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.

 

If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by usernameconspiracyAs long as we're speaking 'honestly', I have to assume that by your post you have no dog in this fight, and that you really don't think we need to find out anymore about that day. Fine. Let it go. But, I have a hunch you're not gonna' do that, and that will tell me just who you are. Prove me wrong.
 




Oh, I suspect that if I didn't reply you would only assume that you scared me off. I guess my cover has been blown. Check this out: I work for the Federal Government. I did not work there on 9/11/01, but guess where I did work? American Airlines! Now you know "just who I am".

You are right, I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do reserve my right to make a comment here and there. Sorry you feel that I don't have that right.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
This isn't personal in any way, but what's suspicious is your stance on this matter. It's inconceivable to me that at this late date, you would still be 'on the fence' about 9/11. Any constructive input will always be welcome, but remember this. We all know what the OS is, so we don't need anymore people quoting the NIST report.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

We all know what the OS is


Do you? I always get the impression that you know a sort of "OS" of your own that you've invented for the specific purpose of debunking. One that bears very little relation to what is actually claimed by the authorities.

Your OS has buildings falling down quicker than they actually did, air defences on the roof of the Pentagon, the FBI claiming things that they didn't... the list is long. And unedifying.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeOf all the things you write, let me just pick the one where you say the 'buildings fall quicker than they did'. That's all I need to hear from you to know you aren't for real. You're quibbling over a few seconds? Child, please. Those buildings fell, un-impeded, and for you to stick to the story that that was due to weakening by fire is absurd. Anyone that's been here on ats for as long as you, and been exposed to the knowledge available by reading posted facts, should be by now skepitical of every single part of the OS. Because you aren't, then I have a problem with everything you say. How's that for clarity?
 



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

You're quibbling over a few seconds?



Yeah. Annoying how people like me tend to insist on levels of accuracy, isn't it?

A minute ago you were saying that "facts" were troublesome things. They're now apparently unimportant as long as they help to corroborate your version of events.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


A few seconds discrepancy in collapse times makes no difference to anything, except in the minds of those determined to do nothing but debunk all and everything associated with the 911 conspiracy.

10 seconds or 60 seconds all three building collapsed way too fast for a natural gravity fed collapse, period.

In fact none of the building should have collapsed at all, that is what we're saying when it comes down to it.

We get wrapped up in the collapse mechanism as if we agree the buildings would have collapsed, somehow, but we don't agree the collapses were inevitable.

So arguing collapse times is a waste of time, and doesn't make the slightest difference to the argument that the towers should not have collapsed.

We should be discussing the truss sagging hypothesis, because that is what it all boils down to, NIST's method of collapse initiation. If that one point can be proven either way it would end the argument on the collapses.

Why has no one on the OS side tried to reproduce that claim? It's not hard to do. You all can find evidence that heated trusses can sag in the right conditions, no argument there, what you have not shown is how the sagging trusses can pull in massive columns, and not break the 5/8" and 1" bolts.

You could end the whole argument with that. Not going to hold my breath though.



edit on 1/31/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The conspiracy theorists are simply manufacturing their own links from A to B to create a perception of impropriety where none actually exists. For one thing, John O'Neill wasn't transferred to the building- he actively pursued the job himself becuase it was a huge pay increase.

I went and looked that up, because I didn't remember anyone suggesting that he pursued the job because of the pay increase. I did find sources that made that claim. I also found the sources that I remember seeing before, that make the assertion that he had said he left the FBI because of his frustration at having his investigations into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hindered or ignored, that he had been investigated for a missing briefcase that turned up a few hours later, and that he found the job via his friend Jerome Hauer, who was head of NY’s Office of Emergency Management. So maybe it was for the money, but I think that’s an easy explanation that doesn’t consider all the evidence. (sources)


If John O'neill had left the building along with everyone else, he would have survived and you would never have heard a peep about him from the theorists. You know that and so do I.

If he had survived the day, he likely would have been able to shed a lot of light on the obstruction he complained about during his time at the FBI given all the talk of the "Wall" after 9/11 – obstruction that he felt was coming from the CIA, the American and Saudi governments, and corporate interests (same sources as above). So I disagree – I think we’d have heard lots of peeps about him.


I invite you to pick up the book AFTERMATH, by Joel Meyerowitz, who was a photographer who kinda/sorta snuck onto ground zero to document the cleanup in photographs and you can see the condition of the wreckage as clear as day.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some of his photos, but not the full book. Thanks for the recommendation.


Not one beam, girder, or support shows any sign of sabotage.

I won’t argue with you about this. I assume we have different ideas of what the word “sabotage” means, but I think what you’re saying is that the photos don’t show conclusive evidence of explosives having been used. I'll concede that point, as I'm not an expert in identifying that kind of evidence.

From my post:

They're all possible explanations, but you haven't proved any of them, and you've still only refuted the conspiracy theories by arguing from incredulity.

And your response:

...but isn't that what the conspiracy theorists are doing themselves?

Some of them, yes. Is that really how you want to defend your debate strategy?


If you've followed the truthers, you'll know that Judy Wood is bitterly denouncing Steven Jone's thermite theory in favor of her own energy weapons theory and vice versa, and AE911truth's Richard Gage is staying clear of Thierry Meyssan's "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" claims. You cant' tell me you think they're all right simply on the basis that they're all refuting the findings of the 9/11 commission report.

No, I can’t tell you that. In fact, I haven’t told you that.


Someone is just seeing what they themselves want to see, here.

Indeed.


The fact is that noone can definitively state how and why the towers collapsed. The NIST engineers themselves stated their explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was an educated guess. I myself actually support the Purdue report speculating the incompressible fluids acted like a wrecking ball against the structure because anyone that's been hit by a four foot wave knows how much power fluids have...but even the Purdue report says up front it's a theory. For all I know, there may be another as yet undiscovered reason noone has taken into consideration yet.

I absolutely agree with this whole paragraph. What I still don’t understand is your insistence on accepting some guesses and dismissing others based on your unwillingness to consider possibilities that you’ve decided aren’t worth considering.


The one thing they do have going for these reports is that they look at the available facts and then attempt to come up with a scenario that explains the facts.

True to a point, but what they actually did was come up with several scenarios that might possibly explain the facts. And they ignored lots of scenarios that might also explain the facts.


If there really were lasers from outer space then you know the people would be disintergrated along with the buildings, right?

I don’t put any stock in the laser from outer space theory myself, but I’m sure you’ve seen descriptions of the damage done to the bodies of victims. Maybe we also have different definitions of “disintegrated,” but that’s pretty weak debunking of a theory that should be pretty easy to debunk.

edit on 1-2-2012 by magicrat because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2012 by magicrat because: if at first...



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I remember thinking that the obvious conclusion to draw from those two pieces of information was that the plane had circled the building with the intent of hitting that specific section.

I thought that was odd.

It was one of the things I saw on that day that prompted me to research all I could, and that is the reason I included it in my response to GoodOlDave's question about how I had been "swayed by these conspiracy claims." I'm not offering it as proof of anything, only as evidence that felt odd to me and prompted me to do my own research, before anyone had a chance to "scam" me one way or the other.


Yes, but my point...which you have yet to be able to refute..is that there are many more non-conspiracy answers for what happened than there are conspiracy answers and all this "almost empty" bit is nothing but conspiracy mongoring to make a sinister sounding mountain out of an otherwise innoculous molehill.

The two leading other explanations are...

a) When they reached the Pentagon area they were flying too high to make an attack run against the Pentagon. They necessarily needed to lower their altitude while making a turn, and they simply targetted the first section they could line up on.

b) Their target was originally some other building (I.E. the White House) but they couldn't spot it from the air. If you take a look at the aerial map of D.C. you'll see the White House IS hard to spot without markers pointing it out. In that event, being as high as a kite on adrenalyn they made a last second decision to turn around and attack a building they just passed over that they COULD recognize from the air- the Pentagon.

Whatever the reason, the secret died with the hijackers, and I don't see any need to be intentionally introducing these absurdly complex and pointless "the secret cabal elected to attack the Pentagon...but not too badly" schemes simply for the sake of filling in a missing piece of the puzzle that disturbs you. I'm sorry, but you've offered nothing in your explanation that refutes the OP's assertion the truther movement is simply a scam.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes, but my point...which you have yet to be able to refute..is that there are many more non-conspiracy answers for what happened than there are conspiracy answers...

How can I refute the fact that there are multiple possible explanations? That's been one of my points all along.


...and all this "almost empty" bit is nothing but conspiracy mongoring to make a sinister sounding mountain out of an otherwise innoculous molehill.

If I got the "almost empty" bit from the conspiracy mongers, I would see your point. I didn't. I got it from the news that day.


The two leading other explanations are...

a) When they reached the Pentagon area they were flying too high to make an attack run against the Pentagon. They necessarily needed to lower their altitude while making a turn, and they simply targetted the first section they could line up on.

b) Their target was originally some other building (I.E. the White House) but they couldn't spot it from the air. If you take a look at the aerial map of D.C. you'll see the White House IS hard to spot without markers pointing it out. In that event, being as high as a kite on adrenalyn they made a last second decision to turn around and attack a building they just passed over that they COULD recognize from the air- the Pentagon.

So again, why is it that you're perfectly content with conjecture if and only if it fits into a specific narrative? If we don't know the answer, shouldn't we be open to following the evidence in whatever direction it leads? I still feel that all your debunking comes down to is telling me what kind of speculation is okay and what isn't. That doesn't prove or disprove anything.


Whatever the reason, the secret died with the hijackers, and I don't see any need to be intentionally introducing these absurdly complex and pointless "the secret cabal elected to attack the Pentagon...but not too badly" schemes simply for the sake of filling in a missing piece of the puzzle that disturbs you. I'm sorry, but you've offered nothing in your explanation that refutes the OP's assertion the truther movement is simply a scam.

I have explained my initial reasons for feeling the need to do my own research, and none of them come from the "truther movement." I've also noted that I have not had to give any money to anyone at any point in my research. I also asked if anyone who considers themselves a "truther" feels that they've been "scammed" by the "truther movement," and no one replied to say that they felt scammed. If those aren't refutations of the OP's assertion, I don't know what would be.
edit on 1-2-2012 by magicrat because: needed even more words



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Interesting. Because whenever I hold my nose and plunge into the noxious waters of 9/11 "Truth" sites, the short (and incorrect) collapse time is implied or directly referred to as suspicious with extraordinary regularity.

You may now, belatedly, be saying that it doesn't matter. But to pretend that this is emblematic of the movement of the whole is highly disingenuous.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I went and looked that up, because I didn't remember anyone suggesting that he pursued the job because of the pay increase. I did find sources that made that claim. I also found the sources that I remember seeing before, that make the assertion that he had said he left the FBI because of his frustration at having his investigations into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hindered or ignored


There is no reason to believe it wasn't for the money AND because he was frustrated with the way his career was going. Personally, I think that after spending so much time investigating the 1993 WTC bombing he was a de facto expert on WTC security procedures and WTC management wanted him to come work there. Plus, since he applied there himself, it's obvious he wanted to work there. Whatever. The fact of the matter is that there were preexisting connections and conditions between O'Neill and the WTC complex and it's patently phony for the truthers to pretend he suddenly upped and spontaneously moved to the WTC all to pretend there was something "suspicious" about it as they are obviously doing.


Some of them, yes. Is that really how you want to defend your debate strategy?


Yes it is, because unlike the truthers I have no agenda to loyally defend any particular component of any of the reports issued. It may be possible that all the technical reports are wrong and there was some as-yet undiscovered reason for the buildings' collapse. It may very well be the case the majority of the hijackers were tricked and didn't know it was a suicide mission, which means the REAL number of suicide hijackers would be eight (the rest being murder victims of the hijackers themselves). I'd even be willing to consider the possibility the planes were actually hijacked by some domestic Timothy McVeigh type radical group and Mohammed Atta, et al, was simply blamed because they were muslim.

I'm open to other possibilities, but the thing is that I'd want at least *some* proof to back the claim up, and I do not accept innuendo, selective quote editing, rhetorical questions, and outright lies, as evidence, and so far, every single piece of truther "evidence" has always turned out to be outright embellishment upon closer examination.


I absolutely agree with this whole paragraph. What I still don’t understand is your insistence on accepting some guesses and dismissing others based on your unwillingness to consider possibilities that you’ve decided aren’t worth considering.


Oh, that's easy. It's a matter of context. Human beings cannot spontaneously sprout wings and fly like birds, dogs cannot spontaneously become geniuses and fix your computer for you, trees will never spontaneously become ballet dancers, and the gov't can't do anything more intricate than raising taxes without making a mess of things somewhere. Thus, when someone "guesses" that the attack succeeded because of a collection of individual human failures and that the gov't really wasn't prepared to handle such an attack, I'm going to accept the explanation much more readily than someone else's "guess" that the attack was the result of an insanely intricate sinister inside job planned out fifty moves ahead and involved armies of single mindedly loyal secret agents which succeeded with such sheer perfection that it rivalled a supernatural act.


True to a point, but what they actually did was come up with several scenarios that might possibly explain the facts. And they ignored lots of scenarios that might also explain the facts.


So what should that be telling you? When the police recover a homicide victim and then announce they're looking for a gun, that tells me the police have determined from their own research that the victim died from being shot and they probabaly recovered a bullet they want to match a gun to. Please explain to me why the police should also insist on investigating the possibility of remote control transmitters secretly been planted inside his head that took control of his body and made him jump off a building, simply on the basis the gov't "might" have invented remote control transmitters that "could" potentially take control of people's bodies.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there IS concrete evidence of what the gov't is claiming. The problem is that the truthers refuse to accept the evidence as being valid because they know it refutes what they themselves want to believe. This is why, if they're not making accusations of "false eyewitness accounts" and "planted evidence" they're play pretending the eyewitnesses and evidence don't even exist. Tell me, did those sources you go to for your information ever tell you Saudi Arabia acknowledges that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens?

Saudi gov't acknowledges hijackers were Saudi citizens



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
A few seconds discrepancy in collapse times makes no difference to anything, except in the minds of those determined to do nothing but debunk all and everything associated with the 911 conspiracy


Actually, I would argue that those few seconds make all the difference. A few seconds tell the difference between free-fall and falling with resistance, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
How can I refute the fact that there are multiple possible explanations? That's been one of my points all along.


No, in your own words your point all along is that you're consistently seeing "suspicious" things. When I look at the Pentagon attack, I see it as they flew over it too high so they swung around and hit the first section they were able to line up with, with the understaffed section being an irrelevent detail. YOU see the section being understaffed as a relevent detail, meaning they intentionally hit that specific section because it was understaffed. That's the only possible meaning of what "suspicious" is to you.


If we don't know the answer, shouldn't we be open to following the evidence in whatever direction it leads? I still feel that all your debunking comes down to is telling me what kind of speculation is okay and what isn't. That doesn't prove or disprove anything.


All right, then, let me ask you this- when eyewitnesses claim they hear explosives, but the analysis of the wreckage at ground zero shows no tangible evidence of explosives being used anywhere, to me, following the evidence of demolitions ends right there. Why do you insist your investigation needs to be taken any further?


I have explained my initial reasons for feeling the need to do my own research, and none of them come from the "truther movement." I've also noted that I have not had to give any money to anyone at any point in my research. I also asked if anyone who considers themselves a "truther" feels that they've been "scammed" by the "truther movement," and no one replied to say that they felt scammed. If those aren't refutations of the OP's assertion, I don't know what would be.


I don't understand your reasoning. If the truthers think these conspiracy claims Alex Jones, Richard Gage, etc are spinning are real, they're not going to think they're being scammed out of their money any more than someone who bought into that whole "the world is going to end in the year 2000" bit thought they were being scammed out of their money. It was only 12 years ago so you have to remember all those gloom and doom books and videos the (cough cough) experts were putting out.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
So, lets get this on the record. You, Dave and Tricky are sticking to the story, that there was no additional force employed in the destruction of those three buildings? That they all fell due to the impact of two airplanes? This would be for the benefit of any newcomers, so as to let them know just where you stand on this one point. After all, we know how important clarity of purpose is to you three. So, they fell un-aided or, they were purposefully destroyed, which is it?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
So, lets get this on the record. You, Dave and Tricky are sticking to the story, that there was no additional force employed in the destruction of those three buildings? That they all fell due to the impact of two airplanes? This would be for the benefit of any newcomers, so as to let them know just where you stand on this one point. After all, we know how important clarity of purpose is to you three. So, they fell un-aided or, they were purposefully destroyed, which is it?



You can add me to that. WTC 1,2,7 and the other WTC buildings were destroyed as a result of airliner impacts and subsequent fires.

No explosives, thermite/ate, lasers, death rays, earthquake machines, dews etc. And yes, the Towers and other buildings were real, the planes were real and the people were real.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
So, lets get this on the record. You, Dave and Tricky are sticking to the story, that there was no additional force employed in the destruction of those three buildings? That they all fell due to the impact of two airplanes? This would be for the benefit of any newcomers, so as to let them know just where you stand on this one point. After all, we know how important clarity of purpose is to you three. So, they fell un-aided or, they were purposefully destroyed, which is it?



I wouldn't say sticking to it as much as just not having any evidence to the contrary. Video evidence and eyewitnesses seem to suggest that planes hit the towers and after that there was a lot of fire and smoke, and then the towers fell. There is recorded audio evidence of passengers from the plane making calls out during the hijacking, so while I don't know whether to trust their source, they are better evidence than pure speculation.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Actually, I would argue that those few seconds make all the difference. A few seconds tell the difference between free-fall and falling with resistance, wouldn't you agree?


No I wouldn't agree. A few seconds make no difference when I believe the collapses should never have been initiated in the first place. Or at least the collapses should not have been complete, resistance should have arrested the collapse long before it could have been complete. This I have explained many times.

The collapse times are irrelevant is what I said if you'd paid attention. Not being at free-fall does not indicate the collapse was gravity fed. The fact that the collapses accelerated smoothly, and did not slow in anyway, indicates no resistance, not how long it took or how fast it was. Resistance would cause the collapse to slow or stop. Every instance of resistance would slow the collapse in an obvious way.

BTW did you read my whole post, or just the first paragraph? Are you going to prove your claims, and demonstrate how sagging trusses can pull in columns much more massive than themselves, without the connections failing first?


edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
So, lets get this on the record. You, Dave and Tricky are sticking to the story, that there was no additional force employed in the destruction of those three buildings? That they all fell due to the impact of two airplanes? This would be for the benefit of any newcomers, so as to let them know just where you stand on this one point. After all, we know how important clarity of purpose is to you three. So, they fell un-aided or, they were purposefully destroyed, which is it?



If you're going to quote me then please quote me correctly. My position is that the evidence points to the collapse being the result of a combination of the damage from the impacts, the subsequent fires, and the unique design of the building itself. Those three characteristics have never occurred before together in history so it's patently phony for anyone to insist it couldn't have happened the way they did.

The only thing than can be irrefutably said is that it's impossible for anyone to sneak into an occupied building and secretly plant controlled demolitions without the occupants noticing. You might as well say you can sneak up and give someone a sex change operation without them noticing.

Other than those two, I'm open to suggestions.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So, you're saying that the "free-fall" so often professed by users such as yourself is just rhetoric because it doesn't even matter to you? All that matters is that in your opinion, you think the towers shouldn't have started to collapse, period.

Well, that's illuminating. Thank you. It's nice to know that people such as yourself will arrange the facts to suit their theories with speculation no matter what.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Thanks. You've stated clearly what I've requested. Good luck with your mission to delay the inevitable, although not having the truth on your side is going to make it very difficult. The holes in your story increase by the day.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join