911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by davec0021
Ok I'm pretty sure you said earlier or implied earlier and I paraphrase, that this implosion was indicative of a controlled demolition. I ask you does that look like a controlled demolition? Because I'm certain it's own footprint means controlled demolition to you.

A building falling straight down into its footprint does not prove demolition in and of itself, but I'll put it this way. Looking at how tall that building was, and considering the initial failure was at the base of the building, and that it was trying to lean anyway, the chances of it falling so far, as straight as it did, and doing so little damage to surrounding structures without the aid of demolition, are slim to none.

It's when you throw in other information, like the fact that all 4 corners of the roof line dropped within a fraction of a second of each other, and quickly began accelerating at free-fall into itself, that it really goes beyond any remotely reasonable doubt for me. No mention of sounds of explosions even needed, or other witness testimonies or how long NIST had to continually delay their report on that building or anything like that. Those are just the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned, after considering only how it behaved during collapse.

Originally posted by trueforger
Well since our thread on the tapes of the fallen heroes up in floor 78 revealed that one particular now generally ignored pister hadn't even listened to the 11 minute tape before s/he/it replied at two minutes,I have just dove right on in to activating the IGNORE BS deflector and ,1,2,3 they're gone and not missed nor even am I curious about their rhetoric I could be wasting my life reading.It's like closing the door on the kids' table room at T-Day,whew,the silence is golden.The dif is that the T-Day kidlets are just having fun at the table and the debunk krew are possibly co-conspirators after the fact of MURDER MAYHEM and TREASON.Not toyz boyz.I want my hand on the rope with all of us,'supporting'their final opinion."Eerrkkk.."With the greatest love of the people and country in heart and mind.

Yep, these people just put people they disagree with on ignore, or better yet, call for them to be banned.

Thats a truther for ya.

And by the very existence of this thread, its also clear that they love to gloat over each other, starring and flagging a thread that not only serves NO purpose, but allowing utterly useless posts that have been posted a billion times in every single one of these threads with comments like "I dont beleive it, nor will I ever!" which get at least 15 stars.. Such insight.

Hit ignore, call for bans, repeat.

What a dire world you live in....

reply to post by evil incarnate


I am just saying things. I am looking at a picture of what looks like a building that has fallen down, and it looks exacly like I would expect it to.

edit to add: it does not look like an explosion happened at all. I ask if you have ever seen a demo job.I have. this is not what it looks like.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by space cadet]

I couldn't agree more with the OP, but it is not something new. If you read back into the forums of 9/11 you will see a long history of such behavior. Posters who never leave the 9/11 forums, who debunk and dismiss at a feverous rate, never reliquishing any points or entertaining any new ideas or theories that arise. Making ridiculous and unbelievable claims that anyone with common sense would frown at.

This whole phylum of absurd theories regarding 9/11 (lazer weapons, holograms, moon bats from Pluto) can be seen dating back to the original threads. Some of us have known for a long while now that these embarrassing and far fetched "theories" have been purposefully introduced as a means to discredit the entire movement as a whole.

What better way to cover up and dismiss an entire segment of people who diagree with your agenda, than to lump them in with nonsense and forever link the serious research data and the intelligent questions with the rubbish? This way they can paint anyone and everyone who dares question the official story as emotionally troubled, anti-American, dangerous, mentally ill, communist, Taliban etc.

Anyone who looks hard enough can read between the lines and figure out that there are elements at work who look to distract, disinform, pollute and other wise create dismay in hopes of the truth never being fulfilled and exposed. The one thing we Truthers have on our side will set us free.....pure hard science.

You can lie and lie and lie and deflect and lie some more....but you can't dispute hard scientific fact. Coming to a theater near you.

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Y'all are not actual debunkers.These use reason and generally come away with more knowledge even if unconvinced.

That was an eleven minute tape clearly demonstrating an IMPOSSIBILITY which the jiggly one with the glasses pisted after TWO minutes.I don't expect you to 'get it',I'm just looking for a reply.IGNORE is my new mantra,you a one of these too?We'll see.Ya.

I hope you also put on ignore that 'pister' who said she believes 100% that 911 was an inside job but that the video was pathetic.

NO?

Can you put yourself on ignore, I wonder...

reply to post by BlackOps719


some of us 'truthers' ( i hate that label ) feel the same way about controlled demolition theories - that is, they lack scientific credibility. some of us think the gov't just... let it happen.

others think that while the gov't didn't let it happen per say, perhaps there are overlapping elements of our intel. apparatus who work in cahoots with the same types from other nations to achieve such things...

others think the cover up is about different nefarious associations being kept hidden -ie, like between the US and the Saudis.

There are many stripes of 'truther', and it makes me ill how people try to draw lines as if this is a religious cult of 'believers' and 'infidels'.

itsn't EVERYone here interested in knowing the truth?

seems that way to me.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

I am just saying things. I am looking at a picture of what looks like a building that has fallen down, and it looks exacly like I would expect it to.

But you are claiming that it was kept in the center by bouncing off the surrounding buildings all the way down. I am asking you to back that claim up as it contradicts all the evidence.

Please, either back up your claim or tell me you cannot. It is really that simple. I am not looking to go around in circles with double talk. It only takes one response.

You made a claim, please present the evidence or retract it. That simple. Anything else is obviously trolling.

Now to the person that said truthers just put anyone they disagree with on ignore...please take note of the fact that I have asked this question 4 times now. Should I not put a person on ignore for playing games instead of just standing by what they say?

would it really have mattered if the building fell over like a leaning tower of piza, would that have made any difference.

Why is it so impossible for a building to land in it's Own Footprint from a cause of fires weakening it's structure into a state of freefall.

How then should it have falllen going by the sequence of collapse of these reports from Fema or Nist.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Ask yourself this: if you're right about 9/11, and if we never get another investigation....if you never manage to sway more people than are already swayed.... what's your next move?

I hate to say it but I started with the idea that nothing would ever be done about 9/11 and started planning from there. I also believe the economy is going to completely bottom out on an unprecedented level that is going to be extremely hard on millions of people. I believed the economy was going to do this before people were even arguing over whether we were going into a recession or not and when everything still seemed fine and dandy. People are still optimistic about it but I hate to say I never was, because I honestly do not believe there is a single person running Wall Street or the banks that actually puts the well-being of others over their own desire for endless profit.

What exactly I would do in a "SHTF" scenario of total economic collapse or martial law or both or you name it, I can't say in any detail but the big priority would obviously be staying warm, well-fed, alive, and same for my closest family and friends. There are enough like-minded people that ATS even has a survivalist forum now but I don't think enough people take it seriously. But imagine what would happen on Manhattan Island alone if it suddenly had its electricity cut off and stopped getting its daily truckloads of food shipped in from abroad, for whatever reason. Maybe it's a real concern, maybe not. I'm fortunate enough to live pretty close to the country so I'm a little more flexible there.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Posters who never leave the 9/11 forums,

I just wanted to add this:

Posters that never leave the 9/11 forums as their post history shows not one other topic ever being discussed in a loooooooong line of posts...

...who have also been banned already as throatyogurt, cameronfox, and is not imapepper.

It seems bad enough if people are only trolling on one topic like that but even worse that they get banned again and again and keep coming back just to troll on those threads.

reply to post by evil incarnate


dude. she's hardly trolling. she's just posing a possibility, from how things look to her.

for fek sake - what gives with all you snotty little know it all punks telling other people how they may or may not ask a question?

back off, and let the woman ask questions. if you'd like to kindly explain why you disagree with her, trot out data demonstrating why.

but cut it with the bashing. i could practically hear your teeth grinding in eager anticipation of a killing blow...


what a trainwreck. were you always such an intolerant thug?

Originally posted by redgy
would it really have mattered if the building fell over like a leaning tower of piza, would that have made any difference.

Yes, it couldn't really be a controlled demolition. Even if explosives were still involved, it would make a massive mess and there would have been a much greater loss of property and probably of life.

Why is it so impossible for a building to land in it's Own Footprint from a cause of fires weakening it's structure into a state of freefall.

1) It's the path of most resistance physically possible.

2) You can't free-fall through ANY resistance. Free-falling is when none of the energy of the falling body is used to do any work. The more work the object has to do, the more slowly it falls. Even air causes drag which reduces acceleration. And if air does then how much moreso thousands of tons of bolted-and-welded steel-framed building materials? If you've had a physics class before then this would make more sense to you.

How then should it have falllen going by the sequence of collapse of these reports from Fema or Nist.

Those reports' explanations are actually pretty embarrassing. FEMA openly admitted they had no idea but that fire was "unlikely" to have been the ultimate cause. NIST delayed and delayed their final report for months/years but finally concluded it must have been some new thermal expansion "phenomena" that has never been seen before in any skyscraper fire in history. And neither of them went into any of the nitty-gritty details that we discuss here like energy conservation during its free-fall acceleration, the symmetry, etc. NIST even did computer models that looked absolutely nothing like the actual collapse.

reply to post by bsbray11


This is a quality blog. It's by a guy in Argentina who lived through the collapse (economy) there. It gets into surviving in place, so to speak. Which is to say, it's unlikely a scenario unfolds that has everyone literally running for the hills. More likely, folks gotta learn to live where they are, only differently....

ferfal.blogspot.com...


Lots of good info there.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

dude. she's hardly trolling. she's just posing a possibility, from how things look to her.

Dude, she made a claim that she said was the truth. I asked 4 times for her to back that claim up. All 4 times she has used some distraction instead of backing up what she claimed was the truth. How is that not trolling?

for fek sake - what gives with all you snotty little know it all punks telling other people how they may or may not ask a question?

Excuse me? When did I tell anyone how they could ask a question? I asked here to back up her claim.

back off, and let the woman ask questions. if you'd like to kindly explain why you disagree with her, trot out data demonstrating why.

She can ask all the questions she wants. If she wants to ask me something she has to at least answer my question first. I asked first. She made a claim and I asked her to back it up. What do you not understand?

Please do not get so hostile with me because you seem to have completely missed what is actually happening here. You have added nothing and I am sure that she can speak for herself so unless you have someting constructive or you can back up her claim...I have no clue why you are even responding to me.

but cut it with the bashing. i could practically hear your teeth grinding in eager anticipation of a killing blow...

Want to offer me an example of my bashing? Please just one quote or else I can just put you on ignore for obviously lying about me.

Up to you. Back up what you just said or vanish. So far you have only proven the OP correct and I have no need for a post that is nothing but an unfounded attack.

what a trainwreck. were you always such an intolerant thug?

Now I would also like to see an example of any intolerance and thuggish behavior.

The woman made a claim and I have asked her 4 times to back it up. Everything you said is nonsense until you show me what I asked for.

reply to post by TrueTruth




Apologies if you took that as a shot at your beliefs in some way.

Believe me, I am open to any and all theories that are based in some form of reality and reason. Some of the more far fetched ideas that I have heard still made more sense than the OS, considering all of the convenient coincidences that would have been required.

But understand there is a difference between a far fetched idea that makes some sense, versus just flat out lies and disinformation. Im not claiming to be the end all and be all authority on who decideds what is and isnt correct, but I didn't fall off of the turnip truck last week and I can usually discern between the two.

Obviously these are just my own personal opinions, nothing more.

reply to post by TrueTruth


Star for that. I'll bookmark it and give it a read later. Right now I have about 4 or 5 different things up on my computer at the same time and I'm not going to be able to read any of it before going to bed if I keep posting on here...

reply to post by BlackOps719


oh, you weren't rude. i just get tired of all the in group - out group nonsense. there are lots of us OS skeptics who get routinely attacked here for being even handed in our skepticism. the 'truther' crowd has a nasty tendency to go all Spanish Inquisition on your arse should you dare to question their pet theories.... immediately, you're a 'debunker' - shill - paid operative -troll - or what have you. And I've never encountered such vitriolic intolerance in my life, quite frankly.

so no. you said nothing rude. i'm just.... tired of it all. i wish people cared more about progress than being right.... or more about discovering truth than owning it.

the true truth evades us all, right?

thanks for the kind gesture nonetheless.

peace.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

dude. she's hardly trolling. she's just posing a possibility, from how things look to her.

for fek sake - what gives with all you snotty little know it all punks telling other people how they may or may not ask a question?

back off, and let the woman ask questions. if you'd like to kindly explain why you disagree with her, trot out data demonstrating why.

but cut it with the bashing. i could practically hear your teeth grinding in eager anticipation of a killing blow...


what a trainwreck. were you always such an intolerant thug?

You seem to be suffering from a severe delusion. This is not about any question she asked. This is about a statement she made that she claimed was true. What are you even reading?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Again, can you please explain this. Are you saying that it was bouncing off the other buildings back into the center? Are you saying that the other buildings worked as blockers?

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

both. As I asked before, where else could it go? It hit up aainst the other buildings as it went down, and landed in the only place it could.

See, I would also like to see just what she is basing that claim on as the very pictures she says look like they should completely contradict this claim.

You should probably just let her speak for herself since you obviously have no idea what conversation is going on here. Nice job reinforcing the OP.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by bsbray11


You state

Are you honestly telling me you don't think it matters that their model came up with something that doesn't look anything at all like the actual collapse? You think somehow they were able to determine what was going on inside the building, where they couldn't actually see, based on a model that produced gross deviations from reality where we actually CAN see in the videos?

Yes, they were able to determine what happened inside the buildings after the 1000's of hours of research by people who are MORE than qualified. Sprinkle in a few nobel prizes and some heavy processing power and yes, you can recreate a collapse. This is how they deterimined what would be the standard for buildings moving forward and incorporated into the new WTC 7. That is what NIST does. It finds the fault and then comes up with a solution.

When I watch videos of the WTC 7 I see the kink and the drop of the buildings on the roof seconds before it collapses. BEFORE the progressive collapse we see a failure. Now, in a demolition, you would SEE and HEAR the firing of the explosives and even if it was thermite as some suggest you would need something to ignite that would have left residue that is not available.

I want physical evidence.

reply to post by evil incarnate


maybe she simply hasn't spent as much time as some people have on reading tons of reports. this does not a troll make.

maybe she'd be more inclined to say more if you didn't talk to her like some kind of buffoon. ever thought that maybe you turn people off?

trust me - i missed nothing. she came in, asked a couple of questions, and people jumped all over her like she was on fire.

nobody needs to bark on your command - especially when you have no trace of civility in you at all.

vanish? go screw.

get back to me when you need two hands to count your pubes.