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.

 

3 Easy ways to win a 9/11 truth debate.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Hmm... my post "mysteriously" disappeared. Well, here goes try #2.

Next time someone wants to debate about how 9/11 was NOT an inside job, just ask them to provide a picture or video of one of the following:

1) An Al Queda member wearing a red bandana

2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.

3) Debris in shanksville.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


1). Irrelevant.

2). Gravity, yes gravity, is the reason why the towers fell downwards.
How else would the towers fall? The twin towers collapses weren't exactly symmetrical anyway, and there hasn't exactly been any other towers of a similar size that have been demolished to make exact comparisons.

There has been postings already on other threads of smaller buildings collapsing in a similar fashion to the WTC, during similar circumstances, where floors have been removed. This is analogous to a weakened structure and melted steel due to jet fuel burning within it.

3). Can you explain where the people went if their plane did not crash.

If it were so easy as you suggest to convince somebody of your ideas, then everybody would already be convinced!


[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
1) relevenat, because thats what people said over the alleged phone calls.

2) Yes, gravity is why things fall downwards. Your right. Now symmetry is when things line up exactly the same on one side as the other. The building fell in perfect symmetry downward. You cannot replicate this with a simple "pancake theory". If you can, show me an actual video of this happening due to a fire and/or airplane.

3) Can you explain why god put me on this earth? I dont know, but it might be easier to do that than explain your question. Although it might have something to do with you ignoring the fact that you cannot find visual evidence of debris in shanksville.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
@john124


1). Oh, yes.. Relevant.

THIS...
911research.wtc7.net...

...Is the evidence entered into record for the 2006 trial of Zaccharias Moussai.

An alleged Conspirator....

Who, apparently.... was a "Blood"

2). No, gravity is not what caused them to fall downward...

There was "Stuff" in the way, that apparently kept them standing (Read: Not Falling due to gravity) for 30 some years.

The symmetrical collapse, combined with the energetic ejection of debris...

www.debunking911.com...

... Discounts a natural collapse.

Now, if we do some quick math, we can tell EXACTLY why this is a dead giveaway...

Tower height: 1,368 ft
Gravitational Acceleration: 32ft/s^2
Time to fall: (Free fall from 1368 feet is little under 9 seconds.)

So... the debris that stuck the other buildings had a total of *9* seconds to cover the maximum distance.... what was their average velocity?

300ft (from north tower to wtc7)

Divided by 9 seconds

Equals 33 feet per second.

or, 22.5 miles per hour.


So, this "Debris" that was massive enough to "Carve the Face off of WTC7" was somehow accelerated to 22 miles per hour.....

By a pancake collapse?


No... look at the videos again.

That stuff was THROWN out.




3). You are assuming that there were even people on the plane.

You are assuming that people could not be imprisoned for the rest of their lives, or killed by malicious agents to stage an event of this magnitude...

You are making alot of brash assumptions here...


-Edrick



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
How to win a 911 argument?

WTC7. GOOD GAME.

There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.

In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse. Thus, with less then 20% of the building experiencing fire stress, it is an absolute impossibility for the scenario we witnessed, to have happened the way we have been told.

And that's the bottom line.

The second way to win the argument, is to ask about the molten metal which provided hotspots in the rubble of above 2000 degrees, upto weeks after the collapse.

This is another impossible anomaly, since jet fuel, nor office fires could produce and sustain this amount of heat.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed
1) relevenat, because thats what people said over the alleged phone calls.

2) Yes, gravity is why things fall downwards. Your right. Now symmetry is when things line up exactly the same on one side as the other. The building fell in perfect symmetry downward.

Whoever posted second on this thread, got owned!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


What you asked about where the people went is what I would like to know! I do believe it was an inside job but if there were no people on that plane then where did they go? Did they kill them or send them away, pay them off? I mean where would they have gone?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Nobody really understood my comment, it's a shame that nobody else on this thread has used their brain yet.

1. I didn't say there were no photos of this, only that is was irrelevant. What would that even prove if that were the case - nothing substancial!

2. The collapse was not symmetrical, it's only from a long distance away that it appears so. There has been videos from youtube showing similar collapses, but only from smaller buildings probably because there has been no other large tower demolitions/collapses as to date. If you set such impossible criteria, then you'll have to wait until a tower has been demolished to satisfy your curiosities!

3. It's interesting how you all feel it applicable to poke holes in the official theories, yet you feel your own theories are beyond criticism. Where did those people go then?? It's a perfectly valid question.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by john124
 


What you asked about where the people went is what I would like to know! I do believe it was an inside job but if there were no people on that plane then where did they go? Did they kill them or send them away, pay them off? I mean where would they have gone?


Yes, I think you have to add more pieces to that theory before you can call it credible.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



3). You are assuming that there were even people on the plane.

You are assuming that people could not be imprisoned for the rest of their lives, or killed by malicious agents to stage an event of this magnitude...

You are making alot of brash assumptions here...


No, I meant the people who were either on the plane, or allegedly on the plane from your perspective. Therefore my point still stands, can you say you know where those people are? Or are you just guessing?? Maybe aliens abducted them? Can we call every single possibility a real theory?!

You're making as many assumptions about where they went as those who believe in the official explanation.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



2). No, gravity is not what caused them to fall downward...


Gravity if what keeps you on the ground, acceleration downwards of any objects mass due to the Earth's gravity affects every single object on this planet.


There was "Stuff" in the way, that apparently kept them standing (Read: Not Falling due to gravity) for 30 some years.


Yes supports that were on fire due because of burning jet fuel
Have you seen the videos of the fire, it was an inferno of burning glass, steel and wall & flooring materials.


The symmetrical collapse, combined with the energetic ejection of debris...


The collapse wasn't exactly symmetrical, but since the towers were built approximatetly symmetrical, you would expect a roughly symmetrical collapse downwards for some of the structure, but not all of it!!




[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
3. It's interesting how you all feel it applicable to poke holes in the official theories, yet you feel your own theories are beyond criticism. Where did those people go then?? It's a perfectly valid question.



it is an irrelevant one.

except if you are implying that they couldnt ghave gone any other way than where the official theory claims they did.

guess what, killing people isnt hard to do at that level of power and resources. (we're talking abiout the shadow government here, for which the official government is just a silly puppet-house serving as a front to amuse the masses)

they're officially dead anyway, so what does it matter if it's in the towers or somewhere else?
the guys who did them in aren't likely to be asked where their victims went, precisely because you are buying and holding onto the bull# story.

If you asked questions, you might get answers, duh.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Owned by what? Definitely not by this 9/11 truther naivety & stupidism!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by quintal
 


The truthers say the official story is bs, basing that on assumptions and false logic. That's why your theories don't have any merit.

Yes maybe the govt. hid certain facts, but what are these facts? It's pointless and false logic to say they must have done, and using that as a cornerstone to justify every idea. You have to provide a real connection, otherwise it's too easy to argue that your theory has as many or more holes in it as the official version.

If you argue generally that the govt. is evil or has an agenda, it's easy just to say you may also have similar intentions with your so-called explanations.

By all means ask questions, I only asked where the people were, I didn't say the govt. were entirely correct.

If you want the truth, every fact matters. That's how you investigate thoroughly. I'm hardly going to listen to somebody who claims to have the truth when they can't even recognise that every piece of every incident matters, such as where the people are!


[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed

2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.



What kind of stupid argument is that.

A, I can't show you a photo of another 400m+ collapsing after a Boeing 767 has crashed into it because that's never happened to a building anywhere else before of after 9/11.

Why don't you provide me with a photo of a 400m+ building that didn't collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767.

You can't because it hasn't happened anywhere else.


Having no evidence for an imaginary event isn't proof that it didn't happen in New York to the twin Towers.

B, They didn't collapse symmetrically anyway!

Look at this large shard of one of the towers that didn't collapse at the same speed as the rest of the tower.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 



There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.


Small fires?!!! LMAO!! Witnesses described the tower fires as an inferno, and these transferred to smaller building during the collapse because of fiery debris causing lots of smaller fires in building 7 that gradually built up into even larger fires, which eventually led to its collapse in a similar fashion and for similar reasons.

Firstly the collapses weren't symmetrical, and secondly you're contradicting Newton's Laws of Motion.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
wtc7 collapsed symmetrically.
there were no "steel melting jet fuel fires", john124. that's so 2001, man. the official lie is that the steel was weakened, not melted, and the jet fuel burned up within the few minutes. it was normal office fires from then on.

and, wtc7 was not hit by an airplane, and no STEEL FRAMED skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, except for the THREE alleged "collapses" on 9/11.

also, who says no tower has ever been demolished? here's just one....



worth noting that thie tower, which is smaller than any of the towers that fell on 9/11, still took about 8 seconds for the roof to hit the ground once it started moving.
the near freefall descent of wtc7 (and the actual freefall portion of the descent) took less than seven seconds, despite being 47 storeys high vs. only 28 storeys for the landmark.

let's see that again in simple form:

wtc7 - 47 storeys take 6.6 seconds to fall supposedly by gravity alone
landmark tower - 28 storeys take 8 seconds to fall, despite being intentionally demolished with lots of explosives







[edit on 9-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Hmm. the laws of physics state that gravity will pull an object throught the path of least resistance. So while gravity brought them down there were certainly other forces at play in the equation. Its too bad to date no one has been able to illustrate these forces.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
based on ATS and its members, at least, some ...

troll!!

troll!!

troll!!


AND YOU WON!

really ... you just cant debate 911 ... you need to present the links for the evidence, and tell that they need to research and find out what the heck it was ... that should be the way to do it



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed
Hmm... my post "mysteriously" disappeared. Well, here goes try #2.

Next time someone wants to debate about how 9/11 was NOT an inside job, just ask them to provide a picture or video of one of the following:

1) An Al Queda member wearing a red bandana

2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.

3) Debris in shanksville.




You are correct, if anybody wanted to discuss the events of 9/11 with you and these are the first things out of your mouth, then you are correct you will have won.

If by "win" you mean the other party shakes their head and walks away.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join