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

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: myss427

Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

So is your claim it was all CG?
All the first responders are lying?
Even the ones who lost their own brothers?

With big claims you need big proof.

What does the OS say about the debri?

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: myss427

Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

So is your claim it was all CG?
All the first responders are lying?
Even the ones who lost their own brothers?

With big claims you need big proof.

What does the OS say about the debri?

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right?

Can you quote a source that makes that claim?

Or just another false argument by you?

If items acted on by gravity can only be pulled down? How does a Newton’s cradle work?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Newton’s cradle is a device that demonstrates conservation of momentum and energy using a series of swinging spheres. When one sphere at the end is lifted and released, it strikes the stationary spheres, transmitting a force through the stationary spheres that pushes the last sphere upward.

Amazing Newton's Cradle tricks you didn't know about!
m.youtube.com...

Do you have any more false arguments?


With chunks of moving building crashing into stationary chucks of building, why wouldn’t the towers act like a 3-d game of billiards?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Or maybe a ping pong table is a better analogy? Lengths of core columns did remain standing until the complete collapse of the floor system as shown by video.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: myss427

Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

So is your claim it was all CG?
All the first responders are lying?
Even the ones who lost their own brothers?

With big claims you need big proof.

What does the OS say about the debri?

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right?

Can you quote a source that makes that claim?

Or just another false argument by you?

If items acted on by gravity can only be pulled down? How does a Newton’s cradle work?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Newton’s cradle is a device that demonstrates conservation of momentum and energy using a series of swinging spheres. When one sphere at the end is lifted and released, it strikes the stationary spheres, transmitting a force through the stationary spheres that pushes the last sphere upward.

Amazing Newton's Cradle tricks you didn't know about!
m.youtube.com...

Do you have any more false arguments?


With chunks of moving building crashing into stationary chucks of building, why wouldn’t the towers act like a 3-d game of billiards?

How does me asking you 3 questions turn into me making a false arguement?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then it should be easy to cite who you consider part of, or defunding the ”offical narrative” claimed

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right

The truth movement is the one that claims the towers fell in their own footprints, but fizzle no flash explosives/thermite caused lateral ejection as evidence of CD. Is that a false statement?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then it should be easy to cite who you consider part of, or defunding the ”offical narrative” claimed

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right

The truth movement is the one that claims the towers fell in their own footprints, but fizzle no flash explosives/thermite caused lateral ejection as evidence of CD. Is that a false statement?

Stop with the obfuscation and answer the questions, or ignor them...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

If your argument is not false, it should be easy to cite who you consider part of, or defending the ”offical narrative” claimed

It was all supposed to fall straight down right. Nothing should have been ejected laterally if the OS collapse theory is correct. Right

a reply to: MALBOSIA

And still wating on you to quote who from this thread is defending NIST.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And still wating on you to quote who from this thread is defending NIST.

Ok. Keep obfuscating. I dont think you ever had a leg to stand on anyway.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Cite who from the offical narrative claimed no lateral ejection? Falling in their own footprints is a truth movement claim. Is that a false statement.

Back your claims individuals here are defending NIST by quoting who is defending NIST.

Cite a source to back your claims WTC 2 had long lengths bowing outward before collapse. Not you being confused by WTC 2 titling before collapse.

Cite video that shows tower vertical columns buckling out away from the towers. As opposed to the vertical columns buckling towards the core because of a force pulling in on the vertical columns.

If you cannot provide cited sources, then its:
-your opinions that are unproven with no evidence.
-or false statements with no evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Cite who from the offical narrative claimed no lateral ejection? Falling in their own footprints is a truth movement claim. Is that a false statement.

Back your claims individuals here are defending NIST by quoting who is defending NIST.

Cite a source to back your claims WTC 2 had long lengths bowing outward before collapse. Not you being confused by WTC 2 titling before collapse.

Cite video that shows tower vertical columns buckling out away from the towers. As opposed to the vertical columns buckling towards the core because of a force pulling in on the vertical columns.

If you cannot provide cited sources, then its:
-your opinions that are unproven with no evidence.
-or false statements with no evidence.

Back up your claims with one member of law enforcement or the justice department who was under oath.

Your just a conspiracy theorist. Your nobody and the people you who's information you use are nobody.

A bunch of nobodies.

You could say the same thing about Edward Snowden. So much of his story makes no sense at all, there's no way he pulled this off without some help from VERY high places.

He was a known subversive who got a job as a system admin, despite having written the TOR browser, despite having anti Government postings on social media, and despite having a stripper as a girlfriend (huge security risk). There's no way that he would have passed even a cursory security check, and certainly not the level of security check you'd have to go through to even be a contractor at NSA.

He also had NO official certifications to be a sys admin, network engineer, or anything else.

He also claims "people just gave me their passwords". At an ultra-secure NSA facility? No, they didn't.

None of the official story on this makes any sense at all, just like with 9/11.

Except everyone believes everything they hear about it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I got into ats because of 911. Over 10 plus years this sites members convinced me that:

1. The american government knew about the attacks before hand and allowed them to happen.
Who knew and for what reason it was allowed to happen I do not know.

2. The US military shot down one of the planes. Why? I do not know.

3. Explosives were used to bring down all the of those buildings. Towers one and two and building 7. Why? I do not know.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

One would have to be an idiot to think so, many find how its explained to fit quite well but whats really messy is the foreknowledge, how specific were the warnings received from numerous sources concerning a massive attack impending, all the bits and pieces about what was happening before 9/11 can point to some sort of inside job or at least a hand/hands from the inside of the US gov. or an allied Gov. that helped keep a miscommunication between agencies or helped in orchestrating a plan of attack for after the event, disinfo to keep people interested in demolitions and what not.

Problem with halting such an attack is that needs what is often called "actionable intelligence" , intelligence of sufficient
detail so can counter it

What is needed is 3 T's

Time - when is attack scheduled to occur, +/- say 48-72 hours
Too long run risk will lose focus and relax, also increased security may tip off actors that plot has been discovered

Too short time frame, may not have enough time to bring resources in

Target - what is being attacked so can increase security around it

Type of attack - how is it to be attacked . Does little good to be guarding garage against truck bomb when crashing planes
into top of building

"Truthers" often cite Presidential daily briefing of August 6 stating that Bin Laden was planning on hijacking planes

Have 1 out of three, Type of attack - plane hijacking

Ok - know type of attack, what about time ? August 6 is 5 weeks before, too long time frame

Also target …. Where are hijacking supposed to occur

Cant shut down entire air travel industry over some half ass rumors

a reply to: MALBOSIA

My claims are mostly are based on video alone, and the physics that made the recorded physical interactions of the towers possible.

Is that false?

So what does the video evidence have to do with.

Back up your claims with one member of law enforcement or the justice department who was under oath?

When have I even quoted law enforcement?

Can you prove the first responders that attest to the towers collapsed because of impact / fire / thermal stress damage are lying? The burden of proof is on you. With no proof and accusations of lying, is that slander?

What is seen on video has to filtered through law enforcement?

Conclusions backed by scientific principles and observable evidence has to be filtered through law enforcement?

And still....

Cite who from the offical narrative claimed no lateral ejection? Falling in their own footprints is a truth movement claim. Is that a false statement.

Back your claims individuals here are defending NIST by quoting who is defending NIST.

Cite a source to back your claims WTC 2 had long lengths bowing outward before collapse. Not you being confused by WTC 2 titling before collapse.

Cite video that shows tower vertical columns buckling out away from the towers. As opposed to the vertical columns buckling towards the core because of a force pulling in on the vertical columns.

If you cannot provide cited sources, then its:
-your opinions that are unproven with no evidence.
-or false statements with no evidence.

Removed post.

So sad

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Removed post.

So sad

That people are bitter over the towers were not brought down by planted explosives? Oh, I forgot. You cannot even cite a theory, or will not take a stand on stating something other than contracting floor truesses pulled on the vertical columns resulting in inward bowing leading to buckling initiating collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below. And distract by making false claims individuals are defending NIST in this thread?

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

www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you cite a source. It looks like you are showing the twist and tilt of the tower as this quoted in the link below.

www.911myths.com...

The rotation of the upper section of WTC 2 is clearly visible in the video and photographic record of 9-11 and was discussed by Bazant and Zhou, (B & Z), in one of the first studies of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: “Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?” published in the September 2001 issue of Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Please cite a source what you are pass off is outward bending of the actual vertical columns? No tilt and twist in a 2-d photo.

And provide evidence the actual buckling of the vertical columns was not driven inward as shown in video, but buckeled out away from the towers’ interior?

And there is no evidence of a detonation with a shock wave capable of cutting columns. No ejection before collapse.

I dont read anything by Bazant. Hes a flagrant idiot.

Did I quote Bazant in this thread?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Removed post.

So sad

That people are bitter over the towers were not brought down by planted explosives? Oh, I forgot. You cannot even cite a theory, or will not take a stand on stating something other than contracting floor truesses pulled on the vertical columns resulting in inward bowing leading to buckling initiating collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below. And distract by making false claims individuals are defending NIST in this thread?

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

www.metabunk.org...

You charade this narrative above like a Trumpet of uncontested wisdom with an air of certainty like, you ivented it yourself.

You seem to insist that the NIST report should not be relied on for evidence of any conclusion on why the towers fell.

Other than that, the only government sponcered report on what happened is the Commision report.

I dont see you defending the commision report much either.

Other than those 2 sources, all I and most others are left with is a bunch of amateur criminal investigators that spam their 'worlds only unified theory' a few times on every page of any discussion on 911.

Call me when you have court documents. Your theories are boring

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What does you rant have to do with there is no evidence of planted explosives.

Colleges and universities have research into the towes also concludes impact / fire / thermal stress damage as the root cause of collapse? Is that false?

If the government was the mastermind of 9/11, why would you state

Other than that, the only government sponcered report on what happened is the Commision report.

Cause I don’t trust the government. But I do trust many of the first responders.

There are at least two other studies in to WTC 7 that concluded fire / thermal stress as the root cause of its collapse. Research and conclusions submitted as depositions in law suits as sworn testimony. Is that false?


Especially for WTC 7, to say only the government has only formally looked into the WTC is another false statement by you.

That vast majority of professional criticism of NIST is not that they find fault with the conclusions, but aggravated that NIST mostly focused on the actual event of collapse. Not spending time on things like if the towers were properly insulated.

What you need to do is make a credible case using the actual collapse on what brought down the towers. Not somebody said pull it, classic conspiracist innuendo with out of context quote with a term not used to set off charges.

The only thing you are doing is throwing a tantrum there is no credible proof the towers were brought down by planted explosives, planted nukes, missiles, lasers, nor Dustification. The actual physics of the collapse does not fit anything other than fire / thermal stress / impact damage as the root cause. No matter the amount of whining or word games will change that.

Or can you make a valid case using the actual collapse something other than impact / fire / thermal stress was the root cause.