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.


Has 9/11 truth had its day ?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:53 AM

Originally posted by impressme

If my poll was so worthless, why did you waste your time to vote in it?

To show its worthlessness. If I vote "no" in it - and truthfully - then that shows that its underlying premise (that 9/11 Truth somehow has some kind of majority traction) is complete rubbish.

Second, you don’t know what I think. Unless you feel you are a clairvoyant.

I do know what you think. Unless all these posts that you spray around here are not indicative of your opinions. Perhaps you just make stuff up as you go along and they're basically nonsense. I often think you might, and they might be.

Your Constance ridicule and insults of Truthers in just about every post you make, only steers ATS readers away from you and destroys what little credibility you have left. Frankly, I could careless what you think, about Truthers. It certainly appears that you have some kind of agenda.

Right. So I can't talk about you, but you feel perfectly secure writing this screed? Can you spell hypocrite?

Actually, don't answer that.

Let's keep this thread on topic here, the topic is not about me.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by impressme]

Or me, I would have thought.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:55 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

I refer you to my post:

So what you're saying is that you're reversing the type of statements made by debunkers? Is that the idea?

In which case the opposite statement

Any academic institution whose digital simulation proves that the WTC towers came down in a controlled demolition should have it's accreditation removed

should be extant somewhere in a post by a debunker, at least in spirit if not verbatim.

And yet I've never seen anyone write anything like that.

You said this is the type of post that debunkers write. It should therefore be pretty easy to produce an example.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm not making any claim as to how it was done, only that the OS is wrong.

Do you see that this is one of the main reasons why the Truth Movement has stalled?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:58 AM
Aw, this is so cute - a couple of debunkers must've U2U'd each other to try and band together to see if they could get a thread built up where the consensus was in their favor.

And, already the 6th post [a 'truther'] has more stars than the OP or any supporter, before or after.


[edit on 7/9/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:38 AM
The dismissive attitude of tricky and co. smacks of desperation....

You dont know how it happened either.....

Unless you are gullible enough to believe the OS which is soooo ridiculous as to be laughable....and if so, well, quite frankly I pity you!!

Your "come back when youve got an idea" retort speaks volumes for your lack of intellect and rational thought good sir......

keep up the good work tricky...your doing a sterling job ...

Not addressing any of the points that matter, but doing a sterling job your little mind at least.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by benoni

If the OS is "soooo ridiculous " how about giving me a comprehensive truther alternative that fits the facts ?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by benoni

Why? If you don't know what happened then what use is your contribution? The consensus opinion in the world is the what you call the "OS" is largely correct. And you're seeking to replace it with... nothing.

Good luck with that.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Yeah, because the stars are so important. I gave you one. I imagine it will make you feel all warm inside.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

So when are you going to explain how sagging trusses can pull in more massive outer columns?

If you actually read the NIST report, you'd know to not construct this strawman.

Well, maybe you read parts of it. It's apparent you didn't understand it.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:28 PM
Largely correct tricky...??

which parts are in question??

In your humble opinion only of course....

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:41 PM
Total Horse Crap, there isnt enough truth put out there for a solid determination either way.
Abandoning any continued research or demanding any continued investigation is pathetic quiting.
That's relative to position isnt it?
Truth from an "official" released report satisfies obviously many.
Truth from a continued search into all the details, removing doubt,
I'm all for it, just like a trial.
There's not enough to sway me 100% either way, and as long as I have doubt, I'll continue to question.
Threads like these just kick the dog, the intent is clearer than any evidence provided to just drink the koolaid of any official story held up as "the final word".
Has truth had its day?
9/11 truth?
jfk truth?
king truth?
bush truth?
fed truth?
saddam truth?
pearl harbor truth?
etc etc etc?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by benoni

In my opinion the cover up is over the intelligence aspects. They're furiously spinning because they think the evidence suggests they should have been ready for an attack and were quite monumentally complacent. Bit more boring than secret demos and Bourne Identity wet teams, but more depressingly dangerous.

But the reason I say "largely" is more to highlight the fact that there isn't a single "OS". It exists only as a construct for Truthers, so that they can have something to "prove" wrong. 9/11 "Truth" is almost unique in being a movement that celebrates its lack of unifying ideas. It does this because it knows, deep down, that no cogent overall theory is possible, given the mess of overlapping and contradicting claims it makes.

This is why it sticks to your stance of "not knowing" anything. In the real world that gets you nowhere.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1
After nearly 9 years there seems to be nothing but feeble re-gurgitated material and fewer and fewer posters are supporting it. Is it time for truthers to move on to more productive pastures ?

You are right, so why don't all of you skeptics lead by example and move on from this forum to more productive pastures? We truthers won't start doing the same until all of you skeptics leave first.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you actually read the NIST report, you'd know to not construct this strawman.

Well, maybe you read parts of it. It's apparent you didn't understand it.

Why don't you explain what it is I'm missing Joey?

Please show me where it explains how the towers globally and symmetrically collapsed from floor truss failure. Show me where it explains how the floor trusses caused the massive central core to collapse? The core could stand by itself, it didn't need the floors to hold it up...

Do you really think the 'flimsy' floor trusses are going to bring down that central core? Really? Oh wait you guys don't think, you just parrot the OS, my bad....

[edit on 7/9/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by ANOK

ANOK, its in the final draft of NIST. Since you claim to have a copy of it, I suggest you read it all, and not let it sit there as a paperweight collecting dust.

And once again you fail to realize that light steel trusses are VERY susceptable to fires. And yes, they are a BIG fire danger. In fact just google around the words: steel truss, fire danger, collapse, roof. In nearly all firefighting safety manuals, they all agree that steel trusses are very dangerous and can collapse quite rapidly after the onset of fire. Sometimes in as little as 10-20 minutes after start of exposure. They end up expanding from the heat, and since they have nowhere to go, they end up sagging down. Now when soemthing starts to sag down, its going to have an adverse effect on the connections at each end. This is what was observed on 9/11 in the WTCs prior to each collapse. Even a police helicopter saw it and reported it to fire personell on the ground. Once the floors began to buckle and fail, pulling in the exterior columns, that was it. Total global failure. The floors came down, while the exterior shell peeled away, leaving a large chunk of the core to stand, for approximately 15 seconds after initial collapse. Then the damage and stresses on the remaining core sections caused the rest of the core to collapse. That is what we saw in the "Spires" and in certain angles of the collapses.

Oh yes, the "conventional explosives were not used" nonsense.
I never get tired of this one. Ok, so lets say "unconventional explosives" were used. What the heck would you call "unconventional"? Mini-black hole device? Micro-nukes? Oh oh, matter-antimatter device? Bombs powered by pixy dust? Nuclear fusion device? You have to realize that explosives all work on the same principle. They explode and make one hell of a bang. The more power they have, the louder the bang. It's that simple. There is no such thing a silent explosives. There are no devices that silently explode without any visual or audible parts. Especially if they are used to cut through steel columns.

I'll make it easy. Here is a list of explosive materials. Just pick the ones that are "unconventional" and point them out. (note: The more powerful the material, the louder and more powerful the explosion. Remember, you have to find a magic explosive that explodes with enough force to launch horizontally hundreds of tons of steel, but does so nearly silenced and has no corresponding shockwave or blast wave.)

Here is another:
(a note about this last site, as it mentions "home-made" bombs. I do not know the legality or whatever about this site, so proceed with caution.)

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Six Sigma

What's the deal here? Are you going to bark all day or are you going to bite? What caused the lateral ejections of the materials seen in the videos of the collapses?

My opinion is demolition, what’s your's?

What kind of demolition? Are you talking conventional explosives? This is what I want to know. Since Anok is ignoring it, perhaps you can answer me.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

Why can't you actually address what I've said instead of what you want to think I said? It would save both of us from wasting our time.

I didn't say the trusses were not vulnerable to fire, what I said was how can 'flimsy' trusses, that are, according to you, sagging from being too hot be responsible for pulling in the outer facade columns and pulling down the central core?

Why does this seem logical to you?

If the trusses cannot even hold there own weight and are sagging, then how do they do anything other than keep sagging? How do they have the ability to both sag from heat AND manage to pull in the more massive outer columns and pull down the even more massive central core? Your point about something happening at the ends is nonsense.

Forget NIST and give it some thought for while.

No matter how you spin it, it does not make logical sense. Your explanation doesn't make sense. NIST does not address these questions and neither did you.

It makes no sense in the big picture. Again how do you go from the failure of a few trusses to complete symmetrical global collapse with no resistance from undamaged structure? And please don't tell me it's in the NIST report because it isn't. How did the trusses get hot enough to fail in the first place? We know there is no evidence they did, and precedence tells us an hours worth of uncontrolled fire is not going to do it because it simply doesn't get hot enough to transfer heat to that much steel, and overcome the effect of thermal transfer in the steel itself.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by Six Sigma

I am not ignoring anything.

Unlike you I know it is irrelevant to the discussion and a waste of time.

I don't need to know what was used to know when a demolition is controlled, there is a very obvious difference to one that is uncontrolled.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by Six Sigma

What kind of demolition? Are you talking conventional explosives? This is what I want to know. Since Anok is ignoring it, perhaps you can answer me.

I can only assume demolition, do I have any pieces of demolition from ground zero that we all can claim as proof, well no I don’t. Do I know what kind of demolition the perps used, no I don’t.
However, one thing for sure, the WTC didn’t fall down because of office fires and jet fuel, science has already proven this impossible.
The only thing that supports the demise of the WTC is demolition. I find it rather ironic that our government has done everything in their power to avoid investigating demolition and have avoided talking about it. Their silence in this matter says it all.
Anyone viewing the destruction of the WTC in all those videos can clearly see the buildings are blowing up and outward hurling thousands of pounds of steel in mid air and watching all the concrete vaporize in mid air before the WTC even fell. That was not a high rise falling down, that was an out of control demolition for visual effects of Shock & Awe to the American people, to incite a serious traumatic effect, an emotional effect for all the worlds population that were watching these events unfold. It was a show, a grand shows, a false flag operation, in my opinion. Chemicals found in the WTC dust that should not be there are chemicals that our military uses to make weapons and explosives.

If people cannot see demolition, then all I can say is the media’s propaganda machines have done a wonderful job of convincing people that their eyes are lying to them.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by impressme]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I guess you're not really familiar with the 9/11 debate. Institutions are prominent on the debunker side but the truther side is largely represented by individuals, who have in some cases banded together in association.

But I think you are missing the general point I am trying to make. Posting debunker style often involves exaggerated overreactions to truthers themselves, not reasoned argument. The example I posted is a similarly exaggerated overreaction to an institution because it is posted from the truther perspective, but in the debunker style. Do you understand my point now? Remember institutions are on the debunker side while the truther side is represented by individuals, in general

I'll go over it one more time. Just re-read the above paragraph.

Making a big deal about typos and spelling mistakes, when it is obvious that they aren't really germane to the discussion is another debunker characteristic. You may have noticed that in this thread.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in