This is how normal people discuss 9/11

I try to avoid talking about 9/11 as much as possible, but every now and then unrelated conversations shift in that direction turns into a debate then an argument, and almost always ends up a screaming match with insults. It annoys the crap out of me.

Here's a list of things I have been accused of which is not true.

It is not my hobby to believe in conspiracy theories.
I do not enjoy being called a kook, nut-job, etc...
I do not hate America.
I am not on a witch hunt.
I do not get all my news from conspiracy theories websites.
I am not a democrat.
I do not have any agenda.
I do not think life is more interesting if there's a government conspiracy behind every disaster in the world.
I do not think that everybody who disagrees with my opinion is sheep.
I do not pretend to know the truth and I have no desire to forcefully awaken anybody.
I do not ignore evidence that support official story.
I am not an expert and I do not blindly accept expert opinions backing any theory.
I do not buy anything from any truth movement organization.
I do not think that FDNY, NYPD, scientists, etc are all in on it if they don't publicly question the official story.
I did not cherry picked facts that fits into my believes without learning the other side of the story.

There is probably more things that I have been accused of which are false, but this will do for this thread.

The two videos below are examples of adults being honest to themselves and calmly having a civilized discussion.

Please pay attention and learn how to do it. (you know who I'm talking to)





If I was involved in the conversation, I would tell them that Diesel fuel tanks (according to NIST) did not play any significant role in the WTC7 collapse. And I would add that NIST refused to disclose supporting documents for their model which they claim was consistent with the stage 2 (free fall) of the building because it would jeopardize public safety.

What exactly is unclear to you?
Tower 7

I hear you, my sister and I had a big fight over this. She actually accused me of having no concern for the people who died and their families...... My family has banned me from discussing politics, and it's hurtful......

reply to post by whatsecret



You make a long list of stuff trying to show how objective and unbiased you are but then just post links to truther propaganda full of flaws ( one of which didn't work ) including a guy who cannot even remember who NIST are.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by whatsecret

 

You make a long list of stuff trying to show how objective and unbiased you are but then just post links to truther propaganda full of flaws ( one of which didn't work ) including a guy who cannot even remember who NIST are.

I posted a list of what people said to me and are not true. I read the official reports, I checked all evidence on both sides presented to me, and looked for answered to my own questions. My conclusion is that whatever happened that day is not what I found in the official reports. 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.

There's zero propaganda in those videos. This is how regular people discuss this issue.

He could not remember the name not who they are. Pretty normal for a regular person.

( one of which didn't work )

What didn't work for you?

It depends on who you're speaking with.

Not everybody wants to discuss a government conspiracy plot, carried out against its own people. Especially regarding 9/11, when thousands of people were killed on live television in front of the world.

This is how normal people discuss 9/11

You:
"Diesel fuel tanks (according to NIST) did not play any significant role in the WTC7 collapse. And I would add that NIST refused to disclose supporting documents for their model which they claim was consistent with the stage 2 (free fall) of the building because it would jeopardize public safety."

Average 'Normal' Person:


I mean, there's nothing wrong with including any 'theories', or whatever - but if you start 'insisting', and forceably trying to pass your ideas as the truth, some people might say those things to you.

Because honestly, the fact of the matter is not many people want to hear that s***.

Originally posted by iunlimited491

This is how normal people discuss 9/11

You:
"Diesel fuel tanks (according to NIST) did not play any significant role in the WTC7 collapse. And I would add that NIST refused to disclose supporting documents for their model which they claim was consistent with the stage 2 (free fall) of the building because it would jeopardize public safety."

Average 'Normal' Person:

I mean, there's nothing wrong with including any 'theories', or whatever - but if you start 'insisting', and forceably trying to pass your ideas as the truth, some people might say those things to you.

Yeah a Average 'Normal' Person who happens to know something they seem not to. What part of what i said is my theory that I try to pass as truth?

reply to post by Sonny2



Yeah, the Jews did it ! very convincing.

Who on earth is the guy fronting your clip. Looks like an escapee from a Monty Python sketch.

A plane didn't hit the pentagon. The planes that struck the twin towers were remote controlled and empty. Nano-thermite chips were found in the dust of the twin towers. World trade center7 was never struck by anything with the force needed to bring it down. Security systems were down at least a week before the "attacks". Many New Yorkers reported seeing black vans entering the twin towers. My belief is that those vans carried the "cutter charge" material. All of the planes except the Pennsylvania flight ended up in Nova Scotia. Many people reported seeing these diverted flights heading North. There was never a real investigation into 9/11. The truth will come out eventually.

Always have been a fan of Joe Rogan. I wonder what he would say about the following video



This one seems to me that it's a clear cut case of fire being the cause. Does anyone know of a similar building that was left to burn uncontrollably for 7 hours?

OP, correct me if i am wrong,

But I think this is simply a thread about how regular people with no real interest in 9/11 talk about 9/11 conspiracies.

They are not "nuts" or "hating America" they are asking some very valid questions.

I think both sides, truthers and OSer's would agree that the guys talking in the fist video (i cant watch the second one) would agree that neither of those guys really know what they are talking about. However they are asking some very good questions.

I think ATS differs from the "normal" because lots of people who post on this forum have done some level of research all the varying degrees. The result is that we have essentially two camps who old opposite views and who have different levels of knowledge regarding 9/11 and I think this is where lots of the petty 9/11 argument's come from. There is always one guy (or girl) posting on a 9/11 thread who doesn't know the first think about what he is talking about then when someone who does know what they're talking about comes along and points out the error's of his way he has a hissy fit that leads to a whole bunch of stupid arguments. He might "think" he knows what he's talking about because he once saw lose change or read a few chapters of the 9/11 commission report but really he know about as much as the guys in this video.

the result like i say is lots of arguments and then some post bans.

the key to civilized debate on the 9/11 forum is people getting over it and recognizing that there are two very different schools of thought regarding 9/11 both with their merits. Furthermore they need to be prepared to drastically change their minds if presented with reasonable evidence that they can not adequately challenge.

The only controvery is whether or not CGI and/or hologram technology was used to fake the plane hitting the second tower (a plane was used in the first tower to be hit altho it was probably under remote control). Building "7" (the third of the WTC complex buildings that fell on 9-11 altho it was not hit by a plane) did not implode because of a few fires in the building. An airliner did not hit the pentagon and an airliner did not crash where they claimed at Shanksville, Pa. End of discussion.

Originally posted by whatsecret
I posted a list of what people said to me and are not true.

There is usually a very good reason why people say those things to other people.
Almost every line made me smile a bit more, because for some reason the person who wrote it need to insist why those points aren't "true", further enhancing the statements actually hitting a nerve.

My conclusion is that whatever happened that day is not what I found in the official reports.

That would be the wrong conclusion. But please do tell what is wrong with the report that I linked to previously.

I do not have my own theory, I just have a opinion as informed as possible.

You don't need to have a theory, but certainly you need to have a problem with the official story that you'd be able to back up?

There's a enormous coverup continuing to this day. That's my only claim.

That's quite an "only" claim. Something to back it up would be nice. If not, then all the statements you actively refuted creep back. Like said, there is a reason.

The problem with 9/11 is that people post what they think they know, usually based parrot fashion from other people posting what they think they know who have summarily dismissed information provided to them by actual experts because that information does not support the paradigm of their supposed argument.

In other words an awful lot of what is written is recycled assumption, which has turned into a self sustaining cycle. That is common place for an awful lot of conspiracy based arguments, but in this particular case it is more so because people cannot accept in their own minds that a relatively simple series of events can either happen and/or be so deadly, plus there is a mindset that the US is/was untouchable.

Its a massive cycle of ignorance.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The only controvery is whether or not CGI and/or hologram technology was used to fake the plane hitting the second tower (a plane was used in the first tower to be hit altho it was probably under remote control). Building "7" (the third of the WTC complex buildings that fell on 9-11 altho it was not hit by a plane) did not implode because of a few fires in the building. An airliner did not hit the pentagon and an airliner did not crash where they claimed at Shanksville, Pa. End of discussion.

edit on 11-8-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Case in point why you can't have a rational discussion regarding 9/11. How do you even have a rational conversation about this post? This poster has made his or her decision and the only discussion that could possibly happen is going to be far from calm, discussion.

I don't have the answers, but I am one hundred percent sure that CGI/hologram garbage does not enter the picture.

You want to talk WTC 7? Fine. I don't really know what happened there, so i will certainly read/listen to anything. But if we are talking remote control planes, CGI, holograms or any other ridiculous theory, that just isn't a rational conversation form the beginning.

Originally posted by whatsecret
There's a enormous coverup continuing to this day. That's my only claim.

If this is your only claim, then you do not qualify for all the things you have been called. Although it’s not possible for me to verify if you were called all those things after making that claim only, I suspect that other claim were made as well beforehand.

Still, some of the things in that list could still apply to that single claim. Such as “kook”, “nut job”, “pretend to know the truth”, “ignore evidence that support official story”. Although that depends on the basis you make that claim on.

The implications are rather huge. Questions like “how is it possible all experts were fooled while you were not”, or “how is it possible nobody talked in this huge cover-up” are question that require a very good answer if you do not wish to be called the things I highlighted.

reply to post by Nevertheless

There is usually a very good reason why people say those things to other people. Almost every line made me smile a bit more, because for some reason the person who wrote it need to insist why those points aren't "true", further enhancing the statements actually hitting a nerve.

I am very happy that I made you smile, as it has been scientifically proven that smiling is the cause of happy feelings. The reason I wrote it is because these statements are usually used as explanations for someone having a different opinion regarding 9/11 events. For instance when I express my opinion about why NIST denied FOIA request for disclosing the supporting documents for the computer model which they claim explained the free fall stage of WTC 7 collapse, I usually get a response that I only care about it because of one or more of those things.

I insist why those points aren't "true" because they are not true. I care about the NIST model documents because I believe they can prove or disprove their hypothesis.

That would be the wrong conclusion. But please do tell what is wrong with the report that I linked to previously.

The very same "wrong" conclusion has been said by numerous people involved in the official investigation.

There may not be anything wrong with it, but we are unable to confirm their explanation of the most extraordinary part of the WTC 7 collapse.

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

What do you think about NIST response to FOIA request?

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
information:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,
break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop
floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher
Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

You don't need to have a theory, but certainly you need to have a problem with the official story that you'd be able to back up?

Extraordinary claims (stage 2 of the collapse) require extraordinary evidence. NIST did not provide them.

That's quite an "only" claim. Something to back it up would be nice.

Click here

If not, then all the statements you actively refuted creep back. Like said, there is a reason.

Yes there is, it's called; I don't like what you're saying, if I'll start calling you names and change the subject maybe you'll go away.

reply to post by -PLB-

The implications are rather huge. Questions like “how is it possible all experts were fooled while you were not”, or “how is it possible nobody talked in this huge cover-up” are question that require a very good answer if you do not wish to be called the things I highlighted.

Why should I answer questions about something I never claimed to be true?

But, when you say "all experts were fooled" you are revealing that you ignore all experts who publicly stated that they don't agree with the official story. And when you say "nobody talked in this huge cover-up" you also dismiss those who came out and said Bush administration and multiple government agencies are covering up facts. Why would you say something like that?