"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

It's as if the "Truthers" believe these were just big structures that were empty. The people who were witnesses were merely government shills, I mean all of the people who saw the planes, sat on the planes and were hit by the planes just never existed.

What they do believe that existed was a shadow group of CIA agents who planted bombs and then manufactured holograms and edited a video that was live. They can't believe buildings would catch on fire and fall. Even the people who witnessed it in Manhattan also could not believe what they were seeing, all those witnesses saw two airplanes hit the WTC and they screamed and cried and said they could not believe what they were seeing, because they were shocked to witness it. But all the "Truthers" present is pictures of only one airplane that they say has been manipulated to look like it.

They said at first it was holograms. Is that still a theory? Then they said it was manipulated video. Of course it was after someone got the video online and manipulated it to make you think it did not exist. Now they say it was an explosion. Of course it was an explosion, we all could see it was an explosion.

This is what happened....big plane hit building, go boom.

People from the the freest nation in the world believe this was an attempt by our government to take our freedom. I have to ask, has it been taken away? I mean really, has it been taken away? The very government you believe has enough power to do this thing to take our freedoms away, why does that same government not prevent "Truthers" from saying out loud what they feel the government is guilty of?

If a government has enough power to pull this off, then don't you think this same government has enough power to quiet those who "expose" it? Your freedom has not been taken away...think about that one.

Just a side note, if you were in Communist Russia exposing Stalin like this, you would be sitting in prison in Siberia.

The whole "Truther" movement is based on nothing more than believing an espionage novel.But that is what they say about our side. They have thrown in so many plot twists and false information to make this the story of the century.

Exposing this government by this story? I think not. Ruby Ridge, that's a different thing.

OMG people. 27 pages of this stuff and it's the umpteenth thread started on the same thing? I can't help but to suspect that a lot of these folks get in on the convo late in the discussion completely missing the earlier posts, probably b/c they think it's a waste of time. Lol!

I said it earlier that if we trim this multi-faceted argument down and just focus on building 7, that makes it a lot easier where less discussion should unfold. There's no legit argument against its fall as a CD that would have taken at least several weeks to set up in advance. Since this is obvious, then the other events are guilty by association. Why argue the details?

And please keep in mind that the other buildings even closer to the twins only partially broke apart.

Originally posted by Howakan
Its called a "progressive collapse', not a pancake collapse and it has happened many times......several were caused by fires.....of course, this fact will be ignored.....anyhow, heres a link citing many examples, should anyone actually care to learn about it.......

progressive collapse

Had you read the info in your own link you might have learned something yourself

Synonyms of progressive collapse and their origins

Since the resulting damage in a progressive collapse is disproportionate to the original cause, the term disproportionate collapse is frequently used in engineering to describe this collapse type.

The first date-recorded instance of the term pancake collapse being published in lieu of "progressive collapse" occurred in the August 10, 1980 edition of the New York Times. Fire Chief John Connelly of the 19th Battalion explained that the apartment building, which they responded to in the Bronx, had been weakened by fire to the point that all floors had begun to pancake down on one another. "'It was a pancake collapse.' said Chief John Connelly of the 19th Battalion. 'The entire building was flaming and it went down to the ground.'"[16]

The first date-recorded instance of the term pancake theory being used in reference to a progressive collapse was published in the March 2004 book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the bush Administration and 9/11" by conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin in which he wrote, "...the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up..." Griffin, David (March 2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the bush Administration and 9-11. New York, New York: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The term "pancake theory" is confusing as people mean different things with it. In general it is not seen as a synonym for progressive collapse by truthers. Instead, most truthers will say there is the pancake theory and the progressive collapse theory. I personally think they are indeed synonyms, but haven't found any truther agreeing yet.

The culprit of this confusion is the explanations for collapse initiation. The first theory was that "pancaking" initiated the collapse. That theory was found to be incorrect by NIST, and they proposed that failure of columns initiated the collapse.

So when you say "pancaking theory" most people will read "pancaking caused collapse". Although I have seen other truthers making yet another distinction between pancaking and progressive collapse. Bottom line is that the term "pancaking" is ambiguous and should not be used.

reply to post by -PLB-

The term "pancake theory" is confusing as people mean different things with it. In general it is not seen as a synonym for progressive collapse by truthers. Instead, most truthers will say there is the pancake theory and the progressive collapse theory. I personally think they are indeed synonyms, but haven't found any truther agreeing yet.

It's not that hard really.

"Pancake" refers to what NOVA describes here:


(I just picked the first video that came up with the right thumbnail)
There is a variant frequently discussed here as the "ROOSD" (Rapid Open Office Space Destruction, or somesuch) at this forum: the911forum.freeforums.org... But it ultimately fails to address the progression beyond the initiation in a sensible way, simply inserting a "and then all the floors crash into each other" instead of any kind of analysis.

"Progressive Collapse" is what Bazant describes in his series of papers as the "crush-down, crush-up" hypothesis. www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please understand, PLB. The two are in no way equivalent because of the momenta and masses involved. No pancake theory can hope to achieve the observed collapse time.

If you don't understand the difference between a solid block of lead hitting you and an equivalent mass of unconstrained feathers hitting you, then you have no hope of understanding the distinction, sorry.

Uhm, I wonder if this could be true.

news.yahoo.com...

Al Qaeda is taking responsibility and slams Ahmandinajad of peddling the same theories I hear posted on here. Well got to hand it to the "Truthers", they managed to convince the President of Iran.....

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?

WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.

I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.

edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

1) The impact of the airliner blew off the fire protection from the columns
2) (1) was needed to prevent buckling/sagging of floors and potential collapse
3) The impact weakened or broke some of the supporting columns
4) Aluminum/Water mixtures ignited (explosively) w/ temperatures in the 2200-2700 F range
5) (4) is not needed to explain the the collapse(s) - official explanation is sufficient
6) There was observed buckling in/around the impact area just before both towers collapsed
7) Each floor was supported by the core columns; floors did not support the floors up above them
8) (7) Note: This lends itself to the pancake collapse theory.
9) There was a lot of weight in the top floors of each building
10) They were not designed for impact scenarios of a fast flying airliner in the 767 class

And so on.. Most of the floors were probably overloaded with weight. Most businesses push everything to the limit. Anyway, none of this explains WTC7 but it explains WTC1&2.

There is a reason that the 9/11 conspiracy movement isn't bigger, especially for WTC1&2. The reason it isn't bigger is because the official explanations are satisfactory.

References:
www.mace.manche ster.ac.uk ...
www.physorg.com ...

reply to post by baboo


Baboo, no matter how thoroughly I explain the process of structural failure, buckling and refracting of steel beams, the speed of the planes, etc, you conspiracy theorists will never agree with me or anyone else due to your paranoia. Do I believe in conspiracies? Absolutely! What you need to understand is I know a lot more than what you think. In fact, I have studied building construction, and more importantly, sociology and the science of the mind. My passion for sociology stems from living with a brother who is a hardcore conspiracy theorist. I learned so much about the minds of conspiracy theorists and they all have many characteristics in common. I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but I feel a need to be painfully honest. Conspiracy theorists have a great deal of paranoia and have a need to feel in control. They tend to use illogical thought processes(filling in the blanks), to give them a sense of understanding of the world around them. Many are arrogant, have difficulty making or keeping friends, staying employed, etc... When they feel they are losing control, they will always bounce around to other subjects and/or ask for evidence. When the evidence is shown, they move on to another area of the conspiracy and almost always...begin berating those who show them the facts. The berating begins because their belief process is being challenged and their control is being scooped out from under them. You take a steak bone from a dog and he will bite. Conspiracy theorists always turn easily explainable world issues with missing pieces of the puzzle and add their own ideas and state them as fact. They explain their views as fact when they in fact, are not. Perfect example, you say an airliner cannot fly near 600mph at the level these planes were when they impacted WTC 1 and 2. Well my friend, they can! Analysis shows the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph.The amount of turbulence and stresses on the planes would be extreme but the hijackers did not decide on having a comfortable, relaxing flight as they were focused on steering the planes into those buildings.

I and others throughout this thread, have been attacked by many of you. We have been called retarded, stupid, idiots, uneducated etc... Naturally, when this was done, we attacked back...this is human nature. This is my final post on this thread, so feel free to look for me on others. I will happily be giving my opinions, proven facts and acceptance of being berated by you and others.

Oh and by the way, I do not believe conspiracy theorists are idiots, many are very intelligent individuals. I just feel their desperate yearning for acceptance could be put to better use being out in public, meeting others and realizing that all of us have a conspiracy theorists character within us. The difference is, we see the world from all angles, not from inside a box.

reply to post by malachi777



Malachi, you are right. A lot of these people also believe what they see in movies is actually real. If they only knew what it takes to make a movie and all these buildings blowing up in the movies are really models of buildings. What is see is this, the 9/11 conspiracy is a really good espionage novel.

While it may be a good novel, it is retold so much that people who hear it begin to believe it. Most of these same people will say the Bible is not real. They don't even question the beginning of the theories, who postulated the theories or what the motives were for making the theories. If Joe Schmoe told me something I would want to know where Joe Schmoe got his facts and why Joe Schmoe told me this. But they say their theories must be correct because some guy in France wrote about it. Did they go to the guy in France to take him to task for what he said? No, and they have forgotten the original theories. When you ask them about this, they pretend we are mentally insane for bringing it up as though those original theories never existed.

Like I said before, if this government is so powerful to do all of these things that theorists say it is capable of, then how is that powerful government still allowing people to "expose" it? And how does a powerful entity even allow itself to be "exposed"?

Even the makers of Loose Change recanted. That tells you something right there.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by malachi777

 

Malachi, you are right. A lot of these people also believe what they see in movies is actually real. If they only knew what it takes to make a movie and all these buildings blowing up in the movies are really models of buildings. What is see is this, the 9/11 conspiracy is a really good espionage novel.

While it may be a good novel, it is retold so much that people who hear it begin to believe it. Most of these same people will say the Bible is not real. They don't even question the beginning of the theories, who postulated the theories or what the motives were for making the theories. If Joe Schmoe told me something I would want to know where Joe Schmoe got his facts and why Joe Schmoe told me this. But they say their theories must be correct because some guy in France wrote about it. Did they go to the guy in France to take him to task for what he said? No, and they have forgotten the original theories. When you ask them about this, they pretend we are mentally insane for bringing it up as though those original theories never existed.

Like I said before, if this government is so powerful to do all of these things that theorists say it is capable of, then how is that powerful government still allowing people to "expose" it? And how does a powerful entity even allow itself to be "exposed"?

Even the makers of Loose Change recanted. That tells you something right there.

*WarminIndie, You are 100% correct! Your comment brought back a conversation my brother and I had recently. He jumped from 911, immediately to, "What about chem trails?" He believes the government is trying to kill us with chem trails now. This is how I answered this question. "Why would the government spray deadly chemicals from thousands of feet in the air where everyone can see to kill us? Don't you think they would just poison our drinking water? This would be an easier way to do it. Also, chem trails are nothing more than exhaust heat and water produced at different levels in altitude." I informed him that on a flight from Massachusetts to Florida, I watched this occur on my plane and it happened at different levels of altitude. No different than the exhaust you see coming from your car in winter.

Our government does do cloud seeding to make rain and other tests involving this spraying, but it has nothing to do with killing Americans. Hmm? Let's spray these chemicals so when we land, we can go home and die while at the same time, watch our families demise. Duh???

Finally, you are correct that if this was all fact, our government would hunt these theorists down and imprison or assassinate them if it was true. If there is one thing I know about all governments, when it comes down to National Security, they will take you out if you are a threat. It is completely expected, since no country wants to face its demise from someone spilling top secret information.

It is so sad that these people have to live this way. I mean that with sincerity.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You are indeed one of the truthers I was refering to that uses yet another definition for the terms. Thing is, you are not an authority on determining what the terms mean, and they do not have any official definition (at least not as far as I have seen). So you are just giving your personal definitions.

reply to post by malachi777

AGW deniers are the same in many ways. They have a desire to deny any fact that connects humans to climate change and I think it stems from there lack of knowledge about climate. They do not like the feeling of being inadequate to the occasion, so their response is to deny it. This is just like how you describe conspiracy theorists. Bottom line, learning about the FACTS is the way out of this delusion. It obliterates any ideas that're just plain wrong.

On the opposite side, you have left wingers (aka. democrats) that automatically believe whatever climate scientists say. They suffer from a kind of confirmation bias. It sits well with them to blame humans for things because they want the government to be in control of things - it's a preconception. So it's natural for them to believe it when it's claimed that humans are to blame for something and a government answer is needed. They eat it up like chocolate pudding. (And similar to the AGW deniers, any facts that reside outside this realm are denied. For example, if it's shown that reducing taxes boosts certain portions of the economy, left wingers will more likely than not deny this fact because they do not like the feeling of being inadequate.)

Again, FACTS are key to all of this. A person has to be able to absorb them. I've just given two examples of peoples that do not absorb facts very well: AGW deniers and left wingers.

More than that, I think it could be that people like this cannot handle complex information. Maybe they have a preconception that the world is simple and aren't compatible with a complex world. It's like plugging in a 3.5" diskette into a dvd drive and finding out that it's not compatible. Maybe people like this have a brain that is wired differently from somebody who CAN absorb facts. Anything that doesn't fit their wiring is discarded or denied. Maybe it cannot be helped.

An interesting link about Conspiracy Theorists:
www.wired.com ...

There is, of course, something deeply troubling about cognitive dissonance, since it suggests that we double-down on our beliefs in light of conflicting evidence. While neuroscientists have begun to decipher the anatomy of this mental flaw – you can blame your anterior cingulate cortex – I sometimes worry that the internet is making things worse. Although we’re all vulnerable to cognitive dissonance (and the paranoid style has always been a loud presence in American politics) we seem to squander ever more oxygen on worthless conversations about Obama’s birth certificate and the North American Union. After all, thanks to Google we can find “evidence” in support of practically any belief. If you can imagine the conspiracy theory, there is a website out there ardently promoting it, and a clan of fellow believers who share your peculiar obsession with fluoridated drinking water and the New World Order. The end result is that we never have to recant. We can always find another link to “prove” that the government is trying to “zombify” us, or that aliens are going to destroy the earth at midnight.

A very insightful read.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by malachi777

 

AGW deniers are the same in many ways. They have a desire to deny any fact that connects humans to climate change and I think it stems from there lack of knowledge about climate. They do not like the feeling of being inadequate to the occasion, so their response is to deny it. This is just like how you describe conspiracy theorists. Bottom line, learning about the FACTS is the way out of this delusion. It obliterates any ideas that're just plain wrong.

On the opposite side, you have left wingers (aka. democrats) that automatically believe whatever climate scientists say. They suffer from a kind of confirmation bias. It sits well with them to blame humans for things because they want the government to be in control of things - it's a preconception. So it's natural for them to believe it when it's claimed that humans are to blame for something and a government answer is needed. They eat it up like chocolate pudding. (And similar to the AGW deniers, any facts that reside outside this realm are denied. For example, if it's shown that reducing taxes boosts certain portions of the economy, left wingers will more likely than not deny this fact because they do not like the feeling of being inadequate.)

Again, FACTS are key to all of this. A person has to be able to absorb them. I've just given two examples of peoples that do not absorb facts very well: AGW deniers and left wingers.

More than that, I think it could be that people like this cannot handle complex information. Maybe they have a preconception that the world is simple and aren't compatible with a complex world. It's like plugging in a 3.5" diskette into a dvd drive and finding out that it's not compatible. Maybe people like this have a brain that is wired differently from somebody who CAN absorb facts. Anything that doesn't fit their wiring is discarded or denied. Maybe it cannot be helped.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

And facts are not truth. Let me show you an experiment...

I saw a black guy driving recklessly down the street.

What did I just tell you and what can you surmise from what I just told you?

reply to post by WarminIndy

And facts are the most reliable thing we got, sir. Without them, we'd be blind. Facts that have grown from consensus are the most reliable, especially in the realm of science, where the expectations for correctness are highest. While ti's true that facts can be misleading, I think ti's misleading to point that out since it misses the primary point(s) in my post.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the 9/11 facts support the official stance on the matter.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And facts are the most reliable thing we got, sir. Without them, we'd be blind. Facts that have grown from consensus are the most reliable, especially in the realm of science, where the expectations for correctness are highest. While ti's true that facts can be misleading, I think ti's misleading to point that out since it misses the meat of what my post was saying.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

What if I then tell you the truth that the black guy was an ambulance driver on his way to an emergency. Facts are not reliable depending on the sources who present them. If you don't question the motives of the person giving you the facts, you can be mislead. There were no political motives for the many witnesses who saw the planes hit the WTC, there were no political motives for the people on the planes who called their loved ones to say good-bye. There were no political motives for the people who fell from the buildings. Those are the people I would believe.

The political motives would come from either the government or the people who say the government did it.

And another fact is that throughout my time on ATS I have always said I am a woman. You assumed I am a man and called me sir. The truth is that I am a woman. Tell me what facts led you to believe I am a man.

reply to post by userid1


Continuing...

In my previous post I was comparing the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CEotTK) with the Pentagon attack and aftermath to potentially illustrate themes of 'staging' and being 'shown' things that are merely cover for certain other things.

This is in part a response to userid1 and his request to back up my contention that aspects of the Pentagon scene were 'staged', showing the potential staging, but more importantly (from the whole 9/11 perspective) illustrating the apparent PLANNING. Staging denotes Planning. Planning, I presume, (for 9/11) would be Comprehensive and Intricate, therefore, all of what was Shown and presented on 9/11 (if there was 'staging') was Supremely Calculated and I estimate Massively So. This PLANNING of course would extend to and include the "collapse" of the three buildings in New York. As well as all other aspects of that day.

And so, a Super Crime, by Super Perps, using Super Planning, will of course require Super Evidence.

Devil's Tower(s) lol

Ok. Dreyfus, in the movie, is a kind of 'Truther', relentless and Crazy (seeming) and he's off to Devil's Tower Wyoming. On the highway he approaches a roadblock set up by military/gov/scientists, there are guns and army uniforms, hazmat suits and gas masks... Why?

Oh yeah, there is a fake poison gas leak story in play.

Now everyone involved in the staging of this roadblock based on the fictional poison gas is "in on it" - they know the air is safe to breathe. The participants are, as per the story, tasked with hiding the alien landing site from the public using this poison gas ruse etc. Everyone they stop are fed the lie and shipped right out of there. Now I know it's just a movie but how come no one at the roadblock spills the beans? How come they all play along? How come no one runs up to the car and starts going on about aliens? They never do. And so what can we learn from this?

We learn that - There are no whistleblowers in the staging area.

Many times people on here will ask, even (mostly) demand from others PROOF of what they claim, which, of course, is warranted and reasonable, but think about it.

Let's say you're in the car with Dreyfus and you don't know if he's truly crazy or not. You appraoch the roadblock, Dreyfus thinks something is up and you want him to Prove it to you... well, there's tv news reports of a train wreck and poison gas, there's radio reports and evacuations, there's dead animals on the side of the road, up ahead there's a bunch of serious military types in gas masks carrying guns blocking the way forward. Where's the proof? Where would you or Dreyfus or any ordinary citizen even get any?! It could take you a while. How would you even do it? Admit it, if you were an OSer in the car or a sceptic, maybe even a Truther, you'd succumb and just do what the checkpoint guy told you to do like a good little citizen. Wouldn't you? It's a thought experiment, try it.

Some amusing side notes:

I wonder if OSers even enjoy watching CEotTK? Do they get to the poison gas roadblock scene and turn it off because the Government would never lie to its citizens like that!

As well I'm not saying there are aliens but if there were you think the Government wouldn't lie to you about it? Really? And hide every aspect of it?

Also, I don't know who wrote CEotTK really or exactly where Steven Spielberg was on 9/11 lol But like the tales of Kubrick and the moon landing maybe somebody should find out! LOL


to be continued...

reply to post by NWOwned


So Steven Speilberg is a "Truther"? The movie was made during the time when there was such a heightened interest in UFOs. We can only take what we see in movies to a certain degree. I saw that movie too, it is one of my favorites.

At the beginning of the movie, Dreyfus was not even a believer in UFOs and even when he has an encounter, he never actually says that is what they were, he just builds mashed potato mounds saying "this means something". He never said at the end "Oh, this is what that meant."

The movie is very good. As we watch his descent into madness, we watch the break-up of his family. His wife was also suppressing evidence by tearing out the news article from the paper. She also laughs at the man who says he saw Bigfoot (which I believe exists).

But nothing from movies has ever convinced me of anything going on in the world. Take it from someone who writes screenplays, movie writers and directors just take things from the world to make a story out of.

I really need to know what people mean when they say it "Collapsed into its own footprint"

Why do people insist it collapsed into it's own footprint? The debris field is clealy larger than the building footprint...

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I really need to know what people mean when they say it "Collapsed into its own footprint"

Why do people insist it collapsed into it's own footprint? The debris field is clealy larger than the building footprint...

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

*I said I was finished replying but to be generous, I will answer your question AngryAlien. Collapsing in its own footprint means exactly as it is said. The building fell straight down. The reason you see all those remnants scattered for blocks are for many reasons. One, there was thousands of tons of paper, drywall, dust and other items that floated in the air until it found it's resting place. The larger items were strewn by ricocheting off larger pieces. When you watch the video's, you see the building fell straight down to the foot or base of the buildings.