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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
If it looks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it walks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it has feathers like a duck it's a duck, it's a duck.


I prefer evidence and science to the duck test.


The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.




posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.


Said no source.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.


Said no source.



originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: Informer1958


To support the OS statist flow, one has to ignore credibal science.

Funny though, NIST was forced to change it science that WTC7 fell faster than free fall, for 2 seconds faster than natural free fall.



O.K. Orange Jail Coveralls guy,
SOURCE PLEASE or admit you are once again wrong.
edit on 23-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?


To quote Max Plank:

"Science advances one funeral at a time"

Most professionals in any field will not contradict the reigning authority in their own field regardless of evidence. The reason is simple: they've worked too hard to risk being marginalized in their own field. There is never any academic risk if you tow the line, even if it turns out to be wrong later.







originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




It's called a "crawl space". Have you ever worked in a crawl space? Nobody ever comes down into a crawl space to check on you and see what you are doing.

You are inventing something that didn't exist.


Looking at this picture:



You may be right. There was certainly space between the floors as you can see (because those trusses were at least a few feet tall). But it's not clear whether they put a solid floor at the bottom of that space for a person to be able to crawl in that space.

They might have needed special gear, or maybe the way you accessed that space was to tear away the ceiling tiles on the floor below?

My point, however, is that due to the need to do things like running network cable under the floors to get to peoples' desks, it would not be uncommon or unexpected for maintenance people to want access to that space.








The horizontal supports would have been accessible via crawl spaces between the floors. Severing them is really all you have to do. The vertical supports are riveted together with bolts. With nothing to brace them horizontally, those bolts are the sum total of all the strength they have to prevent wobbling.

The horizontal support were cheap floor trusses.
The vertical supports were the outside steel and the inner core. Nothing in between.
That's what throws off the logic of the conspiracy crowd.
The building was not constructed like any before nor since.


It definitely explains why pancake style collapse would follow after the failure of just one or a few floors.

At present the biggest hole in NIST's description of events is their claim that the fireproofing had been knocked loose. And their admitting that, unless it were knocked loose, the fires could not have sufficiently weakened the supports.

Just look at the picture. The horizontal trusses were a few feet tall. Each one should have shielded the ones next to it from shrapnel. There is no reason why most of the fireproofing wouldn't have remained intact.

And as far as I've been able to find NIST has never offered any evidence that this should have happened. No models, no mockups using shotguns to simulate the explosion or anything like that. Losing the fireproofing is a requirement for their hypothesis and is therefore assumed to have happened.




originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Sorry I have to note everything. Again, I am in the camp contracting floor tresses pulled the vertical columns and buckled them. The already strained structure could not safely distribute the load to remaining vertical columns. The columns snapped at the focus of stain, and initiated collapse. The static load became dynamic. Potential energy released as kinetic energy.

But you still would have shrapnel, an over pressure event, and one loud boom for a implosion initiated by charges.

Richard Gage invented the fizzle no flash bombs fantasy to make up for lacking evidence and lacking science for their theories.


The most common theory for controlled demolition is the nano-thermite theory. It was advanced by a physics professor at Brigham Young University named David Jones.

Nanothermite burns super hot, and would have cut through the supports with no need for a loud boom. He believes he found globules containing residue. While there are counter theories about where some of the chemicals might have come from (some very ridiculous, and others more plausible), it really hasn't been ruled out as a likely explanation.

You can find it here: www.journalof911studies.com...

David Jones was already a pariah in the physics community, because of his role in the cold fusion fiasco. So he had little to lose professionally by publishing on this topic. He still got pushed into early retirement. (In other words, the academic community made an example out of him, in case you're wondering why other scholars haven't jumped on board.)






And why has AE 9/11 Truth, and the vast majority of the conspiracy movement stuck to each floor must have had its resistance removed to achieve the witnessed collape speed.

If you prove a single point failure could initiate the collapse, then that means the NIST reports are actually valid. That means a single point failure could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. The truth movement will not stand for that.


That is what is called a "false dichotomy".

There are not only two possibilities here.
edit on 23-5-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: Make the picture display

edit on 23-5-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: trying again to make the pic display

edit on 23-5-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?


The question was directed to another poster, whom threw a disrespectful blanket over A&E for 9/11 Truth.

Your numbers are grossly wrong, very misleading, and a total distraction.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




And as far as I've been able to find NIST has never offered any evidence that this should have happened. No models, no mockups using shotguns to simulate the explosion or anything like that. Losing the fireproofing is a requirement for their hypothesis and is therefore assumed to have happened.




edit on 24-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, the studies found the WTC fire proof insulation damage and insufficient before 9/11. Something like only 11 floors were updated before 9/11.

Ok, site the evidence on thermite?

Steven Jones?

Fraudulent peer review by a pay for play journal?

Jones original experiments could not be replicated by other individuals.

Show where the thermite experiments were conducted in an inert atmosphere to prove they were a mixture of thermite. Not just common materials like primer.

The thermite is based on a floor by floor cutting. Why is it presumed large quantities of unreacted thermite would be in a detectable quantity in WTC dust?

For a top down implosion, thermite burns to slow and inconsistent for timing.

And the thermite ignition system would still have to survive the jet strikes, fires, and how was the thermite installed with the foresight were the jets would strike.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So you going with a few induced failure points by thermite?

Floor by floor CD by thermite?

Cite what and who's research proves thermite.

If AE 9/11 Truth is pushing thermite, why come up with the fantasy of fizzle no flash bombs. Is there a bigger truth group and are they pushing thermite?

Seems you are creating straw man argument? Arguments not supported or abandoned by the truth movement?
edit on 24-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fix this and that

edit on 24-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

No, they are not. Far more engineers and architects support the ideas that massive damage and fire killed those buildings than those who adhere to Box Boy Gage's ideas. Saying that more than 2,800 are members of A/E Truth as a way to bolster your ideas when there are far more that disagree with you is not a good debate practice.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? It's really amazing. As soon anything is posted there's always a response saying it's faked data or faked photoshopped image. It's just weird. And then there are whole sites devoted to 9/11 debunking.



Because so many 9/11 conspiracies are very easily debunked.

If the so called truth movement can unify and come up with a conspiracy that is valid, that has evidence and that has logic and I would gladly put money on it that many so called debunkers would be support the charge.

There was something shifty happening after the event, to many warnings before.

However, holograms, space beams, nukes, ritualistic sacrifices etc etc is something that makes the 9/11 truth movement simply an avenue for entertainment.

Certainly not for anything real, the 9/11 truth movement is like watching a movie or reading a book to many, its simply a place for entertainment once you realize what the big picture is concerning the whole thing.

The whole movement was started to dilute any truth with nonsense and turned into another money making cash tree for those with out any humanity.




You have to admit having a conspiracy theory is one thing. But being passionate about other peoples passion is just weird.


So debunkers have no interest in 9/11 and are just obsessed with others that do believe in 9/11 conspiracies?

Couldn't it simply be that many debunkers are actually helping the truth movement by debunking the rubbish that has come forth over the last 16 years?

Could they be doing so because they actually have an interest in the subject itself instead of others that are interested in it?




And don't forget search engines. The amount of SEO work that must go into this to make sure debunking sites always come up first is astounding. Honestly, you would think 9/11 debunking would just never exist.


Yeah some people know how to set up web sites better trhat others.

Its a conspiracy. its aliens


Why would 9/11 debunking never exist?



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale




Could they be doing so because they actually have an interest in the subject itself instead of others that are interested in it?


Yes, we debunkers are interested in the Truth. What we object to those from lunatic fringe pushing ridiculous and bizarre "theories" which have no basis in fact - just the product of paranoia and lurid imagination.

As someone who watched the WTC burn and collapse from where I worked in NJ and as a member of the fire services
feel it is my duty to prevent those who died that day from having the reputations muddied by the antics of these fools.

Ever hear of "VIC SIMS" - one of the bizarre theories put out claiming no one died that day at WTC . All alleged victims
were faked by CIA/Mossad.

Almost 700 people from my state of NJ died that day - almost every town in Northern or Central NJ lost at least
resident. How would you like the names of your friends and neighbors trampled on in this manner....??



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue


Almost 700 people from my state of NJ died that day - almost every town in Northern or Central NJ lost at least
resident. How would you like the names of your friends and neighbors trampled on in this manner....??


I disagree with your statement about friends and neighbors trampled, and that is not happening.

We owe it to the victims to seek the truth. Many surviving victims are not satisfied with the OS of 911, and have publicly spoken out about it. This information doesnt need a credibal source, this was all over television when the 911 commision released their report.

The "Jersey Girls" publicly slamed the 911 commission report.


Yes, we debunkers are interested in the Truth.


What debunkers are you referring to?



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Many surviving victims are not satisfied with the OS of 911, and have publicly spoken out about it.

When your loved one is killed no answer will satisfy you.

The bigger question is how many family members believe in these silly theories?



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?


The question was directed to another poster, whom threw a disrespectful blanket over A&E for 9/11 Truth.

Your numbers are grossly wrong, very misleading, and a total distraction.

The numbers are valid, why do you say they are not?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?


The question was directed to another poster, whom threw a disrespectful blanket over A&E for 9/11 Truth.

Your numbers are grossly wrong, very misleading, and a total distraction.

The numbers are valid, why do you say they are not?


Your attempts at distraction will not work.
If anyone is interested: they are free to look-up the numbers.

This thread is not about 9/11 conspiracy debunker's talking-points.
Those talking-points are outside of the context of the OP, and not relevant. They may even qualify as non-admissible due to causing thread-drift. (Will see if moderators have been notified.)
There are plenty of other 9/11 threads, where you can discuss your talking-points.

This thread is discussing the phenomenon of 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, arriving en-masse, and attempting to control the discourse, of any and all 9/11 related threads.
Exactly as it has gone down here.

So if you wish to participate further: please mention why you spend so much time and energy, arguing against 9/11 conspiracies.
What is your motivation?

If you don't want to discuss the OP: there are lots of other threads for you to peruse.

edit on 25-5-2017 by Nothin because: sp

edit on 25-5-2017 by Nothin because: sp-sp



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

No, they are not. Far more engineers and architects support the ideas that massive damage and fire killed those buildings than those who adhere to Box Boy Gage's ideas. Saying that more than 2,800 are members of A/E Truth as a way to bolster your ideas when there are far more that disagree with you is not a good debate practice.


Please see my post right above this one, as it was intended as a reply to you as well.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin


Your attempts at distraction will not work.
If anyone is interested: they are free to look-up the numbers.
Someone did look up the numbers.
110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......
AND how many of those engineers are Structural Engineers?
Find that number if you want to look something up, get back to me.


So if you wish to participate further: please mention why you spend so much time and energy, arguing against the 9/11 conspiracy.
What are you some kinda wanna be moderator?
Use the alert post if you think you have an issue.
I'll remind you it was you that brought up the number of people in A&E for 911 truth as a talking point, did you want that BS to go unchallenged?



(Will see if moderators have been notified.)
You do that, and next time do it without announcing it in the thread please.
edit on 25-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin


Your attempts at distraction will not work.
If anyone is interested: they are free to look-up the numbers.
Someone did look up the numbers.
110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......
AND how many of those engineers are Structural Engineers?
Find that number if you want to look something up, get back to me.


So if you wish to participate further: please mention why you spend so much time and energy, arguing against the 9/11 conspiracy.
What are you some kinda wanna be moderator?
Use the alert post if you think you have an issue.
I'll remind you it was you that brought up the number of people in A&E for 911 truth as a talking point, did you want that BS to go unchallenged?


That is an amazingly disingenuous post, filled with fallacies, and an insult to boot! Wow!

That's how the fishing is done.
One debunker takes one of your posts, twists it around, and salts it with a pre-chosen talking-point. (Numbers).
When you attempt to reply to them: another debunker steps-in, accuses you of bringing-up the subject of the talking-points, adds an insult, and further tries to bolster said talking-point.

Thanks for unwittingly providing confirmation of the OP.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin


Your attempts at distraction will not work.
If anyone is interested: they are free to look-up the numbers.
Someone did look up the numbers.
110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......
AND how many of those engineers are Structural Engineers?
Find that number if you want to look something up, get back to me.


So if you wish to participate further: please mention why you spend so much time and energy, arguing against the 9/11 conspiracy.
What are you some kinda wanna be moderator?
Use the alert post if you think you have an issue.
I'll remind you it was you that brought up the number of people in A&E for 911 truth as a talking point, did you want that BS to go unchallenged?


That is an amazingly disingenuous post, filled with fallacies, and an insult to boot! Wow!


Whats the matter, you don't like facts interjected into your narrative?

What are you talking about fallacies, it was cold hard numbers!

Show me how the numbers are wrong then?


originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Post was made stating that office fires don't burn hot enough to collapse a steel reinforced building

I showed the fallacy of that argument .....

In an aside the idiots at AE FOR TRUTH immediately declared it a "controlled demolition"


So you're saying: that the 2800+ Architects and Engineers, at A&E for 9/11 truth, are idiots?
How did you come to know this?


It was you who made it a talking point, I ain't letting that BS go unchallenged nor are others.
edit on 25-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join