How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

a reply to: Salander

The repetition of the NIST explanation is proof of nothing but Goebbelian techniques--repeating a lie many times.

Repetition of truther falsehoods and pseudo science is worse.

You would think after 17 years they could come up with a unified conspiracy theory that covers all the events we saw on that day.

a reply to: Salander

And, as you have been told many times, the NIST reports are educated guesses. There were no data collection devices in the buildings to record the precise collapse sequences. Absent data from inside the buildings, ANY report is going to be based on what is viewed from the exterior and what is absent from the physical evidence. Viewed from the exterior, massive damage, fire, sagging beams, and knowledge of the flawed fireproofing....and lots of math dealing with steel strength, static loads, etc..... What is absent from the evidence, ANY evidence of a demolition rig, blast spots, audio/seismograph indications of explosives that would have had to have been present.

NIST report: Fire/damage induced collapses.


For those who cannot accept reality, they come up with "hush a boom" explosives and death rays from space.

hmmmmmm.........

I like the death ray from space myself.
But why didn't they use it on the OBL hideout in Pakistan?
Maybe it was out on loan to the new James Bond movie.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: grey580

People keep on beating the dead horse.

There's plenty of good threads on ATS that go over in detail the 2 towers falling.

If you care to read them then it may make some sense to you why they fell the way they did.

That is certainly true, but none of those threads actually validate the NIST explanation. The repetition of the NIST explanation is proof of nothing but Goebbelian techniques--repeating a lie many times.

Still waiting on you to state what I should find more credible then impact / fire / thermal stress related damage caused floor trusses to droop and then contract upon cooling. The contracting floor trusses in near silence pulled in and caused the remaining vertical columns to bow and then buckel initiating collapse. Evidence provided in the link and the video it contains below.

www.metabunk.org...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

Again will you pick:

Richard Gage. Mythical fizzle no flash explosives, and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Steven Jones that cannot get his WTC dust to ignite in an inert atmosphere, his test results that cannot be replicated, and the fraudulent peer reviewed thermite paper?

The impossible nuke bomb theory?

The impossible holograms and lasers theory?

The no evidence of self destructing buildings/rebar covered in c-4 theory?

Dr Wood’s impossible Dustification?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You forgot my favorite lack of evidence, shrapnel.

Sad example of the shrapnel that should had been present. Starting with the found victims and in the streets.

Royal Canberra Hospital implosion: 20 years on the lessons are still relevant, family rep says
mobile.abc.net.au...

But immediately after the charges were fired, there was confusion and tragedy as concrete and metal rained down on spectators up to 1 kilometre from the blast.

Katie Bender, 12, was on the other side of the lake, watching the show with her family when a chunk of metal sliced through her head, killing her instantly.

Just found this scary moment...

Couple Nearly Killed By A Flying Rock From Building Demolition
KZR News
m.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux


I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for me to explain something to you, because it ain't gonna happen.

The official narrative fails under scrutiny, and the government's commission was set up to fail. It was set up to protect and disguise the perpetrators, rather like the Warren Commission did years before. Or RFK MLK and quite a few others.

You certainly have all the talking points down, but mere repetition does not make them become true, so I'm not impressed.

911 was an inside job.

a reply to: Salander

I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for me to explain something to you, because it ain't gonna happen.

If you cannot provide a credible cause of what brought down the towers to supersede impact/fire/thermal stress damage brought down the towers, you have what? Faith that the towers were not brought down by contracting floor trusses pulling in on the vertical columns resulting in bowing then buckling initiating collapse.

In other words, all physical, video, audio, seismic evidence points to impact/fire/thermal stress damage being the root cause of the towers’ collapse. You only have faith in CD.

All the while, ignoring the lies the truth movement was based on. All the false talking points the government planted charges in the towers’ that launched the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The towers fell at speed of free fall. False.

The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance by the core falling first. False.

The steel of the twin towers’ was not examined. False.

The rubble, the steel, and the WTC were not treated as a crime scene. False.

There was to much dust. False.

There were columns cut by thermite in WTC pile photos. False.

Please point out false assertions in this post?

Please list physical, audio, video, seismic evidence why I should believe in WTC tower CD.

Please quote who here is trying to validate the 9/11 commission?

Why can Truth Movement debunkers talk specifically concerning the physical and video evidence of the towers? While you keep making broader and broader assertions based on innuendo to keep the faith alive the US government planted charges to topple the twin towers?

a reply to: dfnj2015

The end of the video referenced in the OP shows experiments that best explain what happened on 9/11.

That's nice.

There is no experiment existing supporting the pancake or pile driver theories. The official conspiracy from NIST is junk science.

I couldn't care less about NIST.

If you are going to say extraterrestrials destroyed the buildings on 9/11 you better have some extraordinary proof. Same thing with saying two airplanes crashing into two buildings can bring down 3 buildings by fire. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by airplane!!!

you really cant see what you are parroting here?


NO one ever claimed building 7 was hit by a plane.

NO one ever said such a simple and idiotic thing like 2 planes can bring 3 buildings down with fire other than those pushing conspiracy theories with no evidence or speculated evidence.

Why is it that people are so married to official conspiracy theory that planes are the only thing that brought down the buildings.

I cant speak for "people" so this question is pointless.

I haven't seen anyone other people pushing conspiracy theories say things along these lines.

Are you just making things up to ask these questions or do you have actual people in mind that suggest the only thing that brought down the towers were planes?

How the towers came down is explained and is a combination of things.

The only people saying simplistic statements are those trying critique how its been explained and when they do so they simplify the explanation to something stupid like "fires alone" 2 planes, 3 buildings".

The buildings did not slow down, therefore, the only hypothesis that fits the facts is controlled demolition.

maybe a 3rd time will help,


It doesn't look like a controlled demolition, it does when you are lead to think it does by YouTube narrators but simple observation without bias allows anyone to view the collapses and compare them to the many controlled demolition examples there are available.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think we all really know that the official explanation is spurious at best.

But "They" got away with there shenanigans, it's done and dusted now, and about as much chance of the truth ever being discovered or disclosed as there is of the truth of the Kennedy assassination being told.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: amazing

I've got more research to do.

If it involves Youtube it's not research.

Some of what I have questions about has been debunked or addressed and I probably need to reframe or change my questions.

That's just a rehash of the same old truther chants.

Do you think you have something to ask that hasn't been asked a hundred times before?
After 17 years the truther movement hasn't moved an inch.

Go ahead and watch YT til you puke or read the conspiracy sites til you go bind.
You will get about as far as a bicycle in the ocean.

"Truther Chants?" LOL You guys just can't help but label whole groups of people?

Actually. Here's what we should do. We should start a new thread. I'll write but I'll need some help.

For the sake of labels. We have a "Truther" and a "Debunker". Or in reality...I need someone that believes there was conspiracy with a list of 15 things that make no sense or are questionalbe or seem criminal. Then we need a skeptical mind.

This is where it get's interesting. None of this goes on the thread yet. We then have the skeptic debunk all 15 items with sources and give that rebutle to the truther or this could be a group on each side.

They then must debunk the debunk...this is sent one more time to the skeptic and only then is it put on the thread.

Instead of starting at "ground Zero" we're already way ahead of all other threads on ATS.

The only caveat being that it has to center around evidence. So if the Truther get's debunked solidely he must admit it. If the Skeptic gets' a question that cannot be answered he must admit it. Who's game? Probably no one. LOL

a reply to: amazing

So if the Truther get's debunked solidely he must admit it.

He won't admit it, he'll just move the goal post.
Ex:
You could list the names of many of the Pentagon witnesses and other pilots.
The response would come back . .
"But what about building 7 ? "

It's going on like this for 17 years.
They just regurgitate the same old lines.
For a long time it was a 6 week cycle.
Every 6 weeks you could expect a new 2.3 trillion thread.
Then it was a flight 93 shoot down.

For many Youtube is their only source for news.

a reply to: amazing

Or you could listen to the Richard Gage - Chris Mohr debate?

9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Debate Richard Gage vs Chris Mohr
m.youtube.com...

Then look at this thread on an actual scientific study into the WTC dust containing thermite?

Link to James Millette's preliminary WTC Dust study:
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Then Chris Mohr’s rebuttals to Richard Gage?

Part 1, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Chris Mohr's Rebuttal to Richard Gage
m.youtube.com...

Or the metabunk Mick West VS Tony Szamboti debate?

The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Or see Tony Szamboti take on the Metabunk community?

sound-analysis-of-plasco-collapse.t9489/
www.metabunk.org...


could-girder-a2001-possibly-have-got-past-the-side-plate-on-column-79.t9069/

www.metabunk.org...

To bad the architects and engineers 9/11 truth backed study by Hulsey is on hold?

a reply to: amazing

Or how about this....

Conspiracist, “There was no resistance when the twin towers fell.”

Debunker, “Actually the towers fell at the rate of 2/3rds of free fall. The floor system completely collapsed leaving long lengths of core columns still standing. The vertical columns stood whole seconds before toppling over because of no lateral support.”

Conspiracist,” You are just boot licking the offical narrative.” Report the inappropriate behavior. Comment removed on a terms violation.

Debunker, “No, as video evidence proves the point about 2/3rds the rate of free fall with core columns toppling only after the complete collapse of the floor system.”

Conspiracists, “ but the commission was set to fail and too much dust.”

Debunker, “ What does the commission have to do with video evidence. And building collapse video from earthquakes show there was not too much dust.”

Conspiracist, “Why you even on a conspiracy site.”

Debunker, “ I though this was about truth, not faith based fantasy.”

Conspiracist, “But Silverstein said pull it.”

Debunker, “That was over pulling the firefighter’s operation concerning WTC 7 that city officials received reports WTC 7 was showing signs of structural failures. And pull it is not really a demolitions term for setting off explosives. And the topic was the Twin Towers. So now you are off topic”

Conspiracist, “But what about the flight 77 calls.”

Debunker, “ that is off topic too, try this thread at....”

Then moderator starts removing conspiracist and debunker comments for being off topic.

Well, you get the idea....

a reply to: neutronflux

You're not wrong. That's why I suggest a nice conversation with 15 key points...and starting at 2 or 3 degrees above zero so that we have some of the basics out of the way. I'm working on it.

a reply to: amazing

Why? How about you critique this debate

9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Debate Richard Gage vs Chris Mohr

m.youtube.com...

Or critique this debate?

The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Any thing will probably be a rehashing of what the individuals argued in the linked to debates, and the knowledge we bring will pail in comparison to the heavyweights in the linked to debates? Unless you got some unnamed sources up your selve?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

The repetition of the NIST explanation is proof of nothing but Goebbelian techniques--repeating a lie many times.

Repetition of truther falsehoods and pseudo science is worse.

You would think after 17 years they could come up with a unified conspiracy theory that covers all the events we saw on that day.

A unified theory? Like the conclusion of a proper investigation?

How can there ever be a proper investigation? That would have taken time and by the time it would have been done the US has already invaded 2 countries and murdered hundreds of thousands of people?

Your saying if there was evidence contrary to the official narrative, Chenney and Bush would have stood up and said... "Sorry bout dat"

Give your head a shake.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: amazing

I've got more research to do.

If it involves Youtube it's not research.

Some of what I have questions about has been debunked or addressed and I probably need to reframe or change my questions.

That's just a rehash of the same old truther chants.

Do you think you have something to ask that hasn't been asked a hundred times before?
After 17 years the truther movement hasn't moved an inch.

Go ahead and watch YT til you puke or read the conspiracy sites til you go bind.
You will get about as far as a bicycle in the ocean.

"Truther Chants?" LOL You guys just can't help but label whole groups of people?

They must of applied for a variance from T&C because that is all 6 whole people on this site do to defend the OS. Name-call and belittle anyone that doesnt buy their gospel truth.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Yet, you cannot make a credible argument on proof of CD at the towers? Even from the video and audio? And you are repeating the falsehood the towers’ rubble was not treated as a crime seen, not saved, not sorted, and not examined? All the while ignoring the hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered about 19,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. Human remains never recovered with demolitions shrapnel. Rubble that held no indication/evidence of demolitions. Steel that showed no metallurgical evidence of being worked on by demolitions.

Remember, the truth movement’s claim was the rubble and steel was not examined at all? If there is absolute proof of CD, why does the truth movement need to use any falsehoods?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Yet, you cannot make a credible argument on proof of CD at the towers? Even from the video and audio? And you are repeating the falsehood the towers’ rubble was not treated as a crime seen, not saved, not sorted, and not examined? All the while ignoring the hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered about 19,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. Human remains never recovered with demolitions shrapnel. Rubble that held no indication/evidence of demolitions. Steel that showed no metallurgical evidence of being worked on by demolitions.

Remember, the truth movement’s claim was the rubble and steel was not examined at all? If there is absolute proof of CD, why does the truth movement need to use any falsehoods?

None of the evidence was tested for that.

What about your falsehood that the OS is proven? It is an accepted theory. Thats it.