Where Are The Threads Backing The Official Story?

Originally posted by TupacShakur

I was referring primarily to the collapse of WTC7 and the Twin Towers in the OP. I really can't remember seeing one that tries to explain the collapse and prove how it's completely possible according to the airplane impact/falling debris and fire damage.

Right. It's just you didn't say that in your OP. So it's sort of tough to read your mind on this one.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I've noticed a trend on the 9/11 boards that never fails: Official story believers constantly post in threads that revolve around 9/11 being an inside job, but they almost never make a post explaining how the official story is factual.

Where are all of the threads that have mounds of evidence backing the official story?

Where are the in-depth explanations of exactly what caused the Twin Towers and WTC7 to collapse?

Yeah the OP is pretty vague, I should have been more specific and directly said "backing the official story of the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapse. That's what I meant to say though.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Poking the bear aren't ya?

HAHA! Yes...he IS....and that's why we LOVE Tupac!

Some people are born to poke, TDawg.....

reply to post by TupacShakur


They don't exist.

You won't find anyone using available evidence to support the official story. What you'll find is arguments disputing the sanity of the truthers, or whether a word is out of place, or whether there is even an official story, but no OS supporter anywhere will use the available evidence to support their story. This is because the available evidence only proves the official story to be a silly lie.

Virtually all of the CT supporting threads on ATS do not present fully formed "theories of the crime", but link to videos, promote one piece of evidence, or generally bash the official story in allegedly humorous tones.

So why do you expect OS supporters to lay out elaborate threads defending the 'official story', when CT promoters never actually develop their own fully worked out theories in CT threads, but rather primarily criticize the official story?

Honestly, I've been here long enough to have seen very well created and thought-out posts by people defending the OS.

You know what happens literally every. single. time?

Truthers (or the like) hijack the thread and turn it into an argument over semantics or something else.

Ever seen someone from the OS post a thread which says something like "Look at this specific factor. Evidence shows that it must be this because this, this, and this. Links to sources are included."

It usually takes less than 20 minutes for there to be about 5 posts saying "WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7!!!!????" and then the entire thread is diverted. Then, someone yells "THE WHOLE THING WAS CGI!!!" and then the thread is diverted and split into talking about building 7 and proving that the planes were real and the witnesses existed. Occasionally a post would arise talking about the subject of the OP, but they would be swept under the rug.

In topics where the poster alerts the mods and gets the off-topic posts removed, the truthers simply stop replying, and the thread gets buried quickly by the other threads.

It's a lose-lose battle, honestly.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I've noticed a trend on the 9/11 boards that never fails: Official story believers constantly post in threads that revolve around 9/11 being an inside job, but they almost never make a post explaining how the official story is factual.

Where are all of the threads that have mounds of evidence backing the official story?

Where are the in-depth explanations of exactly what caused the Twin Towers and WTC7 to collapse?

I have a much better idea...what say you conspiracy theorists give us an in depth explanation on how your own controlled demolitions caused the twin towers and WTC 7 to collapse? Where precisely in the towers were these demolitions planted that would cause the tower to collase in the pattern we all saw? You have the blueprints for the towers, you have the explosive that was used, you have miles of video footage showing precisely how the towers collapsed, and you have all these thousands of experts who are professionally trained to do this exact kind of work. Have at it.

You seem to forget that if you don't subscribe to the 9/11 commisison report it becomes your responsibility to provide an alternative explanation that better fits the facts, and that's ALL the facts, not those one or two tidbits youre cherry picking out of context. Up until now, the conspiracy mongors have given us literally nothing but "armies of sinister secret agents" so you shouldn't complain if we're going to want something more substancial than simply saying "the boogey man did it".

Well tupak it seems the resident debunkers cannot provide what your asking for.

They just keep bleating the burdens on you blah blah says it all eh

Honestly, I've been here long enough to have seen very well created and thought-out posts by people defending the OS.

reply to post by Varemia


Got any examples?

Everything else you describe can be applied to both sides of the argument. The point on ATS, and many sites like it (GLP for example) is to direct the conversation away from the truth. This is why so many good threads are attacked, ignored, and ultimately deleted; they are not approved topics. Members who continue to attempt to post relevant facts exposing the complicity of the military, government and media will be banned.

ATS does a great job of limiting the conversation.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Where are all of the threads that have mounds of evidence backing the official story?

On Sunday, 9/11/2011, this thread was the single-most visited ATS thread with 37,000+ unique visitors to page one:
A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

And aside from Sunday's visits, that thread is hands-down the most read topic in our 9/11 forum.

Interesting that the thread linked above has 68 flags and 76 stars (24+52) on the OP and ...
this thread: Absolute Proof: A Pentagon Picture Montage from Start to Finish has 240 flags and 205 stars (24+181) on the OP. The latter discusses with pictures that no way a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

reply to post by septic


Here's one. It wasn't started as its own thread, but it is an excellent look at why building 7 collapsed. It is the post I am linking, plus the one following it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Intrested to see how this goes. Would like to say somthing else overlooked. Pictures of footprints and tyre tracks on the moonlanding site with headlines along the lines of 'Conspiracy nuts proved wrong' a few days before the 9/11 rememberance when they knew the discussion would heat up again.

Coincidence???????

Not in the least. The conspiracy mongors are "conveniently forgetting" the final few Apollo missions brought a four wheeled exploration vehicle with them, exactly the same way they're "conveniently forgetting" the north tower dropped massive amounts of wreckage onto WTC 7 and started fires that burned out of control, as well as "conveniently forgetting" the 9/11 commission report publically documented that Bush issued a shoot down order against flight 93.

It is therefore no coincidence that conspiracy mongors "conveniently forget" all the information that shows why their conspiracy claims are bunk.

reply to post by Varemia


You're simply supporting the argument that OSers won't submit their own theads explaining how the available evidence supports the OS.

What the OP was lamenting was supported by your link...OSers appear to content themselves with attempting to debunk threads that try to explain how the facts don't suit the official story. It'd be very refreshing to see an attempt by an OSer to explain how the facts suit the OS.

With ATS being so tightly controlled, it's difficult for any valid topic to be discussed without the thread being deleted, or the poster banned.

After spending near a decade studying 911, ATS stands out as the government's flagship of controlled Internet media. It is like a "pop culture" site, not a conspiracy site. Real researchers don't come here much because their research will be suppressed.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Not in the least. The conspiracy mongors are "conveniently forgetting" the final few Apollo missions brought a four wheeled exploration vehicle with them, exactly the same way they're "conveniently forgetting" the north tower dropped massive amounts of wreckage onto WTC 7 and started fires that burned out of control, as well as "conveniently forgetting" the 9/11 commission report publically documented that Bush issued a shoot down order against flight 93.

It is therefore no coincidence that conspiracy mongors "conveniently forget" all the information that shows why their conspiracy claims are bunk.

The most import thing is to reinforce the official lies. Apollo is a big one...so are nuclear bombs. The little people need to be reminded their goverments are all powerful; they can travel to other planets and vaporize the earth from space. Resistance is futile; just play with your iPhone and leave the running of the world the the masters of the universe.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

You're simply supporting the argument that OSers won't submit their own theads explaining how the available evidence supports the OS.

What the OP was lamenting was supported by your link...OSers appear to content themselves with attempting to debunk threads that try to explain how the facts don't suit the official story. It'd be very refreshing to see an attempt by an OSer to explain how the facts suit the OS.

I have, many times. For example I repeatedly cite the eyewitness testimony of NYFD deputy chief Peter Hayden, who was standing right next to WTC 7 and specifically said the fires in the building were burning out of control and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, showing the fires were causing deformation in the structure right there. The typical response I get from the truthers is that Deputy Chief Hayden is really a secret gov't disinformation agent. Of course.

What would truly be refreshing is if the conspiracy people can explain their position in logical terms without having to resort to claiming everything is the work of some "secret government agent" boogey man.

Originally posted by septic
The most import thing is to reinforce the official lies. Apollo is a big one...so are nuclear bombs.

Are you seriously suggesting that nucelar bombs don't exist?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Do you have the Chief's comment in writing? was it published or recorded on some media?

it's not that I don't trust you Dave, really

Welcome posters and readers. The above discussion is an example of the creepy, ugly, disgusting conspiracy trap the truth movement was designed and led to stay in. Debunkers are there to fuel stupid discussion of thermite, holograms and nukes but the second you mention Pakistan and Israeli involvement in the planning and execution in the attack and they scurry like roaches.

Want to prove that these debunkers are redundant? Talk about all the evidence that exists before the 1st plane hit the tower.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I have, many times. For example I repeatedly cite the eyewitness testimony of NYFD deputy chief Peter Hayden, who was standing right next to WTC 7 and specifically said the fires in the building were burning out of control and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, showing the fires were causing deformation in the structure right there. The typical response I get from the truthers is that Deputy Chief Hayden is really a secret gov't disinformation agent. Of course.

What would truly be refreshing is if the conspiracy people can explain their position in logical terms without having to resort to claiming everything is the work of some "secret government agent" boogey man.

I've been lurking for some time and haven't seen your thread. Got a link?

Have you ever considered many in the FDNY were involved in 911? That's a taboo subject on ATS, but not eleswhere:

The Firemen and Rank Distribution

The rank of the Firemen lost is yet another issue. The rank of the deadis seemingly top-heavy.

92 ranked firemen died on 9/11. They account for 27% of the casualties.

23 were Chief and above.

23 were Captains.

46 were Lieutenants.

I included Fr. Judge with the Captains. So, Chiefs and Captains are equal at 23. The number of Lieutenants is exactly twice that. So, Chiefs = Captains, and Chiefs + Captains = Lieutenants. The perfectly even distribution of rank among Officers is uncanny, and unlikely to be by coincidence. It also does not reflect how the ranks should have been distributed, heavy at the bottom. The overwhelming number of men climbing those towers would have been front line Firemen, Yet the data shows more than one Officer for every three Firemen.

This is again wrong for reality, but right for spreading payoff money, heavy at the top. Buy up the top dogs with the slickest retirement plan ever. There is simply no explanation for the fact that 1 out of every 4 Firemen lost were Ranked.

Source

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Are you seriously suggesting that nucelar bombs don't exist?

Why, does that offend you?