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

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
reply to post by exponent

 

Of course not. But spending all your time on ATS doing NOTHING but arguing about 9/11 while being a bit of **** to everyone who disagrees is quite suspicious to me

censoring mine

How is it suspicious? Could I say that people who post opposing the official story are suspicious because there are groups that sell merchandise opposing the 'official story'?

I spend some time on here and almost 100% in the 911 forum. The other forums just aren't interesting, they either have no connection to reality (religion, ufos, chemtrails etc) or are just full of spam and unprovable assumptions (space exploration, general conspiracies).

I don't see anything weird about that, 911 conspiracies are interesting to me, but many others aren't.

I actually come here to find some good counter-arguments to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but Dave and all the other lackies are 10x more talented at throwing insults at people (without getting banned) as they are at actually producing a convincing argument *shrug*

I've been posting here for a while and it's moderately rare I have a post removed for insulting or being off topic. I think I've produced some pretty convincing arguments, but the same logic that applies to Dave applies to me, so I find it offensive when people start throwing words like 'suspicious' around.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


watch the video that it put up. it solidly debunks the OS.... or is there something that stops you from being able to physically watch it? so you ignore it.

All you need to do is watch AE9/11 Truth. And go from there

The buildings fell at free fall(or near) speed. That is impossible under the circumstances that the government expects us to swollow. Sorry, it just does not make any sense to me. Perhaps i'm wrong and we're all wrong. But it still doesn't make sense according to the laws of gravity.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


dave.. That image shows about 3% still standing.. I wouldnt call that.. "still standing.". If it wasnt symmetrical, you would expect a significant portion.. Like 25 to 60%

Originally posted by easybreezy
meh,, all you really need to know is here

seriously all must watch this, confirms without doubt, they were demolished

You can't be serious. All you did was post some Richard Gage video containing the very lies these two videos proved were lies to begin with. They did NOT fall symmetrically and they DID have massive fires burning in them. You saw that in the two videos with your very eyes. Gage is lying, regardless of whatever pretty words you want to use to descrive what he's doing.

I will believe the actual video of the collapse of the towers than the doctored video and disproven reports Richard Gage relies upon, if you don't mind. For one thing, I'm not telling you everything you know is false and I'll only show you the REAL truth if you give me your money.

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
*Me reads some of Good Ol' Dave's past posts which involve nothing but supporting the official story and/or throwing mud at those who disagree*

HELL, YOU LOOK TRUSTWORTHY!

Is that you, Dillweed? If it is, you lose the bet and you owe me money!

Search function

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I remember seeing a video a while back that showed a chunk of steel from the one of the towers that was lodged into a building a few blocks away, how could this have happened without some sort of explosive being used? I don't think I have ever heard anyone dispute that. Hopefully someone on ATS has seen it but I'm going to dig about to find that vid and edit my post.

It's quite amazing when an otherwise adult intelligent human being cannot recognize when two 1,400 foot buildings are being blown to smithereens

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
*Me reads some of Good Ol' Dave's past posts which involve nothing but supporting the official story and/or throwing mud at those who disagree*

HELL, YOU LOOK TRUSTWORTHY!

Is that you, Dillweed? If it is, you lose the bet and you owe me money!

. Now ill admit I didnt read the entire t&c.. But isnt there something in there about gambling ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


show me your source that says he's debunked, i bet you cannot..

reply to post by exponent


Now! Now!

I think you are just trying to confuse me.

I had heard the temps had reach something like 1500 degrees. That was what made the floor trusses sag and fall off the clips at the ends. No wait, that would have let the external vertical beams fall out. The floor trusses must have been welded to these clips and that's what pulled the outer beams inward.

I don't know about NYC building codes, but the floors I have poured on construction jobs have all been 3.5 to 4 inchs thick. Would not 110 floors the size of these buildings be considered a little more than not much ?

Let's see 110 X 3.5 = 335 inches or a littl over 32 feet thickness of concrete. You can take this and figure how many cubic yards of concrete is not much.

I also remember hearing about the burning of the gypsum board being involved in causing the steel to weaken. it would be interesting to learn how much of this was left over in the dust in the air and on the ground.

reply to post by Mickles


Demolition explosives don't push huge chunks of steel around, they use a jet of copper to slice the steel in half. Pushing the huge exterior sections with explosives would require extremely huge detonations that would have been really obvious.

The answer is that the towers were really tall, and so it doesn't take much horizontal speed to move an object a couple hundred feet when it's falling 1000ft or so.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by exponent

 

Now! Now!

I think you are just trying to confuse me.

Why would you say something like that? Why would I want to confuse anyone?

I had heard the temps had reach something like 1500 degrees. That was what made the floor trusses sag and fall off the clips at the ends. No wait, that would have let the external vertical beams fall out. The floor trusses must have been welded to these clips and that's what pulled the outer beams inward.

Welded and bolted. Some trusses likely did break the bolts or welds, as we have photos showing floors disconnected from the columns that increased in disconnection over time.

I don't know about NYC building codes, but the floors I have poured on construction jobs have all been 3.5 to 4 inchs thick. Would not 110 floors the size of these buildings be considered a little more than not much ?

Let's see 110 X 3.5 = 335 inches or a littl over 32 feet thickness of concrete. You can take this and figure how many cubic yards of concrete is not much.

You got the amounts right, each floor was 4" of lightweight concrete on top of a steel pan that was on top of the trusses. However, consider the fact that the towers were 200ft on each side. That means the floor depth was around 1/600th of the width of the towers. It doesn't take much of a moment action to fracture and shatter concrete, and this is almost certainly what happened.

I also remember hearing about the burning of the gypsum board being involved in causing the steel to weaken. it would be interesting to learn how much of this was left over in the dust in the air and on the ground.

The gypsum wouldn't burn, it is essentially fireproof. There was a lot of it in the dust.

reply to post by exponent

Yes 9/11 conspiracies are interesting to me, too

I've been reading the 9/11 forum since 2008 and before Dave et al (let's just call them "debunkers" ok) arrived on the scene the 9/11 forums were AWESOME for exchanging ideas and theories about 9/11. Then they arrived, with posts absolutely loaded with subtle and not-so subtle insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with them. I hear more about LAZERS FROM OUTER SPACE and 9/11 HOLOGRAMS and other complete nonsense from Dave than I've read from any other poster.

In my opinion, 9/11 discussion has been severely reduced on these forums in the last few years because people with genuine curiosity and ideas about 9/11 don't want to be labelled with the ridiculous and now-offensive label of 'truther' and other insults which you guys spout nearly every second post. I reckon most people here would welcome convincing and constructive evidence that the 9/11 official story is true, hell I know I would. But you guys have nothing to offer but insults and straw-men.

reply to post by exponent


I'm not saying that explosives were used but was just looking for a plausible answer. Also you said it would have been obvious if explosives were used, well what about what the firefighters and news reporters who stated they heard loud booms just before and during collapse? Just looking for your thoughts as I am somewhat new to all of this.

reply to post by exponent


You seem educated, so you must be right about the concrete.

There was a lot of 'moment" in the upper floors. I watched them fall so fast, it was like the floors below them were not even there. They started down and didn't even slack up. All those concrete slaps were just not enough to slow them down.

But I still don't know about the "sulfidation" of the steel found in the rubble. If the gypsum board was the only material which could have contained sulfur, and the gypsum board does not burn, how did this occur ?

reply to post by exponent


depends on what kind were used, watch the video i put up ffs it explains all!!!!!!!!!

other wise *snip* you know nothing because you have not done the research



note dave has yet to disprove this video


Mod Note: Civility & Decorum are Expected - Please Review This Link

no way, no how, never in a million years, did the towers collapse as a result of the so called 'terrorist attack'. i knew this while watching the events transpire on the day, i still know it now. and nothing could change my opinion on this matter. nothing, ever.
the OS is, was and always shall be baloney of the highest order and an insult to intelligence. the truth WILL out, one day. and it isn't the OS.

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
I've been reading the 9/11 forum since 2008 and before Dave et al (let's just call them "debunkers" ok) arrived on the scene the 9/11 forums were AWESOME for exchanging ideas and theories about 9/11. Then they arrived, with posts absolutely loaded with subtle and not-so subtle insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with them. I hear more about LAZERS FROM OUTER SPACE and 9/11 HOLOGRAMS and other complete nonsense from Dave than I've read from any other poster.

Ok but please remember that I am one of these 'debunkers' too. I also arrived in late 2008 once I had quit the Loose Change forums because they admitted they would moderate in a biased fashion.

I come for debate rather than to shovel my ideas down anyone's throat, but I do understand where Dave is coming from. I also bring up space beams and holograms and 'vicsims' etc regularly, because I am trying to illustrate to people why they need to be less confident in their own opinions.

This is after all, the driving force behind a lot of conspiracy theorists and 'doubters' in many fields. I'm considering writing a book on it soon in fact, but I've been planning this for a while!

I can't give a balanced perspective on this though, because obviously I feel that most truth claims are based in incredulity rather than fact, but I can lend some weight to Dave's posts. I think that it's important people realise that if you rely soley on your own experience or intuition, then you can end up easily believing ludicrous things, and that after all is his point as I see it.

In my opinion, 9/11 discussion has been severely reduced on these forums in the last few years because people with genuine curiosity and ideas about 9/11 don't want to be labelled with the ridiculous and now-offensive label of 'truther' and other insults which you guys spout nearly every second post.

I don't think this is fair really. I think you're romanticising the past. There are plenty of groups with little to no 'debunker' presence, and what happens is that they form an 'echo chamber'. Take cluesforum and reddit.com/r/911truth as an example. Both of these have very little in the way of debunkers doubting their claims, and as a result the same claims get posted over and over again with very little discussion.

It basically turns into one person posting something 'suspicious' and then a bunch of people agreeing. Repeated forever.

I reckon most people here would welcome convincing and constructive evidence that the 9/11 official story is true, hell I know I would. But you guys have nothing to offer but insults and straw-men.

That's rubbish man. If you read the history of my posts I have written tens of thousands of words explaining the concepts behind the 'official story' to people, and explaining why it is the best explanation of the facts.

I'd be more than happy to do this with you, in public or in private. Please don't say that it's just 'insults and straw-men'.