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.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
That is a good video, and once again puts the onus on 911 truthers to step up to the plate.
The one problem I have with it, is it debunks conspiracy theorists under the guise that 'regular' - 'common' - 'everyday' demolition techniques would be used.
Now, if indeed the building was going be brought down 'on purpose' you wouldnt use a method that has been tried, tested and presented 1000's of times on tv.
Because then, when you do use common detonation methods, people can say
'' that looked EXACTLY like the others ''
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Now why would people with EVERYTHING to lose, people in high positions, even dare to put their lives on the chopping block for some unproven, untested on this scale, newfangled form of demolition?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Now how is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that Roberts focuses on a very narrow definition of a controlled demolition?
It doesn't mean anything if you're not ambitious enough to implement something novel. We should both agree that at least someone was obviously willing to do something completely unprecedented on 9/11.
And really, even each commercial demolition is a unique scenario and requires custom planning, and is "new" in its own right. Engineers actually have to accommodate inconveniences like that. If you don't understand the methodologies then that's your problem.
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Because a newfangled clandestine form of controlled demolition would have untested, undetermined results...
I understand that controlled demolitions vary greatly, I understand that VACANT buildings are prepped thoroughly by eliminating all non support structure, furniture file cabinets, --support columns are cut (if steel) drilled if reinforced concrete..charges are straticigally placed ( varying greatly building to building)
and even when all of this maticulous work has been done..there is still no 100% guarantee the demolition will succeed.
I suppose if I told you there was a unicorn in your livingroom right now..and the only reason you can't see or touch it is because you just don't understand the mystical realm..and weren't imaginative enough..you would just accept it as fact and go to petsmart and pick up a bag of PonyChow...
Well, if I were pulling a B.S. Stunt like that at least I wouldn't be wrongfully accusing my countrymen of 3000 counts of capital murder.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw, your "conversation" shows that you don't have a very real grasp of the interests involved.
This is not Congress, and the White House, and the Supreme Court.
This is what Dwight Eisenhower, for one, warned us against: the military industrial complex. It's certain big businesses, it exists outside of actual government positions, but it has real power and influence because of lobbyists and all sorts of other crooked practices and relationships between business and government and banks/money and government.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Because a newfangled clandestine form of controlled demolition would have untested, undetermined results...
Yeah, I asked how this was a rebuttal to Roberts arguing a very narrow definition of a demolition, but apparently all you can do it repeat yourself. It isn't a rebuttal at all.
You don't know any physics or engineering principles on a familiar enough level to design anything. I don't want to hear from you, about what can or can't be predicted with a demolition sequence utilizing any given device(s). You wouldn't know, and that's the truth. Neither would I, but I'm not the one making the claims here.
Because demolition is expensive, and anything that would hinder the end result ( the building collapsing) would be removed... It isn't rocket science.
Why would it be necessary to strip out all the furniture and etc.? Would you want to professionally demolish a building with all of its contents still in it? That's the real question.
Nor is sound these days...apparently.
And the reason columns are partially cut/drilled into is probably to save explosives, as I think I've heard Damocles or someone relevant to the field suggest before. You can ask them, though. I'm sure they'd explain the reasoning behind all of those things to you, and none of them are necessary to bring a building down.
and even when all of this maticulous work has been done..there is still no 100% guarantee the demolition will succeed.
If you really understood this then you would realize why WTC7 coming down symmetrically suggests coordination.
Well, you can try it if you want. Can I ask you how old you are, though? I'm not going to say anything about it, I'm just curious.
If you want to get a tear out of somebody you'll have to try harder than that. I think it's a cheap card to call anyway but whatever. I'd really be surprised if you could get someone to well up a little.
Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
taxi, you seem to be picking apart your own assumptions as to "why" _____ happened. Or "why" XXX people would do such a thing, etc.
Really, that's speculation of the highest kind, and the more you use it to argue, the less credibility you have.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by gottago
Gottago ~
So much for finding the truth huh? Truthers often ignore the facts that are presented to them. It appears that although you call it sophmoric and improper, you have not stated anything that is in error with this video.
I don't need to see nearly ten minutes of bridges and concrete towers being cd'd to make an irrelevant point in relation to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
As I have stated before and several others, Mark Roberts is a key member when it comes to 911 facts. He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events prior, during, and post 911. He has debated several members of the truth movement on a show called HARDFIRE. On the few occasions he did do this, he made the members of the movement look ...well like idiots. A simple google or youtube search will have all of his debates listed. Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him. Kevin Ryan has backed out and well as others.
Originally posted by bsbray11
He does not consider it. Therefore he does not disprove it. So, he cannot fully disprove "demolition theory" without disproving every single way in which it could have been accomplished. This is why you cannot prove a negative, without proving its positive to be true.
I'm still waiting on an "official story" to explain the collapses. So far, FEMA has said pancake, and NIST refuted pancake but only tried to explain how the collapses started.
[edit on 21-12-2007 by bsbray11]