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: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

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!

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.


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

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.


You are pushing your narrative, not the other way around.
Your dishonesty is sickening.
That's why some folks tire of talking in circles with debunkers. Always twisting words and contexts.

The OP has been confirmed many times over in this thread.
Thank-you.




posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: D8Tee

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!

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.


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

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.


You are pushing your narrative, not the other way around.
Your dishonesty is sickening.


Dude. Prove me wrong.

Quit calling names and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Here's the claim, now it's up to you to prove it wrong.

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



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: D8Tee

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!

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.


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

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.


You are pushing your narrative, not the other way around.
Your dishonesty is sickening.
That's why some folks tire of talking in circles with debunkers. Always twisting words and contexts.

The OP has been confirmed many times over in this thread.
Thank-you.


Dude. Prove me wrong.

Quit calling names and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Here's the claim, now it's up to you to prove it wrong.

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......


Dishonest again, as there was no name-calling nor ad-hominem attacks.

Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.

You may have seen this mentioned here previously, but your talking-points are out of context with the OP.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin





Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.



DUDE WHAT FAKE NUMBERS? AND IT'S A SIMPLE PERCENTAGE CALCULATION, IS IT IN ERROR?

Here's the claim, now it's up to you to prove it wrong.

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......


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



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin





Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.



Here's the claim, now it's up to you to prove it wrong.

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......

btw, why are you making an accusation of erroneous calculations? It's a simple calculation of percentages, do they not cover that in your education system?
There is nothing wrong with the math, if there is show me.

See, the thing is dude, the proof is in the pudding, you could go on all nite with your wordy little speeches, but why don't you just show me how I'm wrong? It's only numbers right? Math? Data? Put up or shut up please, how are the numbers wrong, why are you accusing me over and over of being dishonest? Why don't you just provide your PROOF?


You are off-topic with your insistence on those numbers. Let it go, or bring them to any of the other 9/11 threads.

As previously mentioned: anyone interested can check them, and if so desired, relate them back to the first time they were brought up as a diversion here, (out-of-context), and the related comment by the poster that did so.

And will even go one step further: if you have for some reason been unable to check those numbers, why don't you start a new thread, where they will be in your context, and ask for someone to discuss them with you?
You could invite the poster himself in question!
Starting a new thread here is free, and easy! C'mon: you can do it!

Will not discuss your talking-points any further, as the point of the OP has already been made, many times over.

Didn't see if you have addressed the OP yet, or not?

Goodnight.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin


Your dishonesty is sickening.
False allegations made of me and the original poster of the statistics.


Will not discuss your talking-points any further
Dude, it was your talking point, you brought up the same tired '2800 architects and engineers can't be wrong meme'.

You don't think that's been played out 1000 times previous to you bringing it up?

Like really dude, if you dispute the evidence, it's your turn to provide your own evidence.



Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.

As far as the claims of the "misleading erroneous calculations", wth are you talking about?

Like seriously, you can't take those three numbers and calculate a percentage from that? haha, I even double checked the math to make sure I didn't miss an error, the answer is still 0.3% just like the initial posters claim.


Too each their own I guess, but debate is debate, if you have an issue with the data or the math, it's up to you to prove it wrong, and you cannot do that.

And thats why I participate in 911 threads, to stop BS like you are trying to sell.
It is the motto of ATS to Deny Ignorance, and thats what I do.
Schooled


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



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

How many architects and engineering professors at universities and colleges support NIST. I know Prude University has constructed WTC models that supports the NIST findings! Along with other Universities.

How many architect and engineering journals support AE 9/11 Truth?

How many AE 9/11 Truth papers peer reviewed in architect and engineering journals? Vs published and peer reviewed articles supporting the NIST findings.

I can only find a few 9/11 Truth Movement articles. The first is not peer reviewed? And had disclaimers...

www.europhysicsnews.org...



NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat di erent from our usual purely scienti c articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is su ciently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.


The 9/11 Movement only has speculation.

Then after the article was published, more notes from Europe Phyics Journal.

via.hypothes.is...://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/05/epn2016-47-5-6.pdf#annotations:9xqwKMCeEeaPFttNOnh56A


It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings. e Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.
In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles.



The only other published works I can think of are based on Steven Jone? His work was proven to be falsely peer reviewed in a hack pay for play journal.

Is Jones even an architect or structural engineer?

An overwhelming majority of architects, engineers, scientists support the NIST findings.

An overwhelming percentage of peer review papers, scientific journals, and colleges research supports the NIST findings.
edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed quotes

edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Still fixing



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

There was no "twisting". You used 2,800+ to try and convey that the ideas of A/E911Truth were widely accepted in the architect/engineering community, when at best, they are the very fringe and not taken seriously by the rest of the community.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I really have no idea what that poster was trying to prove, if they had an issue with the stats or the math alls they had to do was prove it was inaccurate. Instead I'm told I'm pushing a narrative and that my dishonesty is sickening? You'd think with such slanderous claims as that, the poster would want to man up and provide some evidence of their accusation being true, but nope. Nothing. It's interesting from a psychological perspective to interact with people like that, to watch how they will respond to a request for evidence. In this case the evidence and the math are very easy to obtain, it's amazing what some will to do avoid admitting that they are on the wrong side of the fence, that logic and reason are not behind them.

It's one of the reasons I participate in the 911 forums, a study in abnormal human psychology, I find it fascinating.
edit on 25-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




Like really dude, if you dispute the evidence, it's your turn to provide your own evidence.


Dude, are you filled with White Russians or just on duty again? He's referring to the statement that "all A&E911 are idiots", on which we stumbled in the cop-out of a response to one of my posts. That's the history of math right there, now do your duty and solve the fricken calculation?

No? At least now we know how to bump a thread with self-loathing Dick Cheney_nery. I'd call this progress. Thanks for the cooperation, debunker-dude! Red flags of authority anyone?



to stop BS like you are trying to sell


Yeah. We must be selling something utterly sinister to have you saints around, eager to prevent the deal. Right. What's he selling then? Critical thinking and good questions maybe? Care to elaborate?

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



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Sorry, but those with a science background that support AE 9/11 Truth are a small, fringe, and fractional group. A group that literally profits from the truth movement.

The vast and overwhelming majority of the engineering and scientific community support the peer reviewed and scientifically published NIST conclusions.

Want to talk about Richard Gage? Fizzle no flash bombs? Boxes for WTC modeling? How about the Tehran high rise fire and collapse that AE is falsely pushing as a CD?

Steven Jones and thermite ceiling tiles. Thermite samples never tested in an inert atmosphere. His experiments that could not have the results replicated. Fraudulent peer review.

Articles that get published in non-peer reviewed journals that the editor labels as speculation, not scientific.

Dr Judy Wood and Dustification.

Am I missing some credible 9/11 truth movement architect, structural engineer, physicists that you would like to highlight?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Prove yourself right. Prove the official story right.

You cannot. After 15 years, neither you nor the presstitute media nor the government can prove their story true.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim the official story is true. You are not able to.

I know that the story cannot be true because of the facts, and you confirm that by your inability to prove your story.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No! If your are saying individuals independent of the government that gave an account of a jet hitting the pentagon are not credible, then its your job to provide the proof. Not theirs.

After all the peer reviewing and wide spread scientific support of the NIST conclusions, it's your job to discredit the peer reviews and journal publications.

So, please start listening the peer reviewed material. List how the peer reviewed materials are wrong, and why.
edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Without providing a logical argument this person conclusions are fraudulent, or that persons account is discredited, that is slanderous.
edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




a small, fringe, and fractional group


Nice. Just another minority, lable away without anything tangible at all! Sounds about right. Not. I'd be a happy asshat if you debunkers would've... ya know... debunked something without constantly amusing me with self-loathing ego parades and shilly adhoms instead.

Nice rant but nobody on Ceres cares. If this really would be a fringe group of conspiracy theorists and nutjobs then why the hell would we need so many debunkers with big ego around, saving the human race from itself or something. And from what exactly? Critical thinking, scepticism and common sense? You didn't really think this through, did you?

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



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You don't care about honest debate. You just proved you haven't studied this thread!

It has been proven the vast and overwhelming majority of architects, physicists, and structural engineerings agree with the NIST conclusions. Those communities peered reviewed the NIST conclusions!

You will not answer what 9/11 architect, structural engineer, physicist theories you support? And why? I am betting you are a fizzle no flash bomb kinda person? Thermite ceiling tiles?

And you totally ignore all the debunking and answers from this thread to an individual posting classic 9/11 misconceptions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rebuttals start here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 25-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Nice. Just another minority, lable away without anything tangible at all!


Nothing tangible? Facts are not tangible?

Again, if the following claim is not true, one of you would debunk it.

Your turn to dispute the numbers, lets see how you do....

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.....



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A few good threads by a knowledgeable person that you would consider debunking? Right here in the 9-11 forum....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

No, Richard Gage is a shrewd individual, its the 2,799+ that support him that are idiots.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Didn't get a chance before, but wanted to thank you IIB, for posting this.
It is helpful to all observers, to view the modus-operandi.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join