Your 9/11 truth?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Let's see you make connections in a skyscraper fail due to fire in an area of the building where there is no fire.

Thats easy, just look at some films of the World Trade Center Towers from 9/11/2001. Besides, who said that they failed due to fire or only fire except you? You keep arguing with yourself and loosing. Thats a real neat trick.

I have been reading "truther" sites for 10 years trying to piece together a solid explanation. Surprisingly, it was just yesterday that I came across this video which was posted on a different forum. Dr. Judy Wood who has spent years researching the dustification of the towers, attempted to bring the NIST contractors to trial for fraud since she could not bring suit directly against the government. Not surprisingly, the courts refused to take this on.



I've always suspected the towers were brought down intentionally but the thermite explanation just didn't seem to describe the lack of debris. This video presents evidence which makes more sense. More information on the evidence can be found here: drjudywood.com...

Although this does not delve into the who & why side of things, it brings a plausible explanation as to how the towers were brought down. I was surprised to find information "new" to me after all these years. I was getting so tired of the same old rehashed information and official story trolls.

reply to post by msdesertrat

Dr. Judy Wood who has spent years researching the dustification of the towers....

And yet after all those years of "research" she still has discovered that the towers weren't "dustified". There were huge, huge piles of large pieces of "undustified" building at Ground Zero. I saw them. Millions saw them. There are thousands of photos of the "undustified" remains. The nightly news for weeks showed trucks loaded with the very solid remains at the site and leaving the site. Photos of responders crawling gingerly over precariously balanced piles of "dust".

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Let's see you make connections in a skyscraper fail due to fire in an area of the building where there is no fire.

Thats easy, just look at some films of the World Trade Center Towers from 9/11/2001. Besides, who said that they failed due to fire or only fire except you? You keep arguing with yourself and loosing. Thats a real neat trick.

You just CLAIM things and expect people to BELIEVE it is true because YOU SAID IT. But the Conservation of Momentum would have slowed things down anyway regardless of the connections. But then we don't have the distribution of steel and concrete data. I already showed how mass would slow things down without connections.

breakfornews.com...

All you do is say a lot of silly drivel.

psik

reply to post by msdesertrat


There is another vid of her being interviewed about 911. She comes off as a real wacko. Bad enough I wouldn't want her as a teacher for my kids.

Besides any energy beam would have to consume at least as much power as it would to pulverize the steel and concrete using jack hammers and torches. That assumes the beam is 100% efficent. Where did this power come from? You cannot generate that kind of power with any of the sats currently in orbit. It would take a large nuke generator to make that much power. Notice she never tells us where the power came from.

And if the beam existed in 2001 Why didn't they use it to pulverize BinLadens compound last year?
No secret chopper to loose.
No risk of loosing any Delta troops.
No pissed off Paki's because we invaded.

You could chalk it up to poor building construction. Which just happened to squish BinLaden.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by msdesertrat

 

Dr. Judy Wood who has spent years researching the dustification of the towers....

And yet after all those years of "research" she still has discovered that the towers weren't "dustified". There were huge, huge piles of large pieces of "undustified" building at Ground Zero. I saw them. Millions saw them. There are thousands of photos of the "undustified" remains. The nightly news for weeks showed trucks loaded with the very solid remains at the site and leaving the site. Photos of responders crawling gingerly over precariously balanced piles of "dust".

The beauty of her presentation of evidence, is that we all can view it and come to our own conclusions without having to be subjected to the opinions of the "millions" of other people who you seem to be speaking for.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

You just CLAIM things and expect people to BELIEVE it is true because YOU SAID IT.

Believe what? That building structures require connections? I don't think I am the only one that saying that. That a buildings ability to resist collapse is only as strong as its strongest connections? That's not exactly news either.

But the Conservation of Momentum would have slowed things down anyway regardless of the connections.

Sorry, you can't dismiss those pesky connections. Without them its just a pile of loose objects.

But then we don't have the distribution of steel and concrete data.

Yes we do, you're just too arrogant or lazy to look for them.

I already showed how mass would slow things down without connections.

Without the connections the mass is only equal to largest single solid piece of material. But I know that you're having a real tough time with these ideas. You seem addicted to the nonsense of treating the buildings as one big monolith and pretending its a grade school science demonstration.

reply to post by hooper

Believe what? That building structures require connections?

Whoever said the buildings did not have connections. This is YOUR STRAWMAN to give yourself a talking point. A really dumb talking point.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


No, thats not a strawman - thats just one of those little facts you like to pretend is not relevant. You prefer to pretend that the buildings act like billard balls and just bounce around neatly like in a grade school science demo.

Found that data yet? Just read that report real carefully!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I fail to understand what portion of my post conveys an unrealistic attitude.
I've been researching 9/11 since the day it happened and recorded on VHS everything I could during the first few hours. I knew this was a historic event from the moment flight 175 hit the South tower. I have considered every possibility offered to explain what happened that day including the 9/11 Commission report which I hold suspect due to the glaring omission of many key facts of the day including the unexplained E4b flight , the put options on American and United airlines, Able danger information plus the many contradictions in testimonies, time lines, and news reports from that day.

I don't feel any closer to understanding what occurred now I than I did 10 years ago. In trying to establish the facts I consistently run in to the wall of lack of evidence. Whether it was due to the amount of destruction, the fires, the collapses or from disposal of evidence by authorities it still leads to the same inability to discern fact from fairy tale.

If that is being unrealistic so be it but if you were on trial for murder you would be glad if I were on the jury. I refuse to make leaps of logic based on fragmentary bits of evidence either in support or refutation of the official story.

Some evidence is being withheld by authorities, for instance the video recordings of the Pentagon attack. People will say "what are they hiding?". What they are hiding is the video tapes and people can make what they will of that. In the end it's like a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with only 10% of it put together. We can entertain guesses as to what it might be but lacking the other 90% of the pieces none can say with certainty what the overall picture is.

I have no clue why you mention Richard Gage in response to my post as I made no reference directly, obliquely or otherwise to him or to architects & engineers for 9/11 truth.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I have no clue why you mention Richard Gage in response to my post as I made no reference directly, obliquely or otherwise to him or to architects & engineers for 9/11 truth.

I mentioned him because you said, and I quote:

"Don't worry about finding the truth or discovering all the "facts", it won't happen.
We'll likely never know them due to the amount of destruction of evidence. "

I am pointing out that according to the truthers' own writings, there are more than enough clues for the truthers to prove conspiracy on their own, regardless of any evidence that had been destroyed. According to what I've learned here, the truthers are in possession of-

-the exact formula of the explosives used to demolish the towers (as per Steven Jones, which Gage subscribes to)
-an extensive library of footage showing exactly how the towers collapsed taken from different angles and different distances
-The detailed blueprints of the building (as per Gage's web site)
-over a thousand experts in the fields of demolitions, engineering, architecture, and other specialties, who support the idea of further investigations (as per Richard Gage)
-not to mention, quite a pile of expendible cash, as Gage is now making a film for the Cannes film festival and is currently hiring major named actors for the project.

The truthers literally have everything they need to host their own investigation and reverse engineer how these supposed demolitions brought down the towers in the way we all saw- where the demolitions would have been planted, how much explosives would have been needed, all of that. Once the truthers have proven that, they've by default proven conspiracy...and yet the truthers aren't even bothering to do so much as pick up a pencil to look into it. It's as if a detective investigating a homicide possessed the murder weapon, the video of the crime, a set of fingerprints, and the help of the FBI crime lab, and who just sits around doing nothing while hoping someone might come forward to confess someday. It seems to me that you're complaining that "you'll likely never know the truth" and yet the reason "you'll likely never know the truth" is because the truthers don't want enough to actually go out and find it.

My answer for this is because there really isn't any conspiracy to even "know the truth about". What's your answer for this?

reply to post by samkent

There is another vid of her being interviewed about 911. She comes off as a real wacko. Bad enough I wouldn't want her as a teacher for my kids. Besides any energy beam would have to consume at least as much power as it would to pulverize the steel and concrete using jack hammers and torches. That assumes the beam is 100% efficent. Where did this power come from? You cannot generate that kind of power with any of the sats currently in orbit. It would take a large nuke generator to make that much power. Notice she never tells us where the power came from. And if the beam existed in 2001 Why didn't they use it to pulverize BinLadens compound last year? No secret chopper to loose. No risk of loosing any Delta troops. No pissed off Paki's because we invaded. You could chalk it up to poor building construction. Which just happened to squish BinLaden.

I have not seen the video in which she appears "wacko" so I cannot comment. I do know, from having worked with scientists, they frequently are not the best presenters of their own material. Intellect often stymies social skills for some reason.

She said the energy is generated by using radio frequencies to interfere with a static field - a field which was possibly created by the offshore hurricane - not a conventional energy source.

As for using this weapon elsewhere, who knows if it has or has not been used. If I was the handler of this technology, I'd make darn sure I covered its use with conventional weaponry. If its signature is recognized again, it would blow open the 9-11 conspiracy in a big way.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

It seems to me that you're complaining that "you'll likely never know the truth" and yet the reason "you'll likely never know the truth" is because the truthers don't want enough to actually go out and find it.

My answer for this is because there really isn't any conspiracy to even "know the truth about". What's your answer for this?

Regardless of who did 9/11 it was the result of a conspiracy by some group of people so there really a conspiracy to "know the truth about".
Seeing as how our government murdered the official culprit we'll never get additional testimony from Osama bin Laden (who claimed he wasn't involved).
Just yesterday ABC news ran a story about 9/11 victims body parts being thrown in a landfill. This is precisely why I bemoan the destruction of evidence.

Not believing the 9/11 Commission report does not make one a de facto "truther". I certainly would never claim to have enough evidence circumstantial or otherwise to comprise any kind of serious investigation in to 9/11. I have no experience with airliners, pilot procedures, plane construction, building engineering, chemistry or forensics.

Given that I'm limited in my mobility and living on disability it's not likely I could go out and pursue evidence independently either. I'm simply unsatisfied with the 9/11 Commission report. It seems you are satisfied with their work, that's fine. That means you have one less nagging question than I.

I can't think of an event that was more important in my lifetime than 9/11 and to feel I still don't know what really happened that day is a source of deep dissatisfaction. If that makes me a whiner and complainer then so be, that's what I am. Yet to think somehow I could go out and prove one way or another who did what and how 11 years after the fact is shall we say unrealistic?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the government did a competent job of investigation.

Cheers,
ATA

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

Not sleeping too well? I know what I read, and I have yet to see one debunker, give me one reason to believe what they regurgitate here, day in and day out. The OP asked for our opinions on this matter, and I've offered mine, so climb back up on your imagined 'fence', and don't call me paranoid because I don't like liars.

Just read your own post. It's like the definition of paranoia. I know you don't believe anything but your own view of things, but it just doesn't make sense that you think everyone is just against you for no good reason. It reminds me of all those crazy conspiracy people in the movies.

poor debunker.

watch some tv footage from 9/11/01, skippy.
if you are not as dumb (or at least dishonest) as
you seem, you just might get it, debunker.

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

Not sleeping too well? I know what I read, and I have yet to see one debunker, give me one reason to believe what they regurgitate here, day in and day out. The OP asked for our opinions on this matter, and I've offered mine, so climb back up on your imagined 'fence', and don't call me paranoid because I don't like liars.

Just read your own post. It's like the definition of paranoia. I know you don't believe anything but your own view of things, but it just doesn't make sense that you think everyone is just against you for no good reason. It reminds me of all those crazy conspiracy people in the movies.

poor debunker.

watch some tv footage from 9/11/01, skippy.
if you are not as dumb (or at least dishonest) as
you seem, you just might get it, debunker.

Yes, and who is the mature one here? The one who assumes that I've not seen hours of footage, or the one who isn't ready to blindly believe all the conspiracies when there is no tangible evidence? I will not take conspiracies on faith.

reply to post by headorheart


This is my first time on ATS so please be gentle if I mess this up. The question that has always baffled me with the conspiracy theories regarding this horrible event is as follows: If the the U.S government were behind the attacks of 9-11 why would they make it so complicated? (I’m not trying to start a new thread here and will give my reply to the questions asked, I’m just curious) it’s just that hijacking 4 planes, swapping them for drone’s, sabotaging the buildings with explosives, and having so many people involved in mass murder without them having the morality or conscious to try and stop it and hoping all of this went to plan without a hitch seems (to me) to be just a bit farfetched. Wouldn’t it have been easier for a land based bomb attack as in Oklahoma City or even letting off a dirty bomb in a major city given the same justification for attacking another country? And to answer the question raised of who was behind the attack, in my own opinion, if you rule out Iraq (Saddam may have been insane, but not insane enough to think America wouldn’t have wanted revenge) and Afghanistan (they refused to give up Osama because of their rules of hospitality, it was their law not to allow a guest to be given to an enemy, it’s a cultural thing we did not understand so of course they must be complaisant in what happened) it leaves one only choice, Saudi Arabia. They had the money, the terrorist were mainly from that country and so was Osama. Bush would have never retaliated against his friends but could not be seen to be doing nothing, and so Iraq and Afghanistan were given up to the sacrificial altars of lies and warfare.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by headorheart

 

This is my first time on ATS so please be gentle if I mess this up. The question that has always baffled me with the conspiracy theories regarding this horrible event is as follows: If the the U.S government were behind the attacks of 9-11 why would they make it so complicated? (I’m not trying to start a new thread here and will give my reply to the questions asked, I’m just curious) it’s just that hijacking 4 planes, swapping them for drone’s, sabotaging the buildings with explosives, and having so many people involved in mass murder without them having the morality or conscious to try and stop it and hoping all of this went to plan without a hitch seems (to me) to be just a bit farfetched.

Not only have you NOT messed this up, you've in fact asked the best question I've seen out of all questions posted here- why WOULD these conspirators make their conspiracy so unnecessarily complex? Every student of military history knows that victory doesn't go to the side with the best plan; it goes to the side who makes the least amount of mistakes, and concocting a plan that involves tons of secret explosives, fake hijackings, coopted media and research reports, and armies of sinister secret agents, practically certifies the plan would fail. Heck, all it would take is one guy to suffer guilt of consciience and slip the media information (the same way Deep Throat did with Woodward and Bernstein to reveal the Watergate scandal) to upset the whole apple cart.

*My* answer is that there really is no "secret plot to take over the world" plot and the truthers are just pulling make believe out of their butt to fill in the gigantic holes in their claims, because they'd rather see their claims become so ridiculously Rube Goldberg-esque convoluted than accept the possibility their conspiracy claims are drivel. I would like to know what *their* answer is.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by headorheart

 

This is my first time on ATS so please be gentle if I mess this up. The question that has always baffled me with the conspiracy theories regarding this horrible event is as follows: If the the U.S government were behind the attacks of 9-11 why would they make it so complicated? (I’m not trying to start a new thread here and will give my reply to the questions asked, I’m just curious) it’s just that hijacking 4 planes, swapping them for drone’s, sabotaging the buildings with explosives, and having so many people involved in mass murder without them having the morality or conscious to try and stop it and hoping all of this went to plan without a hitch seems (to me) to be just a bit farfetched. Wouldn’t it have been easier for a land based bomb attack as in Oklahoma City or even letting off a dirty bomb in a major city given the same justification for attacking another country? And to answer the question raised of who was behind the attack, in my own opinion, if you rule out Iraq (Saddam may have been insane, but not insane enough to think America wouldn’t have wanted revenge) and Afghanistan (they refused to give up Osama because of their rules of hospitality, it was their law not to allow a guest to be given to an enemy, it’s a cultural thing we did not understand so of course they must be complaisant in what happened) it leaves one only choice, Saudi Arabia. They had the money, the terrorist were mainly from that country and so was Osama. Bush would have never retaliated against his friends but could not be seen to be doing nothing, and so Iraq and Afghanistan were given up to the sacrificial altars of lies and warfare.

So you consider conspiracies more important than Physics.

How does the steel and concrete have to be distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up? How do people with degrees in physics manage to not discuss this for TEN YEARS?



Human beings cannot change the workings of physics, not even physicists.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So you consider conspiracies more important than Physics.

No, I think the poster considers their view of conspiracies more important than your OPINION about what is and what is not physically possible.

How does the steel and concrete have to be distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up?

Nicely.

How do people with degrees in physics manage to not discuss this for TEN YEARS?

Because there is no need to discuss something that is already well understood.

Human beings cannot change the workings of physics, not even physicists.

And physics does not care, in the least, about your opinion with regard to what is and is not physcically possible.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Apologies for this reply (being new and all that) but I do not have a clue what you are on about? If you are in some way implying that I suggested that 9-11 didn’t occur then obliviously you didn’t read my post, I didn’t say it didn’t occur I asked the question if the U.S government was behind the attack then why make it so complicated ? But then again now I think about it I think you saw that I was new to this site and thought you could give me a bit of friendly hassle in gibberish, you crazy kid !!!