The Real 9/11 Question?

If 9/11 is so obviously a government conspiracy involving explosives holograms and well all the other incredable theorys where is your proof.

yes proof the loaded question now i dont mean ATS proof that takes a beleiver to accept rather real proof the kind one shows to an uninformed individual and the only response is yes sir you are aorrect.

this thread comes from a statement i see over and over just worded creatively example irefutable evidence of demolition/ the smoking gun/ a pilot syays its this or that as far as i can tell there has not once been a real example of any evidence other then what people need to beleive rather then the actual facts.

i would beleive that it was some crazy government act IF at least ONE fact can be brought forward that doesnt take creative interpetatio to beleive.


now hold on one sec i am certainly not looking for ATS thermite mumbo jumbo rather a complete and presentable piece of truth. here it is folks real evidence welp that day doesnt seem to be getting any closer.

real evidence so i can personly call CNN and FOX and say i ve got your proof it will cost you lol but i have it!

Fact = there is no proof only wishful thinking?????

Be Well

Here's a fact.

WTC7 fell with minimal structural damage. The current state of that building just before its time of collapse was commented on by a man who worked there. He was coming forward to help us find out what really happened that day. Bad idea I guess.

Barry Jennings, that mentioned worked, died of a heart attack a few months later at just over 50 years of age. He did not have a known existing heart condition.

For me, it mostly has to do with my own perception of that day, I was watching the news live, as so many others were, when I said to myself, "The tops of those buildings are gonna fall off". Then, the whole building fell. It didn't make much sense to me at the time. In fact, it still doesn't

Another fact.

No steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to structural damage by fire. Except those two.

This type of thread is started on ATS each week, I'm not sure why I even posted in it. I don't enter the 9/11 debate very much.

You're basically playing rouser with your line of "prove it to me" stuff. It happens almost every day on ATS in one subject or another. Most people won't even touch this thread because they understand that. Me, on the other hand, just felt like posting in a non 2012 thread today.

reply to post by triplescorpio


First I would like to say, I love when people demand evidence without actually looking for it themselves. Likely if you had looked for it yourself, you wouldnt be posting this tread.

Ill start you off with a few things to look into

- molten steel at the base of the WTCs (fire does not burn hot enough to turn iron into molten liquid, try throwing a piece of iron into a fire pit, doesnt turn to liquid)

- building 7 - dropped down at free fall speed and was not struck by a plane. If fire on a few floors could demolish an entire steal building then why has it never happened before. Take a look at the Oklahomo bombing. They blasted that building and yet half the structure stood. Another example would be the first attempt at taking out the WTC with bombs. It is physically impossible to drop a building at free fall speed with fire alone. If we figured a way to do that, we wouldnt need explosives to take down buildings anymore would we.

No I could continue with many other facts however, the field I work in deals a fair bit in onus probandi, or, burden of proof. The burden of proof now lies upon you to prove to me that those 2 items alone can be explained. If you cannot then in a court of law, this would be a closed case

sources

- 911research.wtc7.net...

- 911research.wtc7.net...

- common sense (yes that can be a source for evidence)

reply to post by Ghandi

The burden of proof now lies upon you to prove to me that those 2 items alone can be explained.

Well, first, you would have to prove, in a court of law, that they were true before anybody would be required to "explain" them.

So - go ahead. Where are your facts?

reply to post by hooper


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Physical evidence that has never been refuted.

To me, the one fact that convinced me is the speed at which the towers fell. You can see that on any video lol.

They fell in about 10-11 seconds, which correspond to FREE fall speed. A pancake effect of floors falling on each other for 100+ stories would have taken longer. Therefore you need some additional means to make the building fall that fast.

From there, all I would ask is a new investigation, since the conclusion of the report doesn't hold.

Give me a good reason why a new investigation should be denied? And please don't give money as a reason, since there is SOOO much money spent in defense budged based on the 911 premise, it only makes sense to spend a tiny amount of that budget to verify if the "justifications" are for real.

reply to post by sticky

This type of thread is started on ATS each week

In all honesty, these type of threads make me realise that the real tragedy of human consciousness is being doomed to realise that you are, in fact, spinning on a planet of witless lunatics through a void so vast and hostile there's no getting away.

To the OP, there's mountains of evidence pointing towards government complicity, but if you don't think anything that's ever been posted on ATS constitutes as 'evidence' or 'proof' chances are nothing, apart from a full blown confession from the perps themselves, will ever convince you otherwise.

And is it really necessary to keep misrepresenting the Truth Movement by acting as though they espouse the hologram theory? I've never seen anyone on this forum ever seriously propound that holograms were used on 9/11, so why bring it up? It's 'assassination-by-association' and it gets old fast.

Another fact, the floors were sagging which eventually gave way and fell. no explosives involved.



Fact: Workers cleaning up the debris cut the beams in the wreckage, no exlosives or thermite.



Fact: Debris falling off the already falling WTC was falling faster than the WTC. That is to say the debris that was falling off was falling at freefall speed, the WTC was not.



Fact: while the official report may have left out WTC7 conspiracy crowds left out WTC6 which was also destroyed by falling debris from the twin towers.



Fact: It was not a "textbook" demolition. Despite claims of the twind towers falling straight down the debris really fell all over the place serriously dammaging WTC 6 &7

Originally posted by 375610


Fact: Debris falling off the already falling WTC was falling faster than the WTC. That is to say the debris that was falling off was falling at freefall speed, the WTC was not.

Good one. Is this a picture or is it a frame from a video? I would like to see this in movement if you have a video source of debris falling faster than the towers.

if there is real proof, i doubt it will see daylight, and if some one did come forward with real evidence, it would, with them be "swept under the rug".

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by hooper

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Physical evidence that has never been refuted.

You are, in a twisted kind of way correct. You see, before something can be refuted it must first be proven,

reply to post by Wut?!?


like a video showing you the non-truther version of the truth will change anything...

reply to post by hooper



Like I said before, you haven't tried to look for it. But here you go, a video explaining the temperature in the basements 5 days after the "fall"

(Im really only continuing this debate to get my 20 posts)

It is time that people start to do some research into 911 if they want answers about who done it, It will not take very long to come to the conclusion that there was something different going on than the govenrment says it is.

If people after doing some research still belief in the government point of view they should buy a spy novel and analise that.

Something else....if there is a group of molech worshippers and this god wants a human sacrifice....do you think that these people come together and sacrifice doll for their beloved god? You do not need to answer that.

reply to post by triplescorpio


I think you are wasting your time here. All your going to get is bad science, myths, and facts found from people who make money pushing his sort of thing. Its better to let the "truthers" fight amongst themselves over just what the truth is. The fact they can all take the same evidence, add what they want, remove what they want and never agree on anything other than everyone esle is wrong or a paid agent of some secret group means you will never get anything sensible out of them. Its is kind of interesting to see how people slant things to fit their own beliefs though. Granted we see this with many events in history that have small conspiracy followings and in those cases we also see bad science and a distortion of facts and out right fabrications as well. It would be an interesting study to see to correlation on truthers views on other world events in history.

You "official story lovers" do my head in, you are exactly what TPTB want us all to be like, theres little hope with people like you, shouldn't really be wasting my time on this but check this link....and actually spend the time to watch, you may find something that wasnt shown on Fox or Cnn.

video.google.com...#

It does not take a genius to see that those buildings collapsed from something other than dirty fire and black smoke.....seriously if you actually thought to yourself that something wasn't quite right and took time to do research, yeah you'd come up with a lot of cr*p but there is also a lot of evidence available.

Just don't be how "they" want you to be.....you have your own mind, use it

Originally posted by Ghandi
reply to post by hooper

 

Like I said before, you haven't tried to look for it. But here you go, a video explaining the temperature in the basements 5 days after the "fall"

(Im really only continuing this debate to get my 20 posts)

Why? What does 20 posts get you?

reply to post by 375610


Ah well, I should have said near free fall, but then it becomes debatable.

It's the first time I've been called simple-minded on a video though, it would be nice to have these discussions without the name calling lol