"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

DirtyD
reply to post by Mclaneinc

 

Indeed, so no need to compound lies with more lies. Stick to the facts, there are plenty of them which refute the official story. The Op only helps muddy the waters, and gives skeptics more ammunition against the truth.

Erm what 'lies' did I tell?

As far as I was concerned all that I said was factual?

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

 

forget it. I sure as hell am not explaining it all here I think you already know but are just playing dumb. I also asked you an easy question which you ignored

So you tell me i am ignoring the evidence, despite me being the one who is actually focusing on the evidence

So when i ask you, can you tell me what evidence i am ignoring,

you run with the line that i am "playing dumb" and refuse to provide me with any of this evidence i am ignoring.

the evidence is plastered all over this site and other sites across the net. Lots of it...so much in fact I am not going to re-iterate it all right now. Take that as a victory if you wish but I claim you know it and pretend otherwise. I have seen it...and I think you have to...but are still ignoring it all and still ignoring my question...I'll ask once more for your convenience.

Putting the rest of this thread, the number of hijackers or times building 7 fell aside. Given ALL of the evidence that has been accumulated over the last 12 years to suggest the original story is a lie...do you believe the original story and if so...why?

If you dodge the question again or ask what evidence, our discussion is over

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So what your telling me that a domino effect happened, how many hours after the fact north tower building collapsed.

its a long delay.

sorry don't buy your logic.

reply to post by Oannes

You all are not getting it

oh no i "get it" really i do, believe it or not i used to be a truther until i woke up and stated doing my own research.

hat building (I dont care how) was NOT SUPPOSED TO FALL THE WAY IT DID

And you base this one what?

Really what evidence do you have that the building was "NOT SUPPOSED TO FALL THE WAY IT DID"

prove it

Anyone who knows archetecture/engineering will tell you this

Really, were there are 2000 members of A&E for 9/11 truth who all say it was a controlled demolition, this against 83,000 members of the American institute for Architects and 140,000 members of the American Society of Civil engineers, both of these organizations do not support the idea that 9/11 was a inside job or that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition.

It dosent make logical sence. It matches a demolition perfectly

It does ......and no it does not match a demotion perfectly.

. Your government(s) (U.S. and Israel) have killed you.

Well i am British...

oh and the very fact that i can type tells my they have not killed me

I only seek the truth about this day in time.

Then get off ATS, in fact get off the internet and actually start looking for the truth and stop buying into all this rubbish that the truther propaganda would have you believe.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The "official" story is a sick joke. I'm not for arguments. And i'm not afraid of any government/instituition. All I want is a real investigation. Which was never done. The truth wiil come out one day. Hopefully soon.

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

the evidence is plastered all over this site and other sites across the net. Lots of it...so much in fact I am not going to re-iterate it all right now

So you tell me i am wrong, that i have it all backwards and that what you call the "offical story" is wrong and i am wrong to believe it. Yet when i ask for some proof you fail to provide it.

ok then....

I have seen it...and I think you have to...

You right, if by it you mean the "proof 9/11 was a inside job" they yes i have seen it but its not "proof" again if you show me some of this "proof" I will tell you what's wrong with it or point you in the right direction.

do you believe the original story and if so...why?

I dont like the term "offical Story" but if by that you mean do i believe the events of that day as the offical narrative of events and subsequent offical reports and investigations of that day claim the attacks and demise of the buildings?

Then yes I do

why?

because in the past 12 years I have yet to see anything that refutes the "offical story"

I do have some questions and I used to be a huge truther, i until i actually educated myself in the events of 9/11 and terrorism in general. So i can understand why you don't believe the "offical story".

reply to post by amraks

So what your telling me that a domino effect happened, how many hours after the fact north tower building collapsed.

Are you failure with the events of 9/11 2001?

Specifically in regards to WTC-7

because asking if its a domino effect makes me think you might not be

I am not being harsh, honestly its a genuine question.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by amraks

 

Are you failure with the events of 9/11 2001?

Specifically in regards to WTC-7

because asking if its a domino effect makes me think you might not be

I am not being harsh, honestly its a genuine question.

No I am not a "Failure" with the events of 9/11

I am saying that there was a long time after the north tower(10:28AM) collapsed to then building 7 that collapsed at 5.21PM

reply to post by amraks


you will have to excuse my dyslexia...

I am saying that there was a long time after the north tower(10:28AM) collapsed to then building 7 that collapsed at 5.21PM

Very good point and your right, its a long time for a building to be standing with structural damage and huge fires raging inside where no attempt is made to extinguish said fires.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by amraks

 

you will have to excuse my dyslexia...

I am saying that there was a long time after the north tower(10:28AM) collapsed to then building 7 that collapsed at 5.21PM

Very good point and your right, its a long time for a building to be standing with structural damage and huge fires raging inside where no attempt is made to extinguish said fires.

Can you prove that this building had structural damage though?
It did have a fire burning in it, but it wouldn't of been hot enough to collapse the building.

reply to post by amraks

Can you prove that this building had structural damage though?

sure please just look at the link i provided in the previous page it contains information regarding the damage sustained to WTC-7

here is one picture that proves some structural damage



most of the damage though was sustained to the north face of the building however that was mostly obscured by smoke billowing out of the building and dust for the collapse of the towers. Although this damage has been reported by first responders at the scene

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


And with that structural damage, you find it completely normal that the building would collapse symmetrically?
Wouldn't the building fall to the side where the damage is, as it encounters the least amount of resistance?

Look at the aftermath:


Thats a neat pile WTC7 ended up in 'eh?

reply to post by kloejen


They did fall sideways. They did not completely fall into themselves. You can say they did because they came straight down and could not hold the upper floors but they did tip. This is why there were cars and trucks on fire blocks away.

reply to post by kloejen

And with that structural damage, you find it completely normal that the building would collapse symmetrically?

it did not collapse symmetrically

if you notice as it fell it began to lean backwards and there was also a noticeable "kink" or a dip in the roof line of the building as it fell.

I appreciate all the replies to my thread...I sincerely hope you all watched the video's and found them informative. For those of you that did not, you have decided that the official story placed forth in the media and government is correct and with merit.

To you I say........POPPYCOCKS!!!

Never in the history of architectural design or the destruction of any steel buildings has there been a fire capable of causing a free fall pancake the way those towers fell...or wtc7 for that matter...I have noticed this discrepancy being focused on as to the length of time that elapsed....free fall is free fall....it means the level of resistance was removed by implosion...they had to have the structure weakened substantially for them to fall the way they did...any one that thinks these building fell down because of fire clearly has no understanding of the physics involved or the the inability for steel to melt the way they claim...it just is not possible.

I did not need to watch the video's for me to understand this...common sense told me those buildings did not fall the way they claim, but the video's help provide the scientific results and they completely unequivocally refute the findings of the NIST report.

Nobody expects the gov't to actually admit what happened that day...I know I don't....but quit denying ignorance....they lied then and continue to lie now...but make no mistake about it....it does not serve the memories of those that did die to continue to openly admit you believe the official version....I know the family members of those that did die understand they have been lied to but it doesn't lessen the pain and there will never be closure, but they deserve to know the real truth....terrorists did not create these situations.

I have personal experience with the actual events and I have personal knowledge of the truth, but it is not for me to share in this venue....only that I KNOW they lied about this entire fiasco.

Do not continue to deny ignorance...in know way do I care to diminish the events, only want to wake people up and get them to see there is way to much evidence to the contrary as to the official version. It amazes me that there are still any people that believe any of it.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


I am curious to know how the waters could be muddier than they already are....guess what I didn't do it...but I know for a fact the events of that day did not happen the way they claim they did or for the reason they claim.

matafuchs
Details are what make a truth. That is the major issue with many of the conspiracies. You cannot simply make a statement without proving it. Like how 'physics' were suspended that day. I mean, if that was the case, and the US government could alter physics on a whim, then why not do it all the time? Why do we not have transporters like Star Trek?

There were a set amount of hijackers. There was even one who was not able to enter the country. He was on another plane that blew up over NY a few weeks after 9/11. No one talks about that though. You want to talk about the same things that have been rehashed over and over and proven incorrect. Find one of the real cover ups from 9/11 and run with that.

The 9/11 Commission report was not a document to disprove conspiracy. It was created to show how, why, when and who. It did. It is actually a very good read if you read the whole thing and not cut and paste the parts that may fit your argument. Many will simply say it is government garbage and it is just something to support the OS but folks, there is NO OS! Just what happened. It is not the truth or what may have happened it did. If you want to prove something other than what happened, you need details and proof. If you do not have that, then it is simply a nice story.

Some of you posting I am sure were in grade school when this happened and i know that the internet is a cool place for stories but you have to learn separate fact from fiction.

No No and NO. you have it completely wrong but I am not surprised. Do some research on how physics are applied to these buildings and tell me what laws of physics you are using to suggest the way they explain it is factual.

The evidence does not support any of the official story period. Did you bother to watch any of the video's...they do a very good job of showing many instances where the evidence does not support the official version.

No No and NO. you have it completely wrong but I am not surprised. Do some research on how physics are applied to these buildings and tell me what laws of physics you are using to suggest the way they explain it is factual.

The evidence does not support any of the official story period. Did you bother to watch any of the video's...they do a very good job of showing many instances where the evidence does not support the official version.

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


How are physics applied to the buildings? You realize how uneducated that sounds when you say it out loud, right? Say it 4 or 5 times out loud. Seriously. I can watch a video and see that (1)gravity decided to take over when the load bearing members of the 100 story building failed. Then I can see that something that (2) something in motion remains in motion until equal or greater force is applied. see #1 for gravity.

There is no need to tell you what laws are applied as you will not listen anyway. It is a cop out but those who do not have an answer to put it back on someone who says they are wrong. It is called deflection. I swear there is a pdf called "How to debunk 9/11" where you look at a value and type it, like a script if you worked in customer service.

Lastly, what evidence does not support what happened that day? What? There is NO evidence for anything but what actually happened. It was real. tons of debris. Lot's a people died and some did unselfishly trying to save others. Read some books and stop believing everything you 'watch' on the internet as the truth. Read 4 or 5 different views. Open YOUR eyes and realize that no matter how good the story sounds it falls flat when true investigative technique takes hold.

Considering many of the so called 19 Highjackers were found to be alive afterwards narrows it down to around 11...good catch

See- this is what just buries your argument right away. A ridiculous statement just counter punches what data you were trying to showcase.

Now the big question: Is someone posting this because they believe this nonsense, or is someone trying to color everyone in the 'truth' movement as wacky as this statement is?

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it is a little of both. One of the standard affair of the truth movement is to pick individual incidents to challenge. Knowing full well that there is no exit or entry , or better said, no start and no stopping. For a good example of this is the missile into the pentagon because the whole is to small for a large plane. The small hole is, in itself, is the beginning and end you eliminate the eyewitnesses and the fact that a missile can't change course to correct altitude.

This is the entire reason why no one takes these charges seriously is picking and choosing individual parts to challenge and ignoring the chain of evidence or the entire scope of what this small incident is enclosed in. That is the basis of all the books and videos because it's so illogical to try to put the small challenged incident in any kind of timeline. To say that the building was imploded because you don't like the way it fell falls on deaf ears without being able to show how the charges got there or why there was no traces of any kind of of explosive that experts say would be needed to attempt to bring it down. Thus the need to invent the word nanothermite without, of course, saying where it came from or how it brought the building down. This is what really frustrates persons who study the crime in it's entirety and trying to prove government collusion. There is always someone inventing a fairy tale that is silly and that draws away credibility from the entire movement.

Is this being done as a planned attempt to invalidate all the truthers?, or, are they simply doing it too themselves. As I have shown it's a little of both.