FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Video Clips
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:10 am    Post subject: Video Clips Reply with quote

Could someone please explain these for me. It would seem to me that anyone supporting the official CT would have to at least offer some sort of response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&search=911%20bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yPAUIgMVCQ&search=911%20bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HuaiuayAI&search=911%20bombs

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=911

And you people think its unreasonable to question the official story??

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Video Clips Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Could someone please explain these for me. It would seem to me that anyone supporting the official CT would have to at least offer some sort of response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&search=911%20bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yPAUIgMVCQ&search=911%20bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HuaiuayAI&search=911%20bombs

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=911

And you people think its unreasonable to question the official story??

It's not unreasonable to question. But it's unreasonable to conclude that there was a controlled demolition based on these.

The first question you should be asking yourself is, are there any possible mundane explanations (other than intentionally detonated bombs) for these explosions?

If you are unsatisfied with possible mundane explanations and are leaning towards bombs, the next question you should be asking yourself is, is there any corroborating evidence for bombs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.

Damn it, DeFecToR, you disappoint me.

I characterized you on a JREF thread as one of few people here who I thought capable of a well-considered debate. Yet, as soon as I disagree with your interpretation of a single sentence in the sea of information, I become an "apologist", no longer a human being in your eyes but merely an appendage of the Beast. Please reconsider.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chipmunk stew wrote:


I characterized you on a JREF thread as one of few people here who I thought capable of a well-considered debate. Yet, as soon as I disagree with your interpretation of a single sentence in the sea of information, I become an "apologist", no longer a human being in your eyes but merely an appendage of the Beast. Please reconsider.


Do you enjoy picking over people's psychology with the other creeps on that site?

A noose and lamp post would be too kind you lot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright CS. Its like this. I greatly respect the aspect of your character that allows you to question elements of 911 truth. I believe it is an absolutely vital requirement for us to reach any kind of truth.
You and Gravy provided some excellent information, and additional sources for me to investigate, many of which i know agree with entirely. When you can show me something that proves that i am incorrect about an issue, then great, i will accept it.
But on the issue of PNAC you have shown me that you are willing to grossly twist evidence to make it harmless.
Those animals were talking about war. Plain and simple. For you to minimise that makes me sick to my stomach. This is one issue that i can never agree with you on. There are other issues, like CD, that we dont agree on but i can accept and understand your position. On this issue however, if you are to assert that the PNAC document is harmless then, as far as i'm concerned, you have crossed the line.

You are blind to 911 and always will be. I dont know what your agenda is but it is not truth.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
On this issue however, if you are to assert that the PNAC document is harmless then, as far as i'm concerned, you have crossed the line.

I never said it was harmless. I said it wasn't a planned foreshadowing of 9/11.

I'm disgusted by the PNAC agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.


And yet we're perfectly willing to discuss your Islamic terrorist apologist BS... go figure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
DeFecToR wrote:
Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.


And yet we're perfectly willing to discuss your Islamic terrorist apologist BS... go figure.


See, if you actually knew anything about the history of radical Islamists you would realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do the official theory supporters think the strange 'squibs' are then? I've yet to see their explanation for those (I may have overlooked it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqcp7k&search=911%20squibs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gypsum wrote:
What do the official theory supporters think the strange 'squibs' are then? I've yet to see their explanation for those (I may have overlooked it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqcp7k&search=911%20squibs


Ha. You'll love this. The squibs observed on WTC 1 and 2 are ejections of debris being forced out of the buildings by a pressure wave from the collapsing floors above.

And yes, this even applies to the squibs in floors way down from the collapse. No accurate scientific explanation for this process is offered.
Yet again, a pathetic example of refusing to ignore what is in their faces.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seriously? Surely they can come up with better than that!
If it really was a 'pressure wave' then wouldn't it have occured throughout the floor and not in one concentrated place?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
DeFecToR wrote:
Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.


And yet we're perfectly willing to discuss your Islamic terrorist apologist BS... go figure.


See, if you actually knew anything about the history of radical Islamists you would realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is.


Quote:

apologist
One entry found for apologist.
Main Entry: apol·o·gist
Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-jist
Function: noun
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
source: m-w.com

By attempting to shift the blame away from the Islamic terrorists that perpetrated these actions you are defending them. What does the history of radical Islamists have to do with that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gypsum wrote:
Seriously? Surely they can come up with better than that!
If it really was a 'pressure wave' then wouldn't it have occured throughout the floor and not in one concentrated place?

Yes, but as soon as one window fails, the pressure is released rapidly.

Can you explain to me the collapse sequence based on a controlled demolition model?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gypsum wrote:
Seriously? Surely they can come up with better than that!
If it really was a 'pressure wave' then wouldn't it have occured throughout the floor and not in one concentrated place?


It would seem that ASCE members do not find the debris ejection to be an anomoly of the collapse:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
DeFecToR wrote:
Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
DeFecToR wrote:
Read my post in the PNAC topic.

I'm through listening to your apologist bulls**t.


And yet we're perfectly willing to discuss your Islamic terrorist apologist BS... go figure.


See, if you actually knew anything about the history of radical Islamists you would realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is.


Quote:

apologist
One entry found for apologist.
Main Entry: apol·o·gist
Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-jist
Function: noun
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
source: m-w.com

By attempting to shift the blame away from the Islamic terrorists that perpetrated these actions you are defending them. What does the history of radical Islamists have to do with that?


Who created those terrorists? Who funded and trained those scary muslims? False flag terrorism has been used by governments for centuries. GOD i cant believe how narrow minded you people are.

And what about P2OG?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
gypsum wrote:
Seriously? Surely they can come up with better than that!
If it really was a 'pressure wave' then wouldn't it have occured throughout the floor and not in one concentrated place?


It would seem that ASCE members do not find the debris ejection to be an anomoly of the collapse:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf


So why is it then that the NIST models would not fail? They had resort to software models, that they are now keeping secret.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kookomula
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you bored children? And the holidays have only just begun, have we got six more weeks of this. Ally...man.

Last edited by kookomula on Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
gypsum wrote:
Seriously? Surely they can come up with better than that!
If it really was a 'pressure wave' then wouldn't it have occured throughout the floor and not in one concentrated place?


It would seem that ASCE members do not find the debris ejection to be an anomoly of the collapse:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf


So why is it then that the NIST models would not fail? They had resort to software models, that they are now keeping secret.


Link to neutral site with details/evidence of the physical and/or software modelling?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3008
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote:
chipmunk stew wrote:


I characterized you on a JREF thread as one of few people here who I thought capable of a well-considered debate. Yet, as soon as I disagree with your interpretation of a single sentence in the sea of information, I become an "apologist", no longer a human being in your eyes but merely an appendage of the Beast. Please reconsider.


Do you enjoy picking over people's psychology with the other creeps on that site?

A noose and lamp post would be too kind you lot.


Ally, the creation of a critics corner is an attempt to promote reasoned civilised and resepctful debate with our critics (whilst maintaining a separation with the remainder of the site). Quite possibly a futile endevour on public discussion boards, but worth a try to see how it develops.

So please ignore them if you reckon they are below contempt. We can hardly ask to be treated with respect by 'them' if 'we' are seen to be proposing lynching and violence as a suitable response to 'them'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the demolition of wtc 1 and 2 is unlike conventional demolitions its true.i for me, the squibs which appear 20 stories below the collapse wave can't be accounted for by air pressure. the speed and initiation of the collapse is absolutely unique and highly improbable with fire as a cause.

but i can't explain exactly how the explosives in wtc1 and 2 were set up. its possible that similar demolitions were carried out in secret using similar methods.

its probably fruitless for us to go down the route of 'the twin towers were demolished like this' as we don't have enough information to work it out exactly. what we can say is, it couldn't have happened like this. 'like this' being the nist report. again, nists refusal to hold a discussion with the scholars suggests they have something to hide.

unfortunately this seems to be a stale mate situation between us and our critics. they will say 'explain how they demolished the twin towers!' and we will say 'explain how the towers collapsed the way they did!'. neither party can answer to the satisfaction of the other so we will never get anywhere!

all i can say to the critics is.. if NIST have nothing to hide, why not accept the scholars invitation? the questions being raised concerning the highly unusual collapse of the twin towers, by the likes of jones and griffin, are surely reasonable.

I would also say that wtc7 is another kettle of fish alltogether. for that we can say that this has all the signs of a conventional demolition. If you look at the collapse completely independently, controlled demolition is CERTAINLY the most probable cause for its collapse.

in light of this its quite possible that the twin towers were rigged with explosive devices (which is also backed up by many eye witness reports).

again the mainstream media is still labelling us all as tin foil hat looneys. when we are asking very sensible questions given the activity at the wtc.

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While it is true that it is difficult for us to explain HOW explosives were planted in the buildings, one question has already been answered. Steven Jones has recently confirm 100% that super-thermite traces can be found in the remnants of the WTC. So at least we know WHAT brought them down.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Steven Jones has recently confirm 100% that super-thermite traces can be found in the remnants of the WTC.
Source?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like i mentioned before, i'm chopping together a shortened version of SJ's presentation given at AJ's recent 911 conference. Its all there.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
Like i mentioned before, i'm chopping together a shortened version of SJ's presentation given at AJ's recent 911 conference. Its all there.

Fair enough. Keep in mind that Jones had this to say about his comments at that conference:
Quote:
Just a quick clarification: As I said in my talk at the Chicago conference, and in my remarks to Alex Jones, the results so far on the analysis of the previously-molten metal samples are PRELIMINARY. I emphasized that, in fact.

The samples are predominantly iron, so we can rule out the 'molten aluminum' hypothesis with a high degree of confidence. There is very little chromium, so that the 'molten structural steel' hypothesis is highly suspect. Yes, there is sulfur -- but proving the use of 'thermate' positively will certainly require further analyses and comparisons with samples of known origin (such as thermate-products). And that analysis takes a lot of time, unfortunately. Patience is a virtue.

(my emphasis)
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2006/06/25004.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it doesn't sound like there is quite enough evidence to say that thermate was definately used in the wtc, i agree.
but lets see what further tests bring up

although jones does say this
Quote:
so we can rule out the 'molten aluminum' hypothesis with a high degree of confidence.


which leaves the question. what is this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk&search=thermite
nist have stated that this is molten aluminium

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"


Last edited by TimmyG on Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jason
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Up North

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't believe for a second that Afgan Lampshade & chipmonk spew actually buy the official version of event as stated in the omissions report.

They are simply making a niusance of themselves. If ignord they will go back to their own little corner of cyber space with the other J-Riff Raff by getting involved you are feeding their mistaken perception of self importance.

they love dictionary quotes here's one the have never had to look up.

girl·friend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gūrlfrnd)
n.
A favored female companion or sweetheart.
A female friend.

_________________
Read about me and becks www.beckhamcoverup.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason wrote:
I don't believe for a second that Afgan Lampshade & chipmonk spew actually buy the official version of event as stated in the omissions report.

They are simply making a niusance of themselves. If ignord they will go back to their own little corner of cyber space with the other J-Riff Raff by getting involved you are feeding their mistaken perception of self importance.

they love dictionary quotes here's one the have never had to look up.

girl·friend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gūrlfrnd)
n.
A favored female companion or sweetheart.
A female friend.

Welcome to the forum, Jason. Your insights are profound.

edit: and you're right, I've never had to look that one up--it was never a mystery to me...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jason
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Up North

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chipmunk stew wrote:
Jason wrote:
I don't believe for a second that Afgan Lampshade & chipmonk spew actually buy the official version of event as stated in the omissions report.

They are simply making a niusance of themselves. If ignord they will go back to their own little corner of cyber space with the other J-Riff Raff by getting involved you are feeding their mistaken perception of self importance.

they love dictionary quotes here's one the have never had to look up.

girl·friend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gūrlfrnd)
n.
A favored female companion or sweetheart.
A female friend.

Welcome to the forum, Jason. Your insights are profound.

edit: and you're right, I've never had to look that one up--it was never a mystery to me...


Thanks for the welcome, my insights are as profound as yours are logical, critically thinking what you are told to think.

_________________
Read about me and becks www.beckhamcoverup.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason wrote:
chipmunk stew wrote:
Jason wrote:
I don't believe for a second that Afgan Lampshade & chipmonk spew actually buy the official version of event as stated in the omissions report.

They are simply making a niusance of themselves. If ignord they will go back to their own little corner of cyber space with the other J-Riff Raff by getting involved you are feeding their mistaken perception of self importance.

they love dictionary quotes here's one the have never had to look up.

girl·friend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gūrlfrnd)
n.
A favored female companion or sweetheart.
A female friend.

Welcome to the forum, Jason. Your insights are profound.

edit: and you're right, I've never had to look that one up--it was never a mystery to me...


Thanks for the welcome, my insights are as profound as yours are logical, critically thinking what you are told to think.

Enough flame-baiting. If you want to respond to criticism of the Inside Job hypothesis, feel free. Otherwise, piss off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group