It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by HLR53K
The WTC had an airplane each fly into the towers (lets go with this and not go on the tangent of other theories as to what they were). Per the reports, this would have knocked off the fire-proofing as the debris passed through the building.

Please consider the following three things:

You can still see fireproofing attached to the exterior columns just below where the planes actually impacted. Have you ever seen these photos?

NIST's "experiment" (whatever you'd call it) to test this hypothesis (which they popularized), was to shoot a steel member with spray-on fireproofing, with a shotgun. Would "truthers" get away with this, in your mind? Did you know of this NIST test or have you ever considered this?

Also, the spray-on fireproofing NIST focuses on when they popularized this theory, was not the only kind of fireproofing actually applied. There was also asbestos and more cementous fireproofing. I think Griff knows more about this.

I just can't compare a large fire to a fire combined with the impact of an airplane. They're two different circumstances in my book.

Did you miss the entire part of my post where I not only predict this response, but gave you my response to it before you even posted this? Neither are enough, we know what each of them individually was capable of, to the worse case scenario! We have documented and simulated the airliner damages! NIST and FEMA did it! And we have plenty of case studies on what fire physically does to the local structures of high-rises. Even NIST did experiments that give the same actual data, they just chose not to work that data into their final hypothesis.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by bsbray11]

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:53 AM
Yeah well.....Look I blame Clinton. For 8 years that fat coward "fought" terrorists by blowing up empty buildings and pulling US troops out of any area where the military was in a shooting war with tangos. Case in point Somalia. Also, when the Cole got nailed in the gulf we sent the FBI to catch the bad guys. The CIA was pretty much running around with their hands tied, and Janet Reno was too busy fighting in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and 6 year old Cubans. Shortly after W took office 9-11 was tossed in his lap, the FBI was still dealing with the traitor Hanssen. Remember W had only been in office a few months before 9-11. Half of that time was spent building his cabinet and filling open spots in the administration. To actually believe that Bush planned 9-11 is not just stupid, but it borders on insanity. Al Qaeda had at least 8 years or more to plan 9-11 and the powers that we had out there that might have stopped that tragedy were still trying to put themselves back together after 8 years of Clinton and his gang of cowards. Don’t blame our current government, they have killed more terrorists in 8 years than any administration has. We are not getting the promised attacks from AQ because the people he had out there trained and ready to attack US soil are all now dead or getting 500lb bombs in the face. Sure some innocent people have died, that is the nature of war. Do not forget THEY started this on 9-11. Almost 3000 innocent Americans died that day. IMHO we should have nuked Afganistan and sent a hell of a message to would be terrorists.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by jthomas

the "truthers" will never make progress thomas . . . the people they are trying to reach are scared and at the same time, compliant and blissful in their lives of imprudence. Sometimes it's easier and much more comforting to believe in a lie, no matter how obvious the truth.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:22 AM

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

I have heard about the aspestos, but I have also read that it wasn't applied all the way up the buildings. I agree that Griff should comment on this (he might be tired of repeating the explanation at this point

If what you say about NIST is true, then I will have to agree something is fishy. I've always thought that the overall investigation was a bit rushed and incomplete. It's like a somewhat decent lab report that was done the night before it was due, so things got left out.

You do have to give the circumstances its uniqueness, if you will. I don't know of another time such a large airplane has been flown (diliberately or not) into a high-rise.

Oh and thanks for being civil when correcting me (unlike another who will remain nameless, but you probably know who I'm talking about). I'm not as deeply well-versed in all the 9/11 stuff. I've laid a base down out from what I know and am adjusting it as guys like you bring things up.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
There was also asbestos and more cementous fireproofing. I think Griff knows more about this.

In NISTNCSTAR1-1A, they have a section where it's the handwritten section of "Criteria For Design Inside Of Core Unit Dead Load".

Page 43/166 of the pdf (7 of the actual report)

Listed under "Beam Fireproofing" they have 1-inch contact (I'm assuming this is the spray-on?), 1-inch Cementitous, 1 3/8-inch gypsum plaster and they also have listed under the "beam fireproofing" concrete, lightweight and concrete, stone aggregate but with no thickness.

Page 45/166 of the pdf (9 of the actual report)

Listed under "Column Fireproofing" they have 3-inches contact, 2 1/2-inch cementitous, 1 7/8-inch gypsum plaster w/metal lath and 2-inch solid gypsum block w/2-inch plaster.

Which I believe is a lot more than the "flimsy spray-on fireproofing" theory that they want to sell us.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Double Eights
1. Why was the Patriot Act written before 9/11?
2. Why were members of the Bush Administration taking Cipro before the actual anthrax attacks?
3. Why was anthrax sent to individuals who did not support the Patriot Act?
4. Why was the anthrax from a US Military Base in Maryland?
5. Why was there insider trading right before 9/11, on the airlines used in the attacks?
6. Why, in the first time United States history, were the Generals not in charge of NORAD on 9/11?
7. Why was command of NORAD given to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and/or Bush?
8. Why did NORAD not respond when four airliners were hijacked, especially considering there were 40 minutes in between knowing an airliner was hijacked and when it crashed?
9. Why did Dick Cheney tell NORAD to stand down when a plane was headed to the Pentagon?
10. Why was Mohammad Atta seen in Florida the day before 9/11, yet we are told he was in Portland Maine?
11. How was Mohammad Atta and his 3 buddies allowed to fly on 9/11, the days leading up to 9/11, and even after 9/11 (Atta, and maybe others, had plane tickets for future flights after 9/11), while they were known to be terrorists and on the Able Danger list?
12. Why did the government ignore Harry Sammit and John O'Neil, and even go so far as to tell O'Neil to stop investigation Osama?
13. Why does Sibel Edmonds continue to get a gag order when she has evidence that high-ranking officials sold nuclear secrets to Pakistan and Turkey (who then sold secrets to Iran and North Korea), as well as evidence that FBI officials sabotaged an investigation into Osama Bin Laden leading up to 9/11?
14. Why was a CIA contact training the hijackers in Venice Florida?
15. Why are their hundreds of eye-witness reports of explosions before the plane hit, after the plane hit, before the tower collapsed, before the tower collapsed?
16. Why are there witness reports of bombs going off in the basement of the WTC?
17. Why does the FBI itself claim it has no hard evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11?

If you can answer every single one of these questions, then you will have proved to me 9/11 was not an inside job.
* Also note that these are just a fraction of the questions that need to be answered. *

So you assume because you have "questions"(most claiming things already shown to be factually wrong) then 9/11 was an "inside job".

Amazing logic.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Griff

In the core areas, the sides of the columns that were accessable used drywall and the cementious boards for the fireproofing.

On the sides of the columns that weren't to be accessable, like elevator shafts, service shafts, they used the spray-on. Easier to apply.

I'd have to differ though about the "flimsiness" of the drywall. Sure it seems pretty tough to you and me, but plane parts blowing through at 400mph or so wouldn't see it as much of am impediment, IMHO.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I'd have to differ though about the "flimsiness" of the drywall. Sure it seems pretty tough to you and me, but plane parts blowing through at 400mph or so wouldn't see it as much of am impediment, IMHO.

I agree, but most people believe there was only the spray-on. There's at least 6 inches of solid fireproofing there. More than what I feel we've been lead to believe.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by jthomas

You have tunnel vision my man.

My eyes are wide open.

The point is that everyone has a belief, your vision of 9/11 is a belief, you can't prove it happened that way.

You haven't refuted the evidence.

Prove to me the government didn't do it. You ask everybody else for proof but have none of your own. What evidence do you have of how NORAD works? Prove it to me. What evidence do you have that you're not a computer bot? Prove it to me. Why is it everyone else has to provide the answers but you don't?

Shifting the burden proof doesn't work with rational people. Sorry.

You want everyone to come over to your way of thinking, but provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just ask others to prove what you're saying isn't true.

I, and all rational people, want you to back up your claims. It's been 6 1/2 years and we're still waiting. No matter how you slice it, the onus of proof is on YOUR shoulders to back up YOUR claims.

Don't tell me you put your evidence down to a book called the 9/11 Comission report, ha ha ha.

That strawman argument never works. The evidence existed before any report was done. The 9/11 Commission report had a limited scope and mission. The physical and evidence came from thousands of different, independent sources and already existed.

That's the same as proving God & Jesus because it's written in a book called the Bible. Do you see, the point being made is that having something written in a book doesn't make it so. You believe your version because of a book, and a book is nothing but something to help you believe, it's not the proof.

The evidence of what happened on 9/11 is not a book. It is massive evidence that you are making every effort to evade. You need to refute that evidence. You can't.

Stop asking others to prove something, if you're so strong in your conviction, provide the irrefutable proof that it happened the way you describe. Prove that, and then the 9/11 truth movement will go away. Come on hot shot, you must have something?

I already have. You refuse to refute the evidence or back up your claims. It's your responsibility.

Any questions?

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

I would love for you to tell me how all 3 buildings fell at free fall speed, in contravention of the laws of physics. You answer that, and I'll answer your question, deal?

They didn't fall at free fall speeds and violated no laws of physics.

Now, tell us exactly where you got that false information.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by theendisnear69

Us truthers have it pretty hard. The only stuff we have to go off of is what the government releases to the public. It's pretty hard to give your side of a story when all you have to go off of is the enemies side of it.

Where did you get the funny idea that all of the evidence and information comes from the government?

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by Griff


Do you mean 1 1/2" x 4 sides?

The core columns had either spray-on OR drywall.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by Seymour Butz

" you have no idea what's happening behind because you can't see it, and a sound recording which in no way can determine the exact time the tower stopped falling and sound generated by debris flying around and settling."

So you don't know? You claim you knew it fell faster than free fall, right? Now you say no one can tell the exact time when it stopped falling.

Nothing like contradicting yourself.

In fact, with the video stopped at 11.5 seconds showing conclusively that WTC 2 had not finished collapsing, it was already 2 seconds past the free-fall speed, thus showing you that you are wrong.

Will you have the honesty to admit you're wrong, Alethia?

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by jthomas

Shhhhh, it was a trick question to begin with.

What he doesn't realize is that if his claim that the towers collapsed at free fall speed, then that means that the exterior columns that hit the ground BEFORE the collapse front were falling at FASTER than free fall.

Well, I guess we missed the rocket motors propelling those columns downwards, eh? Oh the shame for being such a sheep that I've never noticed it.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by GhostR1der

Originally posted by jthomas

False claim. The term "vaporize" can apply to the aluminum skin. Wreckage of all four planes was found and acknowledged. Why do you insist on believing and repeating falsehoods?

And where was that wreckage matched via serial numbers to the planes in question.... to this date I have not seen that. There is _NO_ proof the planes which are said to have impacted at any of the sites are even the correct planes.

Red herring. Try again. You don't need serial numbers to know that all four planes crashed and what flights were.

When computer models cannot even generate the collapses and have to be adjusted beyond possible loads for a failure I begin to get suspicious. Moreso with the mountains of other discrepancies in the case of 9/11.

Structural engineering and physics existed before computers. You don't need computers to understand what caused the collapses.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Nola213
It seems to me the fact that thier own government perputrated these crimes, and the wanton killings of thousands of Americans, for the sole reason to garner suppourt for a War in Iraq, and also to write new amendments to give the government MORE control over your liberties, thus takeing away your rights, little by little, it is just too scary for people like Jthomas and Swampfox, and co. to face.

For them Ignorance is bliss. Do not bother them with details or facts. They wish to live within a fake world where thier government actually gives two craps about them. Let them sheep, I mean sleep, for really, at this point I find them, and people like them of no use to the REAL American, who questions what thier Government (BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE) is doing.

I have nothing for them, and if I see them in a Police State prison, I will take thier jacket.

Too bad you can't back up your claims that the government perpetrated 9/11. Apparently, you expect us all to believe you on faith and follow you like sheep.

Sorry, we skeptics think rationally and for ourselves.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Lightworth
reply to post by jthomas

By what physical property does even a plane's aluminum skin vaporize upon impact? What precedent is there? Where are the "vaporized" heavier objects such as seats and fabrics/textiles, eating utensils and, er, the freaking ENGINES?!! How does one photo of a dented tire rim (at the Pentagon) qualify as evidence of plane wreckage?

You can find out for yourself. Just contact the many of hundreds of witnesses who saw and or/recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

What did they say?

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
Ok. Jthomas I respect your opinions, but they are completely ridiculous and will never further humanity in any aspect.

What you "debunkers" are doing are just adhering to the official government story so blindly that you are willing to attack any opposition. You are just taking the easy way out. To ignore the obvious inconsistencies and fallacies in the official story and follow the rest of the herd.

I think it is hilarious that you fell for the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale" that there is some mythical "official story."

That canard is the foundation of your house of cards.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by GhostR1der
reply to post by COOL HAND

A single, small part on the lawn huh. A lighting ballast.

typically have brass colored casing and are about 6x2x3 inches


A part like that could be easily planted.

Fine. Prove it.

But don't forget that means that everything else had to be planted too. And that means you'll have to prove it too.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in