9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Nothin

9/11 conspiracy debunkers sure are persistent.

I know, right.

Since the topic is about 911 conspiracy debunkers, why do they feel they have to be in control all the time?

I wonder if anyone can answer that question?

Yes. Hopefully the thread will just gently die-out like this, with polite, rational, on-topic discussion.

We have learned a lot about 911 conspiracy debunkers.

And yet you just totally ignore the the post on topic a few posts above....

Here is a link if you want to engage in actual debate and get over being sore for being called out on having an agenda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Nothin

For all intents and purposes: rational discussion has ceased here.

There has never been rational discussion about 911.
It's all about feelings.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

You need to stop the BS and lay out EVIDENCE and PROOF that my conclusions about the truth movement are wrong?

Do you have an example of something unjustly debunked.

There are quite a lot of unjust debunks of the nanothermite theory. They use normal thermite instead of nanothermite and show how normal thermite can't cut steel columns.

That's like using gunpowder to show how ineffective dynamite is at blasting out mines.

Your just another conspiracists in sheeps clothing...

You are just another conspiracist playing games to ignore the real issues. Very sad and disingenuous.

If I am wrong, actually addressing the issues would be a good place to start....

"Do you have examples of NIST pseudoscience or not?

Do you have examples of falsehoods from the testimony and engineering documents submitted for the Aegis VS WTC 7 Owners lawsuit that support the NIST conclusions. Or not?

NIST's report is not pseudoscience. But it's not hard science either. It's in between. It's speculative science.

Despite having some of our nation's best and brightest minds, NIST is not superman. They can't go back in time and directly examine the interior of the crash sites and see things nobody on that day got the chance to see. They just have to do their best with the evidence they have.

That said, they've never entertained any other hypothesis beside the hypothesis that had been handed to them gift wrapped by law enforcement. Complete with copies of the Koran left behind in their rental car (because sleeper cell terrorists never bother to clean up obvious evidence from the cars they use. )

They never even examined the possibility of Terrorists setting explosives in the building as a safeguard in case the planes didn't bring the building down. And that is a very realistic possibility if you look at the history of other prior attacks, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that hardly anyone remembers (because the buildings didn't fall that time.)

They wouldn't want to go to so much trouble and have the buildings stand.

Do you have a logical argument to discredit outside vertical column inward bowing and collapse at the towers from contracting floor trusses.

You can watch the North Tower collapse here:

www.youtube.com...

It begins at the 30 second mark. You'll notice that the spire starts falling at exactly the same time as the walls. That indicates the core must have begun to fall exactly when the walls began to fall.

Can you discredit the numerous papers by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proves a large jet hit the pentagon, and debunks missiles and bombs at the pentagon.

Do you disagree with Scientists for 9/11 truth that pentagon large jet deniers are hurting the truth movement?

Do you have a logical argument to discredit NIST peer reviewed research and journal published findings?

It would never have made it into a respectable peer reviewed outlet.

www.journalof911studies.com...

(Please note that link takes you to statements made by a highly published physics professor, not another David Jones wannabe.)

There is just too much speculation, going off too little data, and what data they have available they didn't take as far into modeling as a peer reviewed journal would have expected them to take it.

Can you discredit why I should not listen to first responders and civilian eyewitnesses over individuals here at ATS?

Can you cite where any demolitions shrapnel was recovered from the injured, human remains, cars, nearby buildings, the street, ruble at the WTC?

Can you create a credible argument for....
Thermite ceiling tiles at the WTC
Spray on Thermite at the WTC
Nukes in WTC 7 diesel tanks
Self destructing buildings
C-4 coated rebar
Fire extinguisher bombs
Fizzle no flash bombs
Missiles and holograms
Lasers and holograms
Drones
Dustification

Why does the thermite have to be tiles or spray?

The real problem with the collapse, from the perspective of academic phsycists, is the hammer effect requires about 3 meters of falling with near zero inhibition to get it started.

In plain logic that seems like it could happen. A column fails, transfers its load to the next column, which is already under stress and fails, and you get a domino effect instantly.

But the real physical world doesn't work in absolutist logic. A column shouldn't go from holding up 100% of its load, to holding 0% of its load in the blink of an eye. The emotional world has "50 shades of gray". They phsycial world has "50 shades of gradient". When the column fails, it should be going from holding 100% of its load, to holding 99%, and continue to 98%, 97%, 96% etc. In a continual series of small steps. No sudden, instant moment where the whole upper building goes into free fall to create a hammer effect. It should be meeting some resistance at all times, until it has collapsed.

Use of deliberate demolition to create the hammer effect is just more plausible than two buildings, with two different damage configurations, both doing something so marvelous.

But once the hammer effect has happened, most physicists agree the collapse would be inevitable afterward.

.... it's just getting to that point that is weird. ....

a reply to: Nothin

We have learned a lot about 911 conspiracy debunkers.

Yes we have.

What I have learned so far is, there is no tolerance for anything outside the OS narratives.

Control by any means.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Then cite how NIST was deficient in the collection of evidence.

Going to cite falsely how a annenta was "falling" into the tower when all other footage shows it was leaning as a unit with the upper portion of the tower? Thanks for facilitating a false narrative.

Can you debunk inward bowing and collapse initiated by contracting floor trusses. Nothing to do with a falling core?

Want to debate nano/thermite?

a reply to: samkent

There has never been rational discussion about 911.
It's all about feelings.

I disagree.

It's about control.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Have you read the NIST report for yourself?

a reply to: Salander

Nope. I have always said that the NIST reports are educated guesses. The ONLY way to have been 100% sure that they had the exact sequence locked down, was to have had the buildings wired with data collection devices. Absent that, you examine the photos and the videos, compare what you see to the plans of the buildings and come up with a likely scenario. You also use the evidence present/not present to rule out things. To date, not a single, solitary shred of evidence to support a controlled demolition has been found. There is no seismic evidence, there is no audio evidence, there is no visual evidence, there is no physical evidence. To those who like to bring up nanothermite, you are barking so far up the wrong tree that you are not even in the right forest.

The ONLY solution is that the buildings died from fire/damage. Which truss failed first, which column buckled first.....educated guess.

a reply to: Informer1958

Still waiting for you to state what was unjustly debunked out of my examples.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for you ignoring my valid reason for seeking the truth. Yes, I know the quote was not originally aimed at you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


No comment on my post using Wood and Dustification as an example. The conspiracist that debunked other 9/11 theories while pushing another impossible theory to exploit 9/11.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Going to ignore my Scientists for 9/11 example. The calling out of Pilots for 9/11 Truth for spreading misinformation? Scientists for 9/11 calling out large jet strike deniers are hurting the truth movement, and debunking other pentagon conspiracies?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Then state the falsehoods from the "white washed" NIST reports. Its about the inability of the truth movement to police itself in the desperation of chasing after that one magic smoking gun. I guess it is about the lack of control in the truth movement.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Have you read the NIST report for yourself?

Yes I've read it.

But you should read it again. It says NOTHING about the issue I was raising (and which some high respected and published physicists have raised.)

They don't even address it. They mention how the walls would fail, sure, but not how they went from 100% to 0% in the blink of an eye, which is the elephant in the room.

They simply ignore the elephant.

Add:

Nobody doubts they would eventually go from 100% to 0% (or very near it). But there should be transitions. The hammer effect should have been more like a melting candle effect.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I disagree with your OS narratives.

However this thread is not about debunking 911.

This thread topic is: 9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

So what's your "opinion" to the OP?

a reply to: neutronflux

You're right, I am ignoring your questions because they are ALL off Topic.

Or maybe not a candle melt effect.

More like an "elephant sits on you effect". Not "elephant jumps from 3 meters and lands on you". Just "elephant sits on you"

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And I addressed the failure and stated any engineer not understanding the concept is a hack. To ignore I have addressed the issue is disingenuous.

Vertical columns get there strength from their material, shape, and straightness. For lack of a better term, the vertical column supports the load and transfers the load to the foundation. If a vertical column that is designed to be straight starts to bow or bend, then the load is no longer fully transferred to the foundation. The load creates a critical stress point in the bend or bow. Once the bows in the vertical columns became large enough, the load was not transferred to the foundation, but the bows. Once the slowly bending vertical columns reached critical points, they buckled and failed.

Pretty much basic strucal design. Thanks for using false authority to act that a bowed column will buckel once the bow becomes great enough is unfathomable.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Nothin

For all intents and purposes: rational discussion has ceased here.

There has never been rational discussion about 911.
It's all about feelings.

Yeah. You're right.
Feelings and emotional reactions, would explain why the 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers always insult other posters.

a reply to: Nothin

Feelings and emotional reactions, would explain why the 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers always insult other posters.

So true.

Anyone reading this thread can see that.

9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, have no interest in discussing the OP.

I have addressed a few issues about the OP, but the 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, have ignored our and my statements.

It's like having a discussion with a brick wall.

a reply to: Informer1958

I thought you wanted to be on topic, but you choose to ignore on topic posts.

I bet you will not even state one or two WTC conspiracy collapse theories you think are total BS just for the sake of honest debate. I think you are that biased. And don't be coy and say the Offical Narrative. I specifically asked for conspiracy theories on collapse.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Nothin

For all intents and purposes: rational discussion has ceased here.

There has never been rational discussion about 911.
It's all about feelings.

Yeah. You're right.
Feelings and emotional reactions, would explain why the 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers always insult other posters.

So name one WTC collapse theory unjustly debunked.

Did I answer you question way I pursue debunking.

Why do you not believe in debunking. Especially for a truth movement that has the inability to police itself, and its weakness is the pursuit of the one magic smoking gun?

What did you think of my example of Wood debunking other WTC collapse theories to promote her impossible theory of dustification.

What did you think of my example of Scientifics for 9/11 Truth calling out pentagon misinformation, debunking pentagon missile / bomb theories, and stating pentagon jet strike deniers are hurting the credibility of the truth movement.

a reply to: neutronflux

I thought you wanted to be on topic, but you choose to ignore on topic posts.

I bet you will not even state one or two WTC conspiracy collapse theories you think are total BS just for the sake of honest debate. I think you are that biased. And don't be coy and say the Offical Narrative. I specifically asked for conspiracy theories on collapse.

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

Stay on topic please.

This thread Topic is not the place to discuss your questions.

There are appropriate threads to discuss your questions.