Truther Thread

a reply to: hellobruce

Funny that, debunking what truthers in groups like the AE911Truth say is simply attacking them, you are apparently not allowed to point out where they are wrong!

I do not doubt that some Truthers are wrong, however saying they are wrong and not proving they are wrong is a whole different thing.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I do not doubt that some Truthers are wrong, however saying they are wrong and not proving they are wrong is a whole different thing.

Funny that, but saying those that do not follow the truther conspiracy theories are wrong with no evidence to prove that they are wrong is apparently ok!

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Just tired of truthers coming here to make claims, yet not providing sources for them (reputable ones, like the actual engineering reports).

I am sorry you feel that way. However there are hundreds of 911 threads on ATS, and seeing that you are new here I can tell you with absolute confidence that many ATS Truthers have brought all these reports to ATS.

You just need to look at some of the old 911 threads.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I can tell you with absolute confidence that many ATS Truthers have brought all these reports to ATS.

Then they were debunked, the truthers waited a short time then bought the debunked nonsense back, it was debunked again, they waited then came back etc. etc.

a reply to: hellobruce

Funny that, but saying those that do not follow the truther conspiracy theories are wrong with no evidence to prove that they are wrong is apparently ok!

Interesting you say that. I do not believe for one minute Truther follow some conspiracy theories. Most well researched Truthers have their own opinions based on their own research.

You make it sound like ALL Truthers follow some unscientific conspiracy theories by lumping them all together.

a reply to: hellobruce

Then they were debunked, the truthers waited a short time then bought the debunked nonsense back, it was debunked again, they waited then came back etc. etc.

That is not true and I disagree with you on that note. I myself have brought plenty to the 911 threads as evidence and scientific Reports and no one has debunked many of them. At best what I brought to the forums was only ridiculed, but not debunked.

a reply to: Informer1958

So in otherwords: No, you can't.

And with all the other threads I've looked through, no one can find the original engineers stating that.

Thought as much.

What I find even further amusing is some of the claims of how the debris could never have gotten as far as they have, etc, etc.

What would have really raised my suspicions is if the debris had all stayed in a very small area, which is very indicative of a demo job.

But then I've seen where a lot of truthers try to say that "2" is "1" and "1" is "2", so I'm not surprised at all.

Off to celebrate the New Year! Cheers!

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

So in otherwords: No, you can't.

It's not that I can't, I wont. You need to do your own research, being that you are fairly new here. There are plenty of old 911 archives to read through, I would suggest to read through some of them carefully, look at both sides of the 911 issues and form your own opinion.

911, reads like the Kennedy's Warren Report. We may never get to all the truth about what really happened on 911, but we have been able to solves some of the fraud of the OS.

a reply to: Informer1958

See, your post has me worried. You seem very convinced of things, and are not arguing against them, or even trying to prove your point.

Like claiming I'm new to ATS.

You're assuming something, simply because your eyes see my registration date, and you then "assume" that based on that, I must be "new".

But I'm not new. I've been here for longer. This account is new, yes. But my reading threads here on ATS goes back much further than this account date.

I've done my research and the answer is: No. No the original engineers did not include data in their building of the towers to prevent very high temp and prolong exposure of those temps to damaged support beams.

Truthers love to use the "The towers were engineered to take large jet impacts!" as some sort of proof.

The truth is: yes, the buildings were designed to take the impacts. And they did, didn't they? Neither one fell or collapsed due to the impact of the jets.

In fact, it took over an hour of exposure to extreme heat from a prolonged fire that could not be put out to bring them down.

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

If demolition claims about one building are wrong, chances are they are wrong about all three.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Fires didn't melt the carbon steel beams on all floors, and the first few floors at the top would not have enough weight to bring down the building since they had been rated to support much more than that, and had been for years, but you think that the building can come down suddenly because of fires at the top of the building? That is not scientifically feasible at all.

When the charges went off that did bring them down, they blew upwards in a shaped charge designed to not ruin the charges below on all subsequent floors. It came down just like it was meant to by the way it was intended to. But it sure wasn't any airplane fires that did that. Impossible.

The steel beams going all the way to the ground wouldn't suddenly "switch off" their design strengths like magic. They had been supporting less weight and load than they could have been for many years. Your value system is quite flawed. Jaded even.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

"A few floors" ????

smh

You might want to go back and check where those planes hit.

Once you're done doing that, you might also want to learn the difference between "supporting weight" and "accepting impact shock"

There is a MAJOR difference between a structure being able to support the weight of something as compared to resisting the shock of having that much mass drop.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to support a large mass, and then having that mass move....even 10 feet at gravitational acceleration.

KE= 1/2(m*v^2)

That large mass (your "few floors"), was an incredible amount of force slamming in to the next floor when the support beams gave way in the damaged sections.

They were designed to support that mass. Not act like a set of breaks.

I can put a very large cinder block on top of my car, and there won't be a problem.

Drop it from 10 feet though, and think about what it's going to do to the top of my car.

a reply to: sg1642

I know a few folks that were contacted by the NSA after the event and "made" to say exactly what they wanted them to say, for "national security" purposes. If everyone was made to know the real truth there would have been civil war the likes never seen before.
When the spooks come and tell people what to say and they refuse to cooperate they are erased. Most are bribed with the big bucks.
So anyone coming out and giving testimony and it is being heralded and paraded by media, and talking heads, does not the truth make.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

That scenario doesn't fly because those girders were made and designed with those things in mind. If the collapse began in the middle somewhere with much more weight, then I might consider it. But what actually happened wouldn't have. It was planned to come down, and that is way too obvious.

Question to the truthers:

Why underground nukes not possible?



Truther hunters, for me to aknowledge any of your inquires first you must clear this level:

Why wtc7 fell so quickly (once it started giving, of course)?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: sg1642

I know a few folks that were contacted by the NSA after the event and "made" to say exactly what they wanted them to say, for "national security" purposes.

I know even more people that were contacted by truthers to beg them and "make" them support the truthers....

See, I can make up stories also!

If everyone was made to know the real truth there would have been civil war the likes never seen before.

We know the truth, 4 planes were hijacked....

When the spooks come and tell people what to say and they refuse to cooperate they are erased. Most are bribed with the big bucks.

You are watching too many spy movies, real life does not work like that!

So anyone coming out and giving testimony and it is being heralded and paraded by media, and talking heads, does not the truth make.

Truthers spouting conspiracy theories certainly do not make any truth!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

That scenario doesn't fly because those girders were made and designed with those things in mind.

They were NOT designed for the dynamic load they experienced.... if you think they were please provide some evidence for that.

a reply to: Informer1958

You need to do your own research, being that you are fairly new here. There are plenty of old 911 archives to read through,

I'm sorry but I feel those archives read more like comics to me.
The science of the OS just makes more sense to me and most other people.

If a group of people were to sit down and plan out 911 the way the conspiracy people think they did, they would all be rolling on the floor before they finished.
There are too many ways for things to get screwed up.
"Lets have fake people call in from the planes to their mother(s) and wives and tell them they've been hijacked.
"'Lets have two buildings crush from the middle down. And one fall straight down."
"Have Billy wire up the 3 biggest with that new stuff thermo something."
"Wait until the fires are almost out before you hit the button."
"If one plane gets over powered by the passengers... forget about it."
"Make sure Jimmy and da boys get the gold out before it goes down."
"Oh and we'll pay back Tony with some of that 2.3 trillion."
"Mikey you find a bank that will give good interest on the remainder and keep it hush."
"Don't worry about the air force Joey will keep them flying over the ocean."

"What could go wrong?"

Level 2 truther question:

Do we know about wtc7 because:
(a) They screwed up, shoulda've been the Shanksville plane or better media COVERage, or whatever.
(b) Part of the ritual, thet like to laugh at our face, or that karma stuff, where the guilt goes away through admission.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Like claiming I'm new to ATS.

You're assuming something, simply because your eyes see my registration date, and you then "assume" that based on that, I must be "new".

Please excuse my ignorant's by looking at your stats. Anyone on ATS would only "assume" you are new by looking at your stats.

You made no reference to me or anyone else on ATS that you have been a long standing ATS member and you just recently opened a new account.

Truthers love to use the "The towers were engineered to take large jet impacts!" as some sort of proof.

As soon as I read the word Truthers, in the sentence above, I knew you are a OS supporter. So there is very little for me to discuss with you here.

In fact, it took over an hour of exposure to extreme heat from a prolonged fire that could not be put out to bring them down.

Propaganda.

I know you already know the WTC steel was tested to withstand twenty five hundred degrees heat for many hours before weakening the WTC steel and that is a fact.

Jet fuel temperatures burn around 18 hundred degrees, office furniture, carpet, blinds, computers, phones, wall paneling all burn at lower temperatures.

The fact is, the WTC came down in 55 minutes after the first plane stuck it. The problem the OSer's have with this government conspiracy is what weakened the steel in less then one hour to bring down all 110 floors at once?

Many OSer's claim office fires. You see that wont work in reality when real science come to play. As you should know any building that just falls down ALWAYS fall on their lease resistance, in fact that what should have happened when the WTC fell, however that did not happened, another fact here.

When the upper floors leaned over first as they were falling, the rest of the WTC would still be standing. You see there was nothing there to pull the rest of the WTC down at that point. But that is not what everyone witness that terrible day is it? Any honest Engineer will tell you that.

The only way that scientifically proves what was observed on all the un-tampered News media videos that day of 911 can only be demolition. The government and NIST stories and all their pseudo science does not support any of the facts. or stand up to real science.

Pick your side.