WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Nonchalant

 

Many conspiracy sources (First Loose Change for an example) claim the fires were 'burning out' and were at very low temperatures because of the black smoke.

It seems reasonable to want to debunk this.

Ah they were 'burning out' now were they? Yea I coulda sworn Dave said 'truthers claim there were NO fires' in his OP. Somebodies not telling the truth (or should I say spreading disinfo) here.

Looks like someone needs to be sent back for reprogramming..

edit on 22-6-2012 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)

You're arguing semantics now. It's well known that the truth movement claims that the fires were not very hot or almost out at the time of collapse. This is directly disprovable, hence Dave's post.

I find the fact that the conspiracy folk in this thread aren't even arguing points to be telling. Nobody is trying to say Dave is lying. They are just attacking his character and making generalizations about "Official Story Supporters."

When the conspiracy theorists actually learn the topic and argue the points using evidence and supportable theories, the movement will pick up momentum. Playing the blame game and accusing everyone of diverting the movement is going to get you guys nowhere.

My response has nothing to do with semantics. If I say to the police I wasnt at a location at the time of a murder that doesn't mean that I might have been. Dave said we claim there were no fires. Thats a lie.

Oh, and as for arguing his claims. Why would I try & argue against a lie? 90% of people on this site will no doubt see Dave's post for what it is & I have more productive things to do than engage myself in non-productive arguements based on fallacies.

Very simple question:

Since the top mass of WTC 2 tipped over, where was the supposed "piledriver" that crushed the rest of the building?

Originally posted by Supernatural
Very simple question:

Since the top mass of WTC 2 tipped over, where was the supposed "piledriver" that crushed the rest of the building?

The top mass only rotated by around 30 degrees. It didn't 'tip over'. Plus, there's no piledriver. It's more of a huge bunch of destroyed floors and mangled steel being dropped on successive floors. A concrete grinder seems a more accurate simile

Originally posted by Nonchalant
My response has nothing to do with semantics. If I say to the police I wasnt at a location at the time of a murder that doesn't mean that I might have been. Dave said we claim there were no fires. Thats a lie.

I mostly agree with you here. Dave didn't make it particularly clear and he really should have said something a bit more accurate (if that's what he meant)

Just wanted to throw my two cents in as I did discuss it with you on the previous page.

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

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


No building as tall as WTC 7 has ever been CD'd either.

The tallest ever was only 23 stories, WTC 7 was 47.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Yet the OS expects us to believe a 47 story building can mimic a controlled implosion demolition and result in the same outcome from sporadic fires?

reply to post by easybreezy


I've never even heard of this video... thanks for posting it.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


sorry for blowing your mind

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.

reply to post by exponent


They used SILENT EXPLOSIVES

Consult your NWO manual as laid out by the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon series about formula for silent explosives

In Season 3 of The Bullwinkle show, the storyline of Banana Fuel ran for 9 episodes. It centered on the development of 'hushaboom', a completely silent explosive. The formula is recited by Bullwinkle (who remembers everything he has ever eaten, and ate the banana on which Boris had written the fuel's formula) at the end of installment 3, which first aired on July 24, 1962

Originally posted by easybreezy
show me your source that says he's debunked, i bet you cannot..

This video shows how silly Gage and the AE911TRUTH actually is...

reply to post by Varemia
You continue to amaze me. So it's been proven that 7 fell at less than free fall speed, huh? Well, when I watch that building fall, un-impeded, I don't need a stop watch and Isaac Newton to know that something removed the supports that held the damn thing up for thirty years. And we certainly don't need your advice about how to better present our case. If you want to continue to post on this topic, expect derision.

While bumbling around Youtube, i came across this video

I always love threads that start with this line after seeing such a dramatic headline.

reply to post by Varemia


now that just shows for you, just because it didn't fall at perfect free fall speeds? yet i bloody well explained why that is, so you re post the question, to the answer i gave???



and yet you OSer's have yet to produce one piece of evidence that is in your favor that doesn't have the spin of ignorance, or isn't a blatant lie.

there is nothing that you can throw at us we cannot answer.

I would suggest any truther or person falling for this truther nonsense to please read the information at the following:

Author: Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...

Anytime I see someone spouting this nonsense, I like to throw some facts at them.

reply to post by Sf18443


bahaha lololololl, i aint even as all this has been bunked sooo many times before. my god man did you even think before posting this.

i suggest you make a simple cardboard model and step on it to see if it will flatten strait down,

cos no it wont, basic rule. path of least resistance's


and not to mention the pancake theory is only held up the the uniform destruction of several floors at a perfect timing, and that was only on one tower!



not to mention you are also disregarding all evidence of explosives, so were the carbon nano tubes come from i wonder?

reply to post by ANOK

sporadic fires?

Sporadic, huh?



Except for the firebombing of Germany and Japan (with nukes even), 911 was the biggest "sporadic" bunch of blazes in a city ever. Longest too, by the way.

You mean we have to believe the believers like we have for so many years? The ones who broke our system? The ones who brought us to two wars that we didn't even win over false clauses on each of them! Should i include sources for the meek? So we're supposed to act stupid and believe your scam to sucker the American people out of their honor and lives lost to fill the pockets of your oil conglomerate empire that has polluted the economy and the world with it! Your the real tard if you believed any of the #! Did you know the ENRON files were in building 7. should we post video showing thermite pouting from side of twin tower. Explosives weren't used in the towers it was thermite ignited by the planes that hit them that was planted most likely weeks before the disaster,! Why the # would you have wargames on a day when we should be alert and watching our ass? Why did they confiscate the video of the plane hitting the pentagon and all videos in the area? what are they hiding if they want us to believe a plane hit the pentagon? Where debris from flight 93 instead it s justa burn mark in the ground about 5 feet in diameter with no seats bodies or wreckage? Why did britain report towers falling in news 20 minutes before they fell? Heres thermite pouring from tower: power would have been cut already from breakers and fuses!:www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
new video showing glimpse of what hit pentagon:www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ATSGrunt


uhh thermite was also a part of cutting charges (hi tech) couldn't bring this building down solely with thermite rotting the steel

all confirmed
watch this best 911 vid there is

Google Video Link