Where Are The Threads Backing The Official Story?

reply to post by TupacShakur


I agree completely.

These people are trawling this site all the time, anyone who monitors this site will know who the regulars are.
They can't make a thread of their own describing how the official explanation is legitimate - because it isn't.

The best way to treat these people is just to ignore them.

Bear in mind that many, many experts, Engineers, Architects, Scientists etc etc have declared their support for the Truth movement and a real investigation.
How many experts have risked their reputation and come out in support of the official fairy story ??

Yeah, where is the thread that explains the collapses using the known laws of motion.

I've yet to hear any OS supporter address the laws of motion, specifically the 3rd, correctly.

They either prove they have no clue....

Originally posted by hooper
The building was at rest, it was acted upon by outside forces, therefore the building stayed in motion until it again was acted upon. The equal action and opposite action was the fracture of connected elements

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(BTW hoop it's a reaction not an 'action')

...Or they just ignore it all together, failing to realise that unless they address the laws of motion in their hypothesis then they have failed to explain anything. Just saying the mass was too much for the structure to handle, because of dynamic loading, is not explaining why or how it actually was not able to handle the mass. They think they're explaining it but they're not, not even close.

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ( 1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics and Newton himself used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects.

schools-wikipedia.org...

In physics, classical mechanics is one of the two major sub-fields of mechanics, which is concerned with the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces. The study of the motion of bodies is an ancient one, making classical mechanics one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

en.wikipedia.org...

Where is the thread, or even post, that addresses the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws in context with the collapse of the WTC buildings?

If the OS supporters really understand the physics involved, and don't just repeat what 'authorities' have told them, they would see why this is important.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Probably because most of the De-Bunkers are either paid 'Cass Sunstein' agents or are afraid to admit that some rogue elements within their Government could be behind such an awful act.

They continuously spout that it is down to the 'Truthers' to provide evidence contrary to the OS that they feel they do not have to. They hang on to the 9/11 commision or the NIST report as gospel, my Government tells me it is, therefore it can't be a lie.

ETA: Loving the post from Hooper in Anok's post. He really has a grasp of this physics thingy doesn't he?

Most of the OS Loyalists on this site are one trick ponies, skilled in illegitimate debunking techniques such as diversions, personal attacks and sidestepping. I do not think they possess the competent investigative skills to step up to your challenge.

Since this is a conspiracy site, it is quite odd that the Official 911 Conspiracy is not adequately represented, nor defended. But then again, you are talking about individuals who allow the mainstream media to think for them. Kind of tough to find a pearl when there are no oysters around.

I think what we need to do here is break down the individual aspects of what would be on offer, as evidence, if 9/11 did happen as we are told it did, then assess why this evidence is not available, or, as is in many cases it is (allegedly) and subject to the official secret act or terms of none disclosure, i`ll set the wheels in motion and list a few aspects that should have the relative evidence to enforce them........

1). Airports are subject to strict security measures and have numerous CCTV`s in operation, why is there no captured video footage of any of the 19 terrorists?.

2). The biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, must have gone hand in hand with the worlds largest terrorism training and mock practise runs camp somewhere, using as near as possible virtual set ups with replica cockpits etc, also, hand to hand combat training to deal with those over active passengers, where did they train and practise dry runs?.

3). Psychological profiling from their early days and upto 9/11, when did they start hating the West for their freedoms and democracy?, did they read certain literature and have specific role models?.

4). As is the norm for any crime scene, why wasn`t the WTC cordoned off with the Police line do not cross bunting, as this was not deemed necessary then it can only point to one answer, there was no need to scour the debris for forensic evidence even though 103 first responders reported explosions, these explosions could have been bombs placed by the hijackers at a previous time or more alarmingly taken onto the planes with them, thus creating a huge breach in airport security and verifiable by the NTSB if bombs were indeed brought in by the plane, so, why was it deemed not necessary to do any investigation regarding explosives, again there must be conclusive proof of why yet another aspect was clearly neglected and overlooked.

5). Why and how after just a few minutes of the Pentagon impact did the F.B.I. decide that the most important thing to do was to confiscate 83 CCTV video tapes?, how did they find and locate every building that had CCTV`s in such a short time stamp, once again this must have been the number one priority and therefore huge evidence based significance, why wasn`t this evidence shown to the world to once again prove it was how it was?.

6). NIST`s model they designed for the WTC7 collapse, why is a model that calculates how a building collapsed subject to none disclosure, surely many structural engineering companies could benefit from this.

There are many more points that should be covered with the relative evidence, and as is the case with 9/11 the few aspects they state are covered with evidence, the evidence is classified and not for the eyes of the general public, just like the 9/11 commission and the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

So in the nutshell, unless you are a high ranking government official or top military, politician or alphabet agency agent you have not and never will have access to the evidence that even though it was deemed enough to declare war it was never enough to even indict Bin Laden for the 9/11 acts.

So in answer to your question, if the F.B.I couldn`t do it, i`m damn sure the debunkers here cannot do it either .

I posted a few a few years ago, they got maybe 15 responses

around here, the hologram is king !

reply to post by syrinx high priest

I posted a few a few years ago, they got maybe 15 responses

Yeah your 9/11 threads, all amassing a whopping 2 flags must have really contained some hard evidence.

One of them requested evidence from truthers.

One of them showed an image of a core column cut during the clean-up process that's commonly used a proof of thermite charges, so bravo for debunking a single piece of evidence. However, that still does not contain any evidence backing the official story.

Another attempted to debunk the squibs seen coming out of the towers, which I think are debatable due to NISTs explanation of their source. Still, no mounds of evidence backing the official story.

And your final thread contained you stating the painfully obvious fact that the Twin Towers didn't collapse at free-fall speed. Funny how you didn't address WTC7 in that thread.

around here, the hologram is king !

Um....no, it's not. I'm sure it makes you feel secure in your position to mock us by generalizing that we all believe that garbage, but that's not the case.

So are you up for the challenge in the OP? If you're confident enough to ridicule truthers, are you confident enough to provide the evidence that led you to believe the official story?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

I posted a few a few years ago, they got maybe 15 responses

Yeah your 9/11 threads, all amassing a whopping 2 flags must have really contained some hard evidence.

around here, the hologram is king !

Um....no, it's not. I'm sure it makes you feel secure in your position to mock us by generalizing that we all believe that garbage, but that's not the case.

So are you up for the challenge in the OP?

If I was after flags I would post about holograms

I got over 9/11 debates around 2005. I'm ok with people choosing to see poofs as proof of controlled demolition, it doesn't bother me anymore

I'm a lousy candidate for the OS position anyway, I have maybe 20 minutes a day to post here and I haven't really read a thread in 6 years, so no

reply to post by syrinx high priest

If I was after flags I would post about holograms

Find me a hologram thread on this website that has more than 30 flags and I will come to your house and let you punch me in the mouth.

I got over 9/11 debates around 2005. I'm ok with people choosing to see poofs as proof of controlled demolition, it doesn't bother me anymore

I'm a lousy candidate for the OS position anyway, I have maybe 20 minutes a day to post here and I haven't really read a thread in 6 years, so no

OK, can you at least provide us with the evidence that you find most supportive of the official story?

Or is the plane hitting the tower, and the government organization that investigated it plus the corporate media's word good enough?

And you know as well as I do that "poofs" aren't the only proof of a controlled demolition.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I worked at bluecross/ blueshield. I started work there 7 months after 9/11. on the first ann'y, I listened to a gathering of survivors share their memories of that day. Jackie and Adam told a story of how they were smoking in the plaza and saw the first plane hit

good enough for me

reply to post by syrinx high priest

I worked at bluecross/ blueshield. I started work there 7 months after 9/11. on the first ann'y, I listened to a gathering of survivors share their memories of that day. Jackie and Adam told a story of how they were smoking in the plaza and saw the first plane hit

good enough for me

....Wow. There lies the problem with most Americans, a plane hits the building and that's all the proof they need.

Then you come here and ridicule us when that's your proof?

:shk: :shk: :shk: :shk: :shk:

to most people its utterly proposterous the US govt would attack its own civilians in this manner. even to democrats who hate george bush.

9/11 CTers rely on the the US govt being smart enough to fool the world but not smart enough to fool them -_-

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories make no sense. e.g controlled demolition of the buildings as if flying passenger jets into them wasn't enough. No sense whatsoever to the majority.

I saw some comments from a psychologist on why people may hold onto these theories. Basically they dont like the idea the world is chaotic and unpredictable. They have a desire to make sense of the world and in making these theories it provides an answer which to them is better than uncontrolled chaos . Its an improvement on reality and gives them comfort in a world which is dangerous and chaotic.

Because the majority of ATS users are pro-conspiracy , so any genuine attempt to lay out a grand thread will most likely be met with the usual handwaving, goalpost-moving, lament that it doesn't cover poster X's very specific theory (think mini-nuke type theories), or downright flaming, proclaiming that the OP is being paid to post by "them".

And personally I have better things to do with my time, than looking up citations, videos of specific angles, photos, etc., only for it to be handwaved away. When I post stuff, it's usually because I have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, so I know where to find the majority of the stuff. The "84 videos were confiscated and never released" and the "$2,4 trillion" myths comes to mind.

reply to post by yeti101


I feel sorry for you

And anyone else who believes this .....


Poor lost souls

I think the reasons are, in no particular order:

* Most of it is explained in extreme detail in the NIST reports or other publications.
* Most people do not have the education or knowledge to make such threads (although that does not stop truthers)
* Most people simply do no care.

Add to that that fact this is a conspiracy forum, and you have the answer. On the JREF forum you will find much more of such threads. It is just a matter of looking for them, instead of waiting they are presented to you.

reply to post by TupacShakur

The official story is the official story. It's not incumbent on anyone to prove the official story rather it's the non believers that have to prove beyond doubt that the official story is wrong.

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

The official story is the official story. It's not incumbent on anyone to prove the official story rather it's the non believers that have to prove beyond doubt that the official story is wrong.

I don't think you are right at all

the OS does not make sense....so why should anyone believe it?

This thread is a brilliantly unwitting example of why nobody bothers to try to prove anything to people who have already made up their minds. Threads with carefully laid out arguments for the OS would be ignored or hand-waved away. Exactly as happens in microcosm here:

The OP asks why there are no examples of the thing he's asking for. He's shown a valid example - indeed a really excellent one, since it's about the most popular thread on ATS's 9/11 board. He says that doesn't count and moves on. All the other CTers agree with him. This is repeated time and again here, and it's the fate that a well-argued OS supporting thread would suffer.

Can you see why people think your method is a bit rubbish?

So basically, nobody will take the time to compile the evidence backing the official story and see how it holds up to scrutiny, got it.

reply to post by -PLB-

* Most of it is explained in extreme detail in the NIST reports or other publications.

The NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, which was thousands of pages long, had half a page explaining how the buildings actually collapsed to the ground. That is not extreme detail.