WTC 911 if not demolition and not the NIST or OS debunkers, what then?

[color=gold]WTC 911 if not demolition and not the NIST or OS debunkers, what then?


Reading the many posts from long time debunkers still on ATS I have concluded that a few on here have rejected every idea, opinions, scientific evidence, experts, and technical papers, on the demolition of the WTC.
Since these 911 debunkers have no problems in giving their opinions against the real science including ridiculing many of the scientists who have writing scientific technical papers of demolition and the enormous energy that was recorded on the onset of the WTC collapse, towers 1 & 2, I would like to hear from you debunkers why you reject this science?

I think this is very important since most people are waking up to the facts that the OS of 911 is hogwash.
For the debunkers who insist demolition was not possible, and insist demolition never happened, and the NIST pseudo-science does not stand up to real science then I have to ask you what do you believe happened to the WTC to cause it to collapse the way it did.

There are members on ATS who are adamant that Truthers are mostly liars and dream up all these conspiracies because they want to believe in these conspiracies. My stance on this is I completely disagree with this ideology; however I do believe there are very few people who have other motives.

If some of you debunkers do no support the OS or scientific evidence to the WTC demise then I believe it is only fair that you explain what you are supporting, if not demolition or OS what is it you really believe?
The fact that 911 is a very complex and emotional topic, I just want to understand why all the negativity against people who do not support the OS.

i think there is a good chance that some terrorists flew some planes into some buildings ...

what happens next within the government is a good mixture of stupidity, unwise decisions for the nation as a whole, and a giant setback for the freedom we are used to have here.

on a scale from 0 to 10 if it comes to the question wether the terrorists acoomplished their mission this was a 12.
Cause noone ever thought that a free nation like us runs wild and set the whole middle east on fire for a terrorist attack like this.

Under this perspective the argument wether it was forged or not becomes more or less meaningless.

But when we have a look on who was reelected after all these decisions were made, we can agree that the majority of people in this nation is more or less ok with such an administration.

One could come to the conclusion that the majority of people is a little sloppy if it comes to morality.

reply to post by impressme


WTC 1&2 can certainly be explained by a combination of structural damage from the plane impacts, fire damage weakening the support columns, mixed with a great deal of highly improbable variables that could account for their collapse... I will admit this. WTC 7 on the other hand, didn't have any significant damage from the debris from the other buildings, nor were the fires nearly as intense as the first two buildings. I have yet to see a remotely logical answer as to how building 7 collapsed, and am awaiting the response of people who support the official story to explain this. I really don't want to believe that there was collusion between our government and the terrorists who plotted this attack. That is simply too evil to fathom. Please, show me how this could be possible without charges being placed before the attacks, or accept that it is impossible and join me in making sure that the most likely culprits are brought to justice.

reply to post by impressme


I used to spend a lot of time discussing 9/11 on this website, and I think there are two main reasons that people believe the official story and doubt the controlled demolition, false-flag theory. One is obviously because they see no reason that explosives would be needed, because two airplanes crashed into buildings, and one building was on fire for several hours. The other is because they don't think it's possible that our government would accomplish such a thing in secrecy.

I've seen sufficient evidence from a wide variety of sources, but primarily the work of the hundreds of credible experts from AE911 Truth, to convince me that the official story is simply a lie, and the planes were red herrings. Controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and building 7. This resulted in the systematic dismantling of the Constitution, justified alongside endless wars against a tactic by this attack.

You don't even have to look that far, it's staring people in the face. The freaking Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, which made hundreds of millions of dollars from the resulting wars. But some people simply think it's a bunch of loony conspiracy theories, and people who believe it are just a bunch of gullible lunatics. They can think whatever they want, because one of us has to be wrong. But my message to them is to really consider everything that's followed 9/11, and weigh that against the people who would benefit from a false flag attack.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Thank you TupacShakur, I have to believe then that some debunkers have not bothered to research the destruction of the WTC and are defending a belief system parroted from MSN and perhaps feel to patriotic to believe that a fraction of our government and Military committed a False Flag Operation.
This certainly explains the ignorance and the emotional replies that we see here often. However we would think some of them would have come to their senses after years of seeing science has shown them differently. To believe in the official story one must throw out all logical thinking.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

WTC 1&2 can certainly be explained by a combination of structural damage from the plane impacts, fire damage weakening the support columns, mixed with a great deal of highly improbable variables that could account for their collapse...

The fact is WTC 1&2 destruction has never been explained by our government or by people who support this theory with any real science. It’s been 10 years and there is no science that will stand up to the OS of the WTC.

reply to post by impressme


I wouldn't go that far. There is the NIST report, but it's a matter of scientific accuracy rather than whether or not there is science backing it. But I do I think the NIST report was biased towards the official story, and the computer models which were tweaked to fit the intented conclusion combined with the full scale tests that didn't result in collapse hint towards that.

reply to post by TupacShakur

But I do I think the NIST report was biased towards the official story, and the computer models which were tweaked to fit the intented conclusion combined with the full scale tests that didn't result in collapse hint towards that.

Yes, I agree with you on the NIST report was influenced towards the official story. NIST would not produce their computer model when experts asked so they could verify the credibility of NIST calculations.

After researching what NIST had to say about no demolition and the fact that they never looked in that direction I found their Report very bias, their answers was” there was no evidence of explosions at the WTC.” I found this very puzzling because one can clearly see in the News footage taken on 911 of heavy steel beams being blasted outward over 500 feet in every direction. This is not a natural occurrence with a building collapsing what we are not seeing is a building just falling down, what we are seeing is a number of huge steel beam "missiles" propelled away from the Towers and this is where NIST ignores visual evidence to what our eyes are really showing us. Also, the total collapse of the WTC in their own foot print is proof enough of some sort of controlled demolition. Many debunkers will not address this evidence.

reply to post by impressme


There seems to be validity to explosives being in the towers... because in an old Reader's Digest, in an article on the WTC construction, they state that explosives were actually built into the towers to help with the eventual demolition. So, perhaps there were explosives in 1+2 and building 7 as well? Then it wouldn't necessarily take structural damage to destroy, as enough fire would light the explosives. Perhaps the conspiracy isn't really that there were bombs planted, but that there were explosives built-in? Coincidentally, the same article supposedly says some of the WTC was being built by Bin Laden Construction.

Originally posted by impressme
why all the negativity against people who do not support the OS.

edit on 25-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

debunker don't likes the truths.

IMO there's no way 2 skyscrapers can simply disintegrate and that happen within 29 minutes of eachother. 1 building gets hit by a 'plane' and is demolished within 56 minutes. Another building gets hit and is no more within 102 minutes. For me, the fact the timeline is so quick and neat and the way in which the buildings came down it has always concerned me. It is unnatural and was too clinical in the way it happened.

TPTB behind 9/11 wanted maximum impact on the imagery people were exposed to that day, and 2 planes hitting buildings, there being a fire, then being extinguished is not going to have as much as an impact as the buildings completely collapsing all within 102 minutes! It was like something out of a movie it was that unbelievable and thats what was needed to change people attitudes towards our new 'enemy' and foreign policy.

From reading plenty of forums like, AE 911 Truth and Pilots For 911 Truth one starts seeing a different side of things. When you hear of qualified pilots trying to simulate flying a commercial airliner 125ft wide into a structure thats 208ft wide at cruising speed at 1000ft and not being able to, it begs the question, how did a number of amateur pilots with only limited experience in small Sesna sized aircraft pull off such a fete?

There are just so many points to this event i could expand on but im sure we all know most of them by now.

Anyone with any intellect will question what they seen and heard about this event, i just dont know if we will ever know the truth...

Until truthers come up with one complete theory that covers all aspects of 911, they will remain a fringe group.

It doesn't help truthers when they come up statements like this.

The freaking Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, which made hundreds of millions of dollars from the resulting wars. But some people simply think it's a bunch of loony conspiracy theories, and people who believe it are just a bunch of gullible lunatics.

Cheney resigned as CEO to run for office and never returned. So he didn't benefit from the wars.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

WTC 1&2 can certainly be explained by a combination of structural damage from the plane impacts, fire damage weakening the support columns, mixed with a great deal of highly improbable variables that could account for their collapse...

The fact is WTC 1&2 destruction has never been explained by our government or by people who support this theory with any real science. It’s been 10 years and there is no science that will stand up to the OS of the WTC.

edit on 25-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

Sorry friend, if you want to read the most comprehensive scientific investigation of 9/11, then read Dr. Judy Wood' book "Where Did The Towers Go", it all there.

If you see the videos of Judy Wood I doubt you would ever bring her name up again. She has more than a screw loose. There were a couple of links in here before maybe someone could repost them.
Nuts doesn't begin to describe her.

reply to post by samkent

Originally posted by samkent
If you see the videos of Judy Wood I doubt you would ever bring her name up again. She has more than a screw loose. There were a couple of links in here before maybe someone could repost them.
Nuts doesn't begin to describe her.

I agree, Judy Wood tried to convince people that weapons from outer space knocked down the WTC.
The fact is there are no scientists that support her paper. At lease with A&E there are many scientists who support the technical papers written about demolition at the WTC.

reply to post by samkent

Originally posted by MentalPriapism
because in an old Reader's Digest, in an article on the WTC construction, they state that explosives were actually built into the towers to help with the eventual demolition.

Yet another lie from a truther - care to give the exact issue/page number of that article?

or admit that you just made it up again!

Originally posted by downunderET
Sorry friend, if you want to read the most comprehensive scientific investigation of 9/11, then read Dr. Judy Wood' book "Where Did The Towers Go", it all there.

Funniest joke ever, beam weapons from space!

Originally posted by impressme

Since these 911 debunkers have no problems in giving their opinions against the real science including ridiculing many of the scientists who have writing scientific technical papers of demolition and the enormous energy that was recorded on the onset of the WTC collapse, towers 1 & 2, I would like to hear from you debunkers why you reject this science?

Can you please follow this up with the following:

-Names of the journals where the papers were published
-Dates
-Pages they appeared in?

Thank you!

reply to post by MentalPriapism


Fire does not burn hot enough to ignite explosives used in controlled demolitions, they require some sort of charge which burns much hotter to set them off.