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.

 

Sincere help for 9/11 debunkers

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer
For people with eyes that see, it is obvious that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was controlled demolition. And it is therefore quite amazing that 9/11 debunkers are seemingly unable to see this.

Here is my theory on that: You debunkers have the same eyes as the rest of us, and therefore can also see the obvious. The difference is in how your mind processes this information. For most of you, this has nothing to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with emotional trauma. So most of you actually do see the obvious, but are unable to face this emotionally which causes your mind to store that information in the subconscious. Your mind has this natural defense mechanism that keeps you from losing it. But the information is still there along with the emotions related to it, and that causes a strong conflict in the mind between the conscious and the subconscious. In order to restore a sense of peace, you will put a lot of effort into trying to solve the conflict. That, dear debunkers, is why you spend so much time trying to debunk an idea you think is ridiculous. Why else would you do that? Surely not because you enjoy it or don't have anything better to do. No, it is more likely that you have a huge internal conflict that desperately needs solving. For this reason, I don't believe that many 9/11 debunkers are shills for whoever orchestrated this event. The latter must have been fully aware of the psychological dynamics in humans (which is probably why they went to such lengths to make it look so apocalyptic). They haven't really had the need for shills in forums like ATS. You are doing a great job of playing that role all by yourselves, be it unknowingly and for different and more respectable reasons. It's not your fault, it's a natural defense mechanism. Understanding that will help you to solve your conflict.

Psychological trauma (wikipedia):



A traumatic event involves a single experience, or an enduring or repeating event or events, that completely overwhelm the individual's ability to cope or integrate the ideas and emotions involved with that experience. The sense of being overwhelmed can be delayed by weeks, years or even decades, as the person struggles to cope with the immediate circumstances. Psychological trauma can lead to serious long-term negative consequences that are often overlooked even by mental health professionals: "If clinicians fail to look through a trauma lens and to conceptualize client problems as related possibly to current or past trauma, they may fail to see that trauma victims, young and old, organize much of their lives around repetitive patterns of reliving and warding off traumatic memories, reminders, and affects."[1] Trauma can be caused by a wide variety of events, but there are a few common aspects. There is frequently a violation of the person's familiar ideas about the world and of their human rights, putting the person in a state of extreme confusion and insecurity. This is also seen when people or institutions, depended on for survival, violate or betray or disillusion the person in some unforeseen way.[2]


So there you have it. 9/11 was, above all, a psychological attack. And you, dear debunkers, are the victims. But there is hope. At least something deep inside you is actively trying to deal with your conflict and not completely ignoring it by turning it's focus to meaningless subjects like Lady Gaga or whatever. And if you have made it this far in my post, then I truly believe you can make it all the way.

Oh, and just in case you are going to project the same type of conflict onto us 'truthers', the reason that we spend so much time on these issues is far different from yours. We have been able to integrate this horrible and obvious truth into consciousness (which I assure you is a bit of a mission that took myself several weeks to get through), and are therefore fully aware of what we are doing and for what purpose. We are trying to help people like you to come to terms with reality so that we can change it for the better. I, for one, wish you the best of luck. Not only out of a sense of compassion, but also so that I or at least my children can live in a more free society based on reality.

To any debunker thinking of replying, please seriously think about why you spend your time doing so, and consider stating the reason in your reply. Just as I have stated my own reasons for spending my time on spreading my own views.

Thanks for reading.


This is exactly why the perps hired Philip Zelikow




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Thanks for your post.

Please read my own reply to that post, about 15 minutes ago.


Thanks for your reply to the post I replied to, but you really didn't reply to my post. But I didn't really expect one anyway.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by zipobibrok

It's a misinformation tactic. It dilutes the truth and makes 9/11 conspiracy theorists all look like nutters.


Not only that, but there is no unified 'truth movement', so why should we have a unified opinion?

There are just thousands of individuals asking questions. The OS supporters like to stereotype, using the most ludicrous claims, in order to make it easier to demonize and dismiss. Just another tactic that makes them appear to have a unified agenda, but seriously you can trace their arguments back to about three websites. They just repeat what is said on those sites over and over again.


LMFAO... what claim is NOT ludicrous? Anok, your share claim with many other truthers is this:

The US Government - or some other secret agency conspired to destroy three buildings using planes and pre-planted explosives.

This secret mission was carried out in three of the largest buildings on the eastern seaboard. We should believe that this team of black-op demolition experts were able to install bombs, det cord, and receivers through out these buildings. They got past the bomb sniffing dogs, security, building management, elevator workers, etc in a building that is operating 24 hours a day 356 days a year and successfully planted all needed equipment to destroy these buildings.

If you had a single clue as to how large buildings operate, you would know that your claim is as ludicrous as the No-Planers, Pod Plane People, and the Judy Wood Space- Shots.

As previously requested, I would like your take on things Anok... you know, the how's and why's.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by soulwaxer

Hey guess what!
You didn't provide us with any story. You got your story from the mainstream media. THEY provided it.

So...... what's YOUR story?


And their story came from real people who were there and witnessed the events.

Are you having trouble putting together a logical "Official Truther Story" using "Real Truther Facts" ?

Until you give us a better one, this one will have to do. It was pieced together from evidence given to us by real Truthers.


The views of many truthers also came from real people who were there and witnessed the events. You're not seriously going to deny that are you? These days, you often get much more authentic witness videos from people using their cellphones than from the "official" television crews. An 8-year-old kid could be the best reporter available if he is in the right place at the right time. You have noticed this phenomenon, haven't you?

As for your need for me to put together a logical "Official Truther Story": Please reread my OP and take a serious look in the mirror.

I'm just telling you what I would have appreciated myself when I was still unable to see certain things as they are. The tone in which you write tells me something about your distress when dealing with this subject. I could very well be wrong about that, but I'm telling you like I see it.




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by soulwaxer
For people with eyes that see, it is obvious that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was controlled demolition. And it is therefore quite amazing that 9/11 debunkers are seemingly unable to see this.

Here is my theory on that: You debunkers have the same eyes as the rest of us, and therefore can also see the obvious. The difference is in how your mind processes this information. For most of you, this has nothing to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with emotional trauma. So most of you actually do see the obvious, but are unable to face this emotionally which causes your mind to store that information in the subconscious. Your mind has this natural defense mechanism that keeps you from losing it. But the information is still there along with the emotions related to it, and that causes a strong conflict in the mind between the conscious and the subconscious. In order to restore a sense of peace, you will put a lot of effort into trying to solve the conflict. That, dear debunkers, is why you spend so much time trying to debunk an idea you think is ridiculous. Why else would you do that? Surely not because you enjoy it or don't have anything better to do. No, it is more likely that you have a huge internal conflict that desperately needs solving. For this reason, I don't believe that many 9/11 debunkers are shills for whoever orchestrated this event. The latter must have been fully aware of the psychological dynamics in humans (which is probably why they went to such lengths to make it look so apocalyptic). They haven't really had the need for shills in forums like ATS. You are doing a great job of playing that role all by yourselves, be it unknowingly and for different and more respectable reasons. It's not your fault, it's a natural defense mechanism. Understanding that will help you to solve your conflict.

Psychological trauma (wikipedia):



A traumatic event involves a single experience, or an enduring or repeating event or events, that completely overwhelm the individual's ability to cope or integrate the ideas and emotions involved with that experience. The sense of being overwhelmed can be delayed by weeks, years or even decades, as the person struggles to cope with the immediate circumstances. Psychological trauma can lead to serious long-term negative consequences that are often overlooked even by mental health professionals: "If clinicians fail to look through a trauma lens and to conceptualize client problems as related possibly to current or past trauma, they may fail to see that trauma victims, young and old, organize much of their lives around repetitive patterns of reliving and warding off traumatic memories, reminders, and affects."[1] Trauma can be caused by a wide variety of events, but there are a few common aspects. There is frequently a violation of the person's familiar ideas about the world and of their human rights, putting the person in a state of extreme confusion and insecurity. This is also seen when people or institutions, depended on for survival, violate or betray or disillusion the person in some unforeseen way.[2]


So there you have it. 9/11 was, above all, a psychological attack. And you, dear debunkers, are the victims. But there is hope. At least something deep inside you is actively trying to deal with your conflict and not completely ignoring it by turning it's focus to meaningless subjects like Lady Gaga or whatever. And if you have made it this far in my post, then I truly believe you can make it all the way.

Oh, and just in case you are going to project the same type of conflict onto us 'truthers', the reason that we spend so much time on these issues is far different from yours. We have been able to integrate this horrible and obvious truth into consciousness (which I assure you is a bit of a mission that took myself several weeks to get through), and are therefore fully aware of what we are doing and for what purpose. We are trying to help people like you to come to terms with reality so that we can change it for the better. I, for one, wish you the best of luck. Not only out of a sense of compassion, but also so that I or at least my children can live in a more free society based on reality.

To any debunker thinking of replying, please seriously think about why you spend your time doing so, and consider stating the reason in your reply. Just as I have stated my own reasons for spending my time on spreading my own views.

Thanks for reading.


This is exactly why the perps hired Philip Zelikow


JACKPOT!

How obvious is that?!!


Thanks brother.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
You haven't heard a good explanation?? What! Are you deaf dumb and blind? You really think "fire" can cause a building to just drop . Really??Why don't you copy 'n paste my signature and send it to Government-employee Robert Blanchard. Let's see if he can decipher , find any holes, in that. I suggest you learn high-rise construction before posting nonsense. reply to post by lunarasparagus
 



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by soulwaxer
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Thanks for your post.

Please read my own reply to that post, about 15 minutes ago.


Thanks for your reply to the post I replied to, but you really didn't reply to my post. But I didn't really expect one anyway.


I'm sorry you see it that way. This is my first thread, and I'm not very efficient navigating through it while I'm posting.

Maybe the reason you didn't get a reply is because you didn't expect one.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 

The reason I didn't expect a reply is because I've yet to get any reasonable explanations for the questions I posed, so I doubted that you would be able provide me with any.


edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


You haven't heard a good explanation?? What! Are you deaf dumb and blind? You really think "fire" can cause a building to just drop . Really??Why don't you copy 'n paste my "signature" and send it to Government-employee Robert Blanchard. Let's see if he can decipher , find any holes, in that. I suggest you learn high-rise construction before posting nonsense.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You haven't heard a good explanation?? What! Are you deaf dumb and blind? You really think "fire" can cause a building to just drop . Really??Why don't you copy 'n paste my signature and send it to Government-employee Robert Blanchard. Let's see if he can decipher , find any holes, in that. I suggest you learn high-rise construction before posting nonsense.
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 



Above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let me see if I get it right:

That I raise the point that fire officials predicted or anticipated WTC7's collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage means that I'm "deaf dumb and blind". Is that right? I mean . . . maybe. I'm not sure what being "deaf dumb" is, so I can't really say, but I'm pretty sure I'm not blind. Maybe I am though.

Regarding Blanchard (I think you mean Brent Blanchard), everything he says should be dismissed because his company has done contracted work for the government, therefore he's a liar and an accomplice to mass murder.

And EVERYTHING I posted is nonsense, because there are no holes in the controlled demolition theory, and if I "learn high-rise construction" it would all become clear to me.

I get it now. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You haven't heard a good explanation?? What! Are you deaf dumb and blind? You really think "fire" can cause a building to just drop . Really??Why don't you copy 'n paste my signature and send it to Government-employee Robert Blanchard. Let's see if he can decipher , find any holes, in that. I suggest you learn high-rise construction before posting nonsense.
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 



Above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let me see if I get it right:

That I raise the point that fire officials predicted or anticipated WTC7's collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage means that I'm "deaf dumb and blind". Is that right? I mean . . . maybe. I'm not sure what being "deaf dumb" is, so I can't really say, but I'm pretty sure I'm not blind. Maybe I am though.

Regarding Blanchard (I think you mean Brent Blanchard), everything he says should be dismissed because his company has done contracted work for the government, therefore he's a liar and an accomplice to mass murder.

And EVERYTHING I posted is nonsense, because there are no holes in the controlled demolition theory, and if I "learn high-rise construction" it would all become clear to me.

I get it now. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



You're dumb,deaf and blind because you ignore your own logical interpretation on what happened on 911. You,,rather accept someone else's assessment because they are certified professionals. Get it?

You don't want to think for yourself , you let other do that for you. Get it?

Perfect example is you posting material from Blanchard. You don't even know the dude. But you googled the jackass and it benefited your agenda. Get it?

And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?


You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?



So, you know a lot about high-rise construction? That's great.



You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on






"signature:
2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers"


Prove that steel was "pulverized" - you can't, therefore your signature is flawed.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


So what exactly do you believe can "pulverize" 3 steel/concrete towers weighting 1200 ton? (and what if I assert that it can't, would you swallow that?)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer


The views of many truthers also came from real people who were there and witnessed the events. You're not seriously going to deny that are you?


Really? Can you list them? Where are the truthers?

Flight 93 - I know of not a single person that was at the Shanksville crash sight that does not believe Flight 93 crashed there.

Flight 77 - Not a single witness to the crash has come forward and stated that flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon. As far as I know, only April Gallop is a truther that was at the Pentagon.

Flights 11 and 175 - One FDNY firefighter is a truther - his name escapes me. There was also that other guy "McPadden" who heard the "countdown" on the Red Cross radio.

Perhaps you know of some people that were there and believe that the collapses of 1,2 and 7 were controlled demolitions?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Prove that steel was "pulverized" - you can't, therefore your signature is flawed.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


All the proof one needs is in the collapse videos. Open your friggin eyes and you might see it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You're dumb,deaf and blind because you ignore your own logical interpretation on what happened on 911. You,,rather accept someone else's assessment because they are certified professionals. Get it?

You don't want to think for yourself , you let other do that for you. Get it?

Perfect example is you posting material from Blanchard. You don't even know the dude. But you googled the jackass and it benefited your agenda. Get it?

And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?


You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on

It's possible that you might also be "deaf dumb". In order to investigate this, do the following:

Look up the Dunning–Kruger effect (since you imply that you have "learned high-rise construction".

Then learn something about the Overconfidence effect.

Next, study up on what a Credible witness is (e.g., FDNY fire officers).

Finally get some feedback on your signature (which you keep referring to) from people who are unbiased and reasonably intelligent and see if my hunch is correct that they will also find it sophomoric, meaningless, and totally irrelevant.

edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Flight 93 - I know of not a single person that was at the Shanksville crash sight that does not believe Flight 93 crashed there.





posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You haven't heard a good explanation?? What! Are you deaf dumb and blind? You really think "fire" can cause a building to just drop . Really??Why don't you copy 'n paste my signature and send it to Government-employee Robert Blanchard. Let's see if he can decipher , find any holes, in that. I suggest you learn high-rise construction before posting nonsense.
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 



Above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let me see if I get it right:

That I raise the point that fire officials predicted or anticipated WTC7's collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage means that I'm "deaf dumb and blind". Is that right? I mean . . . maybe. I'm not sure what being "deaf dumb" is, so I can't really say, but I'm pretty sure I'm not blind. Maybe I am though.

Regarding Blanchard (I think you mean Brent Blanchard), everything he says should be dismissed because his company has done contracted work for the government, therefore he's a liar and an accomplice to mass murder.

And EVERYTHING I posted is nonsense, because there are no holes in the controlled demolition theory, and if I "learn high-rise construction" it would all become clear to me.

I get it now. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


You think that fire officials predicted the collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage? While NIST and so many others couldn't decide on what caused the collapse, after years of analyzing all the data??



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?



So, you know a lot about high-rise construction? That's great.



You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on






"signature:
2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers"


Prove that steel was "pulverized" - you can't, therefore your signature is flawed.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


Sure I can. Lend me money to build a clone WTC tower and I'll provide a 767 ,and I guarantee the tower will not drop .

Your statement doesn't debunk anything. My signature proves the obvious fabricating of facts by NIST and all you OSers.


My signature shows you the "numbers". Numbers do not lie. Its 392tons vs 1,200,000 tons. Just put aside the make of the materials for a moment. Again ,just look at sheer size differential of the numbers,


392tons vs 1,200,000tons

then add the material composites,

Aluminum vs Mild Steel/Reinforced Concrete

Are you starting see how dumb you are?

And all that destruction happened on one day? Sure my friend


Where's the proof a pancake theory actually happened? And how does the pancake theory pulverize a reinforced-concrete-steel-tubed CORE structure?

How's your self esteem right now? Low?


If it makes you feel better,feel free to substitute the word pulverize with"destroy". Can you can still debunk it?

Carry on



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Originally posted by soulwaxer

You think that fire officials predicted the collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage? While NIST and so many others couldn't decide on what caused the collapse, after years of analyzing all the data??

Sorry, my fault for taking their own testimonies seriously.

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)



edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join