How Dangerous is 9/11 Truth?

Originally posted by WoodSpirit

There weren't even real planes that hit the buildings on 911.


The above video is undeniable and just a part of the vast pool of evidence and proof of 911 video fakery.

edit on 24-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

Are there REALLY people who still eat this propaganda? This video is "undeniable"? Every single point is not only deniable, but wholly debunkable. Ace Baker is a fraud.

The problem with the "truth movement" in my opinion, is that none of it has presented a genuine, plausible theory (as witnessed above). Not even within the more "credible" schools of the movement such as A&E have they presented a legit theory.

What they propagate is an ANTI-theory. They can tell you why a collapse is impossible and why the NIST Report is a work of science fiction, but what they don't ever seem to present is a cohesive theory of what happened independent of a reaction against the "OS". You don't have a real theory if you can't present it without referencing the other "wrong" theory.

In other words, the truth movement presents everything in the negative. Their "theories" are built primarily on criticisms of the "false" theory. If the "false" theory didn't exist, what would they have? And on the occasion that they do attempt a positive theory, it's always incomplete.

This gets boring. Tell us how it was done without reference to how the others guys got it wrong. At least NIST, whether you believe it or not, endeavored to present a theory, a hypothesis of what happened which is self sufficient. Call it flawed if you like, but at least is stands on it's own without reference to the "wrong guys" as a cheap way to bolster the perceived veracity of their hypothesis.

If NIST is wrong--FINE--then TELL US HOW IT WAS DONE. I've yet to hear this without some mysterious, unproven, unknown, unsubstantiated, and purely speculative very large piece of the puzzle

Here's an example:

The truth about truth is that it hurts a lot.

This is a wonderful example. This discussion is so sad. It becomes a heated debate about who has the most silly looking ears. Maybe was from the start.

Physically.

The truth is: Few, if any, have provided a model on any scale for a structure that behaves as the twins did. Namely, progressively collapsing from top to bottom (bonus points for doing this just a few minutes after the initial impulse is given) yet.

I can come up with some. They require no explosives, aliens, free energy laser beams from outer space or nuclear bombs.

But I admit that all my models require a little mechanical thinking. They're clever inventions. They are MEANT to be destroyed. They're traps, not houses. And here's the candy: in order to make them work, everything must be precisely in place, otherwise it gets stuck (which the towers only did when the collapse front reached the underground stories).When things can go wrong with a structure, things fall off, tip, tilt, warp, break. Because falling through itself is real tough.

What physically has happened is a compression. This has to do with tension, pressure, volume and all that. Mathematically, this is the same approach Bazant has taken with his F*s model, physically, just from another viewpoint. Realistically, all of this has nothing to do with building a tower.

If you argue that psikeys model, or a house made of cards, or a jenga tower is better architecture than what experts are building, thouse should take some advise and stop building large houses because they don't know what they're doing.

And you may argue fire, plane, clear-cut steel beams, scraped-off fire insulation, trusses, kerosene, office material, furnace effect, gravity, scaling problems, unknown parameters all the way you want, each tower was, at the moment of collapse, 3 times weaker than it would have needed to support itself and was subjected to stresses magnitudes above its true tolerance.

No engineer will tell you that, because you would not believe, because you wouldn't want to believe, and you don't even know why you believe that what you think is true, so this engineer would still have "no clue" in your eyes. Because the experts say, that... the collapse was, quote: "inevitable" (NIST05, BZ/BV).

Fair enough, when challenging existing theories, one has to come up with a new explanation. Here are some.

There's something about steel which we don't know, there's something about large structures in general we don't know, there's something about complexity and metastable systems we don't know, there is something about relativistic, atmospheric or paranormal effects which we don't know - or all of it.

If you defend the explanation given by NIST, Bazant and others so far, my saying this will not make you stop and think about building a model of the WTC that collapses anything like the original did. You will instead ask for evidence from my part that the twins couldn't collapse they did, which of course I cannot, logically, because it is impossible to prove the nonexistance of something. There is still a slight chance that this was slipshod architecture. If so, it was fvxx0r3d up on such a massive, epic, grand scale, that someone would have knocked on some engineer's doors.

Understanding all this would not be without consequences and implications. These are huge.

To pull this thing off, the perps would have to have known that they'll get through with it. It would mean they had prepared it all. The process Feynman worries about in "Surely you're joking" - "experts" who understand nothing about their subject - would need to be completed, the fear, blindness and idiocy level of 1984 and The Matrix combined surpassed.

But it was also a wake-up call: from now on, the rules not just of physics, logic, love and peace have changed. Everybody knows something's not right, and everybody is trying to explain it away - even many of those "Experts for Truth", leading astray laymen who know intuitively - because they have worked with their hands, not with their noses in books - that something is very wrong with the picture we're getting of the world we're living in.

Others shrug it off because all the other explanations are so outlandish, the topic so complex and the experts have studied this stuff for years, they should know what they're talking about unless they're some paranoid crackpots.

The collapse was inevitable, on this we might agree. Some, because they genuinely believe towers collapse that way when struck by an airplane. Others, because it was planned, engineered, well lubricated, predicted and went "smooth" (for the most part).

In any case: these guys knew what they were doing. And we're still alive. Hooray for them, they know how to care about things, why should we worry? We're just stupid, uneducated laymen.

Oh, beware, it is dangerous, the truth, it will hurt, it will make you sad, because it is never what you think it is.

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I think most 'truthers' have pretty much got bored with even debating 911 now. It will never lead anywhere so what's the point. I just accept that it was a sham and nothing can be done to prove it.

Exactly the same conclusion I came to.

I mean, I still like to think about it and talk about it but I'm just not going to argue with people anymore. It's as simple as this. People are going to believe what they want to believe. There's no use in banging your head against people who have chosen what they are going to believe and will not be defeated by reason.

I happen to believe truth has a funny way of not staying buried. Maybe in the past when the only way things got recorded was on paper or cave walls or passed down from generation to generation by memory. Things could maybe be hidden.

Unless something happens that wipes out just about everything, electronics and recordings will not forget 9/11.

I don't think there's any hope for truthers to convince a world that has made it's decision. I think it's better to invest our energy in figuring out how this event has shaped our world (and will continue to) and how it (and other such events) are being exploited.

The debunkers can successfully argue that 9/11 itself wasn't a conspiracy. They find it much harder to argue that TPTB didn't exploit it to the hilt.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


Thanks for the reply, I agree with you 100%.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I think most 'truthers' have pretty much got bored with even debating 911 now. It will never lead anywhere so what's the point. I just accept that it was a sham and nothing can be done to prove it.

Exactly the same conclusion I came to.

I mean, I still like to think about it and talk about it but I'm just not going to argue with people anymore. It's as simple as this. People are going to believe what they want to believe. There's no use in banging your head against people who have chosen what they are going to believe and will not be defeated by reason.

I happen to believe truth has a funny way of not staying buried. Maybe in the past when the only way things got recorded was on paper or cave walls or passed down from generation to generation by memory. Things could maybe be hidden.

Unless something happens that wipes out just about everything, electronics and recordings will not forget 9/11.

I don't think there's any hope for truthers to convince a world that has made it's decision. I think it's better to invest our energy in figuring out how this event has shaped our world (and will continue to) and how it (and other such events) are being exploited.

The debunkers can successfully argue that 9/11 itself wasn't a conspiracy. They find it much harder to argue that TPTB didn't exploit it to the hilt.

The thing is, truthers' as people call them are generally not preachers. It's the 'debunkers' in this world that seem to preach their views more forcefully.

Obviously the 9/11 cover up is a white-wash, and due to the rigging of reports and evidence, and with lack of clout in the MSM the 'truthers' will never reach the masses like the dubious 'official story'.

People are under no illusion, but it does not stop them finding the truth. Gradually more and more people are learning about what really happened on 9/11. I know all the debunking types seem to think there is no 'evidence' but they just deliberately choose to ignore the real evidence, just like the 9/11 reports did.

There will always be people on the 9/11 trail, don't think for one minute they have rolled over, but alas, it most likely will never go anywhere unless the government is removed! And that is highly unlikely.

Most people do not delve into physics, so they know only the minority of educated folk will notice that 9/11 broke many laws of physics. There are a lot of debunker's who try to argue the laws of physics, and they may convince those who are not so well informed in the study of physics, but those that truly know the subject can see what really happened on 9/11.

The laws of physics cannot be broken, no matter how debunkers try to bend those laws.

I've not posted on here in a while, seems a lot of regular 'truthers' have been banned? But all the regular debunkers are not banned. Why is it always 'truthers' that seem to get banned on ATS?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah it's paper loops but it is only 4 pounds.

A floor assembly in the WTC was 750 tons.

I guess psikeyhackr has abandoned his thread. Ah well, Hi, Akareyon. Good to see you still around.

How dangerous is 9/11 truth? When I walk away from my computer, it goes away. Like it doesn't exist and never existed. Probably not too dangerous.

i think the danger lies in the fact that people could know the truth, but no agency or security system would try to prosecute anyone who would be involved. Follow the money i suppose. And the conspiracy trail.

its like asking how pedophile is jref.