9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: neutronflux

I think a controlled demolition of some sort went down, how else would the buildings collapse at near free fall speed into their own footprint? even if trusses were taken out, we would expect to see resistance on the lower floors at least.

Take 5 minutes to debunk James Corbett if you will.

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: neutronflux

I doubt it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. The lack of wing span damage alone proves otherwise.

After an engine hit a concrete lip before hitting the pentagon outer wall? After leaving a 70 to 90 foot wide entrance hole.

Care to post a picture of what you think is the entrance hole at the pentagon?

Note: I don't agree with Scientists for 9/11 Truth on the WTC. I do agree with the group that jet deniers are killing the truth movement


The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

The Interior Columns Damage and Debris
The pattern of interior supporting column damage47 indicates the forward motion (from building exterior to the interior) of material traveling at high speed. Some columns were missing, bent, or otherwise damaged.
Many columns showed shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped48 around them or stacked beside them. In one photograph49 of the interior, there is a massive amount of debris below an intact ceiling. This debris could not have occurred due to a cave-in of the floor above. Both these photographic observations of the interior point to plane impact rather than bombs. It took at least two days to remove most of the debris, so if this debris had been trucked in as part of a staged event, it would likely have been noticed.
Based on a diagram50 of the column damage, Dwain Deets51 states that there is “no penetrator path” without intact columns between the impact point and exit hole. However, the author has analyzed the column damage and penetration path in Appendix D, and finds no significant impediment to debris reaching the C ring wall and punching a hole there. Major column failure ends about 160 ft in from the impact point. However, since the plane was fragmented, it could pass columns. See the F4 Phantom experiment52 where a plane propelled at high speed into a massive concrete wall was completely fragmented. See Appendix D.
The interior damage weighs against the flyover theories. The width of the damage pattern weighs against the small plane theory. The missile theory cannot explain the width of the damage to the supporting columns. The bomb theory would imply a complicated group of simultaneous explosions. A staged event is required to explain the large amount of debris mixed with plane parts.

a reply to: surfer_soul


Let's start with the towers and "their own foot print" care to state how many buildings were damaged, made unusable, and destroyed because of the towers falling in their own footprints? The length and width of the pile?

a reply to: neutronflux

I think they mean didn't fall over sideways instead of 'footprint only'.

A lot of the conspiracy crowd thinks the upper section should have remained structurally rigid and toppled over the bottom section.

a reply to: samkent

Like a solid tree vs a mostly void steel structure built to maximize space, cheap as possible, with long lightweight floor tresses, and no mid length concrete columns?

Based on a lack of understanding on static loads, dynamic loads, individual floors of a building have their own specific load rating, shear strength of steel floor connections/flanges, potential energy, and kinetic energy?

I was looking forward to talking about Dr Wood, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and water boy Ryan? No?

I don't think its about the official narrative at all. But rooting out con artists.

And we have not got to all the resultant freedom of information requests and legal battles waged by groups like AE 9/11 Truth to have all the "lies" and "pseudoscience" of the reports from the NIST and Pentagon performance report retracted?

Or the engineering evidence from Aegis vs the owners of WTC 7 court case where Aegis pursued that the owners and designers were the reason WTC 7 collapsed?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers?

It's my "opinion" to preserve the OS narratives, as you are seeing demonstrated right now.

The fact is, you will see this demonstrated here, everything, and anything including science is ridiculed including any architects or engineers who dares to speak out against the OS narratives.

Even have condescending names for these people in their desprete attempts to discredit them. "Box boy," "Water boy" and so on.

I agree there are more debunking websites about 911 that supports the OS narratives, most if not all in my "opinion" are very biased, just like the control propaganda mainstream media.

At lease with A&E for 911 Truth, they explore all avenues and discuss both sides, the conspiracy side, and the os narratives sides.

To prove my point in your thread, everything in my above statement, will be proven true right now.

a reply to: Informer1958

Quote what OS is being argued here? You and your straw men arguments.

Care to discuss the pentagon and orange jail suits?

Please do tell what caused the collapse of the towers? I gave my theory? Your turn for the sake of honest debate!

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? It's really amazing. As soon anything is posted there's always a response saying it's faked data or faked photoshopped image. It's just weird. And then there are whole sites devoted to 9/11 debunking. You have to admit having a conspiracy theory is one thing. But being passionate about other peoples passion is just weird. I barely have enough motivation to go to work let alone spend hours and hours debunking other people's conspiracy theories. If you feel strongly enough about debunking 9/11 you would think people would just not click on the thread and read anything at all.

And don't forget search engines. The amount of SEO work that must go into this to make sure debunking sites always come up first is astounding. Honestly, you would think 9/11 debunking would just never exist.

What is the motivation behind this? "Gee, I would really hate it if that conspiracy turned out to be true." What is the worst that could happen. What motivates people to say anything at all?

List a search where debunking sites are listed first? Without using the word debunked?

I tried a search with "flight 77". I will change my argument. Why would conspiracy theories come up first? Why would the general articles and news stories not come up first? I a little perplexed about the snopes article. I am not a fan of mainstream media. Especially concerning the last eight years. I am guessing snopes thinks conspiracies are more about right wingers? Strange concerning the general hate for Bush among liberals opposing Iraq?

A search of "flight 77 DNA evidence" results on more conspiracy listings than debunking.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I think a controlled demolition of some sort went down, how else would the buildings collapse at near free fall speed into their own footprint? even if trusses were taken out, we would expect to see resistance on the lower floors at least.

Do you have any idea what you talking about?

Just watch the You Tube video, parrot what ever slogans ....

Explain how one rigs up some of the largest buildings in the world for demolition, especially so nobody notices

How one keeps the wiring and control equipment intact after ramming airline into the building triggering massive fires

Much easier to parrot idiotic slogans than do research .......

a reply to: dfnj2015

If you search "Richard Gage", it will make you feel better. It's nearly if Richard Gage AE 9/11 only exists. Sad for all the other Richard Gages in the world.

a reply to: dfnj2015

What motivates people to say anything at all?

I read a post, my BS detector goes off and I respond. Isn't the ATS motto deny ignorance? In your opinion is BS best left unchecked?

I barely have enough motivation to go to work let alone spend hours and hours debunking other people's conspiracy theories.

Whats your point? Because you feel this way, everyone else must as well?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Doubtful.

But it actually doesn't matter if it were, because it gets brought up time and time again by a 911 "truther".

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Doubtful.

Doesn't matter if it were, it gets brought up time and time again by a 911 "truther".

Which is exactly why it matters a great deal.

And not doubtful, at all. It's not like 'truthers' are benefitting from it. It's easily debunked. I know who had the motive and has benefitted most from that photoshopped pic.

ETA: Case in point...you dredging it up here to prove your point.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dredging?

It popped up on ATS yesterday.

It wasn't me who was dredging, it was a truther.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dredging?

It popped up on ATS yesterday.

It wasn't me who was dredging, it was a truther.

No, it was definitely you who dredged it up in this thread to make your point.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is this more of a truther living in fantasy land?

Because dredge means...



But not in your world?

It means something different to you, and we all have to pander to your belief?

Nope.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I guess yesterday is not in the past in your world?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: dfnj2015

A: Because for anything other than the official narrative to be true would shatter their world views and cause them to have a nervous breakdown.

B: Because they are paid shills.

C: Because they really are stupid.

Take your pick.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: dfnj2015

A: Because for anything other than the official narrative to be true would shatter their world views and cause them to have a nervous breakdown.

B: Because they are paid shills.

C: Because they really are stupid.

Take your pick.

You forgot "D. Because they cannot abide the complete stupidity of many of the conspiracy theorists."

And it's an insult to the men and women who died that day.