What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

originally posted by: testingtesting
9/11 brought me to ATS I watched loose change and ï believed in the conspiracy but now after reading the many threads on the subject I don't believe in the conspiracy angle anymore.

It is sad people spend so much time on the false aspects of 9/11 that the true conspiracies get lost. There is a cult jihad. Immigration and if ties to Middle Eastern governments are what got the 9/11 terrorists into the USA. The poor military response. Preceding intel that ignored warnings concerning 9/11. Middle Eastern government ties to 9/11.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Everyone in the Truth Movement are engineering experts and know precisely how things work. Richard Gage is their teacher.

I think 9/11 was government sponsored, but just by Middle Eastern governments that manipulated ignorant USA ties.

But thanks to fizzle no flash pseudoscience booms, and DR Wood Dustification, the truth movement looks irrational and ignorant.

originally posted by: testingtesting
9/11 brought me to ATS I watched loose change and ï believed in the conspiracy but now after reading the many threads on the subject I don't believe in the conspiracy angle anymore.

Well if you speak English, which you clearly do, and you understand the meanings of words, which you might not, what happened on 11 September was indeed a conspiracy. That is, 2 or more humans planned and worked together to accomplish a nefarious goal. That's really all a conspiracy is.

The only question for the intelligent and curious analyst is "who exactly were the conspirators", and what exactly were the goals?

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts at suppression by the government and media, the facts we have all work against the official story.

a reply to: Salander

Loose change is a fake documentary based on misconceptions and innuendo. It is media based on conspiracy fantasy that fails once scrutinized by actual physics and science when it comes to the physical evidence.

The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration. I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don't add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add. What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years at NIST.

Link

Structural System 1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading.. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures. The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including: The Sears Tower (1450 ft) The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft) The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft) The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)

Link

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think it was 2006-2007. I was browsing and somehow came across Loose Change (I'm pretty sure I wasn't even looking at anything conspiracy related) and I started to watch it not knowing what it was.

Now I know it has been picked apart and is highly controversial but I remember the first cut showing the photos of the Pentagon wall prior to collapse and I noticed the lack of wing damage to the left and right of the impact hole. Plus an eye witnesses claimed that the plane bounced on the ground before hitting the Pentagon but there was no damage to the lawn before they started dumping sand/gravel.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Find an impact calculator on line see how much force a 1000 ton floor slab dropping 12 ft would have then stfu.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

You do understand the entrance hole was on the white facade of the pentagon. The hole was at least 70 feet wide and shaped like an upside down tee. Can you post a picture or link to a picture of the entrance hole.

And there was a whole maintenance area between the pentagon and the lawn with a concrete wall the engine hit. An area big enough to contain maintenance trailers and large cable spools.

And if a bomb or missile was used at the pentagon, wouldn't there had been interior of the pentagon exploded onto the lawn.

We need to stop people coning people out of
a LOT of money to demolish tall buildings.
we can see from the twin towers that it is very easy
to bring down high rise buildings with just a fire!
just burn 1/5 the way down from the top.
and you dont need high temp!
just a temperature of 1500 degrees.


the one in London !
did not have metal in it, thats why it did not fall down.

a reply to: buddha

While a high rise steel building in tehran did collapse from fire. Amazing how building design and amount of concrete used is a factor.

a reply to: buddha

And thanks for completely ignoring that it's documented and a scientific fact steel looses about 60 percent of its strength around 1100 degrees.

Or the long floor spans of the WTC with no mid supports.

Or the WTC buildings minimized concrete and cost beyond normal practice.

Or the documented deficient fire insulation at the WTC.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Find an impact calculator on line see how much force a 1000 ton floor slab dropping 12 ft would have then stfu.

You're saying the building codes aren't safe or something? Show another similar building collapse from fire earthquake or any other reason other than controlled demolition. Or just STFU. So far you have failed.

1964

a reply to: Doctor Smith

www.youtube.com... Madrid Windsor Tower fire. Partial collapse due to fire alone, and according to the investigators only the concrete transfer slab on the 17th floor stopped a full collapse.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

This is the latest high rise building collapse do to fire:

tehran-plasco-highrise-fire-and-collapse

www.metabunk.org...


Evidence that WTC 2 was not brought down by controlled demolition.

This link shows the moment WTC 2 collapsed:
www.metabunk.org...

The contracting floor trusses that were sagging pulled in and buckeled the outer vertical columns. The buckling was isolated to only a few floors. A dropped core would have caused buckling in every floor. The portion of building above the buckling slammed into the floors below. The floor connections gave way, and the process snowballed as the falling mass grew. The floor connections failed, not the columns as proven by large sections of vertical columns standing for many seconds after the floors completed their total collapse.

For CD to be true.

9/11 was the first successful implosion of high rise buildings over 47 floors. Twice in one day.

9/11 was the fist successful top down implosion of a high rise building. Twice in one day.

For implosion to be true, the complex and sophisticated ignition system and wiring would had to survived wide spread fires and jet impacts that cut elevator cables and fire water mains.

For thermite, the first successful CD using thermite in a high raise building in the first successful top down implosion in the first successful high rise CD of buildings over 47 floors. Twice in one day.

The timing using thermite would be almost impossible do to thermites slow and inconsistent burning time. And again, the ignition/timing control system and wiring would have to survive wide spread fires and jet impacts that cut services to carryout the precision top down timing.


So? if it never happened before 9/11, it must be impossible for all the claimed firsts involving CD to happen twice in one day. Thanks for the logic to debunk yourself.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
1964

Was that the year the Warren Report came out? And many people had much trouble believing it?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: wmd_2008

Everyone in the Truth Movement are engineering experts and know precisely how things work. Richard Gage is their teacher.

There probably are not many engineers who discussed the WTC project still around posting on ATS.
At my briefing everything went pretty smoothly till it was suggested that one of the planes that were to be flown into the towers was not solar powered.