Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
You are rewriting the definition to your own liking. It's one thing to take the established facts and offer theories to fill in the areas where our knowledge is limited, for example, theorizing that only the hijackers trained to be pilots knew it was to be a suicide mission while the hijackers brought along as muscle were told it was a traditional hijacking to get them to go along with the scheme. It's another thing entirely for someone to come up with a completely alternative scenario based upon nothing but their own abject paranoia and then attempt to rewrite everything to their liking, namely, these "lasers from outer space", "secret controlled demolitions", "hologram planes" or whatever. The former is using the established facts to build a scenario that expllains how the established facts came to be, while the latter is using some made up scenario and artistically selecting and censoring relevent and irrelevent facts to conform to the scenario.

Case in point- I know it's already been explained to you that "witnesses heard explosions" were almost certainly due to the flammable objects within the building that exploded as the fires reached them in turn and I know you've seen this, and yet you keep wallowing in "witnesses heard explosions" becuase it offers a glimmer of hope that it might back up your own alternative explanations. You religiously avoid acknowledging the inconvenient fact several planes were hijacked because there's no way you can fit the event into your alternative theories without sounding like a crackpot, and you likewise avoid acknowledging that the building started collapsing at the point of impact of the planes becuase you know it shows that the collapse was instigated by the impact in some way. It doesn't help you when you need to rely on superstition and offer explanations of "evil gov't ninjas and secret disinformation agents hidden everywhere" to rationalize how the improbable-to-impossible parts of your theories came to be.

THAT is the difference between your side and ours. I may be a theorist in some measure, but I don't grasp onto my theories with quasi-religious fervor like your side does. If the NIST report got their explanations wrong, fine, as that only means the towers fell from some other as yet unknown reason that had nothing to do with secret controlled demolitions, sinister plots to take over the world, or whatever. I can live with that. Can you?




posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Some one can correct me if I am wrong, but I recall NYP officers and NYFD officials in the always manned NY City emergency command center blown to bits that day, commenting about explosions before the buildings were hit that were coming from underneath them. It was a Dutch film crew that filmed it and I recall watching the film.

There is a themite like material being reported in testing of the melted steel and the melted cars below the buildings. So, why now would anyone be fighting reality and implying anyone with their brain on and daring to think for themselves is an idiot? We have a quacking duck with a bill and webbed feet but it might as well be a bear to the fruitcases who would tell me I don't see what I see.

Building 7 is an enigma that the brain dead shills can't come close to explaining for any decent thinking man's satisfaction including the numerous Architects worldwide who have spoken out. A lot ot the Europeans seem to come on here and say it is a forgone conclusion, we were duped. So, keep your head in the sand Ostriches would not want you becoming scared of reality.

Shills have to focus on the story they wish to make those of us who think for themselves as a normal habit, believe. To them a truth is a lie and vice versa. Explain things like building 7 being reported knocked down 20 minutes ahead of the event again please. The rest of us just are looking for the way to make the truth stick when we KNOW we have been lied to steadily. Basically, if you don't lie to me about the OS, then I won't have to speculate what the truth is based on data that IS reasonable!!

Keep in mind shills for the lies we are told tried to make people think the Gulf of Tonkin and Pearl Harbor were the truth. I believe that it is high time our FBI moved to peel off the layers of the criminal masterminds here in the US who orchestrated the lies. Then when we have find out who exaclty was in charge of the coverup, we can get to the who dunnit' portion of the investigation.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justoneman
I will take the NYPD and the NYFD statements on explosions during the whole of the 911 event as admissable evidence

That's what I forgot to add to the OP. First responders are used as credible witnesses in court proceedings every day.. It's very disheartening that their testimony isn't worth anything to NIST and that NIST goes even further to claim that some of what the first responders reported doesn't even exist.

Very sad.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Blatantly, downright false

Would you mind clarifying which part is false? You posted almost the same exact thing I did and it still says that NIST's findings cannot be used in any legal proceedings.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Damn near everything contains sulfur. Anything plastic/synthetic will most likelt made from petroleum, which contains sulfur. Drywall contains sulfur.

You didn't watch the video of Professional Engineer Jonathan Cole. He burned all of that stuff with steel. He let it burn all day and night. No signs of sulfur were found on the steel.

His tests also confirmed that the use of thermitic materials on steel turned the steel into exactly what FEMA found in their metallurgical analysis, both physically and chemically.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Stupid truthers

And do you think anyone will take anything you say seriously with your childish ad-hominem attacks? Perhaps you missed this:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord:

if you're unable to communicate these issues in a deserving manner, then you are not concerned about the issues at all, you're simply entertaining yourself through insults and you're not welcome here.
Source

If you can't discuss this topic like an adult, then stop wasting forum space and bandwidth. Nobody likes to see kindergarteners calling others childish names.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I know it's already been explained to you that "witnesses heard explosions" were almost certainly due to the flammable objects within the building that exploded as the fires reached them

That is your opinion or your conspiracy theory. But "flammable objects" exploding in a fire don't explode in a timed or synchronous fashion as the buildings are collapsing, nor do they emit flashes going up, down and around the towers some 60-70 floors below the fires and collapse wave. Controlled demolitions exhibit those characteristics, though.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
and you likewise avoid acknowledging that the building started collapsing at the point of impact of the planes

That's irrelevant. Thermitic materials, along with well-place explosives will produce any outcome you like:





Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If the NIST report got their explanations wrong, fine, as that only means the towers fell from some other as yet unknown reason

The above I can agree with.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
that had nothing to do with secret controlled demolitions

This is totally and completely false. NIST never tested for explosives or incendiaries, despite the evidence to the contrary. Therefore, you cannot rule out controlled demolition without a thorough forensics examination, which NIST did not do. And NIST tried to deliberately cover up the evidence by publicly denying the existence of the evidence.


I will give you credit though, Dave. At least you're open to the possibility that the NIST report could be wrong and that the collapse of three WTC buildings on 9/11 may have been caused by something other than what is claimed in the NIST report.

I think that's the most open I've ever seen you be on this forum in my time here. Kudos.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 



Some one can correct me if I am wrong, but I recall NYP officers and NYFD officials in the always manned NY City emergency command center blown to bits that day, commenting about explosions before the buildings were hit that were coming from underneath them. It was a Dutch film crew that filmed it and I recall watching the film.


What buildings was that?

The OEM command post was on 23rd floor of WTC 7 was evacuated by 9:30am - several people who were
assigned there arrived after it was evacuated - Barry Jennings & Michael Hess

Aa they exited the building via the stairs WTC 7 was hit by collapse of WTC 1 next to it. The collapse ripped out
the stairs below them and required that they be rescued and escorted out by a different set of stairs throught the
loading dock garage



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




Damn near everything contains sulfur. Anything plastic/synthetic will most likelt made from petroleum, which contains sulfur. Drywall contains sulfur. So take your pick.


Drywall, plastic, jet fuel or anything else that was suppose to be in the buildings according to the OS does not explain how the steel melted in the first place. No standard office fires get that hot, even when you throw in an aeroplane into the mix the temperatures do not get high enough to melt steel. How did it melt? Why is there Sulphur in it as it re-solidified?

I can see your point about eutectics, but it does not distract from the evidence presented by Bonez.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by roboe
Blatantly, downright false

Would you mind clarifying which part is false? You posted almost the same exact thing I did and it still says that NIST's findings cannot be used in any legal proceedings.

You made sound like it was only the reports on the WTC towers which could not be used in a court of law, supposedly because NIST wouldn't tell the world how they obtained the evidence needed to reach their conclusions.

I merely pointed out that it was according to the US Code, not for some nefarious reason.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Drywall, plastic, jet fuel or anything else that was suppose to be in the buildings according to the OS does not explain how the steel melted in the first place. No standard office fires get that hot, even when you throw in an aeroplane into the mix the temperatures do not get high enough to melt steel. How did it melt?


Stating that steel melted does not make it so. No matter how many times it is repeated and argued and quotes are produced from first responders that they saw steel in the debris pile.


Why is there Sulphur in it as it re-solidified?


Find the Appendix C report from the NIST report by Sisson and you will have your answer. It is touched upon in my other response - diffusion, etc.


I can see your point about eutectics, but it does not distract from the evidence presented by Bonez.


So in your mind, when it is shown to you that the claim that the sulfur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel to be a false one, that the poster that posts that and defends it isn't suspect?

Ok.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You didn't watch the video of Professional Engineer Jonathan Cole. He burned all of that stuff with steel. He let it burn all day and night. No signs of sulfur were found on the steel.


Provide evidence that he knows just exactly what the conditions inside the piles were, and that he reproduced it faithfully. Otherwise, his failure is nothing more than just that. Failure. On all levels.


His tests also confirmed that the use of thermitic materials on steel turned the steel into exactly what FEMA found in their metallurgical analysis, both physically and chemically.


Not even close.




And do you think anyone will take anything you say seriously with your childish ad-hominem attacks?


The smart ones, like Charlie Veitch, sure will when they begin to notice that you have zero rebuttal to the post that I linked to.

They will begin to realize that everything the TM claims is utter bull flops.....



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




Stating that steel melted does not make it so. No matter how many times it is repeated and argued and quotes are produced from first responders that they saw steel in the debris pile.


Your selective use of evidence is concerning as there are plenty of examples of molten steel for those familiar with the case. One example has been presented in this thread with the 'Eyes wide shut' video.



Find the Appendix C report from the NIST report by Sisson and you will have your answer. It is touched upon in my other response - diffusion, etc.


I have checked out the report wtc.nist.gov... . In it they claim:


This sulphur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to corrosion.


The report then further concludes:


No clear explanation of the sulphur has been identified.


I am familiar with the process of diffusion and thermate does correctly account with the evidence presented by Bonez.



So in your mind, when it is shown to you that the claim that the sulfur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel to be a false one, that the poster that posts that and defends it isn't suspect?


9/11 is a difficult case shrouded with misinformation, I just want the facts. It is reasonable to expect some difference between thermite and thermate reactions with steel and many other alloys. If the layman's description used to explain one of the pieces of evidence is not entirely accurate then a better explanation is in order.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I know it's already been explained to you that "witnesses heard explosions" were almost certainly due to the flammable objects within the building that exploded as the fires reached them

That is your opinion or your conspiracy theory. But "flammable objects" exploding in a fire don't explode in a timed or synchronous fashion as the buildings are collapsing, nor do they emit flashes going up, down and around the towers some 60-70 floors below the fires and collapse wave. Controlled demolitions exhibit those characteristics, though.


There are dozens of videos of the towers collapsing taken from every angle imaginable, and not one showed any "flashes going up, down, and around the towers". If you are saying there were then you are lying.



That's irrelevant. Thermitic materials, along with well-place explosives will produce any outcome you like:


...except for yet another inconvenient fact you religiously avoid addressing- the towers were *occupied* buildings full of people whose job it was to inspect the building for the standard wear and tear associated with buildings, as well as security whose job it was to keep an eye out for saboteurs ever since the first bombing in 1993. It's blatantly obvious why you continuously put your ears in your fingers and yell I CAN'T HEAR YOU NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH whenever someone brings this up- you know that if you can't get past this, then your absurd conspriacy claims can't even get out of the gate.




This is totally and completely false. NIST never tested for explosives or incendiaries, despite the evidence to the contrary. Therefore, you cannot rule out controlled demolition without a thorough forensics examination, which NIST did not do. And NIST tried to deliberately cover up the evidence by publicly denying the existence of the evidence.


NIST never tested for evidence of heat rays from Martian war machines either, but that's besides the point. The problem for you is that there are scores of photographs available that show the condition of the steel recovered at ground zero, and none of them show any signs of sabotage whatsoever. Moreovver, the hundreds of people detailed to clean up the wreckage were experienced demolitions crews, firefighters, steel workers, construction crews, and other specialists, and not one reported any such suspicious sabotage. I don't need to tell you that accusing everyone involved in the cleanup of ground zero of being "secret gov't agents" is being uninformed and ignorant, so don't even go there.

The only "evidence" you have is the crap that you yourself want to see. The "lasers from outer space" bunch and the "no planes" bunch are doing literally the exact same thing you are, it's just that they want to see something different from what you want to see.


I will give you credit though, Dave. At least you're open to the possibility that the NIST report could be wrong and that the collapse of three WTC buildings on 9/11 may have been caused by something other than what is claimed in the NIST report.

I think that's the most open I've ever seen you be on this forum in my time here. Kudos.


I don't see what this is so surprising as this black and white, OS vs truther, polarization is entirely an invention of your own zealotry. I have repeatedly said that I personally subscribe to the Perdue university's study that suggests the plane impacts created far more damage to the structures than what NIST takes into account, which goes hand in hand with the fact that the collapse at each building began at the precise point of impact of the planes. So, yes, someone can believe the NIST report is flawed as well as think your "secret hush-a-boom controlled demolitions mplanted by evil gov't ninjas" stories are hogwash.

I'd mention that the Perdue University report is NOT the "official story" as you always put it, but an alternative scenario they've come up with on their own from their own research, but I think you're short circuiting enough from having to incorporate the contradcition into your propaganda as it is. At the end of the day the term "conspiracy theorist" still fits you more than it does me regardless of which definition you want to use.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
"MY IDEA"

I believe that 9/11 had multiple ploys...

How do you get a group of people to follow whatever you say? Its the oldest tastic in the book... FEAR.

If you put fear into people you can get them to do anything you want. its true ask a guy who willingly gave his wallet to the man with a gun to his face. fear. so how do you get a country to go to war? you put fear into their souls. how? by stricking the biggest buildings in america. on our own soil.

ok... so how do i make it look like i had nothing to do with what had happened? And look good to america at the same time so come election i will get there votes?

How about i sit infront of a class of children and read a book to them on tv at the time of attack? then i look like i care about this country.

he says he saw the first plan hit?... how?... there was no way because you see him in the class as the agent comes into say that the first plan hit.

also whats the main thing that we want? actually not just us but everyone? its the blood of america.... thats right. crude oil. dang wonder where all that is? o thats right. iraq. huh. its just so funny that this is the tip of the iceberg and no one around the world you see face to face wants to talk about it... its like we are scared because we let the people running the world do what they want and we dont want to say a word.

well people we need to stand up and open our eyes. and hurry...



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by deathboxsk8er08
 



If you put fear into people you can get them to do anything you want.


That's a load of crap. In fact, a fear and panic infected population is a study in the unpredictable and the least likely to follow direction.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There are dozens of videos of the towers collapsing taken from every angle imaginable, and not one showed any "flashes going up, down, and around the towers". If you are saying there were then you are lying.

I'm only repeating what several firefighters reported seeing. But I guess you're calling them liars. That's unfortunate for your credibility.

Their testimony has been posted numerous times on this forum. Either you don't remember, or are purposely being deceptive.

Try doing some real research for a change. Read the First Responder Oral Histories. The link is posted in the OP of this thread.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the towers were *occupied* buildings

You must've missed my thread here:

Secret retrofitting of the World Trade Center for explosive demolition was very possible.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
as well as security whose job it was to keep an eye out for saboteurs ever since the first bombing in 1993.

Oh, you mean security as in the Bush family security company? There would be no conflict of interest there, now would there?



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
NIST never tested for evidence of heat rays from Martian war machines either

Was there any evidence suggesting as much? No. Was there evidence of explosions and incendiaries? Yes. They didn't test for either because they denied the existence of the evidence. It's right in the OP. Maybe you should go back and read it again.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have repeatedly said that I personally subscribe to the Perdue university's study that suggests the plane impacts created far more damage to the structures than what NIST takes into account

There is no such university as Perdue. I think you mean Purdue.

Furthermore, if the planes did more damage, then we would see more damage here:




The cores of the WTC were fortresses consisting of columns connected vertically, horizontally, and diagonally. The only parts of an aluminum plane that would do any damage to the core columns would be the landing gear and the engines.

Most of the second plane missed the core in the south tower:




And that's some of the debris you see in the corner up above. If that second plane couldn't do any damage to the other side of the tower with the smaller, weaker perimeter columns, then it did very minimal damage to the core with only one engine and landing gear busting through.

So much for your (and Purdue's) theory about the planes doing more structural damage. And anyone who suggests the planes did do more damage, haven't the slightest idea of the strength of steel or aluminum.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At the end of the day the term "conspiracy theorist" still fits you more than it does me regardless of which definition you want to use.

Ahh, good ol' denial at work. You believe in a conspiracy theory. No definitive evidence or proof of anything has ever been shown to suggest one way or another.





edit on 6-7-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...except for yet another inconvenient fact you religiously avoid addressing-

While you're on the subject of avoiding facts, GoodOlDave, perhaps you should provide the evidence for the Ingersoll photo, that you claim shows the light pole lying on top of the cab.

It's all detailed here, in this thread.

Don't run away from your claim now, GoodOlDave!



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Hi bonez i love your threads there always very informative and i find it very hard for anyome to despute your logical thinking

Dave consistently acusses us of only using eye witness testimony that suits are beliefs and we dismiss others that contracdict us. Thats exactly what hes just done i have read and seen video clips of fire fighters and other personell claiming to have seen orange flashes and popping sounds in the towers way way below the impact zone yet dave calls them lyers but believes other fire fighters who claim wtc 7 was unstable and about to collapse. Talk about pot kettle black
edit on 7-7-2011 by kaya82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 
Thank you, BoneZ for an excellent presentation. Perhaps we win this fight by 'a thousand little cuts' to steal one from al-qaeda. Dave is beginning to remind me of Don Quiote (spelling correct?). They appear more anemic each day. Keep postin', Dave. It's priceless.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm only repeating what several firefighters reported seeing. But I guess you're calling them liars. That's unfortunate for your credibility.


The fact remains that there are many, many videos showing the collapse from every angle and not one of them shows any "flashes going up, down, and around the towers". This is an indisputable fact and and cannot be altered for your benefit, so anyone who offers testimony that contradicts what the multitudes of video shows is wrong. You can object, you can whine, and you can cry in the corner to your heart's content, but the fact still remains that anyone who offers testimony that contradicts what the multitudes of video shows is still wrong.

Let's face facts here. You're really not repeating what the first responders said. You're repeating what you read on one of those damned fool conspiracy websites that's deceptively misquoting the first responders. Despite what these first responders are saying in these cherry picked misquotes, none of them support these "secret controlled demolitions" claims or else you'd have heard more from them than just these individual tidbits. You know that and so do I.


You must've missed my thread here:


I didn't miss it. Yoru thread was thoroughly debunked years before you even posted it and you're simply a latecomer to the party. This video was posted in back in 2007.

No drop in security pre-9/11


Oh, you mean security as in the Bush family security company? There would be no conflict of interest there, now would there?


I must tell you I am immune to innuendo dropping. Marvin Bush wasn't a security guard, he was on the board of directors on a company that owned that security company. Unless you're suggesting Marvin Bush used his authority to go into the towers and plant these secret hush-a-boom explosives personally, there necessarily had to have been an entire infrastructure of managerial layers between him and the evil gov't ninjas who did. He gave the order to the board, the board gave the order to their subsidiary's managament, the subsidiary's management gave orders to the supervisors, the supervisors gave orders to the security guards, the security guards allowed the evil gov't ninjas into the building, etc etc etc, involving hundeds of people in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy of yours.

Do I really need to point out that your relying on hordes of secret agents planted everywhere that noone ever sees is a kissing cousin to a religious fanatic's reliance on the supernatural to justify his beliefs?


Was there any evidence suggesting as much? No. Was there evidence of explosions and incendiaries? Yes. They didn't test for either because they denied the existence of the evidence. It's right in the OP. Maybe you should go back and read it again.


Baloney. The only evidence of explosives that exists is drivel being invented by people who want to believe the towers came down by controlled demolitions. Case in point- the well known photo of the core columns that were cut by acetalyne torch that your side is falsely claiming were cut by thermite. How many photos of workmen cutting steel with acetalyne torches at ground zero do I need to post before you conspiracy mongers stop spreading that lie?


Furthermore, if the planes did more damage, then we would see more damage here:


You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. You cannot determine what the damage to the interior of the building would be by looking at the exterior. If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you might as well go find another hobby now.

Besides, seeing that three of the four stairwells in the core were completely destroyed by the impact and had trapped the people in the upper stories, reality says those damned fool conspiracy websites you're getting this bit from are making this up too.


So much for your (and Purdue's) theory about the planes doing more structural damage. And anyone who suggests the planes did do more damage, haven't the slightest idea of the strength of steel or aluminum.


I really tire of your deliberate ommission of critical facts. The Purdue report concentrated on the force of impact from the incompressible fluids the plane carried, more than it did the materials the plane was constructed out of. If you're genuinely attempting to suggest massive amounts of fluids travelling at hundreds of miles per hour aren't able to damage buildings then there's a certain coastal city in Louisiana that you'll need to visit.


Ahh, good ol' denial at work. You believe in a conspiracy theory. No definitive evidence or proof of anything has ever been shown to suggest one way or another.


No, actually, I believe in conspiracy fact. There is a conspiracy that those damned fool conspiracy websites are deliberately spreading misinformation, innuendo, and outright lies to instigate false public unrest and I can give you all the evidence for this that you'd like. If memory serves, even you are protesting the more fringe theories of lasers from outer space that characters like Judy Wood are pushing out. You should be the first person here to agree with me.






top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join