Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Saudi Arabians who were not exactly devout does not equal Islamic Extremists. Just Sayin'.

As far as that goes, I don't think that I'm "helping the terrorists win" as so many like to put it these days by questioning the official story. Whether we carried out the attack ourselves or just used it as a good excuse to invade two nations who didnt have any part in it, something is wrong. Period.

I propose finding a building set for demolition and recreate a remote plane crashing into the upper floors. Lets prove once and for all if a building can collapse at free fall speed into it's own foot print in under 3 hours. Even if the building isn't constructed like the trade towers, it would at least shed light on the collapse of building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane.

I'm surprised this hasn't been proposed a long time ago. There's ways of creating small scale models and duplicating this at a smaller scale.

Energy travels along the least point of resistance. The way those buildings collapsed, there was no resistance from the lower part of the structure. It really is a physical impossibility. If the truther's claims are wrong, than prove it!

If witnesses saw a plane fly into the Pentagon, than release all those parking lot security tapes and the security tapes of the surrounding businesses! This would certainly clear up claims made by the truther's that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Come on Op, what's your answer to the reason why these tapes have been kept from the public?

If VP Dick, is coming out now about shooting down flight 93, than why was that kept secret until now. They've slipped up earlier saying the flight was shot down. How do you have a slip of the tongue if everyone in the know claimed it crashed?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


What makes you think the ATS community is interested in being accepted by the mainstream?
Explain where the core went in the twin towers. If I accept pancake theory, the core should have remained standing.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Oh, okay....I get it.
You are either WITH us or AGAINST us, right?
That Eagle avatar of yours is appropriate.
God bless America. Let's just say that over and over to make it true, because we ignore the fact that the enemy just MIGHT be within our own government.
NO chance right Blaine?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


OK, Captain, please answer the following questions and please cite your sources. I take my questions directly from Jim Marrs' book The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty:

1. A wide variety of standard defense mechanisms designed to prevent such an attack systematically failed on 9/11. Especially notable are the atypical failures which occurred simultaneously with the FAA, National Military Command Center and NORAD, all charged with protecting US airspace. Why did they all fail simultaneously on that day?

2. Interceptor jets were not scrambled for more than 30 minutes after it was obvious that 4 airliners had gone off course and were presumably hijacked. In the case of Flight 77, which reportedly slammed into the Pentagon, AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTES ELAPSED WITH NO INTERCEPTION. On every other day except 9/11/01, their intercept rate is 100%. Why were the jets not scrambled on that day?

3. Missile batteries designed to protect Washington DC failed to stop the strike on the Pentagon, one of the world's most protected structures, and fighter jets on constant alert an Andrews AFB JUST 12 MILES AWAY were never scrambled. Why were those jets not scrambled on that day?

4. Several war game exercises involving both the FAA and NORAD were being played out on the morning of 9/11, which may have facilitated the attacks. Yet, why no mention of these exercises in the media or the 9/11 Commission?

5. Not one steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed SOLELY due to fire. The free-fall speed collapse of the WTC towers, with attendant melted steel and powdery dust, exhibited all the characteristics of a control demolition. Please explain this anomaly.

6. Why was WTC 7 "pulled"? How did they have the time to set up the demolition, when it usually takes several days? And why would they "pull" it, when the damage was minor?

7. Vital evidence, including the building's structural steel, was destroyed through rapid removal and destruction by US gov't officials with NO INVESTIGATION. Why?

8. An 8-mile long debris trail indicated that Flight 93 was destroyed IN THE AIR rather than crashing to the ground as is the official story. Explain how a plane crashing straight into the ground could leave an 8 mile debris trail and barely any wreckage, when no other plane in history has ever crashed to the ground and left this sort of evidence.

9. More than a dozen countries tried to warn the US authorities that an attack on American soil was imminent, some only days before the event. Yet our government played stupid. Why?

10. In 2005, the public learned of a secret Pentagon intelligence operation codenamed "Able Danger". The officers within this unit had identified Mohammad Atta as a potentially dangerous member of al Qaeda a full year before the 9/11 attacks. Why didn't they do something about him then?

11. Within a few hours after the 9/11 events, the FBI released names and photos of the suspected hijackers although later many of those named TURNED UP ALIVE in the Middle East. Please explain this discrepancy.

12. Within a few hours of the attacks of 9/11, the FBI was scouring the houses, restaurants and flight schools the alleged perpetrators had frequented. If no one had foreknowledge of the hijackers or their activities, how did the FBI know where to look?

13. Finally, no one in government has been reprimanded or even scolded for what we are told was the greatest intelligence failure in US history. In fact, the very agencies which failed the national watched their budgets INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. Explain why the government would reward failure.

I won't hit you with any more at this time, until you satisfactorily answer these vital questions. Thank you for your cooperation in enlightening us "Truthers".

Man, I read so much of this opinion and rubish on this forum. I didn't realise the world was full of such experts!

My reasons for not beleiving anyone on this? Simples:

1) There is no way anyone, not even the best demolitionn experts in the world (Who would have obviously refused the job if offerd lol) could plan to bring down a barely prepaired building into it's own foot print. If you think the US military can pull this off, then why are they such a failure in the Middle East? And how come not one person has come forward with their concience to admit to it being an inside job?

2) Lets say it was a demo job - why the hell would they care where the buildings fell? If they are calous enough to take down the twin towers, full of people, onto full streets - knowing that the place would be crawling with emergency responders after the first collaps - it would be planned murder of those emergency staff to plan a secoond collaps 15 to 20 minutes later. And if they are THAT calous - then why the hell would they care WHERE the buildings fell. Let em fall where they fall, all good fodder for the cause, no? More dead people and more destruction, and that is what they were after? No?

3) No other building of this specific connstrustion/design has ever been hit by a fully fueled aircraft anywhere in the world. The only 2 ever to have been hit both fell in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY! IE Tower 1 and Tower 2 of the WTC.

4) Thermite is most often made up of Iron Oxide and Aluminium. It causes an exothermic reaction which strips the oxigen from the iron oxide to produce aluminium oxide, free iron and lots of heat. This is a slow burning reaction which produces a lot of sparking. It is most often used in the rail industry to weld railway lines together - yes, TO JOIN railway lines. The exothermic reation causes melting of the rail ends and the free iron from the reaction becaome the filler between the rails. Welding, ladies and gentlmen, is it's most often use. Of course it can be used for cutting. But I for one have never found any evidence of something called a "thermite charge". These things do not explode, they burn slowly. Becasue of the nature of thermite it is useless at cutting verticle collumns. Because of the composition of thermite, (Aluminium and iron oxide most usually), and because these elements were widely present in the crash site, it is possible that thermite like particles were found, but this means nothing. Every mineral immaginable was present in the dust of the collapse. Thermite burns so slowly there would be no way to orchastrate this split seccond timing require to us it.

5) So lets say the towers were rigged with some type of explosive. You don't think that an airoplane full of jet fuel might just have an impact on that set up? All that fire managed NOT to burn through the wiring to the charges, or burn up the remote receivers or damage the detonator caps? Not one charge was accidentally set off? I mean, all they could have known in advance is the the plane will hit "somewhere betweeen floor X and floor Y" - to calculate what damage it would do in advance in order to correctly place the charges? And have those charges hiden all over the building?

So don't get too carried away.

What do I think - not that anyone cares! lol - It was an "onside" job. They saw it comming and let them continue with the attack, but without being complicit in the planning or execution therof. They got rather more than they bargained for. No one expected the towers to fall.

So people will come up with crazy outlandish ideas about what happened that day. People, quite understandably, just can not beleive what they saw, what happened in NY on Sept 11th. But in their blind scrabble for some sort of truth, any sort of truth, they are comming up with crazy theories which are actually not only far more uhnlikely than what actually happened, but politically 100 times more improbable, and technically verging on the impossible.

Calm down friends, take a deap breath. Count down from 10 to 1 behind closed eyes and we can continue

The sad thing about this story is that everyone probably has a small bit of the truth. Like a jigsaw puzle, all those peices will fit together only when we come together and cooperate with each other.

If anyone on this forum has the truth, I would say

a) they don't even know it themselves
b) no one else here will agree with them - from either side.

Because not one of us has enough information. We certainly don't have enough evidence to hold a meaninngfull opinion.

So cut the arguments, cut the name calling, cut the arogant "I know the truth" attitude. You don't. Either of you.

reply to post by Shamatt


Riiiight, because people haven't done horrible things and killed for money before...., especially Gov't, religion, and business men.

Originally posted by Cassius666
That both behaved exactly the same way is the smoking gun. That the exact same thing happened to both towers is simply not true. The side they were penetrated from is different and the floor. That both behaved exactly the same is the big smoking gun.

The towers did behave differently due to the differing impact placements and heights. Why do you think the south tower collapsed first despite being hit second? Your post reinforces the OP's point that truthers have nil critical analysis of their claims.

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

What makes you think the ATS community is interested in being accepted by the mainstream?
Explain where the core went in the twin towers. If I accept pancake theory, the core should have remained standing.

It's not as simple as that, the whole lower core in the the north tower at least is seen to stand and in good video, and then itself collapse, you have to address that in some way, but the actual collapse of the core is not seen, just the artifacts, like the 'spire/s' the tallest one of which falls over and collapses at the same time. There is no point in exaggerating one idea over another, but to first find how the total collapses occured, that IMO has not been officially explained, much as I would like it.

OP, let me post something for you, in all caps: BUILDING SEVEN.
You're done.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Time and time again I see the same BS from the Truther movement and time and time again, when they're presented irrefutable facts they stop posting on threads and disappear.

Where are your responses? You haven't responded since Page 6 of your thread and your thread is up to Page 18 as of my post.

Talk about posting threads and then disappearing because you got called out. You're guilty as charged!!

Why did the top of the south tower start to slide off the building.... then suddenly STOP and fall straight down with the rest of the building? Falling mass tends to follow the path of least resistance. Therefore the resistance below the falling upper floors went from being the most resistance, to the least in mid fall. Explain that one.

As a side note, why the hell are "truthers" always called upon to provide proof of their theories? I think there is MORE than enough proof, theories and evidence out there to cover every single viewpoint thought up. Yet I never see anything "proven" from the OS side. All I see is name calling, ridicule and the idea that "our government would NEVER EVER do anything mean to us".

How about you OS'ers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that three buildings on the same day managed to fall at almost free fall speed into their own footprint? Now when I say "their own footprint" I mean in the general north/south profile. IE: Straight down. The buildings did not tip over, as is typical in a skyscraper collapse. They tipped, then magically fell straight down.

I will for the sake of argument address your points:

1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:

- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way

Why exactly is this a BS argument? This is what we are told WAS the cause of the collapse. We are told the trusses weakened enough due to fire to allow the collapse. So how can you call this a BS argument?

However, I CAN give you a list of some buildings that burnt far worse and for far longer that WTC 1, 2 & 7.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire
The Windsor Building Fire
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

I can not say if any buildings have been built with the same structural design as the World Trade Towers. However, the towers were built to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from 707's. 767's are only slightly faster than a 707 and they carry only 980 gallons more of fuel. The engineers who designed the towers themselves specifically considered this type of strike. John Skilling, who was the head structural engineer for the WTC said the towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as a Boeing 707 or a Douglas DC-8.

The only other skyscraper that I can find that was hit by an aircraft was the Empire State Building. It was hit by a B-25.



I can't address your last statement because I honestly have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying the Twin Towers both collapsed the same way?

2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:

- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions

- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.

People have stated that the building looked like a demo because numerous people DID in fact hear explosions. There were also visible squibs as the building collapsed.

Here is a link with MANY examples of explosions during 9/11.

Here are videos of squibs.





Here is a video of a demolition. Notice how the clouds look the same? Notice the fall is the same? Notice the explosions are similar to what witnesses said they heard?

Why exactly is it that this dude (Or dudette) who started this thread is getting so much attention when all he does is make claims without any actual proof or sources confirming his claims?

I'm so tired of doing this so here's the short version and here is how you are supposed to post your arguments. WITH SOURCES AND LINKS!

-The whole "Jetfuel melted the steel" argument is irrelevant because of a few things:
1) Most of the jetfuel burnt up in the fireballs. Link
2) Those fires were oxygen-deprived which is indicated by the amount of smoke (Smoke puts out fire in case you didn't know. Just google it ffs.). That means that the fires did not receive enough oxygen to continue burning at the same intensity. Here is what it looks like if a big fire is getting sufficient oxygen to burn in a skyscraper and Here is what the twin-towers looked like before collapsing. See the difference in the amount of smoke and the difference in fire-intensity?
The first picture is of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned much much more intensely than the twin-towers for TWO DAYS but did not collapse (Like any other case with steel-framed buildings vs fire)
3) Even if those fires were NOT oxygen-deprived (Which is NOT the case), they would not have been able to reach the burning temperature (1700C) to melt the steel since kerosene burns at around 800C.

And don't give me the "The impact of the planes f*cked up the support columns too much and thats what weakened the steel" cus then I'd just throw building 7 in your face and make you eat it.

-The debris of WTC 1 and 2 contained "Nano-Thermite" which proves controlled demolition.


If I didn't have to work 70 hours a week and had more time for ATS, I'd rip you a new one buddy


IT--

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Time and time again I see the same BS from the Truther movement and time and time again, when they're presented irrefutable facts they stop posting on threads and disappear.

So, enough of that.

I'm calling you out.

Here's some BS you can no longer claim to be true:


1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:

- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way

2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:

- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions

- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.

3. Top down demolition with no visible or audible explosions , in which the timing of the collapse gradually increases to the speed of free fall is a rational explanation. - NOT TRUE.

Top down demo has never been used for skyscrapers, for pretty obvious reason.
The idea that these invisible and inaudible explosions were timed in such a way to gradually increase in speed as they moved down the building is absurd and has never been used in any demo EVER.

4. Building 7 only had a few fires - NOT TRUE

5. No one saw a plane at the Pentagon - NOT TRUE

6. 1/10th or 1% of active engineers in America is a meaningful amount. - NOT TRUE

- In most polls you see, the margin of error is between 1-3%, the Truthers can't even get a 10th of that number of ACTIVE AMERICAN ENGINEERS on their side. If you include retired Engineers (a significant number of their signees are retired) the number drops to something like 1/100 of 1%, add Architects and it's like 1/1000%. Make that a worldwide number (they do btw) and it's like 1/10000 of 1%. So, 1 in 100,000 of all Architects and Engineers worldwide have signed this thing. Not so impressive. In fact, I'd rather trust the 99,999/1000,000 who haven't.

7. A reputable journal of science tested something and found nano-thermite - NOT TRUE

8. Richard Gage is an honest guy - NOT TRUE

- Richard Gage has been busted falsifying evidence. And he's repeatedly lied and exaggerated to convert people to his belief. He's not some super honest guy.

9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE

-----------------

Enough with the BS folks. You need to self-police and stop your rank from posting the same lies again and again if you ever want to be excepted by the mainstream. And if you ACTUALLY want to accomplish something, you'll need to be accepted by the mainstream.

edit on 12-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

Nothing you say is going to get these people to believe the truth. They need to believe that there is more to it than a terrorists attack. I don't know why but just looking at all the post on any thread on this site some people need more than there is. Perhaps it makes up for something lacking in their life.

reply to post by edog11


Thank you. Spot on. THANK YOU.

Now if only the ones who believe everything is so simple could post like that.

I think no one has ever addressed this in any forum. Weren't the Twin Towers mostly offices and some restaurants? I believe there was a day care center too. Now any good fireman will tell you that fires of today burn different than fires 50 years ago and that is because of the different chemicals used in our modern conveniences. So in those models of buildings burning, did they take into account the many tvs and computers that were there?

If your computer is burning, and especially back then before the new flat screen HD ones, the cathode ray tubes would have burned and left certain chemicals. We know that your house may have one computer, but the Twin Towers had hundreds of computers. And the kitchens, I am sure those appliances must have left chemical traces also.

While we see all kinds of models these "Truthers" want to throw out there, in all of them they failed to mention the fact that hundreds of computers made of chemicals burned and left certain chemicals, that combined with other chemicals would make certain compounds not usually found in regular fires. Now toss jet fuel on top of that not to mention the thousands of feet of coaxial cable that fed into the televisions and modems. Would they not also melt and mix with other chemicals?

That is not even including the many telephones. I would imagine that the Twin Towers also had a main frame server to manage the computer system.

Has any model taken that into account?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by spav5

 

I believe their beliefs are based on a house of cards built on faith and misinformation. I can't think of a single recent Truther thread that didn't contain a huge heap of distortion, dishonest "logic" or out-right lies. The Truther movement is an intellectually dishonest echo-chamber that desperately needs honest academic leadership and a core set of undebunkable beliefs.

Right now most truther threads are links to youtube video which contain info from other truther threads which contain large amount of BS.

Taken together it all looks, but isn't, meaningful.

HMM well lets start off i believe the youtube bs, cause you hear so much bs from youtube oh its this oh ts that..:/ so much 9/11 stuff im sick of hearing about..

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by jazzguy
where are all the links to proof from OP?...until then...Inside Job for sure

Sorry, but what do you want links too?

All of those beliefs are common amongst truthers.

If you want evidence try googling something like (e.g.) Richard Gage debunked.

The number of Engineers is public record as is the number who've signed the petition.

If you REALLY care about this you don't need me to figure this out for you, use your brains and check my assertions. Easy.

HE IS TROLLING. STOP RESPONDING.

You're embrassing yourself. If you can't demonstrate that you are informed on a topic, please spare us the trolling. I've had it up to my head with uneducated twits like yourself arguing out of ignorance. Look, I honestly don't know why any of you are responding knowing full dam well that he represents a fair of ignorance that makes up the mainstream.

Yes there are terrible representatives of the truth movement, but it's not all bogus. There are people here, respected people that have dug up incredible levels of evidence. GO read their posts instead of watching this mindless thread grow.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Explain how passports from the WTC were found... (facepalm)

Ok, I'd like for all of you to consider this, with an open mind.

Have you ever seen a jet airliner land? First of all, typical landing speed is somewhere around 200 MPH (just guessing, may be closer to 150 MPH). As you know, if you've watched one land or have been on one, they aren't exactly accurate in their touchdown point. Many, if not most, landings are handled by computer, to counteract wind, etc. Even under computer control, the touchdown point varies wildly, therefore so does the altitude at any given point along the approach path.

Now consider this; the 9/11 pilots sucked. Some of them couldn't even land a Cessna 172. Now, imagine trying to fly that same aircraft, by hand, at 400 MPH, accurately enough to hit a target about 70 feet high, without ever skimming the ground! Fire up your MS flight simulator, take off from JFK or wherever, and hand fly it into the pentagon at 400 MPH. Oh, one small detail, when you're about a half mile out, you have to be low enough to hit the lamp posts. And, you have to be flying perfectly level when you hit the building, in order to have a level entry and exit point, just like the real deal, per the video they have been driveler enough to see.

To hit a target that small would be equivalent to putting it down on a dime, almost literally. The aircraft entered at ground level but never touched the ground. If you can look at that and not raise an eyebrow then you are incapable of productive debate. You have your mind made up and there is no amount of evidence that will change it.