"Paper Fires" Brought The Buildings Down !

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'VE looked into the events of that day and I have not EVER come away believing that what happened on that day was anything but what they said happened. Even during the days on ATS where I was believing that the economy was days away from going into world wide collapse. I STILL didn't believe that the government did 9/11. From what I've seen, it is usually the people predisposed to wanting to believe that the government is ALWAYS evil that tend to believe the truther movement.

Oh yea, I've also researched the history of the truther movement, and found that there is a lot of deception and lies surrounding prominent truthers. I've also seen that many truthers don't know what real research is either. So many fallacies and confirmation bias present in the truth movement. See, I'm not opposed to believing that there wasn't some sort of conspiracy taking place involving some world power bankrolling Al Queda. I just don't think it was the US and I DEFINITELY don't think the culprits were anyone other than the people who are said to have done it.

You haven't looked into anything, you just read all those damned fool conspiracy websites that claim none exists and took them as your gospel.

Those as yourselves are the worst off in this world, your delusion is so high on the grand scale it is almost unmatchable....but it sure is fun watching you try to explain your opinion of the world to people.

Like watching a caveman explain how my Iphone works.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'VE looked into the events of that day and I have not EVER come away believing that what happened on that day was anything but what they said happened. Even during the days on ATS where I was believing that the economy was days away from going into world wide collapse. I STILL didn't believe that the government did 9/11. From what I've seen, it is usually the people predisposed to wanting to believe that the government is ALWAYS evil that tend to believe the truther movement.

Oh yea, I've also researched the history of the truther movement, and found that there is a lot of deception and lies surrounding prominent truthers. I've also seen that many truthers don't know what real research is either. So many fallacies and confirmation bias present in the truth movement. See, I'm not opposed to believing that there wasn't some sort of conspiracy taking place involving some world power bankrolling Al Queda. I just don't think it was the US and I DEFINITELY don't think the culprits were anyone other than the people who are said to have done it.

Funny how you do not put the entire massive cabal of liars that told you what happened on trial.

They are HABITUAL liars, that is probably why you trust them, can't have partial time liars telling us how things are LOL.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: soulwaxer

Why was any of the evidence destroyed?

If I was going to do a false flag and I had control of the evidence, anything that could point to explosives would be destroyed.

If I had nothing to hide, I would have made sure to follow basic principles of Law, which state not to destroy any evidence. And the destruction of evidence in any other case would be a criminal offence.

So why did we not follow common law practices with the worst event on US soil?

I don't need to hear about cognitive dissonance, I want to know who made the call to destroy the evidence and why.

The destruction of evidence is a fact. It is also a fact that destruction of evidence in common law is a crime. I am not using my imagination.

And take it to a landfill site aptly named Fresh Kills, where they claim they sifted through all of it and found everything.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soulwaxer

It works exactly that way.

You've made the accusation. It's up to you to prove it.

Can we hook up a jury to machines to cleanse the minds of propaganda, so that they could look at the case presented by both sides ??

It is flat out IMPOSSIBLE that the OS would even get one vote, without people believing in the religions that foster OS credibility.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: firerescue

...and people.

Don't forget the people. Seems to me, all too many of us do.

In our rush to blame someone, anyone, we seem to forget that a lot of people died that day.

??????

RUSH ??

The only rush was done by the media and government to punish those who cannot POSSIBLY have been responsible.

I recall the media trumpeting the 50,000 people that were in the buildings to stir up all the hatred in the world, and backed up by official sources.

In fact, every Official story is actually burnt deep in the subconscious of those who believe every word as it was said to them....and they will never break free.

Which really means, you will never break free.

a reply to: Revolution9i totally agree it was disgraceful that bush didn't immediately send troops or missiles to the kingdom of saud in retaliation for this heinous act.

I am happy that many people have finally woke up and did some research on 911.
If I did a poll on OS believers and OS deniers, I believe the OS deniers will win the polls with an over whelming vote.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Because they think if they tell a lie long enough people will believe it. Absolute "plausible deniability" with the mocking of conspiracy theorists. Thats the game plan they have stuck with all these years. But they are also inconsistent with the lies. At this point they dont care how preposterous the excuses are just as long as they are not held accountable and the blood money still flows.

a reply to: DarthFazer

If not for media complicity in the crime of cover-up, the official story would have died years ago. It cannot withstand scrutiny.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Here's an interesting experiment:

- Go through a number of recent 911 threads.
- Make one list of unique posters who are truthers and a second list of unique posters who are OSers.

> I guarantee that you will be surprised. I predict a long first list and a very short second list.

The fact that ATS is a site dedicated to conspiracies and 9/11 has its own forum, I am not sure how anyone would find that surprising.

See where I'm going with this?

yes,

well beyond critical thinking and in a fantasy land far far away if you think you are making any valid or relevant point.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: DarthFazer

If not for media complicity in the crime of cover-up, the official story would have died years ago. It cannot withstand scrutiny.

This country has basically been held hostage since the JFK assassination.

The events of 9/11 saw the agenda of the hostage takers advance to a whole new level.

The most well behaved hostages are totally unaware of the lies that bind them.

** To the tune of 'My country tis of thee' **

My country cannot see
Through the conspiracies
Of thee I sing
Land where innocents die
Land where the truth's a lie
From every mountain side
Truth seekers scream

a reply to: Subaeruginosa The jumpers. Judy Wood, PhD says there were around 1200 of them in her "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy on 911" Her deduction is that a directed energy weapon was used to "dustify" the towers and that the people inside of them were jumping to escape the magnetic field distortion. 1200 is a lot. She never says where she got the number.

a reply to: Informer1958

Probably. Mainly because they are uninformed or gullible enough to believe the things the "truth" movement has turned into a near religious belief.

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I have some honest questions I'm hoping someone has the expertise to answer.
1. Was there ever a plan in place to "deconstruct" the WTC towers? Whether their lifespan was 60 or 100 years, at some point they would become obsolete, most likely due to emerging technology, and they would have to be removed for something more modern. Could this be done in a controlled deconstruction or only in a demolition and freefall?
2. What was the cost of the asbestos abatement program necessary for the towers, and was it economically or logistically feasible?
3. Has anyone considered a "blast furnace" effect caused by the elevator/ machinery shafts? You would have what is effectively the world's tallest chimney, and once the fires got going, I imagine the draft up these shafts could turn a fuel and/or office materials fire into a blowtorch. After all, steel is smelted using common fuels with a large supply of oxygen.
4. Regarding the pools of molten metal in the basements of the towers, has anyone considered the effects of pressure as those thousands of tons of steel freefall and then smash into the basement and then a growing pile of steel? A lot of heat would be generated by this impact and friction, cumulatively heating the pile of steel to God-knows-what temperature.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The official narrative is true then? As stated in the 9/11 commision report? I would really like to hear the physics behind your own narrative that line up with the report. My father who is a captain in my towns fire department and my uncle who is an architect both discredit how the buildings fell, to them it was just impossible on all levels of normal structure failure, if anything the buildings would have toppled at the collision point or just above that point, sense the heat above that point would have been hotter than below. In fact there was no damage done below the lower half of each the buildings, so it is literally impossible for a building to fall into itself like what happened (unless there were explosives or some other device to weaken the base structure).

This is coming from people that have witnessed bombs exploding in wood buildings and those don't even fall. These towers were built to withstand these events, unless there were multiple bombs in those planes, and no way could there have been unless they were planted before departure.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Probably. Mainly because they are uninformed or gullible enough to believe the things the "truth" movement has turned into a near religious belief.

If you are not a Truther, you must be the opposite. To believe conspiracy theorist have a "special unique religion" only proves one can not look out side one's reality, therefore makes fun of facts, and belittling as you just demonstrated.


Scientific study reveals conspiracy theorists the most sane of all

www.naturalnews.com...#

Researchers -- psychologists and social scientists, mostly -- in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, "conspiracy theorists" appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

a reply to: Informer1958. Nice try. Truther, is not a term of respect. Nor does it reflect reality. You, and others, have been shown time and again that the things you rest your arguments on, are either completely false or are not an accurate reflection of the facts.

Look at the title of this thread.... "paper fires....." it is put forth as some sort of argument against the collapse of the buildings from office fires. And yet, we KNOW that designers contemplate this very fact. Again, if office fires are not a threat to structural stability...WHY DO THEY SPRAY FIREPROOFING ON THE STRUCTURAL STEEL?.......because the engineers know that, unchecked office fires will reach the temps needed for steel to fail....

a reply to: Informer1958

If I did a poll on OS believers and OS deniers, I believe the OS deniers will win the polls with an over whelming vote.

Not in the real world.
When you turn off your computer this conspiracy goes away.

If not for media complicity in the crime of cover-up, the official story would have died years ago. It cannot withstand scrutiny.

It has for 14 years because it has real proof to back it up.
Not one person has given reasons that hostile countries media would support the OS if they had any proof of a conspiracy.

There is no way TPTB could control every form of media on the planet.
If they could ATS would have been shut down years ago.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The official narrative is true then? As stated in the 9/11 commision report? I would really like to hear the physics behind your own narrative that line up with the report. My father who is a captain in my towns fire department and my uncle who is an architect both discredit how the buildings fell, to them it was just impossible on all levels of normal structure failure, if anything the buildings would have toppled at the collision point or just above that point, sense the heat above that point would have been hotter than below. In fact there was no damage done below the lower half of each the buildings, so it is literally impossible for a building to fall into itself like what happened (unless there were explosives or some other device to weaken the base structure).

Well your father and uncle weren't privy to any official evidence to actually conduct a REAL investigation to see if the buildings could fall like that. Also, your father and uncle's opinions don't trump the majority of other architects and engineers who have no problem saying that the buildings fell as described. In fact, I'd say it is likely they think this because they have confirmation bias related to the truther movement and YOU are trying to throw their professions into the mix to raise credibility for their opinions that were arrived at unscientifically.

Quick question. You don't have to answer it, but I'd hope you'd ask yourself it (if you REALLY want to practice denying ignorance that is). Did your uncle and father come to their conclusions by watching videos on Youtube then comparing what they saw to their work knowledge? Because if they did, then their opinion on the matter is worth squat.

This is coming from people that have witnessed bombs exploding in wood buildings and those don't even fall. These towers were built to withstand these events, unless there were multiple bombs in those planes, and no way could there have been unless they were planted before departure.

Yes because we all know that EVERY building in the world behaves EXACTLY the same way when structural failure occurs... /sarc

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Truther, is not a term of respect.

So lying is the term of respect. You cannot have it both ways.

Nor does it reflect reality.

So what your saying is denying facts reflects OS believers reality. Got it.

You, and others, have been shown time and again that the things you rest your arguments on, are either completely false or are not an accurate reflection of the facts.

Like OS believers who believe in a fairy tail ( 911 ) and everything the propaganda mainstream media regurgitate to a brainwashed crowd many who cannot and will not have their fantasy shattered by scientific facts that they where lied to.

Let me remind you, OS believers or deniers have also rest their arguments on false claims that are not the reflection of the facts.

Look at the title of this thread.... "paper fires....." it is put forth as some sort of argument against the collapse of the buildings from office fires. And yet, we KNOW that designers contemplate this very fact. Again, if office fires are not a threat to structural stability...WHY DO THEY SPRAY FIREPROOFING ON THE STRUCTURAL STEEL?.......because the engineers know that, unchecked office fires will reach the temps needed for steel to fail....

LOL, if there was fireproofing on the structural steel then how did paper get so hot to melt fireproofing steel?

That alone defies logic. Please do explain this, I need a good laugh.

The buildings fell in an hour after the planes stuck the WTC, yet you believe paper burning in metal file cabinets melted the fireproofing?