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

a reply to: dfnj2015

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:

Funny you reference a model, not the numerous videos of the actual towers’ collapse?

Please define “near free fall”?

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

We should always be willing to look at new evidence or compelling questions. And answer those with solid answers or questions of our own. We should never revert to "your a conspiracy theorist" or "it's only a rock" or "that's been debunked".

The problem with 9/11 is that there are too many conspiracy theories surrounding it. Many of them appear to be just lumped onto the rest as misinformation/disinformation. 9/11 is something best done one thing at at time. One question at a time.

Could all three of those buildings fallen like that without controlled demolition? Who are the experts that say so and where are the models or evidence that shows that?

Like you, I was stumped by how vigorously people held on to their false beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Like to post an actual example? Again, your argument is based on vague implications with no cited evidence?

How about we talk about all the proven falsehoods of the truth movement? Like all the pictures posted of columns cut by WTC cleanup crews falsely pushed as cut by thermite. Or Richard Gage’s false claim the towers had to collapse through the path of greatest resistance? When the tower ores fell last? Caught right there in video evidence? Or the fact the towers did not fall at the rate of free fall? I think there are still people claiming the towers fell at the rate of free fall? Is that false?

a reply to: amazing

As in too many people milking the conspiracy cow for attention, donations, and speaking engagements? By producing a product to a target audience willing to give likes and open wallet?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

As in too many people milking the conspiracy cow for attention, donations, and speaking engagements? By producing a product to a target audience willing to give likes and open wallet?

You'll always have some of that, even in legit issues. But with 9/11 there are too many. Israeli's in the room upstairs with the blasting caps, George Bush's reaction, FBI knowing about the terrorists in Vegas but not listening to their own agents, lack of Cameras and videos at the Pentagon, confiscated cameras, Thermite, Phone call conspiracies, Free falling buildings, Missiles used, Passport found and on and on and on. There are probably 100 solid things to look at. KNowing that they can't all possibly be true.

What happens then if you have a legitimate question about one aspect of 9/11 people automatically thing of the 100s of issues and go...Oh you must be one of those wackos. They can't comprehend that some of this is misdirection or that it's totally sane to have a real question about one certain thing.

a reply to: amazing

That is why you have to start with validating the truth movement’s theories? And why they would push gross falsehoods? How could anyone buy in to Nukes at the WTC, or Dustification. Mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Push the falsehood the WTC steel was absolutely not inspected?

So, why would anyone argue and validate the official story if it is totally bogus? Like this rant of a thread?

The truth movement is vague on purpose? With only trying to put holes in what they consider the official narrative? And only aims to distract?

For the towers, what should I find more credible than floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns. The bowing caused buckling leading to collapse.

If someone is willing to push something that absolutely has no evidence like nukes for example, how can you find them credible?

The only thing that one can really do is find what has the most evidence. And if one pushes falsehoods concerning the towers’ collapse, then their whole credibility and judgement is in question?

Funny threads like this trying to poke holes in the “official account”, but never addresses the issue of the truth movement’s credibility.

Why is there never a thread about rooting out the charlatans of the truth movement, and how to repair its credibility?

a reply to: Isurrender73

So funny thing.

I have a friend that has an engineering company. They got a hold of the plans of the building.

All the engineers looked at how the building was built. And they all agree that there's no way the building could of stayed up. It was doomed to fall.

You are free to believe what you like. I'll believe what I've seen and the opinion of people that I trust.

Ahhh the good, ol' days when people distrusted the government and the official stories. These days we just eat it all up and go, please sir, can I have some more?

Thanks for the video, I have not seen that one before. And yeah, search for many, many threads on ATS -- some many pages long. I've spent many a sleepless night reading and following the links and the hard work of many members. Treasure trove of info on this site.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm thankful for this thread. Don't let anyone tell you that you're beating a dead horse. The 9/11 issue is still unresolved with implications that are felt widely today.
The folks that know the OS is phony on ATS make up the majority. It's the same 3 or 4 naysayers that show up in every single 9/11 thread that make a lot of noise with weak, ridiculing arguments. There will never be evidence sufficient enough for them.

originally posted by: loam
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.

Yeah, which is why in normal life I don't discuss such things except with a few people I trust and are relatively open minded.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: dragonridr

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

And they've been deleted now?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm thankful for this thread. Don't let anyone tell you that you're beating a dead horse. The 9/11 issue is still unresolved with implications that are felt widely today.
The folks that know the OS is phony on ATS make up the majority. It's the same 3 or 4 naysayers that show up in every single 9/11 thread that make a lot of noise with weak, ridiculing arguments. There will never be evidence sufficient enough for them.

Phony like:
Pushing photos of cut columns by work crews with thermal lances as cut by thermite?

The false rant the towers collapsed at the rate of free fall? Funny it is now near free fall? Why push the false rate of free fall talking point at all when the evidence was always on video?

The false claim by Richard Gage the towers had to fall through the path of greatest resistance as disproved by video evidence?

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives? That caused lateral ejection?

Steven Jones and his fraudulent thermite paper/research?

Dr Wood and Dustification?

No jets, holograms with lasers and missiles?

Impossible micro nuke bombs?

Self destructing buildings?

Rebar covered in C-4.

And quote the four people you are referring to ever said anything about blindly believing the government? Quote where those people ever said the government should not be scrutinized?

Funny those four people can cite specific credibility issues with the truth movement and create a logical argument. While you provide no evidence, make vague references, use innuendo, and blindly believe the talking points of the truth movement. Funny you ignore the credibility issues and the charlatans of the truth movement? The irony of your post?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What conspiracy theory regarding the towers’ collapse should I find more credible than inward bowing resulting in collapse? Conspiracy theories based on the lies the WTC steel was never saved, never examined, never sampled, and never tested?

I rest my case.

🤣

a reply to: neutronflux

What I want to know is where the 500 thousand tonnes of each buildings steel and concrete went, there should have been a 16 story rubble pile at the base of each tower going by physics? but by the news footage on the day it was around 4 stories, a lot of mass turned to dust some how? That's if you believe the pancake theory...

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
I rest my case.

🤣

Shock horror!!!! Members of the ATS forum who don't subscribe to the 911 conspiracy theories are the ones who argue against the 911 conspiracy theories on ATS!!!!!!!!!!!!1

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: neutronflux

What I want to know is where the 500 thousand tonnes of each buildings steel and concrete went, there should have been a 16 story rubble pile at the base of each tower going by physics? but by the news footage on the day it was around 4 stories, a lot of mass turned to dust some how? That's if you believe the pancake theory...

Ignoring the sub-basements

a reply to: samkent

You sound like one of the tools who believe Governments story,in reality there is no way in hell those buildings were not pulled by expert demolition company,only ones who believe this believe in core math and Tide pods,take a few courses in physics,if you can