9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: firerescue

Unless it was a possibly illegal knife, like a switchblade, or a double edge blade, if it wasn't obviously over 4", we didn't even look twice, no matter where it was carried. We had too many passengers, and too many other things to look for to worry about legal knives.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: neutronflux

It is against the terms of service for me to say how I feel about your question.

I will point out that such trolls tend to have VERY LOW power ratings. Like a "15" for example.

Low scores because they go on facts and evidence? Don't play the game where conspiracists pat each other on their backs?

Oh? you got a link? I want to talk about the false narratives of the 9/11 truth movement!

Again.....

Self destructing buildings.

Rebar covered in C-4.

Lasers and Holograms.

Missiles and holograms.

Nuclear bombs in diesel tanks.

WTC towers brought down by explosives in fire extinguishers.

Did each floor of the WTC towers need explosives to reach NEAR free fall speeds? One explosive device per floor under the impacts? That is still at least 60 charges per tower? A total of 120 demolition charges? No sound of at least one charge detonating captured on one of the most recorded disasters of our times?

Russian missiles stolen from a sunken sub.

Richard Gage, Fizzle no flash bombs.

EA 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 never pursing freedom of information acts to release computer modeling data.

Steven Jone? Thermite ceiling tiles. Fraudulent peer review papers. Experiments in which results could not be reproduced.

The false narrative the WTC steel was shipped to China and not treated as part of an investigation?

Dr Wood, energy weapons, and dustification.

a reply to: neutronflux

I never said I believe any of those theories.

Understand this, the official story is a lie. It doesn't mean hologram planes or nukes or necessarily anything else is true that you listed.

What are you asking me to link for you?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Start with a point you think is a lie?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

An example that proves the USA was behind the destruction of the WTC towers?

And quote from my posts where I believe in the official narrative 100 percent? More straw man arguments.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: neutronflux

I never said I believe any of those theories.

Understand this, the official story is a lie. It doesn't mean hologram planes or nukes or necessarily anything else is true that you listed.

What are you asking me to link for you?

The title of this thread is: 9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

And I listed 9/11 conspiracies?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you saying by proxy the 9/11 truth movement does put out false narratives in their desperation for a smoking gun, and debunkers are right to be skeptical concerning the numerous truth movement narratives?

a reply to: neutronflux
Okay, here is a short list. Got your talking points ready? I hand typed these. I could easily triple this list, with no issue but time.

1. That Building 7's collapse as unexpected, sudden, and due to fires. Massive evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse exists, and its collapse was unprecedented. This whole story is an obvious lie, and it puts the rest of the flimsy official "conspiracy theory" in major doubt.

2. While not technically a lie, it was a glaring omission to exclude evidence of explosions and to ignore the incredible evidence of foreknowledge with the stock market.

3. I don't believe that jet fuel and office fires can take down high rises, so I think the sorry of how 1 and 2 collapsed is also a lie. I am however much more stunned by Bldg 7's collapse. Significant evidence exists of melted steel, and explosions.

4. "We will go after nations who sponsor terrorism", yet they invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't invade Saudi Arabia (instead they reward SA with huge military deals). That statement after 9/11 was a lie, and it indicates to me that other parts of the story are a lie as well.

5. I don't believe that we could not have intercepted the plane (if it was a plane) that hit the Pentagon. A jet intercept at the Pentagon should have been a no brainer. I think Norman Mineta's testimony is key to understanding that we purposefully didn't intercept that plane, or object.

6. I don't think they found a passport two blocks from the WTC, I believe it was planted. Come on, that alone stretches credibility, and it's a relatively minor point. .

7. I don't believe that the object that hit the Pentagon was a 757. I also don't think the plane could have mostly "vaporized"" while 190 samples of human DNA remained.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

5. Any interceptor they could have gotten to the Pentagon, after the controller mistake with the two alert fighters over Baltimore, would have been both unarmed and unable to do anything. The order to shoot down any hijacked aircraft came after 77 hit. The order to shoot down rogue aircraft was given sometime between 0950 and 1012, and confirmed with Bush in the 1020 phone call. Flight 77 crashed about 0938.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

WTC 7. Firefighters saw the signs that WTC 7 was dying a slow death. Starting retreating and setting up a safe perimeter. There has been links to to news broadcasts saying that WTC 7 was failing in different post here At ATS.

www.prisonplanet.com...

WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

I can provide a link to a lists of material that outlines the NIST reports concerning WTC 7 and being peer reviewed.

The Aegis vs WTC 7 owners lawsuits. Both sides gave testimony on what caused the WTC 7 collapse and the testimony backed the NIST conclusions.

The initiation of WTC 7 collapse was in relitive silence, and with no captured sounds of charges setting off.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

3. I don't believe that jet fuel and office fires can take down high rises, so I think the sorry of how 1 and 2 collapsed is also a lie

Did you forget planes hit the buildings?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Explosives.

No evidence to pursue.

No deafening and literally no ear drum rupturing 140 db detonations that would give proof of an over pressure event that could produce a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

No reports of victims with very distinct demolitions shrapnel. No demolitions shrapnel recovered with debris, human remains, nor adjacent buildings.

The steel of the WTC showed failure due to strain resulting in elongation and shearing. No signs of an explosive attack.

How would a complicated and sophisticated demolitions system survive jet impacts that cut fire water pipes and elevator cables. To go to survive hours of raging fires?

It's been quoted in a 9/11 thread after a explosive device detonates, there are still recognizable parts.

The hand searching of WTC debris recovered watches, ID cards, and 19,000 human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. No shape charge fragments, no signs of steel worked on by charges, no blasting cap fragments, no detonation device fragments, no evidence of an ignition system for demolitions.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

The WTC collapse.

Per 9/11. Studies found the fire insulation at the WTC deficient.

On 9/11, something like only 11 floors of one tower had its insulation updated.

The towers were built to maximize profit by maximizing rentable space, and were built as cheap as possible by minimizing concrete use. The long span of the floor trusses were not supported in any way mid section.

The WTC buildings were not designed to have fires spread at the rate that occurred on 9/11.

The WTC building designers did not design for the almost instantaneously and simultaneous ignition of numerous fires over multiple floors.

The sprinkler systems had their supplies cut by jet impacts.

The fire departments response was limited due to lack of fire water and multiple events.

All lead to and contributed to....

The heated long spans of floor trusses with no mid supports drooped. Did not melt. Steel loses 60 percent of its ability to resist strain at 1000 F. Steel increasingly becomes more workable as it increases in temperature.

Once the floor trusses begain to cool, they contracted. Pulling with enough force for steel columns to buckle. The buckling caused inward bowing which initiated collapse.

Video and more here....
www.metabunk.org...

Pentagon.

I have cited from a group called Scientists for 9/11 Truth. I do not agree on their views of the WTC. I do mostly agree with their views on the Pentagon and that large jet strike deniers hurt the credibility of the truth movement. I would be more than happy to provide links to their 9/11 pentagon papers if you are to lazy to do the research yourself.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

It's been referenced that large amounts of papers and ID cards survived the WTC disaster.

It's also been documented that jet parts from the 9/11 WTC disaster were recovered from areas surrounding the location of the twin towers.

a reply to: neutronflux

I tell you what young man, we will leave it there. I have studied this from many perspectives, and have spent hundreds of hours researching it. I am not "too lazy" to find and read any source. I also sleep very well at night.

After all of this research, I believe that the offcial 9/11 story is a lie. It seems you think otherwise. We can then agree to disagree. We could each type on for 20 pages and neither one of us would change our minds. There is no point in going forward.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you saying by proxy the 9/11 truth movement does put out false narratives in their desperation for a smoking gun, and debunkers are right to be skeptical concerning the numerous truth movement narratives?

Two things.

1. I think some "truthers" are overly ambitious with some of their theories, and many of these explanations are half-cocked.

2. I also believe the US government puts out, and recycles, false narratives (AKA "disinformation") to confuse matters.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Flight 77 did not vaporize.

The wreckage was scattered from the pentagon helicopter pad, the front lawn, and throughout the pentagon. Jet fuselage wrapped around columns. There was recognizable and identifiable 757 wreckage.

Do you know how hard it is to destroy DNA?

archive.northjersey.com...

While trace evidence like fingerprints and footprints may not survive a fire, DNA typically does because it can withstand high temperatures, said Lawrence Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science and chairman of the Department of Sciences at John Jay.

If there is an identifiable tooth, there is DNA evidence.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I have studied this from many perspectives, and have spent hundreds of hours researching it.

Your talking points indicated you were new to the arena.

Hundreds of hours of research and you though building 7's collapse was unexpected?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

And it's obvious you only use truth movement material. If you spend sometime on debunking sites, you would at least anticipate the short comings of the 9/11 theories. It would at least make you a better debater?

The most obvious shortcoming? No captured sounds of charges setting off. And that brings us back to Richard Gage and the reason he had to fantasize about fizzle no flash bombs.