This is how normal people discuss 9/11

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes I agree it was a unique design indeed......packed with demo charges.

Not to oversimplify.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


There is zero proof of any conventional demolition charges

Nor was there any barium nitrite found int WTC dust to support the use of terminate (thermite cannot cut steel)

WTC7 is not the smoking gun you think it is

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


WTC7 isn't the smoking gun. The effective deception from my government is.

As I am sure you are aware, nothing I say or evidence i share would change your opinion. You can say otherwise but we all know the truth. Nothing you say can sway my opinion, because unlike many i form my own opinion through my own research. Sites like ATS is just a site to banter and let off steam. I form my own reality from my experience and my experience of the US government and her "friends" is all the smoking guns i need.

I've read the 911 commission report, I've read PNAC, I've have watched documentaries ad nauseam. None of them matter.

I also know what my government did to start or become involved in other wars. I know her allies will stop at nothing for their own ends. I know how money is funneled and how seemingly harmless activities amount to treason of the highest order. I also know I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, I'm just here.

By way of deception thou shall wage war......

Stay sacred.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

And..........

That makes how many floors per second? With furniture and a super duper command center? Didn't slow it down even to make it one floor per second. That Crazy.

Have you forgotten it was burning all day without a drop of water from the sprinklers?
Most of the contents were ashes by the time of the collapse.

This super duper command center you speak of.
Was it a beef up structure? Or just another floor with extras?

reply to post by Rosinitiate

WTC7 isn't the smoking gun

Good something we can agree on, to some extent at least.

As I am sure you are aware, nothing I say or evidence i share would change your opinion

Nothing could be further from the truth, if you could provide me with a something real, something solid that really questions the official 9/11 narrative then i will gladly take a look at it and appraise it and if i think it has some value then I will change my current views regarding 9/11 accordingly.

Nothing you say can sway my opinion, because unlike many i form my own opinion through my own research

the most ignorant thing you can do is claim to know everything and by claiming that your opinion wont change because you've done your research implies that you know all you need to know about the topic at hand and have nothing else to learn about it and as such your opinion wont change. I have done loads of research into 9/11 and my views on the matter have changed drastically since i first became interested in the 9/11 truth movement way back in 2005.

Sites like ATS is just a site to banter and let off steam.

Good something else we can agree upon, although i would add that ATS can also be used to further our knowledge of topics like 9/11

I've read the 911 commission report, I've read PNAC, I've have watched documentaries ad nauseam. None of them matter.

they dont matter?

what?

you dont think that the investigation into the attacks of 9/11 really matters all that much.....

you cant just dismiss this stuff, I have read the report and the reports form NIST and FEMA as well as other reports into 9/11 form academics and i have also seen all the conspiracy documentaries and read the books about 9/11 truth. they all matter when trying to understand the events that took place that day.

Stay sacred.

of what?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Please bare with me. I'm using an iPad so can't copy quotes and crap easily. So:

I never claimed to be all knowing, you are putting words in my mouth. I simply stated i form "my reality" through my experiences, which include my own research. I'd imagine you do the same.

Please don't throw the word ignorance around. I'd wager you are a smarter bloke then that. Ignorance is someone who says "what's a commission report?" Or "Fukushima Daichi huh?"

I also disagree that ATS is a good place to get knowledge on 911. Way way too many disinformation agents. I mean really.....

Lastly yes the 911 commission report doesn't matter. Why? Can we say whitewash boys and girls? ......I knew you could!

You don't have to stay sacred....in fact most don't.

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

And..........

That makes how many floors per second? With furniture and a super duper command center? Didn't slow it down even to make it one floor per second. That Crazy.

Have you forgotten it was burning all day without a drop of water from the sprinklers?
Most of the contents were ashes by the time of the collapse.

I don't think that's true. Most of the contents were not burned.

This super duper command center you speak of.
Was it a beef up structure? Or just another floor with extras?

You can find articles and videos from 1999 where they make it sound like it is literally a building inside a building.

But when the SHTF it didn't even hold up 30 seconds.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


It is quite clear to me that our research has led us to different conclusions, I doubt that it would ever be possible for to two sides of this particular coin to reach a consensus.

It does make for interesting debate however, so thank you for the discusion.

I apologies for my liberal use of the word "ignorant", I was merely trying to convey the pitfalls of taking a close mined approach in claiming that "my opinion will never change". I myself was once a hardcore truther so i can understand a respect your views despite disagreeing with your believes in the strongest possible way.

reply to post by whatsecret

I don't think that's true. Most of the contents were not burned.

Due to burst water main's the lower 20 floors of WTC-7 did not have any sprinkler system working, it momentarily went on but then cut-off as there was no more water left in the pipes. the upper floors sprinkler system did work however there were no significant fires on these floors that have been documented. most of the fire was in the lower floors, there was no attempt to extinguish any of the fires inside WTC-7

You can find articles and videos from 1999 where they make it sound like it is literally a building inside a building.

well it wasn't...

That "bunker" was only as strong as the building it was housed in, which in the case of WTC-7 was really quite week as i have already explained.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


My opinions do change but not because someone tells me too but because I receive new information that fits into my reality, forcing me to think anew. Example: I once thought there couldn't be a worse president the George Bush, then Obama was elected. The new experience shifted my reality. My new truth is there is no way there could be a worse president than Obama.

Likewise, thanks for the back and forth.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Due to burst water main's the lower 20 floors of WTC-7 did not have any sprinkler system working, it momentarily went on but then cut-off as there was no more water left in the pipes. the upper floors sprinkler system did work however there were no significant fires on these floors that have been documented. most of the fire was in the lower floors, there was no attempt to extinguish any of the fires inside WTC-7

Yes I know all that. Still a 47-story skyscraper collapsed completely to the ground in 17 seconds. That's crazy.

reply to post by whatsecret


Crazy but due to the uniqueness of WTC-7 it really did happen and it can all be explained

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Crazy but due to the uniqueness of WTC-7 it really did happen and it can all be explained

If you mean NIST explained it, then I disagree.

reply to post by whatsecret


on what grounds to do you disagree with NIST.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

on what grounds to do you disagree with NIST.

On the grounds of them not releasing the computer model documents to give people the opportunity to reproduce the scenario and come up with the same results.

reply to post by whatsecret


that's fair enough but I bet you would believe that they used termite to blow up the buildings based on MR Jones findings even though he refuses to allow others to view his samples.

reply to post by whatsecret

I do not have my own theory, I just have a opinion as informed as possible. There's a enormous coverup continuing to this day. That's my only claim.

I must say, you've about described where I am as well. Many theories exist and some are mutually exclusive from one another. Part of the problem, I'd say. The "truthers" have competing theories and don't understand they lose ALL interest of the public when debating which one is right. Heck, a good % of the public call it ALL wrong and laugh at the fact theory people even debate it for which wrong is more right.

Ultimately? I think what you say right there is all any of us CAN be 100% certain on. Witnesses were NOT heard from. Things which happened that day were NOT fully explained and damn sure not to an average man's satisfaction on any level. SOMETHING stinks in all that and it could be the WHOLE thing stinks.....I just don't think we can even be sure of that much. Maddening isn't it?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

that's fair enough but I bet you would believe that they used termite to blow up the buildings based on MR Jones findings even though he refuses to allow others to view his samples.

Don't bet too much on it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Things which happened that day were NOT fully explained and damn sure not to an average man's satisfaction on any level. SOMETHING stinks in all that and it could be the WHOLE thing stinks.....

The average man barely understands why an apple falls from a tree.
Nevermind the physics of fire.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I don't need my own explanation to see that the official one is not true. It's really very simple, but I expect you will find it hard to understand. Have you ever heard an expression " I don't have to be right for you to be wrong"?

Ummmm, actually, yes you do need your own explanation, especially when you're the one trying to convince other people that they're wrong. You aren't telling people they're wrong for believing in a supernatural deity, or for believing Android is better than Apple, or for thinking that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream, because those are just personal opinions. You're trying to tell people they're wrong for accepting established facts which has demonstratable proof, like photos of aircraft wreckage to show it really was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, or news footage of flames to show there really were large scale fires burning in WTC 7.

Those people have every right to want to know why the information they've seen is incorrect and you can't just tell people to disregard it "because you told them to" and then expect them to take you seriously. How is that not doing exactly the same thing that you're accusing the government (or the military industrial complex, or big oil, or Israel, or Xenu the galactic overlord, or whoever it is you believe is pulling the strings) of doing?