 'pancake'.

How do you explain the expulsion of pieces of the outer mesh/facade laterally up to 600ft away? That takes more energy than gravity cab supply, no?

How do you explain a lack of resistance from undamaged parts of the structure, i.e. the whole building bellow the impact point?

How do you explain the South Towers tilt and rotation and the sudden change of its inertia? If the official story is to believed then this needs answering, cause all 3 buildings defied physics that day, and WTC 2's change of inertia is the most obvious blatant example. Do we need to re-write the laws of physics now...

I still think that if they were smart enough to pull off 9/11, they would have been smart enough to realize that they would have failed at life in whatever they wanted to do. That's it, they failed. And until I see some form of success of communism, I will not be able to understand people who believe in a NWO. Bush is out in 1 year, and there is nothing going to lengthen his term. He will be forgotten once the next prez screwes up more, although I'm not sure HOW you could screw up more.


Anywho anok, The buildings did not defy the laws of physics. They simply had all their weight imbalanced by missing a wall. While I'll admit it's amazing how long they did stand for, these buildings were simply not build good. If it had been the Empire State building, Sears tower, or any other tower in which the ground base is larger then the top point, it would still be standing. SOme buildigns are not built to "par' if there is no visible threat to them.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


Your pics prove nothing. I could show you a dozen pics of CD's that do not show any flash. It depends on the camera, film, light, exposure etc...

Here's one. This is also an example of explosives going off out of sequence just as we see in the towers.



But if you want to see flashes, I'll give ya flashes...
(see the 1st three vids)

www.youtube.com...

it's a short building, you don't need powerful ones on short buildings that are brittle as that one.

And the Search showed no flashes on youtube.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


What are you talking about? Did you watch any of those vids? What do you mean nothing came up on a search? I did the search for you. Plus you've hardly had time to look before you jumped to post. Just watch the 1st three vids, there's prob more further down the list, on that list that comes up when you hit on my link.

Your not using any logic my friend. Go yourself and look for TALL buildings then, and you will not see flashes on them all.

I think you are just playing games and not taking this seriously at all.

[edit on 18/8/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Show me a flash of light in WTC and a tall building without light flashes being demoed.

In all the supossed "proof" of demos in the wtc, I've only seen one speck of a fire explosion and even then it could be just sun light on dust and not fire. If there is a large building in which there are no flashes coming out, please show me.