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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

what does this have anything to do with any of the points I've raised?

why should I answer who makes money off of 9/11?

are you assuming this is where I'm getting my information from?

....careful. your question of who benefits has nothing to do with the points I've raised.

EDIT (in response to your revision):

Again, why are you holding me responsible for the movement? why are you constantly and pervasively deflecting away from the facts of the matter?

you address none of my direct points of rebuttal to you but turn around and state I'm not answering your questions which don't have anything to do with what I'm stating?

I don't see the need to keep responding to you on this. stop your conjecture on an entire movement, make your questions to me succinct and *related to the information I've posted,* otherwise this exchange will be fruitless.
edit on 16-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

what does this have anything to do with any of the points I've raised?

why should I answer who makes money off of 9/11?

are you assuming this is where I'm getting my information from?

....careful. your question of who benefits has nothing to do with the points I've raised.



And you haven't answered who benefits from pushing false conspiracy narratives and the inability of the movement to police itself. Sorry, but the faces of the movement are Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Dr Wood, Neils Harrit...... Or any other YouTube video posted as gospel with no sources referenced or vetting.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

why in the world should I answer this? what have I stated in my responses to require me to speak to the legitimacy of any of the names you posted?

I said it before, and i'll say it again - nothing I've posted in this thread has any direct correlation to pushing the narrative of any 9/11 figurehead. I have no idea why you're asking me these questions.

who benefits? I don't know.

why can't they police themselves? I don't know.

this has nothing to do with my point of view.





posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

And that's my point. Why should they be the faces of the movement.

I have always conceded there was questions about the NIST reports. The NIST has even held conferences with opening the floor to questions. There are many groups and individuals that don't like the NIST reports concerning the WTC, and came up with better explanations. Like too little fire insulation. However, the vast majority concluded fire collapse. The context of the criticism is the NIST reports were a direct path to prove fire collapse with no additional studies with the resulting data that would improve fire safety.

I am sure the government is ashamed of 911 and has done many things to cover up its complacency that lead to 911.

But, do not defend those that act hurt. Because I do not believe in controlled demolition of the towers and dared question Gage and Jones, I have some how lost the right to question the official narrative. Those that act hurt believe to question the official narrative is to believe in thermite and controlled demolition without question. The same people, if you ask them to list the alleged pseudoscience of the NIST, will only reply over and over again to read some propaganda conspiracists report.

The simple question of what does not believing in the official narrative have to do with believing in controlled demolition goes ignored.

In the vaccum, this is what I theorize. The fan boys of controlled demolition will never concede even though there is zero evidence of controlled demolition at the towers. No audio of a series of charges detonating, no evidence charges set-off floor by floor, no 911 victims with shrapnel injuries due to detonation of charges, no short floor height pieces of columns worked on by explosives, no charge / blasting cap fragments. If there was no floor by floor system of charges to bring down the towers, then then the speed of the towers collapse was not dependent on having demolitions. That means fire collapse becomes even more probable for WTC 7.

I will say you are different. But most of my experience at ATS is those that utterly support Gage and Jones and cannot fathom questioning the official narrative without total belief in WTC controlled demolition.

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

your point means nothing to the assertions i'm making based on cold, hard facts.

i appreciate you telling me i'm different in this regard, but that alone should make you stop wanting to cast doubt on people who VERY WELL MAY BE onto something.

stop shooting the messenger. that magic bullet will come right back to shoot you in the foot - like i imagine it already has.

you can't prove fire collapse. neither can NIST, neither can the 9/11 commission report. show me a real life model of a fire collapse looking exactly like that, and i'll concede 150% of the way. you won't be able to.

aside from all of that, you're assassinating the character of those who are desperately trying to make sense of what happened. why not assassinate the character of those that pushed this official story down the throats of the american people to clearly wage war in the middle east? i see a double standard here.

i *want* to be wrong about this.

looks like you and many like you *want* to be right. and so, the struggle continues.




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye




show me a real life model of a fire collapse looking exactly like that, and i'll concede 150% of the way. you won't be able to.

Show us another skyscraper hit by a fully fuels jet with un-fought fires.

It is you who is claiming there is a conspiracy afoot.
So it is you who has to prove the buildings came down via another method.
Now remember your theory has to cover ALL the bases for 911.
You can't cherry pick one thing and say it proves ALL aspects of 911 were a conspiracy.

Lets say you can prove that Larry Silverstein did mean to "pull the building down".
You then have to prove there were methods in place to do just that.
And the fire department had access to those methods.
And the fire department did pull the building.
And the fire department covered the whole thing up.

Evvvvven if you could do all that.
You still haven't proven WTC 1&2 and the Pentagon and Shanksville.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

LOL

and you don't think the OS is a conspiracy theory?

you don't think the burden of proof lays with anyone who believes the OS?

let me make something abundantly clear - the OS depiction of what happened to the twin towers is a physical impossibility. they can't accurately recreate it, nor point to any other collapse due to fire in history that bears any resemblance to what we all saw.

if you can't show me another COLLAPSE OF ANY DEGREE that resembles what everyone saw, then the burden of proof is strictly on your end.

fire, no fire. plane, no plane. show me any other building collapse that would back up what you're claiming is true - namely, that fire "pulverized" somewhere close to 110 floors of reinforced steel.

i'll wait.
edit on 17-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)


EDIT:

here, for reference. show me anything else in recorded history that looks like this, with any kind of impact you'd like. keep in mind that stories and articles on buildings being hit by planes in the past are readily available.


edit on 17-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It will not come back at me. Alex jones, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Dr Wood, Neils Harrit, Loose Change haven't made the movement what it is today? They are the voices, faces, and major players of the movement with the most market share. Just simple facts.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I guess Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal too.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: samkent

LOL

and you don't think the OS is a conspiracy theory?

you don't think the burden of proof lays with anyone who believes the OS?

let me make something abundantly clear - the OS depiction of what happened to the twin towers is a physical impossibility. they can't accurately recreate it, nor point to any other collapse due to fire in history that bears any resemblance to what we all saw.

if you can't show me another COLLAPSE OF ANY DEGREE that resembles what everyone saw, then the burden of proof is strictly on your end.

fire, no fire. plane, no plane. show me any other building collapse that would back up what you're claiming is true - namely, that fire "pulverized" somewhere close to 110 floors of reinforced steel.

i'll wait.

EDIT:

here, for reference. show me anything else in recorded history that looks like this, with any kind of impact you'd like. keep in mind that stories and articles on buildings being hit by planes in the past are readily available.




Let's start with you stating what made it possible?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye




if you can't show me another COLLAPSE OF ANY DEGREE that resembles what everyone saw, then the burden of proof is strictly on your end.

Nope you are saying the accepted story is wrong, so the burden is on you.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Good solid article covering all the old arguments.

www.skeptic.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Thinking of context. I have never came across conspiracists claiming skeptics are afraid to debate fire collapse? Nor remember conspiracists referencing any debate as proof of their self labeled strong arguments?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Why would we start there? I've posed a simple question to the both of you here that you're squirming to not answer.

are you familiar with Newtonian physics? if not, I suggest you start there before asking someone on a forum board what their professional opinion is. make your own educated conclusions. once you're capable of coming to your own conclusion based on the physical laws of the earth, and willing as well as able to answer my direct line of questioning, we can revisit this discussion.

a reply to: samkent

Still waiting. I've been more than direct, straight forward and up front about the case I'm making.

you have not, in the slightest. you're not even willing to substantiate your position - that's because we both know you can't.

EDIT: and "accepted story?"

ACCEPTED BY WHO?

edit on 18-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Ok, ask the question.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Newton's law of physics? Things with potential energy? Are you saying if a hold a ball five feet in mid air above the ground it's going to stay at rest when I let go and not drop? You do understand the material of a building has stored up energy do to its height and potential energy?



From www.physicsclassroom.com...
To summarize, potential energy is the energy that is stored in an object due to its position relative to some zero position. An object possesses gravitational potential energy if it is positioned at a height above (or below) the zero height.


That's strange. Never thought about a building having stored energy. I guess like a compressed spring?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Thought this was interesting too. Some NIST answers to common WTC tower questions.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Link to NIST document that details WTC steel recovery. The details are on document page number 27.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Newton's law of physics? Things with potential energy? Are you saying if a hold a ball five feet in mid air above the ground it's going to stay at rest when I let go and not drop? You do understand the material of a building has stored up energy do to its height and potential energy?



From www.physicsclassroom.com...
To summarize, potential energy is the energy that is stored in an object due to its position relative to some zero position. An object possesses gravitational potential energy if it is positioned at a height above (or below) the zero height.


That's strange. Never thought about a building having stored energy. I guess like a compressed spring?


i say this with all due respect - i don't think you have a good grasp of these concepts. better to start hitting the books on this if you want to understand what should have happened if the building actually came down due to fire collapse.

this wasn't a fire collapse.



here's what the buildings looked like, inside and out.

in thinking about newtonian principles, ask yourself what would happen to these 30 floors falling on 80 with asymmetrical damage.

if you think a plane crashing into this legendary feat of engineering would result in 110 floors of steel being "pulverized," you're simply not adding 2 and 2 to get 4.

again, keep in mind that the structural steel columns were thicker on the bottom half of the building vs. the top half. the top 30 floors of kinetic energy would instantly meet the potential energy of the bottom 80. think about what that means.


edit on 19-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

What is you question?







 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join