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.
Originally posted by SteveR
and a need to believe.
According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8
At 8:42, Flight 175 veered off its planned course, and began flying south. 3 According to NORAD's June 18 timeline and prior press reports, at 8:43 the FAA notified NORAD that the flight had been hijacked. 4 5 6 At 8:46, Flight 175 stopped transmitting its transponder signal. 7 According to the NTSB Report on Flight 175, the plane started a turn to the northeast at 8:57 and descended from 28,000 feet as it approached the World Trade Center. 8
1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. Examine the list for yourself. Then, look at the 750 (better credentialed) names at dissentingdarwin.org, and ask whether the latter list puts biological evolution in serious doubt.
(c) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."
(d) Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building. It is difficult to ignite, so it needs to be piled and ignited from the top and allowed to burn downward by gravity. It would not burn sideways to cut a vertical column.
(e) Rigging a large building for demolition requires weeks of wall removal, drilling, cutting, and wiring. It cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(f) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.
(g) No alternate theory has been offered showing how the building(s) were intentionally demolished. Conspiracy believers just keep raising the same questions and hope you won't look for the answers.
2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.
(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy believers do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.
(f) "Why bother demolishing with explosives when you can just light a fire?" Most demolitions are of old concrete structures where this would not work. In an all-steel structure like WTC7, fire could in fact be used. But detonation is more predictable and controllable.
(g) "You are working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence, merely because it fits the believer's worldview. Not an effective way to get closer to the truth.
3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent: "The government must have also lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."
Originally posted by Submarines
You took the words right out of my mouth when you talked about this movement taking away from those who were killed and their families
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Also, I wonder if you are the same folks who believe our government is trying to kill us/alter us by spreading chemicals in the air via any type airplane
Originally posted by DBCooper71
If the evidence is so overwhelming, that the bush regime committed 9/11, then why doesn't your beloved Ron Paul back you up.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
9/11 truthers only get their information from other 9/11 truthers
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
they all twist facts
Originally posted by Junkheap
It is dangerous, because eventually someone's going to snap and innocent people are going to get hurt.
Originally posted by Junkheap
Ironic that it's the "truth" movement that contains the most disinformation and lies.
Originally posted by micmerci
There is NO WAY that the explosives could have been put into those buildings undetected.
Originally posted by micmerci
There is no way anyone could have planted the explosives without being confronted by someone, anyone.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have a rather bad habit of decimating ignorance on the terrorism forum.
Originally posted by Six6Six
I have yet to see real Evidence from the truthers.
Originally posted by Six6Six
what the truthers have is merely speculation and theory.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So what you're saying is that you're willing to completely disregard that there is a complete lack of evidence supporting any of the 911 conspiracy theories
Originally posted by Mcupobob
When 9/11 truthers finally give up the demo argument, they head over to the Thermite one.
Originally posted by SteveR
...studied the peculiarities and technicalities of these claims for [5]five years. In an exhaustive search of sources, way beyond those supplied on the typical truth sites and threads, I can finally say nothing has truly stood up to critical analysis...
(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc
The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."
There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Segador
Well, it´s a matter of record
see recent poll
that you and other followers of the official fables are in a small minority here.
Faith-based arguments don´t work. Proving falsehoods is by definition impossible,
which obviously means that your numbers will keep shrinking.