The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

Mat

Member
I watched this yesterday, pretty thought provoking without being woo/paranoid/misleading etc

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It opens with a series of arguments from personal incredulity and intuition: "I couldn't figure out what happened ... it seemed like bombs". Then simply repeats the normal conspiracy theories, but in Danish, along with the refrain "but we are simply asking questions".

What is the most significant bit of actual evidence (not just "looked a bit odd", or "seems incredible") in this video that you agree with?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Building 7 is EMPIRICAL Proof of a controlled demolition, thanks for the vid.

Er, no it's not. If it were, then we would not be having this discussion.

But if building 7 is proof of controlled demolition, then does that mean that building 1 and 2, which looked nothing like that, were NOT controlled demolition?
 

Mat

Member
It opens with a series of arguments from personal incredulity and intuition: "I couldn't figure out what happened ... it seemed like bombs". Then simply repeats the normal conspiracy theories, but in Danish, along with the refrain "but we are simply asking questions".

What is the most significant bit of actual evidence (not just "looked a bit odd", or "seems incredible") in this video that you agree with?

I said I found it thought provoking, not theory prooving.
 

cheeple

Member
Er, no it's not. If it were, then we would not be having this discussion.

But if building 7 is proof of controlled demolition, then does that mean that building 1 and 2, which looked nothing like that, were NOT controlled demolition?
Of course they buildings 1 and 2 looked like that, they were all controlled demolitions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course they buildings 1 and 2 looked like that, they were all controlled demolitions.

The collapse of building 1 and 2 looked entirely unlike building 7. So what exactly is the hallmark of controlled demolition? And what would uncontrolled collapse look like?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Building 7 is EMPIRICAL Proof of a controlled demolition, thanks for the vid.

Nope, it is far from that. For over 10 years the same claim has been made and is still not true.

Sad that the dwindling number of hangers on still claim building 7 as proof of CD - the claim has got them exactly nowhere over the years and never will...
 

cheeple

Member
The collapse of building 1 and 2 looked entirely unlike building 7. So what exactly is the hallmark of controlled demolition? And what would uncontrolled collapse look like?

Mick, look at the film, you'll notice a building comes straight down in freefall into it's own footprint for no reason.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, look at the film, you'll notice a building comes straight down in freefall into it's own footprint for no reason.

And buildings 1 and 2 collapsed from the top down. Totally different. So which one was a controlled demolition?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
It`s true, all 3 collapses can be seen here:

[video=youtube_share;tacYjsS-g6k]http://youtu.be/tacYjsS-g6k[/video]
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Odd.....I've never seen (that I can remember) any controlled demo building start at the top (or close to the top) and work it's way down.
 

cheeple

Member
Odd.....I've never seen (that I can remember) any controlled demo building start at the top (or close to the top) and work it's way down.

Sure you have, it happened on September 11, 2001, explosives can be placed at the bottom, the middle, and even at the top.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Odd.....I've never seen (that I can remember) any controlled demo building start at the top (or close to the top) and work it's way down.

Verinage demolition starts a similar number of floors from the top, but it's mostly been used with much shorter buildings, so that ends up being in the middle:



And here's a good example of what "pull" means in demolition:
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Odd.....I've never seen (that I can remember) any controlled demo building start at the top (or close to the top) and work it's way down.

Then there is the pesky problem of the perimeter columns bowing inward over a period of time before the collapses of 1 & 2. Followed of course by their observed failing shortly afterwards...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sure you have, it happened on September 11, 2001, explosives can be placed at the bottom, the middle, and even at the top.

So you are saying it was a controlled demolition with explosives that looked exactly unlike all other controlled demolition with explosives?

If you've never seen anything like it before, then how do you know what it was?

What would it look like if one floor near the top gave way? Can you find any examples of a building collapsing after one floor gave way? What does that look like?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Sure you have, it happened on September 11, 2001, explosives can be placed at the bottom, the middle, and even at the top.

So were explosives (silent ones) placed only on the impact floors of each building?

Or were explosives placed on every floor from the impact floors down?
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Thanks Mick...like I said...have never seen one...but it makes sense in a small structure to use the weight of the upper floors to collapse the lower sections.


cheeple....and the lack of any recorded explosive noises as you hear at any other explosive demolition?

EDIT Silent explosives? Capable of taking out reinforced steal and concrete? Such things exist?

EDIT II....sorry Spongebob....didn't see it was you.
 

Mat

Member
Thermite is:

A) Not really an explosive, it just burns very hot
B) Not used in controlled demolitions.


A number of the apparent experts in this movie claim counter to this:




What should we think about these experts?

Mat
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That they are lying, stupid, or mistaken. Or some combination, perhaps involving wild unfounded speculations.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
I've seen thermite used (as well as c-4 demo charges, and some other stuff I don't remember). And I just can't imagine any way that it would be used in demo.

We had thermite grenades/charges in a locked safe for use in destruction of TS crypto gear in the event of no time to follow the standard procedure (which would have taken hours..lol)...and for that it would have been great. The amount and placement of it to reduce a building...is far over the top.

OT Why are so many "references" U-tube vids? How about a link to a professional paper of some sort.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OT Why are so many "references" U-tube vids? How about a link to a professional paper of some sort.

The AE911 stuff is the closest you'd get.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

This is their bullet list:



It's all been quite comprehensively debunked, but unfortunately it's rather hard to get people to read and understand the debunking.
 
Last edited:

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
TY Mick....I will look at that. I remember an article in PopSci....but only so much info can be in a magazine....esp when it's controlled by the Illuminati...:).
 

Mat

Member
That they are lying, stupid, or mistaken. Or some combination, perhaps involving wild unfounded speculations.

That is you opinion and it is I think it is unevidenced speculation and a general ad hominiem(s).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is you opinion and it is I think it is unevidenced speculation and a general ad hominiem(s).

No, it's the only three logical possibilities if they are wrong. If they are wrong, then what else could it be? I don't think they are joking.
 

Mat

Member
But you would agree that those are the three options, right?

I am not really willing to get into a speculative ad hominem about a group of people I only found about yesterday.

I have no reason to assume that they are hoaxers, fools, stooges or anything other than what they claim.

If you believe, without question, the official story of what happened then then I don't really think we will find any common ground in this particular issue.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am not really willing to get into a speculative ad hominem about a group of people I only found about yesterday.

I have no reason to assume that they are hoaxers, fools, stooges or anything other than what they claim.

If you believe, without question, the official story of what happened then then I don't really think we will find any common ground in this particular issue.

Without question? Actually I've questioned every aspect of it in great detail. I've also looked at every single objection that AE911 have raised. My conclusion is that planes hit the building, the impact and explosion damage followed by the fire caused the buildings to collapse. I've gone over this many many time, answered many objections, and very carefully verified my facts. So please don't think I'm accepting anything "without question".

What are you to make of all the experts who agree with the official story? Surely if you are a truther (I'm not sure if you are or not), then you would also have to assume they were lying, stupid, or mistaken?
 

Mat

Member
Without question?[ Actually I've questioned every aspect of it in great detail. I've also looked at every single objection that AE911 have raised.

That's good and fine by me, as said "If.."



My conclusion is that planes hit the building, the impact and explosion damage followed by the fire caused the buildings to collapse. I've gone over this many many time, answered many objections, and very carefully verified my facts.

Me too. I havent been interested in it for a few years. I doubt I am as certain as you about what I believe about it.


What are you to make of all the experts who agree with the official story?

I don't know.


Surely if you are a truther (I'm not sure if you are or not), then you would also have to assume they were lying, stupid, or mistaken.

I consider myself a conspiracy skeptic, not a "truther" or a "theorist".

It took me a while to get here but I am utterly uninterested in the dogma fights between truthers and the officials - I am pretty sure the smart seeming people in the videos would agree to the futility of this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It took me a while to get here but I am utterly uninterested in the dogma fights between truthers and the officials - I am pretty sure the smart seeming people in the videos would agree to the futility of this.

Hmm, they don't really appear to.

I'd also not classify things as "dogma". A lot of it is actually science, just done very badly on one side.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top