It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Was A "Professional" 9/11 "Truther" (And I Still Am!)

page: 18
48
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Funny it's always lies and pseudoscience, but what do you have? Jones lacking scientific method and chain of custody. Jones, where impartial scientists could not recreate his work. How about Dr. Wood? Those are the stars of conspiracists?




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


When you dig, and see how conspiracists depend on false narratives,


Oh I get it now, those silly false narratives, like hush-boom bombs, lasers took down the WTC, invisible airplanes, to no planes,
I believe these are the false narratives you speak of, and I do agree with you, I really do.

Heck, I don't support any of those silly conspiracy theories and never did to begin with.

So what are you trying to say I believe, is Conspiracy theories do not know how to do real research?


have no physical evidence, and pseudoscience science, it's easy to question conspiracists. Especially the professional conspiracists vs the skeptics who's only reward is truth? The scientific skeptics that debunk in their spare time.


So scientific evidence has proved that NIST science is not flawed, am I correct?

Especially the professional conspirators vs the skeptics who's only reward is truth? So the skeptics have the truth concerning 911, and I believe what you are trying to say we all should just ignore those conspiracy theorists they are not interested in finding the truth but only interesting in pushing a false narrative and deceiving the public.


Nope, I think flat earthers are the quintessential conspiracists.


Actually, I agree with that.



I really don't even think it's about what is real, or even what conspiracists believe themselves. It's about what you can get everyone to believe.


So you believe many conspiracy theorist believe in things that are not real?

And you are convinced that many or most conspiracy theorist just want to deceive people?


Are there honest conspiracists, you bet. Dishonest skeptics, got those too.


Wow, I never met a dishonest skeptic, I didn't know they existed.

So would a dishonest skeptic be as bad as a conspiracy theorist?


However, insurance agents that concluded fire collapse wanted to find a way to minimize the payout. Engineers concluding fire collapse want to build better buildings if anything to limit their liability. Local investigators dealing with lose of friends and colleagues, and the remains of victims, wanted the real story and justice.


You mean NIST Report that was used to explain what happened to the WTC, I believe that was the only report with some science in it, I have no doubt that the insurance companies would rely on it, anything else and that being the government paid NIST to do the Report, why would they look anywhere else?

And the victims finally got the truth after all, it was in the NIST Report.

Why hasn't the NIST Report been "Peer Reviewed" so we can put all this conspiracy nonsense to rest?

Would you agree that Science is only good when it's been Peer Reviewed, otherwise, it opinions and conjectures, and assumptions by a hand full of scientices working on a theatrical thesis?







edit on 12-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958


You mean NIST Report that was used to explain what happened to the WTC, I believe that was the only report with some science in it, I have no doubt that the insurance companies would rely on it, anything else and that being the government paid NIST to do the Report, why would they look anywhere else?



Dude, sorry to be personal, but you just didn't help yourself. In fact, you just proved one of my on going rants. The Aegis Court case was based on science by persons to construct accurate modelling based on their investigation. The name of just one of the documents with modeling data is the WTC 7 collapse. Aegis - Nordenson Expert Report 1.pdf. found here with other information and reports based on science. www.metabunk.org...

How is this not science. How is it based entirely on NIST reports for WTC 7?

Again, sorry to be personal, but you have been involved in threads were I posted information on a paper who's calculations used WTC 1 and 2 R Waves to prove building collapse was due to fire. Not detonation of explosives.

You are the reasons conspiracists cannot be trusted. You have been involved in threads I have given links to reports not of NIST and use SCIENCE. Then for you to imply the only reports of science are from the NIST?

And what is with you and peer review. Do you think modeling using established structural calculations is peered reviewed everytime it's used. You think every new building design is peered reviewed. It's technically checked and reviewed. But I don't think evey new skyscraper design is peer reviewed and published in a journal.
edit on 13-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

And please state and prove how the NIST failed to prove collapse by fire?



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


The Aegis Court case was based on science by persons to construct accurate modelling based on their investigation. The name of just one of the documents with modeling data is the WTC 7 collapse. Aegis - Nordenson Expert Report 1.pdf. found here with other information and reports based on science. www.metabunk.org...


It was a Report done for a Court case. I do not see all the world scientist cheer leading this Reports, do you?

So what you are saying is, science does not need to be Peer Reviewed and of course politic does not play any part in scientific Reports correct?


Who is equipped to demonstrate an understanding of progressive collapse of a high rise steel building? The unprecedented nature of the collapse requires an analysis that would turn conventional fire engineering thinking on its head. I don't see any such thing here.

If Torero in particular could have demonstrated this in a FEA, I am sure he would have done so long before the AEGIS court case. And if Torero cannot, then neither can NIST.

I don't think there is any side stepping going on as such by any of these experts. They were posed a question that assumed NISTs initiating event would lead to a progressive collapse, and they produced analysis and opinion that reflected this assumption.




Many fire science innovations begin life at Edinburgh University, "fire grid" being a prime example of this. If anybody was going to come up with a plausible analysis that showed a single initiating event leading to progressive global collapse, they would have done it.


www.metabunk.org...

From your source?


You are the reasons conspiracists cannot be trusted.


Funny I really haven't proved anything much concerning the 911 official narratives.

But you say I cannot be trusted?

Because I asked some serious questions concerning NIST science? Who are you to Judge me? Oh and how dare I question you, or anything related to 911, I thought this was a discussion forum?

And this is whats makes me untrustworthy?

Thank you for kindly answering all my posted question, that I asked of you, I love your honest response: Nothing.
edit on 13-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You do understand metabunk is a skeptic site where conspiracists participate. One, you did not site the person making the statements. Two, you didn't state the context. Finally, what were the rebuttals? More attempts to misdirecte by not giving sources, context, and not revealing statements were part of an on going discussion with rebuttals.


Also from same metabunk thread.
By: www.metabunk.org... "I spent a little more time going through these today and I have to say that the Nordenson report is quite interesting. He also independently modeled the collapse; however, unlikely Bailey, he modeled WTC globally. His actual model is described in the portions of his report in the second Nordenson report PDF in the OP. Section 4 (starting on pg 75 of that PDF) outlines the vulnerabilities he sees with the WTC structure, while Section 5 (Starting on page 115 of the pdf) describes the global collapse, and even includes very detailed diagrams of the likely collapse progression. These diagrams are the sort of thing I wish NIST had produced more of in relating their theory of the collapse. He has a pretty clear explanation as to how he believes the inner supports failed prior to the collapse of the outer frame."

I think you stated in classic conspiracists fashion only the NIST report included science. It's sad you are so wrong or so willing to misdirecte for conspiracist street cred. But that's the point, for a group the wants to call out conspiracy to be anything less than transparent, caught taking data out of context, Photoshopping images, giving misinformation on the extensive effort to recover evidence, not revealing WTC dust sample experiment redults could not be reproduced, not even acknowledge there are WTC dust samples that have a clear chain of custody, WTC dust has been extensively tested, giving misinformation remains were identified of those on flights, more scientific studies and models than the NIST reports that conclude collapse initiated by fire is hypocritical.


Finally what is the pseudoscience of the NIST reports?
edit on 13-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You don't understand why even "professionals" will scam people for money? Rob Balsamo, used to be on ATS, until the aviation professionals here poked enough holes in his theories (and lies) that he left.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

Nope, I think flat earthers are the quintessential conspiracists. I really don't even think it's about what is real, or even what conspiracists believe themselves. It's about what you can get everyone to believe. Are there honest conspiracists, you bet. Dishonest skeptics, got those too. However, insurance agents that concluded fire collapse wanted to find a way to minimize the payout. Engineers concluding fire collapse want to build better buildings if anything to limit their liability. Local investigators dealing with lose of friends and colleagues, and the remains of victims, wanted the real story and justice.

When you dig, and see how conspiracists depend on false narratives, have no physical evidence, and pseudoscience science, it's easy to question conspiracists. Especially the professional conspiracists vs the skeptics who's only reward is truth? The scientific skeptics that debunk in their spare time.


I don't even know how Flat Earth people can wrap their heads around that insanity. It's beyond me.

Doesn't keep me from asking questions.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

Nope, I think flat earthers are the quintessential conspiracists. I really don't even think it's about what is real, or even what conspiracists believe themselves. It's about what you can get everyone to believe. Are there honest conspiracists, you bet. Dishonest skeptics, got those too. However, insurance agents that concluded fire collapse wanted to find a way to minimize the payout. Engineers concluding fire collapse want to build better buildings if anything to limit their liability. Local investigators dealing with lose of friends and colleagues, and the remains of victims, wanted the real story and justice.

When you dig, and see how conspiracists depend on false narratives, have no physical evidence, and pseudoscience science, it's easy to question conspiracists. Especially the professional conspiracists vs the skeptics who's only reward is truth? The scientific skeptics that debunk in their spare time.


I don't even know how Flat Earth people can wrap their heads around that insanity. It's beyond me.

Doesn't keep me from asking questions.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: KillerKell

They did not do what you think they did. They collected parts only for the purpose of cleanup and tossed them. They didn't care about the angle, they didn't care about the parts of the plane. All they cared about was seeing if they could find anything that identified hijackers, locating a black box and getting the wreckage out of the building. They did not have to catalog anything that came from the plane because they knew what it came from. They didn't need to catalog anything they pulled out because it did not matter. It was just scrap to them.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: KillerKell

As past performance indicates, "truthers" and government need fact checked. Cannot trust anyone with an agenda.......

I hate when my network is slow and tricks me into the old double post.
edit on 15-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: KillerKell

As past performance indicates, "truthers" and government need fact checked. Cannot trust anyone with an agenda.......

I hate when my network is slow and tricks me into the old double post.


I'm on Hughesnet myself, brother. So I feel you on the internet when it's crap and forcing double posts.

You are absolutely correct, everyone should be subject to fact checking. Government should also be more transparent.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Has this 2014 video been debunked? It is visually compelling, whatever that is worth ultimately.WTC collapse in SUPER slow-motion. Watch numerous SQUIBS. South tower.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

As a burning building quickly collapses in on itself, compressing air from falling floors, why would there not be dry wall / smoke "squibs". They are the result of a pressure disturbance, not exclusive to the detonation of explosives.
edit on 20-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth




Has this 2014 video been debunked? It is visually compelling, whatever that is worth ultimately

Did you bother to look at the poster of the YT vid ?
This guy posts vids about UFOs, CDC whistle blowers, hemp oil cures cancer.
Plus he gives zero info on who/what he is.

So what credibility score would you give his video ?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

No. I am less willing than some to immediately pivot to attacking the source. As for his posting videos of UFOs, I have no problem with that. I see similarities between how the official position on UFO reality is sustained and retrenched and how the official position regarding 9/11 is perpetuated and prolonged. Both have required significant revision under scrutiny, both discount and belittle voluminous contrary eyewitness testimony, both require explanations resorting to never before or exceedingly rare mechanisms or phenomena, and both freely employ ridicule and mockery in order to undercut and marginalize legitimate dissenting opinion.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
www.iraqinquiry.org.uk...


This is a story about liars and criminals who are protected by an elite propaganda machine, a highly educated yet moronic atheist class, a heavily armed and corrupt justice and military system, and their incompetent and naive institutional lapdogs.

This is a story about the man who exposed them for what they really are. It is a story about their attempts to silence him using every method available. But they failed...

WHO ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS? YOU DECIDE...

Please visit:

storify.com...

Please sign petition that justice may be served so that millions did not die and suffer in vain:

www.change.org...



FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE AFGHAN AND IRAQ WARS...








“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Gandhi


www.dennismarkuze.com...



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join