WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

I think that the main thing that needs to be explained is WTC 7. Forget the other towers for now. And remember the fact that on the news it was announced that the building had already collapsed. Maybe a mistake I suppose, but nothing hit that building...And a fire that far up building 7 would not have made the whole thing collapse. I don't think fire is a good explanation for any of the collapses, but definitely not this particular building. Too many things seem shady regarding the events of this day, and the fact that the towers collapsed are not the most damning in my opinion. Look at everything leading up to, and after the events themselves...Look at what drills were going on that day...Just doesn't add up.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I have not read all the respondents to the op but clearly the op will see anything that makes them feel better about the situation to have been so easily led. Again, if this has already been stated i'm sorry to put it up again.

Isn't this debate clearly working in the favor of the coy deceptive belligerents who caused the multiple disasters in the first place. People died. Innocent people who were of no inclination of foul play. The evidence is everywhere, not just in those 2 hour documentaries, not just in eye witness testimonies, not even just at ground zero. Look at history. Look at your secretive government ploys. Look at the events of WWI and WWII both directly and indirectly involved. Wake up people. Propelling the official report is a disgrace and a blatant disrespect to those who died that deserve justice. The world needs us to take a stand and believe and speak in the truth without the fear of being 'silenced' or unveiling the secrets of hidden agencies of the world. After an entire decade were still debating on whether it was demolished or not...rather than why it was demolished. Take a good look at the law and your rights. If you still feel safe, there is a problem.

4 buildings were 'hit' that day.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


whats there to explain?
bombs have explained everything

oh and this may help others allot too

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Notice all of my comments deleted. Lol, I must be on to something...9-11 is the key. The world will no the truth no matter how filtered the truth is. If this post gets deleted, this site is owned by the TPTB.

Certain people are absolutely obsessed with coming to ATS to ensure people believe the buildings were brought down by terrorists.

OBSESSED!

They literally don't want to talk about anything else, just 911.

Very suspicious indeed!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave you're one of the only people I've ever come across who took the time to research this but came to the conclusion the original TV story is the way things actually happened!

Kudos on starting a thread about this.

I don't believe one of the "theories" is that there was "no fire"; it's generally recognized there was some fire but that it just burned at a lower temperature than required to melt or soften steel.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I don't believe one of the "theories" is that there was "no fire"; it's generally recognized there was some fire but that it just burned at a lower temperature than required to melt or soften steel.

Yet, this is the main point that truthers have not proven. The smoke coming from the towers cannot be used as proof due to the volume and variety of materials burning in the building. Different materials burn with different darknesses of smoke, plastic being one of the darkest if I remember correctly.

This is why I tend to challenge the base theories that truthers present on this site. When the base theory that they draw all their assumptions on is potentially flawed, then all the conclusions drawn from it are potentially flawed.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Sorry Bub but you are another one of these "Closet Genius" who has not studied the 9-11 details enough. If you had, you would not have posted this. If you are a disinformation agent, they should fire you or send you back for more training but I doubt that is the case; you are probably just another of these "Dumbed Down and Brainwashed" slaves and not our problem. I'd wish you luck but buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I don't believe one of the "theories" is that there was "no fire"; it's generally recognized there was some fire but that it just burned at a lower temperature than required to melt or soften steel.

Yet, this is the main point that truthers have not proven. The smoke coming from the towers cannot be used as proof due to the volume and variety of materials burning in the building. Different materials burn with different darknesses of smoke, plastic being one of the darkest if I remember correctly.

This is why I tend to challenge the base theories that truthers present on this site. When the base theory that they draw all their assumptions on is potentially flawed, then all the conclusions drawn from it are potentially flawed.

No one can prove the temp of the fires. What you should do is find a study of an open fire 800 feet up and see if mild steel will weaken?. And how do you know if there was a variety of material burning? Assuming maybe?

You said:"If I remember correctly?" Really. Are you a forensic expert ?

Why don't you challenge my supposed flawed signature?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Good thing spirit eyes trumps science everytime-

Unfortunately not many can get past the thermate theory into the exotic realm of hyperdimensionality where it gets fuzzy in a strange way. Really calls out the name callers and labelers (tinfoil hats, psychiatrics, jokes about black helicopters, sitting on board a ufo in between elvis and bigfoot, question if you took your psych meds as prescribed etc)

Totally ok....Im not gonna shame ya.

It is what it is

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I don't believe one of the "theories" is that there was "no fire"; it's generally recognized there was some fire but that it just burned at a lower temperature than required to melt or soften steel.

Yet, this is the main point that truthers have not proven. The smoke coming from the towers cannot be used as proof due to the volume and variety of materials burning in the building. Different materials burn with different darknesses of smoke, plastic being one of the darkest if I remember correctly.

This is why I tend to challenge the base theories that truthers present on this site. When the base theory that they draw all their assumptions on is potentially flawed, then all the conclusions drawn from it are potentially flawed.

Can it not also be said though that it is likewise an assumption you are making as it concerns 'the volume and variety of materials burning'? Do you, for instance, have PROOF of the actual materials burning? Or are you just assuming it's general 'office contents', the towers being 'office buildings' etc.?

I know that it seems like a safe assumption, one you probably have not closely examined but is it a correct and safe assumption to make?

Recently I downloaded 385 WTC Ground Zero FEMA debris pile photographs and looked at them very very carefully and this is why I bring this up. There was next to nothing in those photos of the debris that you could even try hard to light on fire. Mostly steel etc. In fact primarily steel. I defy anyone to even point out other flammable material in the FEMA debris pile photos. (You'll all have your chance maybe I'll make a thread on it.)

Or take the 'jet fuel', everyone ASSUMES there was JET FUEL.

Really?

You got any proof there was jet fuel in the towers?

Take the North Tower for instance, what proof can anyone give me, either Truther, Debunker or Independent, that there was 'jet fuel' in the North Tower?

PROVE to me there was JET FUEL in the North Tower. Anyone? Ready. GO.

Because frankly, I don't think there is any proof. And I mean proof as in actual evidence, not a story, not speculation, not hearsay, not because you think there "must've been", no, that's not going to cut it I'm afraid.

From Above Quote:

'When the base theory that they draw all their assumptions on is potentially flawed, then all the conclusions drawn from it are potentially flawed.'

Indeed.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


Jet fuel likely burned up very quickly. No one ever says that jet fuel was burning uncontrolled in the towers. People say that jet fuel started fires that burned uncontrollably. These problems in reading comprehension and basic fact-finding are what make it difficult to find the truth.

The simple fact is that if you cannot determine the heat of the fires based on the smoke (something that I have seen truthers claim to be able to do), then the claim cannot be made of certainty of a low-temp fire. Sure, it's a possibility, but scientifically it is impossible to rule out that the fire could have been hot like an oxygen-fed office fire.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ANOK
You need to learn about heat transfer, because no matter how hot a fire may get it doesn't mean the steel is going to be anywhere the same temperature.

The first tower fell in less than an hour, that is not enough time to cause steel to fail from fire. Especially enough to make a difference in the buildings structural integrity.

Nonsense, Cardington tests and NISTs tests show us 15 minutes is more than enough to cause failure. Where is your research that shows it taking over an hour to fail steel?

You also need to learn about FoS because even IF ALL the steel lost 50% of the it's strength it would still not collapse. The FoS for high-rise steel building components is 4-6.

The FoS in the towers was < 2 in many situations. It obeyed building code, which didn't specify 4-6x in any respect. Again, you have no evidence to provide of this.

There was not even any fire burning at the impact points before collapse, the fire burned out as it moved on. Steel will start to cool the second it is not subjected to the heat. To heat steel up to the point of failure would take sustained direct fire, and that in reality was not the case.

In reality it was the case, because the buildings didn't collapse at the impact points. I find it hilarious that you write these condescending posts but then make completely elementary errors. You're so confident that you're right that even when you mess up things like this you'll never accept it.

When are you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Or better yet demonstrate it. If you can't do that then the whole collapse hypothesis you cling to is worthless.

I think this is the 5th time I have sent you this link which you consistently refuse to read: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525

Why are you refusing to read a few page long paper?

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
No one can prove the temp of the fires. What you should do is find a study of an open fire 800 feet up and see if mild steel will weaken?. And how do you know if there was a variety of material burning? Assuming maybe?

You realise that NIST did this? I mean they didn't bother with making it 800ft up but that would just add stronger winds and therefore more oxygen. Are you that ignorant on the subject of 911 that you haven't even seen NISTs fire tests?

Why don't you challenge my supposed flawed signature?

OK. Your signature is not based on facts nor evidence, therefore is fundamentally flawed in that it's a fantasy of your own creation.

Originally posted by exponent

OK. Your signature is not based on facts nor evidence, therefore is fundamentally flawed in that it's a fantasy of your own creation.

He never really defines the tipping point either. How heavy and how strong does something have to be.. To have the ability to destroy the towers.

He won't define that for us.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
No one can prove the temp of the fires. What you should do is find a study of an open fire 800 feet up and see if mild steel will weaken?. And how do you know if there was a variety of material burning? Assuming maybe?

You realise that NIST did this? I mean they didn't bother with making it 800ft up but that would just add stronger winds and therefore more oxygen. Are you that ignorant on the subject of 911 that you haven't even seen NISTs fire tests?

Why don't you challenge my supposed flawed signature?

OK. Your signature is not based on facts nor evidence, therefore is fundamentally flawed in that it's a fantasy of your own creation.

Yes,, it would be an sound study(not subjective) if it was done on an actual highrise elevation.

I wipe my junk with everything NIST has made. NIST being an agency of the federal government is bit of a conflict. Don't you think?

In regards to my signature
Really ?

Both planes didn't weight 392 tons?

Both planes weren't made from aluminum?

Those 3 towers didn't have a combined weight of 1,200,000 tons ?

Those 3 towers weren't made from mild steel and reinforced concrete?

Those are all facts babe


Good try though

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

In regards to my signature
Really ?

Both planes didn't weight 392 tons?

Both planes weren't made from aluminum?

Those 3 towers didn't have a combined weight of 1,200,000 tons ?

Those 3 towers weren't made from mild steel and reinforced concrete?

Those are all facts babe


Good try though

So what is the tipping point ? How heavy and strong does something have to be, to destroy the towers ?