6 Reasons To Question and Investigate 9/11 on the 13th Anniversary.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You can't reverse reality by just debunking them and referring to a site owned and operated by the Propaganda masters..I see that you got your mind set up and completely believe the MSM's story and I have my reasons to not too...Just for a thought,why in the world do you have to give the news of that caliber and importance to the president of the United states live on camera while looking at an upside down story book of a child in a school!?..I mean couldn't you have waited a minute to digest the news first?or for the president to have finished that and got out of the camera's lenses?

a reply to: shapur


Reverse reality by debunking it....do you know how silly that sounds? And, which site do you refer to as owned and operated by the "propaganda masters'? Yes, my mind is pretty set....after a careful study of the actual evidence.

a reply to: Mary Rose

No, its actually pretty much a fact. He makes his living peddling conspiracy theories and he relies on the same misrepresentation of reality that people like Richard Gage does.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

They have discovered a conspiracy site and do not realize that there are very few 9/11 conspiracy theories that have not been demolished by facts and research

It's sad, but this is the number one tactic used by debunkers. They say " Oh, that's been debunked ( or demolished in your case...)" , when it fact, it hasn't at all. It'll just be some random "expert" who gives his theory on what happened, and then say "OK. That's been debunked.". A good example is those condescending morons on youtube. In fact, I've yet to meet a humble debunker. They all seem to think they're so much "smarter" than everyone else.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: shapur


Reverse reality by debunking it....do you know how silly that sounds? And, which site do you refer to as owned and operated by the "propaganda masters'? Yes, my mind is pretty set....after a careful study of the actual evidence.

Yes, yes I know how silly you like me to sound when there might be traces of truth in my believes ...Most corporate news agencies and or agents are agenda driven propaganda missioners ready to lie their legs off for causes much less important than the 9/11.,Sorry to have burst your bubbles,if any...cheers.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Smarter than everyone else? nah. Above average, yeah, that actually is true based on various assessments over the years.

And Flat, you are not going to find a 9/11 theory that has not been discussed, researched and debunked on ATS. Normally, with links to the research materials used.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I've known since around 2006 that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag/staged attack.

YOU also know absolutely NOTHING regarding construction or the loadings on a structure do you?

So you get all your facts from bob/sound/biff/slip and his ilk !

The classic phrase used by truthers starts no buildings have ever been destroyed by fire, conveniently leaving out the damage caused by the aircraft.

Next we get the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, NO official source states it was hot enough to melt steel , but office fires can generate 1000 C or 1832 F at 537C or 1000 F steel is down to 40% strength!!!.

When the buildings collapsed the structure below was subject to DYNAMIC loading NOT the static or dead load it had to support before.

Look at the impact points on the Towers North hit high but fell second it had a lower load above the impact point.

The South Tower hit second and fell first,hit lower down larger load above impact by a CONSIDERABLE amount and fell first, it was also hit off center and fell towards that area direction, the North Tower was hit mid elevation and the image HERE shows how the core steel was in relation to the aircraft impacts.

When YOU have 35 years on site/in a technical role in construction come back YOU may have learned something by then!!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Your quibbling in one technical aspect pales against the massive amount of information in the case for a 9/11 conspiracy that is presented in Tarpley's book.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: wmd_2008

Your quibbling in one technical aspect pales against the massive amount of information in the case for a 9/11 conspiracy that is presented in Tarpley's book.

The technical point is about LOADINGS in the structure not BS theories to sell books or your feelings which have no part in designing a STRUTURE or working out how it would react!!!!

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I see he doesn't mention the 9/11 book in his biography, but if you scroll down the page you'll see it. It's now in its 5th edition; it was first published in 2005.

I have the 5th edition on order because I want to see the additional information it contains:

tarpley.net...

I see that it is going to talk about the 46 drills that were going on that day.

Having drills taking place is a perfect way to confuse everyone about what is going on during the real attacks.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Having drills going on, is what the United States Military does, pretty much 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Its called training and it is what we DO when were are in the states. And, when real life intrudes, the drill is over, just like that.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

That's your opinion.

I disagree with it.

I've heard many interviews of him and I trust my intuition about where he's coming from.

So you rely on this would you like that peer reviewed someone MAKING money writing conspiracy books and female intuition, so if any buildings collapse in the future that's all we need to investigate it ROFLMAO

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Flatcoat

Smarter than everyone else? nah. Above average, yeah, that actually is true based on various assessments over the years.

And Flat, you are not going to find a 9/11 theory that has not been discussed, researched and debunked on ATS. Normally, with links to the research materials used.

And there you have it. Thanks for illustrating my point.

ETA. Another good example in the post just above mine.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
It's sad, but this is the number one tactic used by debunkers. They say " Oh, that's been debunked ( or demolished in your case...)" , when it fact, it hasn't at all.

It has been my experience with all discussions of controversial issues that the root word "debunk" is used when there is an emotion-driven, non-objective attempt going on to get rid of uncomfortable as in scary handwriting on the wall.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Flatcoat
It's sad, but this is the number one tactic used by debunkers. They say " Oh, that's been debunked ( or demolished in your case...)" , when it fact, it hasn't at all.

It has been my experience with all discussions of controversial issues that the root word "debunk" is used when there is an emotion-driven, non-objective attempt going on to get rid of uncomfortable as in scary handwriting on the wall.

No FACTS beat intuition !!!!

originally posted by: Mary Rose
It has been my experience with all discussions of controversial issues that the root word "debunk" is used when there is an emotion-driven, non-objective attempt going on to get rid of uncomfortable as in scary handwriting on the wall.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
No FACTS beat intuition !!!!

Four exclamation points and a non-sequitur illustrate my point.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Mary Rose
It has been my experience with all discussions of controversial issues that the root word "debunk" is used when there is an emotion-driven, non-objective attempt going on to get rid of uncomfortable as in scary handwriting on the wall.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
No FACTS beat intuition !!!!

Four exclamation points and a non-sequitur illustrate my point.

OK do you want to talk about the structure of the building and why YOU believe it was not a result of the plane impacts & fires so lets hear YOUR explanation I mean we already know it relies on female intuition what else.

The problem with the internet is it lets people like YOU with NO understanding or experience of a subject mouth off and hide behind a conspiracy.

YOU have NO idea of the loads that would be generated when the collapse happened neither do most of the other people who think it had to be a demo job.

Here is a link to a calculator to work out impact loads NOT one truther has ever used it to respond I WONDER WHY!

Impact Force

Try 10 kg floor height was 3.6 mtr default stopping distance in calculator is 0.1 mtr

Putting those in avg force is 3528 Newtons 9.81 n in a kilogram avg force would be 352.8 KG more than a third of a ton. FROM 10 KG

Yet people on here with NO UNDERSTANDING of the forces think that the buildings should withstand the collapse of the floors above the impact point.

ONE just ONE floor slab would have around 800+ tons of concrete or 800,000 KG put that in the calculator THEN stop talking about things YOU don't understand.

That fact that the collapse continued to the ground shows the impacts were so great they couldn't stop it so the forces would be higher than that shown by using the default stopping distance in the calculator.

originally posted by: mike dangerously
By: Derrick Broze

I always try to check out the authors of articles to get an idea of where he or she may be coming from.

Here is the blurb on Derrick Broze:

benswann.com...

It's nice to hear a person's voice, in my opinion, to get a sense of what is motivating him or her.

Here he is on a video from The Houston Free Thinkers YouTube channel:

Published on Jul 17, 2012

911 Truth 2012-Derrick Broze Houston Free Thinkers
www.groundzero911.com

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: mike dangerously
By: Derrick Broze

I always try to check out the authors of articles to get an idea of where he or she may be coming from.

Here is the blurb on Derrick Broze:

benswann.com...

It's nice to hear a person's voice, in my opinion, to get a sense of what is motivating him or her.

Here he is on a video from The Houston Free Thinkers YouTube channel:

Published on Jul 17, 2012

911 Truth 2012-Derrick Broze Houston Free Thinkers
www.groundzero911.com

www.youtube.com...

He come across as childish/imature in his ways of thinking.

Did you notice the sign behind him was being held up buy people?
That says he can't even come up with a place of his own. Quality

a reply to: samkent

Do you understand that you're making fun of an activist?

Do you think he should be like mainstream media, or something like that?

originally posted by: samkent
That says he can't even come up with a place of his own. Quality

What?