Sincere help for 9/11 debunkers

Dont buy it.

Getting old now.

Go find your pay dirt in a cow manure pile.

Actually....

Would'nt the OP be basically saying that your mind either covers up the trauma or your mind is already so messed up that to see the truth doesn't actually harm you so you have no need to ignore it?

Frankly, if you wanna be angry with anyone for these 911 'attacks' then the finger should be pointed squarely at the American government because it was their fault either way:

Either they,

A. Destroyed the towers themselves for some evil agenda

or

B. The towers got destroyed because the U.S gov has made it it's business to systematically bomb the [rude word] out of so many countries that it was bound to happen that one of em would exact a little (and yes 911 was nothing compared with what U.S and allied military has done) revenge or perhaps the word 'vengence' would be more appropriate.

American people are great. no better or worse then anyone else. It's the people in charge of the American military that are the f-tards.

Agree or not, this is a bystanders pov. I have nothing to gain by backing either side. i'm just calling it how i see it.

I think this scene from Men in Black explains our situation well:



As a country united, under 1 political leader....we will NEVER come to terms with 9/11 being a conspiracy. It will always be a legacy of fear, just like the JFK assassination. (Yup we all still believe that one too)

Until conspiracy theorists start acting as revolutionaries & do their job, we will sit here and do nothing except whine, complain and argue with FBI informants on sites like this.

We all must do our part if we want change and love this country. If not, GTFO and stop pretending to care.

how are you suppose to get facts regarding 9/11.

you can't get near cheney, bush and rumsfeld without running into a wall of armed secret service body guards.

then you're left with option "b". schedule an interview with them.

which would leave you at square one. they can say no. or if they do say yes, it's with a mainstream media outlet of their choosing.

which involves cash, final production approval, pre-screened questions and final say if it makes it on to the air.

that leaves the only reasonable option left; a whistle blower. finding a whistle blower is near impossible.

first any conspirators with hard knowledge were chosen with 1000% loyalty and trust in mind.

if by some act of God they were freed from this grip, then they would have to be dodging hit squads. because if its a choice between cheney, bush and rumsfeld going to jail, or a minion, the choice is a no brainer in their view.

basically, someone with knowledge has to go to God, ask His protection and clean his soul.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

So why does the 911 conspiracy only exist in cyberspace?

With cyberspace one can only express one's true interpretations without having there lives ruined. I could never express my signature within my industry. Get it?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

If there is some obvious universal truth about 9/11 being an "inside job" how come truthers have come up with 1001 different scenarios but no hard facts ?

You want facts? Read my factual signature.

Originally posted by -PLB-

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.

Its not obvious at all. You have absolutely no clue what an event like this should look like. Nobody in the world could have predicted it with any certainty. The idea that you somehow know stuff like this is some sort of psychological condition. Mostly harmless though.

The difference is in how your mind processes this information.

This is true. Looking at Youtube videos and making some uneducated guesses isn't the way I process data. I base my opinion on studies of experts instead. Simply because I fully acknowledge that I do not posses the required education, training and expertise to form a relevant opinion about the subject. For some reason many people in the truth movement are under the impression their opinion does matter. There is only one way to make your opinion matter, which is scientific publication. Something that the truth movement is completely lacking.

As for the idea that I reject this controlled demolition idea because of a trauma, I think it is extremely far fetched. I don't care that much about the whole 9/11 event or its victims. Sure its not nice for those people who suffered, but # happens all the time. I feel more sorry for all the people who are still suffering from wars every day. When you put the whole event in perspective, its not really that devastating, except for a dent in the ego of the USA or the west in general.

So instead of becoming your own expert you blindly believe some certified-professional-government-employee? Says a lot about your self esteem.

reply to post by soulwaxer


I counter your op with this:

Only a few truthers really want to know the truth. most of the others want the glory and bragging rights to finding the smoking gun.

I've seen sooooo many threads containing the word PROOF! and yet I haven't seen any proof.

how many times is someone going to go through all the different forms of thermite known to man, and try to cut through the type of beam used in the WTC... only to see nothing but burn marks.

How many threads on wtc 7 are there going to be about silverstein "pulling" it when the audio was played on national tv of him saying to pull it because it was damaged

call me a paid shill if you'd like.. it doesn't matter because either way there is nothing truthers are going to be able to do about it if there was a smoking gun somewhere.

I'm Canadian and I remember clearly seeing on September 11th, on the news, a plane crash in WTC and taught :
"Well, I feel sad for the people that died but they had it coming for them with all the useless wars the US puts their nose into."

It's only later that I heard that the whole buildings came down and I was : "Hell no, a plane crash shouldn't bring down a whole building like that, it's way too heavy and solid."

When I saw on the net WTC 7 came down, that was it...I knew it was fishy. This didn't make sense at all.

As a Canadian, I didn't really think much more about it till a big movie about it came out, I don't remember which. Anyway, I was then 100% sure that this was planned and could of been stopped if they wanted to stop it, EVEN IF IT WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB.

I don't suffer any mental trauma and to me, it's clearly controlled demolitions, sorry to break your hearts.
Oh and if I want to push the knife even further, most people that deserved to die we're told not to be there on D-Day! :p

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Why didn't you just post "people disagree with me, therefore I'm going to try and ridicule them, because they don't see things my way"?

Would have saved you an awful lot of time.

This is ATS. We discuss. People have differing viewpoints. Not everyone sees things the same way.

If you want to dictate, get a blog, disable comments and do it there maybe?

I'm a fully qualified Civil Engineer. I don't see things your way and I don't believe any Engineer worth their salt would see it that way because of this simple logic.

9/11 is the rule, not the exception to the rule, because until 9/11 no one had deliberately flown two heavily laden 180tonne + airliners at speed into the side of buildings constructed like WTC1 and 2. Any comparisons made are completely invalid, because they don't match the circumstances at all. Its a unique event that hopefully we'll never see again.

Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and yes, most steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire. WTC 1 and 2 weren't most steel frame buildings, they had a fairly unique construction and although there have been fires in others steel frames, none of them were constructed in the same way, and none of them had been hit by a 180tonne + airliner doing in excess of 300mph

Does that line of reasoning make me mentall ill?

No.

Wrong !

Not a single skyscraper has dropped strait down do to fire,gravity,planes or whatever..only explosives. If you knew anything about construction you wouldn't speculate so much. And ,,fyi,,civil engineers know jack about structures nor involving anything in the vertical structural realm. 2nd, the planes didn't weigh 180tons each. They weighed 196tons, which you blindly believe 392tons of aluminum and fuel pulverized 1,200,000 tons of mild steel and reinforced concrete. In high-rise construction there is no unique collapses. Ever took a structures class? Probably not.


A plane impacting a structure on top floors does nothing to a structure that is stronger and heavier on the lower half of the structure. Which is common sense. The pancake theory is a theory ,which not a single independent study(s) involving a physical model or automated model has ever been done. Regardless ,the pancake theory doesn't explain why the core was also pulverized. Last time I checked cores don't have slabs. Get it?


You want a line of reasoning . Read my signature.


Civil engineer....pleeeease

And I also ask: If 9/11 was indeed an inside job, then why 5 years after when support was dwindling.. was there not another successful attack to gather renewed support?

One would think it would be easy.

But all of you seem to have trouble with the idea that of all the hundreds of aircraft flying everyday, that 4 could be hijacked, and piloted into some buildings... I'm pretty sure any pilot would say that the hardest parts are take off and landing. So anyone with some type of experience should be able to turn, straighten out, and dive a plane.

And many also seem to forget that the roof of both towers was a massive thick slab of concrete and steel...If the main support beam is compromised, especially near the top as it was, I do not think physics would dictate the roof toppling over the side...but instead come straight down... and appear as a controlled demo.

ETA: jet fuel doesn't have to completely melt steel in order for that steel while under load to be compromised... but it is capable of making the steel brittle, and weight can do the rest... think about it.

reply to post by samkent


Because the MSM is afraid to reveal the truth and those that own the MSM won't allow it to be revealed. The only free form of conspiracy expression is the interweb thingy.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

So why does the 911 conspiracy only exist in cyberspace?

im guessing ive talked to close to 1000 individuals in real life about 9/11, and about 7 believe the OS. It does exist outside the inteernet, its just everyone know authority wont do anything about it.

I used to think the ONLY sane argument to explain debunkers was that they were paid. Eventually even the most skeptical "scientists" accepted the mounting evidence that the world was in fact, round.

But then I had a discussion with my older brother. In his case it is extreme narcicism. Once he chooses a side, there is no way he will ever admit he is wrong. Eventually he resorts to personal attacks because it is too painful to admit he is wrong. The deeper it gets, the more impossible it becomes to ever admit it. Now it only takes about four syllables to get him screaming that I must have been dropped on my head.

If you ever meet him, don't say 911 or Ron Paul. He may have a heart attack.

reply to post by southtower


"Never" is way too fatalistic. Who says america will never come together? Once we get the 911 conspirators fitted for tight-fitting, knotty pine boxes, we need to turn our attention on who is behind the fracturing of American society.

How ignorant is white vs black, young vs old, Muslim vs Christian? As soon as we admit we are all in this together, we will have gotten to bottom of the problem.

the reason 911 worked so well is because of time. the average america wont care about anything outside a 5 year time span, due to various materials we ingest through our food and water supply.
So even though we are finally putting the pieces together...do you really expect to see a story on fox news or cbs on a 911 story tomorrow?

Originally posted by JustAHuman
reply to post by samkent

 

Because the MSM is afraid to reveal the truth and those that own the MSM won't allow it to be revealed.

I'' ll have to remember to add the above to the long and ever growing list of those who are part of this "inside job."

Thanks!

Originally posted by Foxy1
the reason 911 worked so well is because of time. the average america wont care about anything outside a 5 year time span, due to various materials we ingest through our food and water supply.
So even though we are finally putting the pieces together...do you really expect to see a story on fox news or cbs on a 911 story tomorrow?

No, some actually run documentaries occasionally. The real reason they don't run your version is because they run an appropriate substitute instead, Looney Tunes reruns!

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Why didn't you just post "people disagree with me, therefore I'm going to try and ridicule them, because they don't see things my way"?

Would have saved you an awful lot of time.

This is ATS. We discuss. People have differing viewpoints. Not everyone sees things the same way.

If you want to dictate, get a blog, disable comments and do it there maybe?

I'm a fully qualified Civil Engineer. I don't see things your way and I don't believe any Engineer worth their salt would see it that way because of this simple logic.

9/11 is the rule, not the exception to the rule, because until 9/11 no one had deliberately flown two heavily laden 180tonne + airliners at speed into the side of buildings constructed like WTC1 and 2. Any comparisons made are completely invalid, because they don't match the circumstances at all. Its a unique event that hopefully we'll never see again.

Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and yes, most steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire. WTC 1 and 2 weren't most steel frame buildings, they had a fairly unique construction and although there have been fires in others steel frames, none of them were constructed in the same way, and none of them had been hit by a 180tonne + airliner doing in excess of 300mph

Does that line of reasoning make me mentall ill?

No.

I agree that this line of reasoning does not make you mentally ill. I do think that many debunkers are unable to deal with a very horrible truth consciously, and that that is a natural defense mechanism. It's normal. We aren't built to easily integrate such things. We have emotions that get in the way, especially fear. Notice that in my OP, I mentioned having been in the same situation myself, but that I worked through it. Just as most debunkers are in the process of working through it.

I think your line of reasoning is limited though, and not very effective. There are indeed several aspects to what happened that are unique, but there are many aspects that are not. We can work with those. For example, an explosion is still an explosion, no matter what caused it. We all know what an explosion looks and sounds like. Just because an event has never happened before, doesn't mean that the laws of physics don't apply to it.

Look at it this way. Hitler killed millions of jews in gas chambers. That never happened before. Does that mean you can say "Oh, how do we know it was the gas that killed them? That never happened before on such a huge scale. We can't compare it to anything else." But when the camps were freed, inspecting the 'shower rooms' made that pretty clear, no? In the same line of reasoning, we can inspect the video images of 9/11 and draw many conclusions that point to explosions and cutter charges, even though the exact same scenario has never happened. By the way, every event is unique. No two events are exactly alike. That has never stopped us from drawing legitimate conclusions before. That is what I mean by your line of reasoning being ineffective. As far as it being limited, I need only point to your omission of WTC 7.

Some posters seem to have misunderstood my comments on the scientific community not being reliable (look at all the conflicting conclusions reached by NIST). I did not say that science isn't reliable. In that sense, I have more trust in my own instincts and feel for physics than what Joe scientist tells me. I have some experience in redesigning and rebuilding the structure of brick houses, including structural steel and foundations. I didn't need a degree in architecture or engineering to do that. All I needed was a basic understanding of and feel for physics, materials and a little bit of math. Several licensed architects have admired my work because I did things more efficiently than they were trained to do. They were not sufficiently trained to think outside the box.

When a monkey swings from branch to branch in the trees, how does it know which branches are strong enough to support it? Does it need a scientific degree for that, or does it rely on instinct and experience? They are pretty damn good at it by the way.

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate a productive discussion. I didn't mean to dictate and I apologize if I came across that way. I do have a tendency to be confronting and I believe that can be helpful in certain situations. I do not like to sugar coat things.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by soulwaxer
I work in a very scientific environment with front runners in their field. I can assure you that they are not as reliable as you believe. On the contrary. Science is the new religion. I have much more confidence in my instincts.

But thank you for your post, especially the rest of it.

It is not so much the people, it is the method they use. Claiming it is a religion is just silly, given all the technological progress we have. Its a form of denial. The fact that you can communicate your opinion via a network of computers is the undeniable proof that is isn't anything like religion.

Let me clarify. Science has a tendency to ignore what can't be measured. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. That is based on belief, not on fact. For all things that can be measured, you can't go wrong with science. But in my opinion, the aspects of reality that cannot be measured far outweigh the ones that can be. That's where intuition can be very helpful. And intuition is very important in discovering new ideas.