How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

I am just amazed by how strongly people defend the official conspiracy theory. It has to be just airplanes and only airplanes that took down 3 buildings in NYC on 9/11. Why is it so hard to imagine if terrorists were capable of flying jets into skyscrapers that they could not also wire those buildings for demolition to achieve maximum terror. The goal on 9/11 was maximum terror.

The buildings collapsing at near free-fall speed is best explained by controlled demolition. It's just what the evidence suggests. This video show really good models that best represent what is happening in the video evidence:



Show me one experiment confirming the pancake theory or pile driver theory and I will be convinced. But NIST never release the details of the computer simulation for peer view. The NIST explanation of what happend on 9/11, especially WTC 7 which WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE ON 9/11, is really junk science.

But people are just so committed to the official conspiracy theory it's really strange. It's almost as if changing the story about 9/11 is equal to the reliving the pain everyone felt on 9/11. I think it's important to know everything the terrorists did on 9/11. The video evidence suggests controlled demolition is the most likely explanation.

Here is a peered review paper published showing evidence of explosive residue found in the 9/11 dust:

benthamopen.com...

I think we need to really understand exactly what the terrorist did on 9/11. Enough time as past. Lot's of Arabs have died. The military industrialists have made trillions. I think the government needs to reopen the investigation.

"The solution to problem of tragedy and malevolence is the willingness to face them."

a reply to: dfnj2015

Just do a search there is hundreds of threads that have gone over this. Why create a new one just add to one of the hundreds where it has been discussed.

a reply to: dragonridr

You just proved my point. I wasn't around for those threads.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You get called a 'conspiracy theorist' or other names if you question the official explanation.

Not generally very healthy for upwardly mobile employment or every day relationships.

a reply to: loam

I just read a very interesting quote, ""The solution to problem of tragedy and malevolence is the willingness to face them."

a reply to: dfnj2015

I wonder what the world today would be like if those towers didn't come down like that.

Would we have had a nuclear war?
Would we be years more advanced, at peace, and more wealthy?

Impossible to know.
I wonder what the truth really is?

People keep on beating the dead horse.

There's plenty of good threads on ATS that go over in detail the 2 towers falling.

If you care to read them then it may make some sense to you why they fell the way they did.

It's an argument that will go in circles forever. Just like other "conspiracy theories" have. From day one people seem offended by people that don't believe the same way they do. Some will do mental gymnastics for hours explaining away this or that or trying to prove this or that. Fairly certain this site is for conspiracy theories and that one is perhaps the biggest one for many years.

People love to think they're right thus they will attempt to suppress your opinion and speak theirs as fact.

]a reply to: dfnj2015

Just because I could, I am like that sometimes, I recently had a guy watch the video by James Corbett which explains 9/11 in 5 min.

www.youtube.com...

I must admit I got the response I really expected, "No! That is not what happened at all. I watched it all on TV and it was nothing like that".

I sat by and smiled for the next hour as he explained how the "official story" was different.

originally posted by: dfnj2015....
Show me one experiment confirming the pancake theory or pile driver theory and I will be convinced...

The Experiment was run on 9/11, you dismiss it as I suspect you would any future experiments.

Most of us are here on ATS because official stories don’t ring true. I think starting a new thread on an old topic a couple times a year is a good thing. It reminds us why ATS is so great.

a reply to: grey580

You mean there are plenty of threads on ATS that attempt to explain why the buildings fell the way they did using theories that were not used in the NIST report?

Everything is rainbows and unicorns people just trust the government.

a reply to: dfnj2015
Like you, I was stumped by how vigorously people held on to their false beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Until I saw a presentation by a number of psychologists explaining the following:

Two words: cognitive dissonance

Wikipedia:

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.[1][2]

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

Whoever was behind the plan to detonate the buildings (hint: whoever gained the most as a result) was aware of this psychological concept.

9/11 was first and foremost a psychological operation.

soulwaxer

a reply to: dfnj2015

You just proved my point.

No the point is you have had 17 years to prove these wacky conspiracy theories.
And what has become of any of them? Nothing!
I or we might have respect if the conspiracy crowd had one unifying theory that covered everything we saw.
But they don't.
It's a mish mash of little things they think lead to TPTB pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
And not one of these things have stood up the scrutiny.

I fear you are too far behind the truth curve to catch up.
But here's a nugget for you to chew on.
Bentham is a paid to publish journal.
You pay the fee and they will publish your crap as if it's real
They have already been busted publishing a computer generated gibberish paper and calling it real.

Show us one unified theory that could fool all the worlds experts in all the fields needed.
or
Show us how TPTB could buy off all the worlds experts past and present.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Whoever was behind the plan to detonate the buildings (hint: whoever gained the most as a result) was aware of this psychological concept.

9/11 was first and foremost a psychological operation.

Now explain how they got the airlines to go along with crashing their planes and killing their passengers.

That's my point you need a unified theory to cover all the angles.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Whoever was behind the plan to detonate the buildings (hint: whoever gained the most as a result) was aware of this psychological concept.

Explanation on how the conversation went at United airlines.
CEO: "So you want to crash millions of dollars of our planes."
CEO: "You want us to ground all of our flights worldwide."
CEO: "You do know we won't be able to get any planes back into the air for two days!"
CEO: "All so you can blow up a few buildings?"
CEO: "Well I'm gonna need some Yankees tickets to do that."

Your mish mash of half baked theories just don't stand up to the real world.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer

Whoever was behind the plan to detonate the buildings (hint: whoever gained the most as a result) was aware of this psychological concept.

9/11 was first and foremost a psychological operation.

Now explain how they got the airlines to go along with crashing their planes and killing their passengers.

That's my point you need a unified theory to cover all the angles.

What makes you think they did that?

You obviously haven't looked into this very thoroughly. I suggest you do that first, and then come back with some serious questions.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

cognitive dissonance

Argument used by someone who cannot accept the reality that terrorists hijacked/crashed four airliners that day. They also wave off ALL actual evidence that disproves the fantasies they live under.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The Bentham paper was not peer reviewed. It is an abomination of a paper that has been shown to be sadly lacking in so many ways that it is laughable. Look at earlier threads and you will discover that the data provided shows that the thermodynamics says that there was no thermite. These guys started with a conclusion in mind and ended up with that conclusion in their paper.
ETA: The red thermitic material is primer.

The towers were not brought down by CD. Jet impact, fire, and thermal stress related damage resulted in the vertical columns bowing in near silence to the point they buckeled, leading to collapse. The collapse of the towers was not caused by cut columns. I can point to video to support the actual event. The video is contained in the below link.

www.metabunk.org...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

Why is it Truth Movement debunkers talk in specifics while the truth movement talks in vague terms of conspiracy? Referencing lies,misquotes, half truths, hiding of facts, and the use of photos out of context?