It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 30
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi




Instead, each floor in succession was turned by demolition charges into mostly dust and smoke.
Wouldn't that be loud?




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The OP was a question of why there are 911 conspiracy debunkers and the answer is one of correcting that which is misunderstood by the non-technical folks. The collapse was gravity driven. Clearing each floor in under 200 milliseconds would require a large amount of explosives such that their sound would be obvious. The only explanation most consistent with all the facts is the NIST report. Some who want a demolition claim silent explosives without realizing that the destructive effects of explosives are the result of impulsive loads from shock waves. Those shock waves also work in air which makes the bang. If there is no bang then there is no explosive demolition.
The main problem, as I see it, is the overwhelming desire for a conspiracy and the search is on the physical aspects because that is where the available information exists; videos, recordings, witness statements and public records. Those who desire such are often technically challenged and repeat their favorite version of events based on misinterpreted and misunderstood data.
I have said in many threads that any conspiracy likely is one of cover-up by the incompetent political appointees that headed those agencies that were to discover and investigate possible terrorists. Additionally, as mentioned by Sceptic Overlord, there could have been a cover up by the Port Authority regarding substandard construction practices from corrupt contractors and building inspectors. There is no way to prove any of this so those who want conspiracy can only dig around in the physical aspects of the event searching for such with the added burden of their own technical ignorance. This makes for amusing and exasperating discussions as when the theories are shown to be erroneous, the only recourse of the theorist is to deny the proof, exit the thread in a pretended huff, and reintroduce the same theory in other threads. Few theories ever completely die. We have mini-nukes and death rays from space that are only held to by the most desperate and distressed theorists. The paint-on thermite is also about done save for a vocal few that are completely ignorant of thermodynamics and behavior of materials. I expect that the complete lack of physical evidence for demolition will not deter the die hard theorists from continuing to post their favorite theories or revert to the typical ridiculous post that is basically "I don't know what happened but things didn't look right to me so there must be something wrong" which is usually followed by something concerning steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire.

edit on 6/3/2017 by pteridine because: clarification



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine



Additionally, as mentioned by Sceptic Overlord, there could have been a cover up by the Port Authority regarding substandard construction practices from corrupt contractors and building inspectors


Louis DiBono was owner of company that di drywall and fire proofing work - was also "made guy" in Gambino family
handling construction scams



in 1989 he was involved in a lucrative contract to install fireproof foam in the walls of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.He secured the contract through bribery. He pocketed millions from the funds for the project by cutting corners; in some cases entire floors of the Twin Towers had no fireproofing foam applied to the steel infrastructure. Louis DiBono's downfall later came when he had another disagreement with Gravano most likely the disagreement was over the Twin Towers contract, and Gravano selling his shares of the company when it was in financial difficulties. Gravano had finally found the excuse he was looking for to get revenge and have his old enemy killed. Gotti ordered his death because he was allegedly stealing from the family (by not giving Gotti a cut of the fireproofing money) and for refusing to attend meetings.


Conjecture is that by skimping or some cases skipping entire floors failed to apply fireproofing on steel members at WTC

The web floor trusses which supported the floors were especially difficult to fire proof because of the numerous angles

It was the floor trusses sagging do to heat from fire which caused the collapse of the WTC

DuBono was whacked on Gotti orders for supposedly withholding money and ducking meetings with Gotti - a major
no-no in the mob




in 1989 he was involved in a lucrative contract to install fireproof foam in the walls of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.He secured the contract through bribery. He pocketed millions from the funds for the project by cutting corners; in some cases entire floors of the Twin Towers had no fireproofing foam applied to the steel infrastructure. Louis DiBono's downfall later came when he had another disagreement with Gravano most likely the disagreement was over the Twin Towers contract, and Gravano selling his shares of the company when it was in financial difficulties. Gravano had finally found the excuse he was looking for to get revenge and have his old enemy killed. Gotti ordered his death because he was allegedly stealing from the family (by not giving Gotti a cut of the fireproofing money) and for refusing to attend meetings.


I have pointed this out as avenue for the conspiracy types, but they are too wrapped up in their own little fantasy....



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
The OP was a question of why there are 911 conspiracy debunkers and the answer is one of correcting that which is misunderstood by the non-technical folks. The collapse was gravity driven. Clearing each floor in under 200 milliseconds would require a large amount of explosives such that their sound would be obvious. The only explanation most consistent with all the facts is the NIST report. Some who want a demolition claim silent explosives without realizing that the destructive effects of explosives are the result of impulsive loads from shock waves. Those shock waves also work in air which makes the bang. If there is no bang then there is no explosive demolition.
The main problem, as I see it, is the overwhelming desire for a conspiracy and the search is on the physical aspects because that is where the available information exists; videos, recordings, witness statements and public records. Those who desire such are often technically challenged and repeat their favorite version of events based on misinterpreted and misunderstood data.


I would say that, if anything, the problem is that people are too extreme. They either want a deliberate attempt by the government to fool the people, involving everyone in the whitehouse and quite a lot of help from various agencies, who all agree with the idea of killing 3000 people in order to get the American people to join a war.

The thing that makes me doubt this, of all things, is insiders talking about Donald Rumsfeld's behavior on 911. That supposedly he's the one who saw the opportunity to turn it into being about Iraq, and went around and started selling the other cabinet members on it. If there was a conspiracy in the cabinet, that indicated either A: He was the only one in on it. Or B: he was the only one not in on it. Or C: Nobody in the cabinet was in on it.

Either they want that, or they want 19 novice sleeper cell terrorists, most of whom were to flaky to even finish flying school, to successfully carry out an attack operation that would have been difficult even for an established intelligence agency to be assured of pulling off. (Boarding a plane despite all 19 being on the terror watch list, getting box cutters on board, subduing a plane using just box cutters. Knowing not to talk with air control beyond to make contact. Knowing to turn off their transponder. And: most importantly: knowing the pilot will have the nerve to kill himself and companions on the first and only try.)

Huge risk for Al Qaeda. If they took a shot like that and missed, they would look really stupid. If they hit, they could expect it to do no good at all. Just get a lot of their fellow muslims killed. Or what do you think they hoped to achieve by it?



The real answer is likely to be in the middle somewhere. An attack carried out by a competent organization that wasn't the US government, and wasn't Al Qaeda. But might have had a few key "inside man" agents in the government smoothing the ride.


edit on 3-6-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: post was way too long. Now it's just kind of too long



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I don't really "want" anything. I just know when I've been tricked. It might take a few years (or not) for me to figure it out, but eventually I know when I've been fooled. And what happened on 911 was excellent sleight-of-hand, no doubt planned for years.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Interesting hypothesis, to bad it hasn't been proven yet. I wish it was true. Talk about how people "want" to believe in a conspiracy theory, you just demonstrated it yourself.


The only explanation most consistent with all the facts is the NIST report.


The fact is, the NIST Report is nothing more than a failed, political, fairy tale, to support a political agenda, and the fact, it's phony science cannot stand up to scrutiny. Peer Review some of you claim?

You cannot Peer Review science, when part of it is Top Secret from the public and other scientist. Not Peer Reviewed.

Your post is very hostile, and condescending towards members who do not support the 911 fairy tales, so do not be surprised, if others respond, in the same manners towards you.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958





Peer Review some of you claim?


The reports themselves were not. However, papers that drew extensively on significant portions of them were published in Fire Technology, which is peer-reviewed:

Overview of the Structural Design of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Buildings Link
Structural Response of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 to Impact and Fire Damage Link

Structural Analysis of Impact Damage to World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 Link

Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions.
Link




Your post is very hostile, and condescending towards members who do not support the 911 fairy tales, so do not be surprised, if others respond, in the same manners towards you.

Monkey see monkey do?
edit on 3-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Awesome post. Sad you are critized by those beyond reason and so biased they engage in intellectually dishonest debate.

Sad that people misinterpret being rational and educated concerning WTC implosion, along with the total lack of CD evidence, resort to calling the rational "government apologists". If not worse.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The reports themselves were not. However, papers that drew extensively on significant portions of them were published in Fire Technology, which is peer-reviewed:


No, different then Steven Jones Thermite paper in my "opinion". Look I'm Peer Reviewed? I am credibal? LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Speaking of being biased and beyond reason....

I bet you will not name two WTC conspiracy collapse theories that you think are total BS for the sake of getting to the real reason of WTC collapse and to show your desire for honest debate.

I hope we all use rational thought and discernment to decide which is the most credible theory. Other words "debunking".

I think nuclear device theories and thermite are two of the biggest BS theories. Based on popularity and requiring the most misconceptions.

I think the two biggest theories based on fantasy are:
1) Dustification
2) Energy weapons with holographic jets.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Wonder if an attempt at honest questions will result in being blown off in favor of another emotional rant?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Awesome post. Sad you are critized by those beyond reason and so biased they engage in intellectually dishonest debate.


There is no debate here, never was. You can not prove the OS narrative true, and the other side cannot prove their side true.

Fact being said, this all about who has the better supporting "opinions" and nothing else.

If you want to call everyone who disagree with you intellectually dishonest then you lost this argument already.

If name calling is all you got, then your done. No one care to read any further.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

For your review:

Here's the Harrit etal thermite paper is you want to look at it. Link

Here's the Millette paper that discredits the Harrit paper. Link









edit on 3-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Is inward bowing and collapse by contacting floor trusses the OS?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


Awesome post. Sad you are critized by those beyond reason and so biased they engage in intellectually dishonest debate.


There is no debate here, never was. You can not prove the OS narrative true, and the other side cannot prove their side true.

Fact being said, this all about who has the better supporting "opinions" and nothing else.

If you want to call everyone who disagree with you intellectually dishonest then you lost this argument already.

If name calling is all you got, then your done. No one care to read any further.


Another rant based on a straw man argument.

Ever provide a quote from a single individual from the 9/11 forum exonerating the government or writing that the US government is totally blameless concerning 9/11.

You are so biased and irrational you will not cite two WTC conspiracy collapse theories you think are total BS. Simple question?

Well, gotta go unpack from camping. Then get ready for more fishing tomorrow. Have a pleasant afternoon.
edit on 3-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wirdi



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Another rant based on a straw man argument.


What would you know about straw man argument? My understanding is that is a phrase used only in the art of disinformation.

Have you studied the art of disinformation?


You are so biased and irrational you will not cite two WTC conspiracy collapse theories you think are total BS. Simple question?


There you go "again" to prove my point, name calling and condescending, snide remarks, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Have a nice camping trip.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




What would you know about straw man argument? My understanding is that is a phrase used only in the art of disinformation.





posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.


theunboundedspirit.com...

True, however it is used in the art of disinformation.
edit on 3-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Provide a quote that was disinformation?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Huge risk for Al Qaeda. If they took a shot like that and missed, they would look really stupid. If they hit, they could expect it to do no good at all. Just get a lot of their fellow muslims killed. Or what do you think they hoped to achieve by it?



If they took a shot and missed, who would know it was al Quaeda? They wanted to hit the towers as a symbol of America and tried to blow one up with a truck bomb. They missed then but not on 9/11. They wanted to show the world that they were not helpless and could eventually strike those who they thought were oppressing them; that even the most powerful country on earth was vulnerable. Their other targets were also symbolic. Some say that the DC targets were really the Capitol and the Whitehouse and that the Pentagon was a secondary target.
The pilots were capable of flying the aircraft, especially after the airline pilots got them off the ground and in flight.
edit on 6/3/2017 by pteridine because: syntax



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join