+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

  1. Link to Post #21
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,897
    Thanked 32,276 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by TigaHawk (here)
    Am i the only one that i can see the giant bright white orb emitting thing that has lightbeam things facing the building?

    Start of the video, at around 3secs. You see a beam of light coming in from out of frame, top left-ish. As the camera man pan's down a bit you can see the "orb" of light clearly. IT moves down into the smoke and disappears from view. Cant see in the 2nd one as it would probably start at the top and move down as the building fell, but they jumped forward to when it was already falling.

    No?? Anyone??? Is that the only video it's in?

    Attachment 35095
    I'm not seeing this orb or beam of light phenomenon. What I think it is, is the top corner of the cladding catching the sunlight as it begins to tilt/drop.

    Attachment 35100
    Exactly what I thought, but then I thought ... could it (the top building corner) possibly be "glowing"? Nothing else in the scene is reflecting sunlight like that. Just a passing thought ...
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Fellow Aspirant (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (29th March 2017)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Canada Avalon Member Fellow Aspirant's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th July 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    5,979
    Thanked 5,191 times in 929 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Thanks Paula, for working your computer graphic sorcery!
    They are pretty blurred,of course, due to the amount of "zooming" that I employed.
    I have a lot to learn!

    So, below is my most recent attempt at demonstrating the bizarre "circular" damage.

    Clicking on the image will allow you to see a much bigger version:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	B6 2 Circles.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	308.0 KB
ID:	35109

    B.
    A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

    Albert E.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fellow Aspirant For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (29th March 2017), mab777 (11th December 2018), mojo (29th March 2017), RunningDeer (29th March 2017)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,152
    Thanks
    98,076
    Thanked 111,351 times in 12,885 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Fellow Aspirant (here)
    Clicking on the image will allow you to see a much bigger version:
    B.


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017)

  7. Link to Post #24
    Canada Avalon Member Fellow Aspirant's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th July 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    5,979
    Thanked 5,191 times in 929 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    You are awesome, Paula!
    Thanks again for the help.

    Namaste
    A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

    Albert E.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fellow Aspirant For This Post:

    mojo (29th March 2017), RunningDeer (29th March 2017)

  9. Link to Post #25
    Canada Avalon Retired Member Karma Ninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th April 2011
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    859
    Thanked 976 times in 209 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    With all respect due karma ninja, neither the conventional use of explosives for a controlled demolition (WTC 7) nor the use of some conventional explosives, coupled with "unconventional" explosives or high energy weapons (WTC 1 and 2) have been disproved, just as the official explanation of the cause of the destruction of these buildings on 9/11/2001 has not been proved. It has only been stated, not proved.

    Neither the official nor alternative theories have been put through the rigors of evidence, proof and truth-finding via qualified and reliable expert testimony, under direct examination and cross examination. See, e.g., http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...eyVol40Mar.pdf.

    After my many years of study of much of the available evidence (and that is an important qualification in light of the spoliation of much evidence immediately following 9/11 (something bin laden could not have carried out)), I have reasonably concluded that there is no way on this planet Earth that jet fuel (kerosene) coupled with relatively moderate plane impact damage caused WTC 1 and 2 to be destroyed in the manner that was observed on 9/11/2001. Nor did relatively minor fires in WTC 7 cause it to collapse at 5:20 p.m on 9/11/2001.

    The official explanation of the causes of destruction of these buildings is unprecedented and defies all laws of physics known to mankind.
    Hi Satori,

    I would like to challenge some of the assertions you have made in the above comment. I would like to point out that I have spent over 10 years believing that the 9/11 attacks were controlled demolitions. You could probably find a comment by me, made on this very website, where I support that idea. I have argued this theory with people and supported those who shared my beliefs. I only recently changed my opinion on this and that is due to my new found devotion to trying to prove myself wrong on some of my beliefs. I actually have spent the past few years trying to prove myself wrong on a lot of the beliefs and theories I held as the truth. I guess what I am trying to say is I am actively debunking myself and my beliefs. I do this because I have witnesses too many of the more far fetched theories get lumped together with the more believable ones. This is part of a concerted effort to discredit the alternative movement and to paint us all with the "crazy conspiracy theorist" label. As an example: If you get one person with solid information on 9/11 truth and you can catch them supporting the flat earth theory, then you can get other people to rule out EVERYTHING that person believes as being crazy. Some of my beliefs have changed as a result of this exercise. It has been an amazing mental journey.

    Firstly, the main reason that no has disproved the theories around controlled demolition and/or unconventional weapons is that no legitimate scientific organization has been asked to study the possibility of either of those scenarios. While it is true that this 'absence of proof' does not rule them out, it is also just as true that the "ninja-chickens armed with super-mega-laser-cannons brought down the towers" theory... cannot be ruled out. But we should probably rule out the ninja chicken theory none the less. Just as there is no proof that unconventional weapons were/weren't used...there is also no proof that some of those weapons even exist and/or are being used. That takes 2 leaps of faith to come to that conclusion. I don't like beliefs that require too many unproven assumptions. I try to rest my beliefs in the realm of the believable, provable and where experts in the related scientific fields have weighed in. At the very least, I like to see things rooted into something resembling reality.

    Pedogate is within the realm of reality and the possibility is believable when considered with the other international pedophile investigations that are known and acknowledged.

    Chemtrails (or planes spraying stuff in the sky) exist but if you try to convince me that every single contrail that shows up in the sky is a chem-trail than I am going to stop listening and believing in your ability to judge reality.

    But I digress..

    But here is where your statement gets outside of reality...a little. (Please take no offense)

    Quote Neither the official nor alternative theories have been put through the rigors of evidence, proof and truth-finding via qualified and reliable expert testimony, under direct examination and cross examination.
    The evidence, expert testimony and the official reports are not being used as evidence in a court of law. Therefore they do not need to be held to this standard. If the "Official 9/11 story" were put under the scrutiny of the legitimacy of evidence used in legal matters then I can only assume that Stevan Douglas Looney is correct and it would not meet that standard.

    I give Mr. Looney that benefit because, being a lawyer, he is far more educated in matters of law than I am myself. If you cite his essay then you must give him that benefit yourself. Weird, but I guess we BOTH trust a lawyer here.

    Right away in Mr. Looney's paper (http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...eyVol40Mar.pdf) he brings up the '9/11 Commission Report' to begin his theory. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the report knows that it is not a technical paper. The' 9/11 Commission Report' is a government examination of the responses of the various government entities to the events of 9/11. This is a weak way to begin making his case as the report does not even require technical data. No lawyer would present it as technical data so Looney should know that it has no significance in a legal case.

    Mr. Looney must also know that the presentation of evidence in a 9/11 court case would ultimately be done by experts in the related fields. They would be given months, if not years, to prepare their evidence to be used as testimony. Therefore, it is only logical that if you wish to hold people to the legal standard than the legal system could never find a witness with more expert knowledge than the members of NIST. The legal standard for expertise falls WAY below the level of expertise that the members of NIST possess.

    A quick glance at the members of NIST reveals a recurring theme: PHD's. These are the experts you are looking for. You would be hard pressed to find people with more knowledge of accident physics and safety standards anywhere else on the planet.

    So why are you going to trust the opinion of a small time lawyer in New Mexico with 2 minor papers to his writing credit (Mr. Looney) more than the educated and researched opinions of world class experts (NIST) with, literally, HUNDREDS of peer reviewed BOOKS in their specific fields of expertise? I can guess that you don't trust the parties involved in the official story because you probably believe that there is a coverup happening across all or many levels. I get that. But, I also don't just trust any person who writes a paper or makes a video as being an expert either. Mr. Looney is right to be skeptical of the events that day but carries no expertise on the physics of the collapse.

    One last thing, the NIST report is a culmination of a 3 year investigation. This is pretty thorough. Even though they were funded by Congress (who else would have funded such an investigation - hint: NO ONE ELSE HAS), they weren't allowed access to all the available data and some people feel too much of the evidence was taken away before it could be investigated. They still had access to enough information that it took them 3 years to reach a conclusion. How many steel columns or piles of dust need to be tested before one can draw a reasonable conclusion? Surely no one expects all of it to be tested. They would still be doing the testing today if that was the case!

    The physics are pretty clear. You say it was moderate damage??? It was a fuel-laden jet that probably weighed 150,000 kg's or over 300,000 pounds traveling at 450-550 mph!!! If you understand how Newtons law works (Force = Mass x Acceleration) than you should have not doubt that this was a major and substantial blow. Even then the towers both stayed standing! Freaking engineers are awesome!

    Still... the blow from the plane sheared through several steel columns before the remainder of the plane broke up around the remaining columns. Most of the fuel exploded on impact and some of it did not. Looking at the thick clouds of black smoke billowing out of the buildings it is only logical to assume that fires burned inside.

    Then, if you understand the physics of metal and how they weaken when heated than the rest becomes clear. The towers were weakened from the hit and then further weakened by the fires and the structure failed and they fell.

    If I cracked you in the thigh with a baseball bat and broke your leg (plane into the building), you might be able to hop around on the other leg and stay standing. But if I lit your pants on fire and you freaked out and tried to put your weight on the broken leg...you might fall.

    Either way... neither of us are an expert on these matters and if either of us thinks they are...we're delusional. However there are literally hundreds of independent experts who have spoken up and said that the failure of the towers was easily predictable once they were hit and caught fire.

    Why trust the "expert small time lawyer" in legal matters but not the hundreds of Doctors of Engineering and Physics who support the official version of why the towers fell?

    Who else are you willing to trust on these matters?
    Last edited by Karma Ninja; 29th March 2017 at 02:30.

  10. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Karma Ninja (here)
    Then, if you understand the physics of metal and how they weaken when heated than the rest becomes clear. The towers were weakened from the hit and then further weakened by the fires and the structure failed and they fell.
    The bulk of the million tons of concrete and steel in those two towers was below the points of impact. Heat rises. There was not even remotely enough heat generated from perhaps 100 tons of jet fuel to even warm up perhaps 800,000 tons of concrete and steel, even if that heat had been directly below, or focused on, that concrete and steel, which it was not.

    There were people inside those towers moving about, doing this and that, reporting out, getting out, getting trapped, whatever, right up until the collapses. Those people would have been cooked, like a Thanksgiving turkey in an oven set to a temperature far above what any ordinary (steel) kitchen oven can be set to, well before the steel began to weaken even slightly. Turkey's are cooked at perhaps 400F; my quite ordinary oven can go up to 500F.

    The steel and concrete in those towers was over one thousand degrees F cooler than what it takes to start to weaken such material. Since people were near to and surrounded by that steel for an hour or so in each tower, the temperatures on the floors below the impacted floors were surely less than approx 100 F. Since any such structural steel will easily handle at least 700 C (1300 F), that steel was 1300 - 100 == 1200 F degrees colder than anything that might have effected it.

    I, as an individual, do not like your 9/11 posts of this year (beginning in Jan 2017). I really do not like them. The above temperature dispute is just one reason why this is so. I am pretty sure that it would only frustrate both of us, and serve to further harm the search for a truthful understanding of 9/11 and what and who was behind it, were I to attempt to further list and debate the reasons for my concern. So I will likely not do so.

    I, as a moderator, do not usually take action in such disputes, all on my own. We work together, and we bring a delightful diversity of abilities, energies, expertise and talents to this forum. So I intend to take no moderating action, individually.

  11. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    ceetee9 (30th March 2017), DaveToo (12th December 2018), Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2017), Justplain (30th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017), Shannon (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (29th March 2017)

  12. Link to Post #27
    Canada Avalon Retired Member Karma Ninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th April 2011
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    859
    Thanked 976 times in 209 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Paul,

    I am not sure what to say. I feel like because I have come to a different conclusion than you have and have accepted different pieces of information as the truth that you are upset with me. I have tried to be respectful and logical but perhaps I have failed.

    I know I can be long winded and contrary but I certainly never felt like I was even close to being rude. Either way, if you or any of the other moderators feel the need to "take action" against me and censor a differing opinion I will accept your decision.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by Karma Ninja (here)
    Then, if you understand the physics of metal and how they weaken when heated than the rest becomes clear. The towers were weakened from the hit and then further weakened by the fires and the structure failed and they fell.
    The bulk of the million tons of concrete and steel in those two towers was below the points of impact. Heat rises. There was not even remotely enough heat generated from perhaps 100 tons of jet fuel to even warm up perhaps 800,000 tons of concrete and steel, even if that heat had been directly below, or focused on, that concrete and steel, which it was not.

    There were people inside those towers moving about, doing this and that, reporting out, getting out, getting trapped, whatever, right up until the collapses. Those people would have been cooked, like a Thanksgiving turkey in an oven set to a temperature far above what any ordinary (steel) kitchen oven can be set to, well before the steel began to weaken even slightly. Turkey's are cooked at perhaps 400F; my quite ordinary oven can go up to 500F.

    The steel and concrete in those towers was over one thousand degrees F cooler than what it takes to start to weaken such material. Since people were near to and surrounded by that steel for an hour or so in each tower, the temperatures on the floors below the impacted floors were surely less than approx 100 F. Since any such structural steel will easily handle at least 700 C (1300 F), that steel was 1300 - 100 == 1200 F degrees colder than anything that might have effected it.

    I, as an individual, do not like your 9/11 posts of this year (beginning in Jan 2017). I really do not like them. The above temperature dispute is just one reason why this is so. I am pretty sure that it would only frustrate both of us, and serve to further harm the search for a truthful understanding of 9/11 and what and who was behind it, were I to attempt to further list and debate the reasons for my concern. So I will likely not do so.

    I, as a moderator, do not usually take action in such disputes, all on my own. We work together, and we bring a delightful diversity of abilities, energies, expertise and talents to this forum. So I intend to take no moderating action, individually.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Karma Ninja For This Post:

    Justplain (30th March 2017), Star Mariner (29th March 2017)

  14. Link to Post #28
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    8,929
    Thanked 10,430 times in 1,558 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    For my part I completely agree with Paul and his argument that there is no possible way that the towers collapsed purely from the impact and the fires that resulted. I honestly thought that on this forum we were all 100% on board with this relatively obvious and straightforward conclusion - that without some other unknown third party force acting against the towers, the collapses would not and could not have occurred.

    There are so many more data points to consider that point to the hidden hand of skulduggery being at work behind the scenes. In the first instance, one example, very simply, is that at sea level it is impossible - impossible - for the those jet liners to have reached the stated and proven velocities of up to 500mph+, at which they hit the towers. Impossible. Period. This means *this proves* that they cannot have been even traditional, normal planes of the 757 and 767 varieties. But something else. Souped up military planes in disguise, maybe, who knows. This should get anyone and everyone's attention. Apparently not NIST. And this is just for a start. There are many, many, many more problems that would surely appeal to any mind even slightly open that the events of 9/11 are not and were not at all what they appear on the surface; that the official story is a lie, a vast and hideous lie.

    The NIST report was a total whitewash from start to finish, designed to squelch, derail, and obfuscate. For a comprehensive rundown of all that is wrong with it, do check this important document:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/images/art...10-19-14-3.pdf

    For a great deal more physical evidence one could do little better than study what Judy Wood has brought to light, or the circumstantial but still compelling evidence of Rebekah Roth.

    Or, in a nutshell, Corbett puts it very well:
    .

    Though I am firmly of a position contrary to Karma Ninja, I personally have no problem with this sort of exchange, and in meeting and engaging with those who have opposing views. I personally would not like to see any kind of censoring, or naughty corner, set aside for certain 9/11 viewpoints like there is for the flat earth – that completely deserves the ridicule it receives. This however is different. I think it's a perfectly good thing that this board is open to these different points of view for the sake of healthy and democratic debate. In talking together about these things, whether we end up changing each other's minds or not, it's still a useful learning experience and we can gain wisdom from it. (well, most of the time, unless it got out of hand, but that's up to the mods to decide, but as a starting point I'm not a fan of censorship).
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Bassplayer1 (29th March 2017), ceetee9 (30th March 2017), Dennis Leahy (29th March 2017), Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2017), Justplain (30th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017)

  16. Link to Post #29
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    65
    Posts
    6,154
    Thanks
    35,222
    Thanked 41,855 times in 5,225 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Karma Ninja (here)
    ... censor a differing opinion...
    This is not a "differing opinion" - what you are doing is re-presenting the obviously silly, fabricated, BS, easily disproved by simple physics, official story as if it is real. It is an insult to the intelligence of Project Avalon members and readers, and an attempt to re-write the real history of the 9/11 event - back to the laughable narrative provided by the perpetrators! We are past this point. It is embarrassing to all of us that the official fairy-tale is being retold, yet again.

    In my mind, there are two reasons for someone (especially at this point, after having 16 years to study facts) to present the official 9/11 tale as if true: 1.) The person is some sort of paid troll or, 2.) ignorance. Ignorance (ignoring facts, ignoring reality) can be cured - with facts. Facts like: kerosene fire cannot melt, or weaken to collapse, steel construction beams. Facts like: the base and lower floors of the building being engineered to permanently withstand all of the force of hundreds of thousands of pounds of steel and concrete and furnishings and humans above it can not suddenly just lose its resistive force because some material "melted" or collapsed above it.

    The official story only works on those who are ignorant of extremely basic physics, and resolved to stay ignorant. Facts are not subject to opinion.


  17. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    Bassplayer1 (29th March 2017), ceetee9 (30th March 2017), DaveToo (12th December 2018), Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2017), Humanbean (29th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017), sanma (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (29th March 2017)

  18. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,776 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Just what I see in the photographs is enough to tell me there was a lot of explosive energy when the first tower fell. I can see thousands of tons of material expanding outwards in a unified explosive shape. Even if it was true that the steel structure failed, it would not look like it does in the photographs.

    I don't know what to make of Dr Judy Wood. If her theory can explain the unified explosive shape, fine, otherwise, well, I dunno, like I say.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (13th December 2018), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017)

  20. Link to Post #31
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,718
    Thanks
    2,294
    Thanked 8,682 times in 1,615 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    I truly respect Dr. Judy Wood's analysis:

    BUT: if one has read Dr. Joseph Farrell's "Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks and Secret Sorcery" it could have been a Tesla technology was used to bring the towers down from the bottom but it appears to come from above-

    why not?- we cook with water and even though the heat source comes from the bottom the froth appears at the top-

    please be well all-

    Larry

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017)

  22. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    65
    Posts
    6,154
    Thanks
    35,222
    Thanked 41,855 times in 5,225 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    ...I'm not a fan of censorship).
    I think it would be fair to cry "censorship!", if this was still 2001 and Avalon refused to allow the official story to be publicly examined.

    That's not the case.

    The official story, in all its ridiculousness, has been picked-apart by numerous researchers - and is publicly laughed at by thousands of physicists, architects, engineers, and demolitions experts (and this is only important because some people, ignorant of basic science, need experts to certify the truth for them.)

    Whistleblowers have told us that effective propaganda employs a blend of the truth with lies, to better hide the lies. However, the official story of 9/11 is all lies - there is absolutely no truth to any of it.

    It has been 16 years and for many of us, hundreds of hours of study to try to figure out just what happened on 9/11. Lucky for US citizens (who are generally outrageously ignorant of science, and scientific method), the "official story" is full of gaping holes that you could fly a 757 through.

    The biggest reason that - after 16 years of not just debunking, but of shredding the official version of the story, provided by the perpetrators - the official fairy-tale cannot be allowed to be promoted by those of us who own and exercise a conscience and have compassion, is that millions of human beings were murdered, citing these lies as justification. Islam is slandered by these lies, and Arabs - especially Muslim Arabs - are the new expendable boogeymen to shovel into the military industrial complex furnace, for fun and profit. Espousing the official narrative as truth is traitorous to humanity.

    "I feel that apples taste better than oranges." <--- that is an opinion, and as an opinion, it is correct (for the person who expressed that opinion)

    "I feel that water boils at 212°C, not the accepted 100°C, at sea level." <--- that is a scientifically incorrect statement, a false narrative, not a real fact. Your (or my) opinion that this incorrect statement is actually correct is delusional (and demonstrably scientifically incorrect) thinking. I would insult any reader if I were to demand that my opinion of the temperature at which water boils be given 'air time' on a public forum dedicated to the truth.

    Every mainstream publication and "news" outlet in the United States regurgitated the "official" fairy-tale as truth. That BS has gotten plenty of air-time. We don't need Avalon to further echo the ignorance and further obfuscate the truth by pretending that the scientifically absurd, laughable, official explanation is scientifically valid and deserving to be accepted as a valid "opinion" and thus sacrosanct from "censorship."

    What caused all of the discrete explosions that are obvious to me as I watch the demolition videos? There is evidently enough conflicting evidence between mini-nukes with numerous small demolition/cutter charges - at least some with nanothermite - and the Judy Wood-promoted idea of an exotic energy weapon where there is (and may forever be) valid debate and opposing opinions. But there is no debate that the official story is 100% scientifically impossible, and we do a great disservice to humanity (and gloss-over the deaths of millions of post-911 victims of US insanity) by regurgitating that official story any more.


  23. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    Bassplayer1 (29th March 2017), Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), JRS (29th March 2017), Justplain (30th March 2017), KiwiElf (10th October 2017), mojo (29th March 2017), norman (29th March 2017), Satori (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (30th March 2017)

  24. Link to Post #33
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,776 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    When censorship means keeping blatant cognitive sabotage out of the discussion, it's not really censorship, it's tutelage . When censorship means avoiding unsavory or difficult conclusions of thousands/millions of hours of research, it really IS censorship. Well, in terms of a group dedicated to truth and revealing the harder stuff to know and understand.

    Another dimension to censorship is method control. A kind of branding in the fields of study.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (29th March 2017), mojo (29th March 2017), Shannon (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (30th March 2017)

  26. Link to Post #34
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    4,581
    Thanked 7,326 times in 1,100 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Help

    I spent over an hour writing a response to Karma Ninja's post #25 and accidently hit "Go Advanced" rather than "Post Quick Reply" Now I cannot find my post anywhere. Is it gone? Can it be retrieved?

    Geez.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    mojo (29th March 2017)

  28. Link to Post #35
    Avalon Member Red Skywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Posts
    216
    Thanks
    123
    Thanked 936 times in 194 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Some time ago we had on our University, The Technical University of Delft,
    a presentation of Richard Gage organized by Coen Vermeeren.
    Here it is:


    Very interesting, BUT Mr. R. Gage seems to have some troubles when it comes to Dr Judy W.:


    To me his standpoint is understandable because the stuff of Dr Judy cannot be understand by the generic public (the existence of bizarre weaponry) and also by law (no such weaponry exists). So Richard keeps that down and holds on things (like the Thermite) that can be understood by the public and the law.

    Take your time.

    Just posted this for archival purposes
    Last edited by Red Skywalker; 29th March 2017 at 19:18.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Red Skywalker For This Post:

    Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017)

  30. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Help

    I spent over an hour writing a response to Karma Ninja's post #25 and accidently hit "Go Advanced" rather than "Post Quick Reply" Now I cannot find my post anywhere. Is it gone? Can it be retrieved?

    Geez.
    Your draft response should have still been available to continue editing it, when you clicked "Go Advanced"

    Indeed, I just test this myself, on this post. I wrote the previous paragraph "Your draft response ..." in the reply box right below your post, and then clicked "Go Advanced" to continue editing this post, adding this present paragraph.

    In any event, I looked in the forum logfiles, and nothing more than what we can see you successfully posted ever made it to the forum server. So ... sorry ... it's gone.

    Some more "modern" forum platforms, not the vBulletin that we use, upload drafts in progress, but our software doesn't. That's unfortunate, but there is no easy remedy that I know of.

    So the usual recommendation is to prepare long replies in a text or note editor, and then copy and paste them into the forum reply box. I prefer to use Lazarus Firefox add-on, but that add-on is currently not maintained, and no longer working for some users. Perhaps some other software developers will step forward to maintain Lazarus.

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Fellow Aspirant (30th March 2017), Satori (29th March 2017), Shannon (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (30th March 2017)

  32. Link to Post #37
    Canada Avalon Retired Member Karma Ninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th April 2011
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    859
    Thanked 976 times in 209 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    I appreciate all the responses and I understand all of your sentiments. I have been all around this topic in my mind for many years now.

    I feel a level of intolerance towards me and my conclusions that can only lead to me to one conclusion.

    My thoughts and opinions are not welcome on this website anymore. Certainly not in regard to this topic.

    I have always valued the discussions here on Avalon and it has been a huge part of my growth and learning. I have a huge admiration for Bill Ryan and his work. I have really enjoyed reading Paul's financial predictions and his threads of discussion. (Even though he is wrong more often than he is right ) I am no shill or paid informant nor am I attempting cognitive sabotage of anyone's view points. There is so little consensus amongst even the alternative media on what exactly took place on that day. I believe it was an inside job. I believe the official story of the events at the Pentagon are a lie. I see the way the money flowed before and after the events on 9/11 and have no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy behind it all. But in the end I don't think it really matters what I believe.

    The Physics community is much less divided on this topic (the towers falling not the reason it happened) than one might suspect. After having lived inside the echo chambers of our peers on websites like this for so long it was a conversation with a Masters student who studies physics at a local university that changed my mind. He was discussing how a fellow student brought up the 9/11 towers falling and voiced his belief that it was a controlled demolition during a Nonlinear Dynamics course. My opinion was firmly in support of the controlled demoltion theory at this time. The student was then given a long explanation from his Professor on how the events that day are explainable and how this this Professor believed the official story about why the towers fell. It started me down a path of doubt and new discovery. Anyways, it is a real stretch to say the Physics community is firmly of the belief that the Towers fell from factors other than the fire and the crash. So little is know about the factors at play and the chaos of the colliding dynamics that day. I learned a lot that day and have learned a lot since then.

    I don't think I will be participating too much on this forum going forward. I believe I have worn out my welcome and maybe I have learned what I am capable of learning here.

    All the best and take care everyone! The more I learn the more I realize I know very little at all.

    Thank you.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Karma Ninja For This Post:

    Satori (29th March 2017), Star Mariner (30th March 2017)

  34. Link to Post #38
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,036 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    [[...]
    ... I prefer to use Lazarus Firefox add-on, but that add-on is currently not maintained, and no longer working for some users. Perhaps some other software developers will step forward to maintain Lazarus.
    Lazarus 2.3.1 version still works good enough with Firefox...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Paul (29th March 2017)

  36. Link to Post #39
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    4,581
    Thanked 7,326 times in 1,100 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    Quote Posted by Karma Ninja (here)
    I appreciate all the responses and I understand all of your sentiments. I have been all around this topic in my mind for many years now.

    I feel a level of intolerance towards me and my conclusions that can only lead to me to one conclusion.

    My thoughts and opinions are not welcome on this website anymore. Certainly not in regard to this topic.

    I have always valued the discussions here on Avalon and it has been a huge part of my growth and learning. I have a huge admiration for Bill Ryan and his work. I have really enjoyed reading Paul's financial predictions and his threads of discussion. (Even though he is wrong more often than he is right ) I am no shill or paid informant nor am I attempting cognitive sabotage of anyone's view points. There is so little consensus amongst even the alternative media on what exactly took place on that day. I believe it was an inside job. I believe the official story of the events at the Pentagon are a lie. I see the way the money flowed before and after the events on 9/11 and have no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy behind it all. But in the end I don't think it really matters what I believe.

    The Physics community is much less divided on this topic (the towers falling not the reason it happened) than one might suspect. After having lived inside the echo chambers of our peers on websites like this for so long it was a conversation with a Masters student who studies physics at a local university that changed my mind. He was discussing how a fellow student brought up the 9/11 towers falling and voiced his belief that it was a controlled demolition during a Nonlinear Dynamics course. My opinion was firmly in support of the controlled demoltion theory at this time. The student was then given a long explanation from his Professor on how the events that day are explainable and how this this Professor believed the official story about why the towers fell. It started me down a path of doubt and new discovery. Anyways, it is a real stretch to say the Physics community is firmly of the belief that the Towers fell from factors other than the fire and the crash. So little is know about the factors at play and the chaos of the colliding dynamics that day. I learned a lot that day and have learned a lot since then.

    I don't think I will be participating too much on this forum going forward. I believe I have worn out my welcome and maybe I have learned what I am capable of learning here.

    All the best and take care everyone! The more I learn the more I realize I know very little at all.

    Thank you.
    Karma Ninja

    I certainly would not want to see you leave over this, or anything else for that matter. You have every right to voice your opinion. Many of us disagree with the official explanation regarding the cause of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 (jet fuel and plane impact) and 7 (contents fire), but we should all feel free and at ease to share our points of view. Being able to support and defend a view, however, is important.

    I am really disappointed that the post I wrote in response to your challenge in your Post #25 was lost. I spent nearly 2 hours on it meeting your challenge. You would have found that I was very respectful to your point of view, even though I disagree with it--and my post explained why and also went into some details.

    I am not going to try to recreate what I wrote. I nailed it the first time by expanding on some things, but I now seem to lack the motivation to try to recreate it.

    Here in summary is what I said:

    1. I am the "expert small time lawyer" who wrote the article. That is, I am Stevan Douglas Looney and have made that clear on at least one other post on this forum. Your reference to me did not offend me in the least. One, you did not know that I wrote it, and, two it was not as bad as the person who called my article "a crappy lawyer's wet dream."

    2. The article was peer-reviewed by at least 3 lawyers and 3 architects/engineers before the Journal of 911 Studies published it. My expertise is the law. I have been a trial lawyer for nearly 40 years. The law regarding the Daubert case, which is a focus of my article and which discusses the factors concerning the admissibility of expert testimony, was the easy part of the article. Before writing the article, however, I had studied the scientific and technical aspects of the destruction of the WTC buildings for over 10 years. Nevertheless, the Journal of 911 Studies had the technical/scientific aspects of the article peer reviewed by qualified experts. The experts had very few edits, which I incorporated. (The lawyers had no comments or edits and my legal analysis has never been challenged.) I did not know who the peer-reviewers were and they did not know who I was at the time.

    3. I have examined and cross-examined many experts over the years, including various types of engineers and design experts, such as architects. I have more than a working knowledge of their fields. I also know what it takes to get an expert's testimony into, or out of, evidence.

    4. It was apparent to me that your post confused whether a person was qualified to give an opinion, e.g., those who worked for NIST and authored the NIST reports and thus supported the official explanation of the destruction of these buildings, with whether their opinions were reliable from a scientific/technical/specialized knowledge point of view. I do not know if you read or understood my article or accessed the links I provided, where the reader can access to information on both sides of the issue, but if you did read the article you would have understood that I assumed that NIST and others were qualified to give an opinion. As the article notes, an expert's qualifications to give an opinion is a separate analysis from whether an opinion is reliable--even if the expert is qualified in a particular discipline. (While a veterinarian is qualified to give an opinion on the health care needs and treatment of a pet or other animal, is he or she qualified to opine on the combustion and thrust specifications of a jet engine? If a vet gives an opinion on jet engine combustion and thrust, is it reliable?) My article is limited to the question of whether expert opinions are reliable and thus admissible in a court of law on the question of the causes of the destruction of these buildings. Even qualified experts make honest mistakes, they overlook important facts, they can be biased, they can be paid to reach a certain conclusion and opinion regardless of the facts, and yes, they have been known to lie. Thus, reliability of an expert's opinion is a threshold issue at an evidentiary hearing where expert testimony is offered. My paper addresses that issue only and its application to the question of the causes of the destruction of these buildings.

    5. My article says nothing about Judy Wood and it does not assert that her theory is right or wrong. Rather, it asserts that the official explanation of the cause of the destruction of these buildings is wrong, and demonstrably so. So wrong, that it is unreliable and should not be admitted into evidence.

    6. I know that the 911 Commission Report is not a scientific work and I know that it would not be offered into evidence by a good lawyer, including me, on the issues of causation. I refered to it as an historical fact and a lead-in to the article. (It is still remarkable that the Report says not one word about the destruction of WTC 7. And it concludes that jet fuel and plane impact caused the destruction of WTC 1 and 2, without any scientific evidence to back that up. The NIST report came much after the 911 Commission Report.) In fact, as a general rule, expert reports are not admissible into evidence. They are hearsay. Reports are a discovery tool for the benefit of the litigants to gain a general idea of the experts' opinions, conclusions and the asserted facts that support them. It is the testimony of an expert, like any witness, during an evidentiary hearing under the rigors of direct and cross examination that is admissible--provided it is reliable. In my opinion, the official explanation and NIST's conclusions are unreliable to the point that they are irrelevant.

    7. I concluded that you note that you once believed that these buildings were destroyed by explosives, but now you do not. I urged you to reconsider that, because you were right the first time.
    Last edited by Satori; 29th March 2017 at 20:42.

  37. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Ewan (30th March 2017), Hervé (29th March 2017), Paul (29th March 2017), Shannon (31st March 2017), Star Mariner (30th March 2017)

  38. Link to Post #40
    Australia Avalon Member Innocent Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th October 2014
    Location
    Great Northern Hotel, Twin Peaks.
    Posts
    3,377
    Thanks
    23,784
    Thanked 24,318 times in 3,059 posts

    Default Re: 911 rooftop footage of the twin towers collapse

    A brief post as a voice of appreciation of your presence here, Karma Ninja. Take care buddy.
    Never give up on your silly, silly dreams.

    You mustn't be afraid to dream a little BIGGER, darling.

  39. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Innocent Warrior For This Post:

    norman (29th March 2017), Paul (29th March 2017), Shannon (31st March 2017), sheme (29th March 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts