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.

 

How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Im pretty fascinated with Dr. Judy Wood's, "dustification" theory. Not sure if Im completely on board with it, but her PHD in engineering and very, very solid science to back her claim is EXTREMELY convincing and highly respectable.
Not just as an alternative theory, but a lesson in critical thinking as well.




posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

What nicely packed into what 12 story sub basements, did not think they went down that far? Remember were looking for 1,000,000 tones concrete and steal for 2 buildings, let alone buildings seven 4,5, 6, and 7 which also had major damage.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
I rest my case.

🤣


In that you cannot sate one theory with the credibility to supersede that inward bowing resulting in buckling resulting in collapse as supported by video evidence?

Or there is no credible truth movement theories on why the towes fell worth taking a stand on?

Or your false argument the people you refer to are defending the offical account? When they are defending the most likely cause of the towers’s collapse, supported by a actual collapse video. Not models based on pseudoscience. While you do nothing to fight the charlatans in the truth movement in an attempt to help the truth movement gain some credibility?

Still waiting on those quotes that the people people you refer to ever said the government shouldn’t be scrutinized. I think those people have pointed out their own opinions on the government and corruption concerning 9/11? Is that false?



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: neutronflux

What I want to know is where the 500 thousand tonnes of each buildings steel and concrete went, there should have been a 16 story rubble pile at the base of each tower going by physics? but by the news footage on the day it was around 4 stories, a lot of mass turned to dust some how? That's if you believe the pancake theory...


Can you cite a source how wide and how tallthe piles should have been, and why?

Just trying to quantify something makes a person a what?




Vaporizing the World Trade Center
archive.is...

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: mrthumpy

What nicely packed into what 12 story sub basements, did not think they went down that far? Remember were looking for 1,000,000 tones concrete and steal for 2 buildings, let alone buildings seven 4,5, 6, and 7 which also had major damage.


IIRC there were 7 sub-basements plus five storeys of rubble above ground



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Read Doctor Judy Woods book, its all there!



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: myss427
Four story?



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Another photo of the debris pile. I am not sure why everyone thinks that all of the debris fell, and stayed neatly stacked, within the footprints of the Towers, but it did not. And it sure wasn't a "four story" pile



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015





I am just amazed by how strongly people defend the official conspiracy theory.



On ATS its very rare to see someone defending the official story.

everywhere else I traverse on the internet is rather the same.

Who and where is the official account strongly defended? Government website blogs?






Why is it so hard to imagine if terrorists were capable of flying jets into skyscrapers that they could not also wire those buildings for demolition to achieve maximum terror.



Its not hard to imagine, but its rather idiotic.

You watch a controlled demolition and you watch the twin towers come down.

Try getting everything out of your mind and simply watch how a controlled demolition looks like and where it starts.

Then after really seeing the above watch the towers go down.

How does a controlled demolition start at the upper floors where the planes hit?

How does a controlled demolition damage and destroy surrounding buildings?

The controlled part of the demolition is supposed to be controlled and not destroy surrounding structures, so that saying it fell into its own footprint is one the most annoying things idiots say because its sounds like they haven't seen the aftermath of the collapse and are simply parroting a youtube video.





The buildings collapsing at near free-fall speed is best explained by controlled demolition. It's just what the evidence suggests.



Yes I guess if you like being ignorant of controlled demolitions that are available to study and observe with a few clicks of your keyboard.

The evidence (all the images and video of the aftermath of the collapse and the collapse itself) does not suggest it was controlled at all.





The video evidence suggests controlled demolition is the most likely explanation.


Which video evidence?

Your you tube video or the actual footage of the collapse?

Because as I said the actual footage is clearly evidence that it wasn't controlled.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2




in reality there is no way in hell those buildings were not pulled by expert demolition company,


ah oldtimer, maybe get your eyes checked and watch a few controlled demolitions to see what they look like, where they start and how they fall into their own footprint in a controlled fall not damaging surrounding structures.


Then watch the towers and the aftermath.



I guess you could turn around and say the expert demolition team made it look not perfect because they are......experts.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real




Im pretty fascinated with Dr. Judy Wood's, "dustification" theory. Not sure if Im completely on board with it, but her PHD in engineering and very, very solid science to back her claim is EXTREMELY convincing and highly respectable.

Are you kidding me?
She claims the power used to dustify came from a hurricane in the Atlantic.
Why didn't we dustify Osama Bin Ladens final house instead of violating Pakistan sovereignty and risking troops?
We could have prevented North Koreas nukes in secret. He would never know we did it.
Watch her in the youtube video interview and tell us she is believable.

Where is the unified conspiracy theory that covers everything we saw on that day.
There were too many things going on for a small handful of people to manage.
Someone would have talked.
POTUS couldn't get a BJ in secret in the oval office.
The head of the CIA couldn't have an affair in secret.
And both of those only had two people involved.

You might want to re-evaluate your beliefs based on real world knowledge instead of youtube videos.
edit on 7-6-2018 by samkent because: spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The official story makes so much sense...

And later on they caught the brains of the operation and buried him at sea since that is a standard Muslim burial.
edit on 7-6-2018 by JosephKnecht because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JosephKnecht

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than any of the theories about dustification, hush a boom explosives, holograms etc...

In fact, it is the one that actually fits the evidence.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

That is why you have to start with validating the truth movement’s theories? And why they would push gross falsehoods? How could anyone buy in to Nukes at the WTC, or Dustification. Mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Push the falsehood the WTC steel was absolutely not inspected?

So, why would anyone argue and validate the official story if it is totally bogus? Like this rant of a thread?

The truth movement is vague on purpose? With only trying to put holes in what they consider the official narrative? And only aims to distract?

For the towers, what should I find more credible than floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns. The bowing caused buckling leading to collapse.

If someone is willing to push something that absolutely has no evidence like nukes for example, how can you find them credible?

The only thing that one can really do is find what has the most evidence. And if one pushes falsehoods concerning the towers’ collapse, then their whole credibility and judgement is in question?

Funny threads like this trying to poke holes in the “official account”, but never addresses the issue of the truth movement’s credibility.

Why is there never a thread about rooting out the charlatans of the truth movement, and how to repair its credibility?



And I hear you but. Me asking questions on certain issues doesn't make me part of the "Truth Movement" Buy labeling everyone that questions any part of 9/11 as the "Truth Movement" you're part of the problem. I'm not a "Truther". I'm a guy that has some doubts and questions about specific things. Or I'm finding some of the anomalies really strange.

Second. Just because one person talks about Nukes doesn't invalidate the hundreds or thousands of other people asking good, hard questions. You're lumping everyone in in one group again.

See what I'm saying?

It's like Global Warming...if you believe NASA or find some of the thousands of research papers credible, then all of a sudden you're a part of the "Global warming crowd".

It's this grouping and stereotyping that stops us from actually finding the truth and denying ignorance.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

This is how I define near free-fall:




posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

The end of the video referenced in the OP shows experiments that best explain what happened on 9/11. There is no experiment existing supporting the pancake or pile driver theories. The official conspiracy from NIST is junk science.

The buildings fell too fast. Either all the energy goes into falling at a rate near the acceleration of gravity. Or, because of Newton's third law of motion, the buildings slow down as they collapse. The buildings did not slow down, therefore, the only hypothesis that fits the facts is controlled demolition. If you are going to say extraterrestrials destroyed the buildings on 9/11 you better have some extraordinary proof. Same thing with saying two airplanes crashing into two buildings can bring down 3 buildings by fire. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by airplane!!! Newtons 3rd law of motion can't be ignored.

Why is it that people are so married to official conspiracy theory that planes are the only thing that brought down the buildings. If the terrorist were capable of hitting a building in NYC with a jet they certainly could have brought the buildings down using hi-tech explosives. The purpose of 9/11 was maximum terror. Bin Laden was a billionaire with unlimited resources. What NIST has proposed as the explanation is junk science. No experiment has ever been shown to exhibit the laws of physics they are suggesting happened on 9/11. NIST explanation is PURE fantasy.


edit on 7-6-2018 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Part of what problem? Then state what has the most credible evidence for how the towers fell? So I am part of the problem because I shifted through conspiracy sites, debunking sites, researched about everything I could find on physics of the towers, and watched conspiracist vs debunker debates? Tried to validate truth movement theories and found falsehoods and pseudoscience? On what I have argued in this thread that is not backed by fact? Is it false conspiracists pushed photos of cut columns as evidence of thermite when in reality the columns were cut by cleanup crews with thermal lances? Is it false video evidence showing the cores of the towers fell last proving Richard Gage’s assertion the towers fell through the greatest path of resistance is wrong?

Quote where I labeled you “truth movement” because you asked an original question?

If you are not pushing truth movement narratives, what physically caused the Towers to collapse? And what plot resulted in the Towers collapse? Is it proof the US government was the mastermind, or just stood idle, or just the results of government incompetence. A political/military system based on political affiliation vs compentence.

Or what is the most credible counter argument to the towers collapse because of vertical columns bowing and buckling?

Or simply, what is the biggest question in your mind concerning 9/11? Is the question original? Or a truth movement talking point addressed over and over again the last 16 years plus?

I would like to know how the terrorists got into the country? And were allowed to stay? Who was held accountable? Or was this like the EPA induced disasters?

Why were the towers built so cheaply in terms of minimal concrete usage?

Why did the intelligence community fail so badly?


Funny how people get caught up in a literally impossible narrative like Dustification? Like a distraction by design?

edit on 7-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: InhaleExhale


The buildings fell too fast. Either all the energy goes into falling at a rate near the acceleration of gravity. Or, because of Newton's third law of motion, the buildings slow down as they collapse. The buildings did not slow down, therefore, the only hypothesis that fits the facts is controlled demolition


Each floor in the towers was designed to take 1300t static load. Can you please explain why a dynamic load of tens of thousands of tonnes (and rising) hitting one of these floors would slow down?


Same thing with saying two airplanes crashing into two buildings can bring down 3 buildings by fire. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by airplane!!! Newtons 3rd law of motion can't be ignored.




Startlingly just how many 911 truthers are unaware of the damage inflicted on WTC7 by the collapse of the north tower. It's almost as if they're just parroting the standard talking points without bothering to research it themselves



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

WTC 7, had a 1300 foot tall skyscraper collapse into it. The damage, got progressively worse the closer to the ground you got. FDNY members who survived that day commented on how heavily damaged the building was and that they expected it to fall. NO ONE who was there that day, was surprised when it fell. Hell the media was talking about it all afternoon.



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: dfnj2015

WTC 7, had a 1300 foot tall skyscraper collapse into it. The damage, got progressively worse the closer to the ground you got. FDNY members who survived that day commented on how heavily damaged the building was and that they expected it to fall. NO ONE who was there that day, was surprised when it fell. Hell the media was talking about it all afternoon.


And yet people with no knowledge of this will criticise those who don't believe the controlled demolition theory.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join