World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

EDIT: self removed for being snippy.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by Griff


Can you list the people he has debated? Thanks.

Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him.

Jay Howard made Gravy look pathectic at jreff in the metatheory thread.

All I've ever seen gravy do is act beligerant, qualify you first then no matter what you say he then snubs you as a truther and mocks up a lil tantrum. All his posts are pretty much the same.

Onery

- Con


[edit on 30-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Can you help me out and link to the post? (BTW, that's not some "PROVE IT" kind of thing, I am really asking for help in finding it)

Eliminating someone because they don't agree with you is not acceptable to finding the truth, even if the truth is already known (as I believe it to be). Meaning, if he is doing what you say he is, I don't like that either.


[edit on 30-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by Conspiriology


this was a great post.
and, yeah, jay howard is kicking shadow government cyber-butt, out there, and gravy is a good character assassin and not much more.
he's(jay) got a nice thread going at pysorg about the lack of falsifiability of the NIST report.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I always hate to do this but I see you've got 600 or so ATS points, which means you've not been here very long. Fine, newbie. But have you gone back and read prior threads on these subjects before posting about this subject? No, obviously not. You obviously believe you're quite a reasonable and insightful person, and that yo have great debating skills, and you can talk endlessly about a point but you are incapable of actually addressing it.

Pure and simple, micronized concrete simply does not occur in a normal building collapse. Gravity and the collapse of building members is not going to break concrete into micron-sized particles--as fine as flour--nor is it going to do so for the buildings' contents. You are going to get broken chunks and such like--your are certainly not going to find it all turned to superfine particulate--so fine that it wafts out far into NY Harbor.

I suppose you'll answer something to the effect that the buildings were really really big. So what. Even if you dropped a hunk of structural concrete from the 110th floor, it is not going to shatter into micronized dust.

You'd probably also say that it was the collapse itself that caused this. Well, how? Other than making the statement, by what mechanism? The structure and contents are in such agitation that they physically beat all the concrete into superfine particulate as the buildings are falling? Do you know how ridiculous an idea that is?

This does not require outside links and photos to grasp. It simply requires a basic grasp of reality. This can't happen, unless there is an enormous--officially unaccounted-for--energy input to break the concrete--tons and tons of it--into superfine particulate.

Stop being a nerve saw for a moment and actually think about all that.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by gottago]

Ahem

Please lets stay on topic and lets cease the back and forth sniping.


Thanks
FredT, moderator

reply to post by gottago

I always hate to do this but I see you've got 600 or so ATS points, which means you've not been here very long. Fine, newbie.

Personal attack. Lets stick to the ideas at hand, not if you think I am seasoned enough to participate in the discussion. Your apparent blood pressure is proof enough I am more than adequate to the task at hand.

But have you gone back and read prior threads on these subjects before posting about this subject?

Yes. Quite extensively and for months before I ever even registered. I wont address the rest as you are arguing, again, with yourself.

Pure and simple, micronized concrete simply does not occur in a normal building collapse. Gravity and the collapse of building members is not going to break concrete into micron-sized particles--as fine as flour--nor is it going to do so for the buildings' contents. You are going to get broken chunks and such like--your are certainly not going to find it all turned to superfine particulate--so fine that it wafts out far into NY Harbor

Really, says who? Please explain your credentials to make such a claim. Are you structural engineer? Perhaps you have an advanced degree in physics or possibly fluid dynamics? Are you an investigator for the government? Have some professional experience investigating structural collapses? What are your certifications and experience in said area? What's your education in the subject area? What independent studies have you conducted and where is the paper you had published? Are you using someone else's information, data or evidence? If so, please link to it so I can review it.

Let me tell you what I know about "micronization". Micronization is a term truthers use (most not even knowing what a micron is, or how big it may be, or what scale you would use to make such a claim) to support the free fall claim. The free fall claim is that the buildings fell at free fall speed, much to fast for a "naturally" falling building. Thus, creating the kinds of energy needed to pulverize, i.e. "Micronize" the concrete present during the collapse. The Micronization claim has been bastardized from some being present, to too much being present and now the entire building's concrete being "micronized".

Here is the problem: the free fall claim is totally debunked by even the most casual observer all the way to the experts:
A very detailed report that goes to great pains to investigate and analyze the free fall claim, and others
A paper that addresses free fall speeds and the use of "Thermite"
A commonly pointed to "source" of rebutting the 'official' story. His calculations require each and every floor to come to a COMPLETE STOP, before continuing the collapse sequence

About the "Micronization" and there not being enough energy to pulverize said concrete: this claim is highly contested.

Here is what Jim Hoffman says (incidentally, is *this* your source?):

Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

Where this was quoted from

So what does Hoffman base his observations from? "Diverse samples" although none are cited except a report written by Lioy. This report took a whopping THREE samples.

continued



[edit on 30-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

So what were the reported micon-sized chunks of concrete in the Lioy study?

Check here: 2.5 to more than 53 microns

The majority of particles were 53 microns or larger. How much larger? It doesn't say. For the claim to be true, all of the particles MUST be 60 microns or smaller. They aren't.

In fact, the majority of samples, from ALL sources, are....hold on wait for it........75 to 300 microns, not the 60 claimed as "fact"
Proof of that statement

And this is an interesting point to factor into the discussion too:

And there’s a final problem. Dust studies are based on, well, samples of the dust, and that means by definition they’ll include only small particles. Larger pieces of concrete would not be carried so far. This means that dust studies alone can never be used to say what happened to “most” of the concrete: they’ll always produce an underestimated average particle size

So, there you have it. Did I miss anything? What's your opinion?


[edit on 30-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by billybob

he's(jay) got a nice thread going at pysorg about the lack of falsifiability of the NIST report.

Thank you,, yes I made it a point to introduce myself to Jay Howard. Even when ther are ten fifteen goin at him at once, he stays in character, rarely loses his cool and has a better grasp of falsefiability then anyone there. I have never seen anyone trash the NIST report exploiting more proof they fit data to a theory then anyone. Even R. Mackey! was humbled and in the end.

I think he is the best Ive ever seen at debates like this. He writes extraordinarily well and is extremely intelligent. Im a big fan as you can tell. I swore he was an attorney when I first saw his posts. He sure boxes them in like one.

Nice to meet you.

Sure, I just left that place and am reminded once again why I did. Unmittigated intellectual snobbery just makes me sick.

This is an example of how I think a good debate should be prepared. Establishing some parliementary rules at the start. This was and IS still going over there.




forums.randi.org...

- Con

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
So what were the reported micon-sized chunks of concrete in the Lioy study?

Check here: 2.5 to more than 53 microns

The majority of particles were 53 microns or larger. How much larger? It doesn't say. For the claim to be true, all of the particles MUST be 60 microns or smaller. They aren't.

not really. as you indicate, there would be different areas with different concentrations of small/large particles because of prevailing winds and initial velocities of the flying debris.
the point is, there was 1000s of tons of fine dust. enough to be out of place.

and, actually, it is the smallest particle size that is the most important. it requires more and more energy to make particles smaller and smaller, and more importantly, you need a mechanism. smaller particles move out of the way with more ease than larger ones. the collapse was no ball mill, and even a ball mill would have to work hard and long to crush something to 2.5 microns.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by billybob]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the law of conservation of energy, so i just though i would clear some things up.

The conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any system remains constant, but can't be recreated, although it may change forms. Put simply you can not create energy, it has to be converted from another form of energy.

This is very convenient when analysing the twin towers collapse, as you can work out the total energy input of the system (according to the official version) which should be only the energy available from the weight of the falling section.


In this case, the gravitational potential energy the top section had is being converted into kinetic energy as it starts to move downwards. So you know one side of the equation, its called the GPE (gravitational potential energy), and that has to equal the other side of the equation, the energy output of the collapse. (the energy required to overcome the structure below, create the dust, steel ejections, etc.)


GPE is defined as the mass x gravity x height (mgh), so GPE = mgh. Gravity on the earths surface is 9.81, the centre of mass of the top section is approx 350 metres and the top section is estimated to weigh 58•10^6 kg (i'm not sure of the accuracy of that number, but that seems to be what people are using in other science papers online)

So the potential energy available is mgh, roughly; 58•10^6 kg x 9.81 x 350 = 1.9 x 10^5 MJ


...so, using this value you can say that the total energy of everything we see occur in the collapse should add up to this value, as that is the only energy input. I dont think that it does. Considering that each floor of the building was designed to hold up at least this amount of weight themselves, that alone should mean that the collapse itself violates the conservation of energy (and momentum). As the system is chaotic, at a stretch you could claim that it does not violate the conservation of energy, but when you take into account the energies needed for many of the other aspects of the collapse it becomes very hard to explain where the energy could come from to account for all of them aswell.


Energy Input (1.9 x 10^5 MJ) = Energy Output.

And the energy output has many more factors to account for than just the resistance of the building.

You also have to add to the energy output side of the equation;
the energy required to pulverize the concrete into fine dust,
the energy required to bend all the steel,
the energy required to eject multiple steel girders horizontally outwards,
energy required to produce the molten metal observed after the collapse,
energy required to stop the rotational motion of the top section,
energy required to produce the sound of the collapse,
energy required for the heat and smoke production, etc, etc,

.....you are left with a very, very unbalanced equation, with a huge energy deficit.

Something definitely does not add up.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Thanks for your excellent reply. Very informative and very well written. Thank you!

I can understand the math, the equation, the logic and your extremely educated explanation. Having it explained to me and understanding what you told me, versus having the personal knowledge to discuss what you presented with a critical eye or to understand facets or concepts outside of your explanation is totally different.

One thing I can do is dig a little deeper and see were the consensus thinking on this is. Educate myself a little more on the specific factors that went into your example and see what I have for ya.

Lets break this video down piece by piece.

1) Starts off with a great song. Sets good expectations there.

2) "To be highly certain of something, with a very low order of evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence, is a sign that something is wrong with your mind." - Sam Harris

Already starts off on a bad foot in assuming that everyone is "certain" instead of just questioning. That's just one thing wrong with using this quote in the context it is used.

3) No ejections of smoke before collapse.

I did see video of smoke rising from the basement a few seconds before the towers began to collapse. If the pumes of smoke were in fact demolition, it wouldn't make sense for the them to begin before the collapse sequence.

You wouldn't see the initial explosions, as they would be at and above the collapse zone. The remaining would also mostly be hidden by the falling inferno.

4) The south tower began to bow 18 minutes after the initial impact.

The NIST pictures I've viewed only showed bowing at or above the impact zone. I think most CT's would argue that doesn't show the structural integrity of the rest of the building to be lacking. So... and really, no new evidence there either.

5) He then shows a picture of the collapse beginning at the impact zone.

Would that not be the natural place the building would begin to collapse if the collumns were cut at and above the impact zone? What area of the facade would you expect to give first?

6) He then says that the audio on the first reel is fake and the real audio does not include loud bangs that would typical of explosions.

True. But what about the testimony of witnesses who heard loud popping bangs? I didn't hear them in the video, however, that camera appeared pretty far away and I'm sure it's possible the ambience noise could have drowned that out.

7) His next point is another demolition video where the explosions are obvious.

I feel he almost hurt his position. For one, public demolitions are often times a show. They intentionally over dramatize the explosions. Often times, they try new methods and different styles simply to fit the show they want to put on. Look at Las Vegas demolitions for example.

However, what this video did show was similar squibs and in ALL of the examples a large explosion in the basement before the collapse sequence. Both are major factors in the demolition theory that I read all the time on the forums.

8) After the many example controlled demolitions he cuts to Loose Change 2nd Edition. His point here is that they left out the audio which has no explosions and also the the tripod was probably touched (instead of it being due to the explosion in the basement that a camera across the river caught).

I partially answered the tripod shaking part. Like I said, I have seen video of smoke rising from the basement at about the same time that the tripod would have been shaking. So if in fact that was an explosion, those two events validate each other.

Secondsly, the audio. All I could hear was what sounded like a chopper hovering close by. That's pretty deafening.

For both of the previous two pieces of audio evidence I point to this video:
Audio Analysis

It's an evaluation of the audio. He points out where the explosion or impacts are hidden due to the ambience noise - but they are there. As he eloquently states, it would then remain a matter of perspective.


9) A giant "dishonest" tag is placed over the creators of loose change due to the previous point.

A little over dramatic wouldn't you say?


*Edited to fix ugliness from copy and paste from notepad. Why didn't I use Word? Good question. I'm wondering that myself.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

10) Now he's actually starting to try. He is using witness testimony to say that most did not say they heard explosions. More importantly, to him, the ones that did meant it in a "figure of speech".

First, can I point out something he must not have noticed? He just posted witness testimony of an explosion, or bang of some sort, BEFORE the towers were hit by a plane. He doesn't point that out though? Should I get a picture of him and post "Liar" all over his face? Nah. I'm not that immature.

That was the only witness testimony he chose to use also. I am still unsure as to why he chose to even mention the witness testimony as it is contradictory to his original statement that there were NO sounds of any sort that resembled explosions. He needs to pick a stance.

11) Shape charges on steel are the next topic of conversation.

I'm not going to argue much on this topic. I'm not a demolition expert. He does point the '93 bombings. In fact, he attempts to impress us by saying that a 1000lbs of TnT were used and the towers weren't even damaged much. He fails to point out that the bomb was misplaced. Liar again? Or just uninformed. Here's a quote from an FBI explosives expert (article found here: Link with quote featured below):

“If they had found the exact architectural Achilles’ heel or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down."

I'd say that's a pretty important fact to leave out. In fact, again, it helps to prove the CT's theory. Only 1500lbs of TnT needed to bring down the towers if placed in the basement alone. They contend it only took fire and impact to bring the towers down, yet then state the towers are super resilient to explosives, even when the tower is on fire. Again contradictory.

12) The bridge demolition. Seemingly violent.

The explosions were not shielded at all and yet the audio is not deafoning at all and the explosions are not as impressive as he implies. He's just digging himself deeper. That was multiple shape charges and also "kicker charges" all detonating at one time, in open air mind you, and the concusion was not nearly as large as the previous demolitions.

13) Shape charges don't always get the job done. He shows this in the next video.

When fire is such and integral part of his argument, how the HELL does he manage to forget about the weakening of steel?

14) Next video of the bridge - possibly the same bridge? - being detonated.

Two things to note. No ambience noise. Open air detonation. Must note the tripod shaking. Do you think that's from the explosion or did the cameraman accidentally nudge it? I'll let him be the judge.

15) Finally, off the topic of sound. Now we are going to discuss ejections. First point by Mark Roberts. The ejections are what would be expected of pancake collapses, not demolition. His proof, a demolition video where they wrap the concrete in tin sheeting - and other measures taken to limit the amount of ejected debris.

??? Not sure why this was even included.

16) Wait... now he's saying there were not enough ejections of material? He says a 7 story building was demolished and steel was found 650 meters away. "Yet on 9/11... lower Manhatten was not showered with
high-velocity ejecta." He then says that hardly anything was ejected on 9/11.

I tried to explain how this was a contradiction to my girlfriend and I stumbled over my words. Not because I didn't understand it but his argument is jumbled. First he says there were mass ejections (but that's not from demolition). Then he says a 7story demolished building ejected materiel everywhere. Then he says there were hardly any ejections of material on 9/11.

My brain just exploded.





[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

17) He calls for our reasoning because Les Robertson, a designer of the Twin Towers, denies any conspiracy.

Strawman anyone? I respect that man's opinion, but there are other structural engineers who disagree with him.

We have at least one on the forums with us.

18) Again with the audio. That's what he uses as proof that the 9/11 video editors are liars and that the conspiracy is false.

He fails to even address the symmetrical collapse of building 7. He also fails to mention that people heard loud explosions from the basements earlier in the day. Is it possible that a lot of that demolition was done prior the the collapse?

19) He labels Steven Jones "incompetent and deceitful" because of one thing Dr. Jones said about building 7.

That's just deceitful to do to someone. What about the other work this man has provided? Is a tour guide even educated enough to really discredit him and call him "incompetent"?

20) He asks us if we think this firefighter is in on the conspiracy.

Again with the strawman. When is this man going to tell us something we don't know? Just because some idiot may have said that firemen were in on the conspiracy does not mean that's the norm. I certainly don't.

21) Everyone could tell the building was going to collapse before hand

As previously mention, what if some of the demolition work was done before hand? Not many are arguing that these people were all in the conspiracy, but more to the point, that the building fell. Now I have not finished this video, but to this point he (Roberts) has not even attempted to explain any of the collapses. People are not arguing that they did, they are arguing as to why and how. Why did WTC 7 falls from fire and debris damage? Why was this fire hot enough to bring a building down symmetrically when no other one in history has?

That is the question Mr. Roberts. Answer that, and you'll shut everyone up.

22) Talks a lot about the new WTC 7.

Again, not on topic of what anyone is asking.

23) Next he calls Richard Gage incompetent because he "hides" the explosions by talking.

I'm not even going to call Mr. Roberts incompetent. This is not my place, nor his to call anyone else that, but I will call him arrogent for doing so.

24) He calls other a 9/11 truther an idiot because he claims that he could not give the definition of a pyroclastic flow.

And then he gave us an online definition of a pyroclastic flow. Is that not required reading for a NYC tour guide? He also took the definition from a website about volcanos. True, Mr. Roberts, that is the definition of a pyroclastic flow in relation to volcanos. However, a pyroclastic flow is really just a fast moving cloud of hot gas and rock (concrete?). Is that not a representation of the immense clouds of dust and debris on 9/11? You remember, the stuff you said was there, then not, then there. Yea... that stuff.

25) On to the concrete. Mr. Roberts says it was not all pulverized.

The pictures I saw had 2 with concrete no larger than a small rock. The next picture, I believe, was a crux in the argument for thermite. It was the picture of the concrete/steel meshed toghether, almost fused.

26) 9/11 compared to a bag of flour being dropped.

Where do I start? No, I don't suppose it would be hot, the flour that is. But on 9/11 it was. I seem to recall a lot of burn victims from the cloud. I won't call it a pyroclastic cloud because he might pull out the definition of a volcano on me.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

27) Next we'll view a building that demolished by "only putting charges on supports that need to be removed".

What we then view is similarly eerie to 9/11. A giant dust cloud is created that when the building initially begins to explode and then starts to expand immediately. It is further pushed out by the rest of the building collapsing. I see no evidence by Mr. Roberts that the dust would have even existed without the presense of explosives, however. It's actually funny because as the I view more of these videos he has presented me with it is plainly obvious the the smoke is originating from the explosions, not the collapse. The collapse only helps to accelerate the speed of expansion.


Thank god, that is pretty much the end of the video. I didn't expect for this to be as large as it was, but as I continued, I had to pause every 15 secs to write about how full of BS and strawman arguments this video is.

I apologize in advance for any bad punctuation, run on sentences, or other grammatical errors. Writing has never been my strongest point.

I hope this has not been repetative or off topic, as that would mean I wasted your time, as well as mine.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

reply to post by billybob

the point is, there was 1000s of tons of fine dust. enough to be out of place.

Would you believe that I believe you and that my mind isn't as made up as (I am sure) some other posters think? I have to agree, the consensus on the evidence accepted as valid does appear to have some inconsistencies. I am not rabid, but interested in the truth. Staying true to a skeptical point of view, I can't, out-of-hand dismiss the "too much fine dust" argument. Things like holograms, IMO, are easily dismissed with even the barest of cursory idigging around. Not so here.

I have spent some time looking through the collected works of others and here are what I believe to be the salient points (in no particular order):

1. There does appear to be a valid argument for too much dust, too large a cloud and too wide the debris field
   
2. Dust samples only measure fine dust and do not provide a sample size indicative of all the concrete present, only the size of the particles sampled. Which, by the nature of a dust sample, is fine dust. Meaning, the anything larger than a few hundred microns (really small) was not included in the sample
   
3. Arguments galore and finger pointing between the mathematicians. Each side seems to use figures or assumptions that are favorable to the desired outcome
   
4. Each of the equations run through appear to have assumptions included, no matter which side. What this means to me is that until a basis can be agreed upon, no real, total consensus can take place
   
5. Each side tends to claim the others' calculations are incomplete and use "faulty" or is missing components that take into account all the present factors
   
6. The sample size in Lioy's study are ridiculously small (3) and by no means representative
   
7. I haven't been able to find a work-through including the contents of the building itself (furniture, dry walls, stairwells, doors, computers, etc)
   
8. This needs further investigation
   
9. Neither side, to me, has "proven" it's case
   

And that's the truth and I will admit it to you.

Now having said that, I think once a widely accepted explanation has been put forward rabid truthers will ignore it and rabid debunkers will cling to it.

My personal belief is, yes, the simplest explanation will tend to be the correct one. The reason I use reasoning and logic so heavily in my counter arguments is because I believe both side heavily use complex mathematical arguments they each think are the "gold" standards. We spend so much time trying to point to some hole in the other side's version of events that we miss the whole goal: find the truth.

That's my way of saying that I think relying on the preponderance of evidence is where the truth lies. I keep in mind the NIST had to develop modeling for this disaster because something like this has never happened before. That means we are all drawing conclusions from the best available picture.

For instance the NIST says:

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation

There were over 200 technical experts in the NIST's investigation formed specifically for the WTC collapse investigation. My thinking is that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one and the explanation about the dust cloud most likely lies in the mundane, although not encountered before.

I snipped some quotes so the mods don't get too upset.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Already starts off on a bad foot in assuming that everyone is "certain" instead of just questioning. That's just one thing wrong with using this quote in the context it is used.

Sublime, lets face it, there are very few that call themselves truthers are actually looking for it. I always say,

911 Truth: Ask Questions; Ignore Answers

The Truth movement has not come forth with any evidence that proves that 911 Was an inside job.

You wouldn't see the initial explosions, as they would be at and above the collapse zone. The remaining would also mostly be hidden by the falling inferno.

Huh? You would hear them, thats for shure. Watch any CD. Please show me where explosions are "hidden" by "falling inferno".

The NIST pictures I've viewed only showed bowing at or above the impact zone. I think most CT's would argue that doesn't show the structural integrity of the rest of the building to be lacking. So... and really, no new evidence there either.

No one was saying the rest of the building was lacking in structural integrity. Mr. Roberts was not showing any "new" evidence. Just backing up the mountain of it that already existed.

Would that not be the natural place the building would begin to collapse if the collumns were cut at and above the impact zone? What area of the facade would you expect to give first?

So, your saying the plane was flown into the exact point where the collumns were cut? Dude? Are you serious? When were they cut?

True. But what about the testimony of witnesses who heard loud popping bangs? I didn't hear them in the video, however, that camera appeared pretty far away and I'm sure it's possible the ambience noise could have drowned that out.

*sighs* loud popping bangs do not always mean expolsive devices. You have seen the Collapse videos over and over and over. Did you hear any explosions that would compare to the ones clearly heard in the CD videos?

I feel he almost hurt his position. For one, public demolitions are often times a show. They intentionally over dramatize the explosions. Often times, they try new methods and different styles simply to fit the show they want to put on. Look at Las Vegas demolitions for example.

Um... What? Please back up this statement with a source. You are trying to say if a building is getting demo'd, the company (In Vegas it was LVI whom I work with on other types of projects) adds extra explosives? Try new methods? Dude!

However, what this video did show was similar squibs and in ALL of the examples a large explosion in the basement before the collapse sequence. Both are major factors in the demolition theory that I read all the time on the forums.

Your right. But there were no squibs prior to the start of the collapse of the WTC. Also, there were no explosions reported in the basements just prior to the collapses.

9) A giant "dishonest" tag is placed over the creators of loose change due to the previous point.

A little over dramatic wouldn't you say?

No, Dylan Avery and the rest of the Louder Than Words crew are a pack of liars and have admitted to spreading false information. (This is on video)


Sorry Sublime, IMO your comments in regards to this video are not very good. Nothing personal, you have your mind made up. You want there to be a conspiracy, you made up your mind. Nothing that anyone will show you will change what you believe. The rest of your critique of his video is pretty much the same.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
911 Truth: Ask Questions; Ignore Answers

They seem to feel as though just asking the question, or that the question exists is proof enough of a conspiracy. Honestly, that's a spot on observation.

They are not looking for evidence of the "truth". They are looking for evidence to support conclusions they have long ago made and fits their (usually) very political thinking.