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: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You are about as bling as they come. I think I cited the one scientific journal article that AE 9/11 Truth was able to publish in a non peer reviewed journal. Other than the fraudulent Bentham thermite paper.

The vast and overwhelming majority of peer reviewed and published journal research articles in the hundreds supports the NIST conclusions.


Can you cite other AE9/11Truth and Conspiracy Movement research that was able to meet the requirements of scientific/engineering journal/peer reviewed publishing.

Name one university, college, engineering firm that doesn't support the NIST conclusions. Name one group that solely represents practicing structural engineers / architects that don't support the NIST conclusions.

AE 9/11 Truth is not solely a collection of structural engineers and architects. They don't care if an individual has a PHD in English. They just want to push the "educated" part. Just one of the many tricks AE plays.

Credible groups don't play tricks. They seek legal action and publish in journals. Not conspiracy hack gossip columns next to big foot articles.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



The inward bowing was not spontaneous or sudden. It almost looks like the out walls of the tower were breathtaking, then the vertical columns failed in one final inhale.



Be careful. We all know how these guys like to take quotes out of context, and of course everything is meant 100% literally. The "truthers" will be saying the official story now is that the buildings were alive.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What ever dude... thanks for pushing false authority and providing the example that AE are hacks about tricks, not credibility. That you are willing to push narratives by hiding facts. Especially from a group that will use that person or this person is not credible on that subject to dismiss things out of hand...

www.metabunk.org...



Peter Michael Ketcham, an iPhone app developer from Wisconsin, has a masters degree in mathematics and worked as a mathematical data visualization programmer at NIST from 1997 to 2011. He had no involvement in the 9/11 investigation (or any other investigation), and has no background in structural engineering or physics


edit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added

edit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed a. It more



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If You look at longer videos, there is definite proof the floors sagged over time. That the external view of the towers indicate that strain and load were being redistributed in a frame time longer than a minute or two.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I find it odd there is mention of what sections Mr. Ketcham found fault with from the peer reviewed, journal published, and final NIST reports. Without such information, how can one attest that his accounts are legitimate? Much less what he saw was part of the final NIST conclusions?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Do I really need to link and quote from the Scientists for 9/11 truth article that shows the flight recorder data was legitimate and backs the official narrative again? Got any evidence to discredit their view?


Yes, you really do. But save your energy because it won't change my mind, because I've studied it for years and am capable of doing my own thinking. I don't need no weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Here it is again. Glad you admit that your mind is incapable of critical thought and individual assessment.

But what you think doesn't matter. Can you construct an argument to supersede the works cited.

Here you go, with bonus material...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
www.journalof911studies.com...



Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.





Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...


As calculation shows the flight path proposed by CIT to be impossible, the north path claim must be seen to be based on nothing more than a few faulty recollections of the approach path. Without the north path claim, the flight path is in accord with the path set out in the official account. There is thus no reason to doubt that the flight terminated by collision with the Pentagon, as reported by the majority of witnesses and as seen in the FDR file, where the low level approach and impact is recorded. The north path is refuted and must be abandoned. This removes the need for explosives to create the illusion of impact and also removes the need for the flyover theory. Nothing has been found to disprove the official description of the final seconds of the flight and the impact.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I was not in on the planning of the operation, and I hope you know that.

So I cannot possibly answer questions such as you posed.

All I really know is that I've been deceived by the government, and not for the first time.

It's true that power corrupts all men, or most men, and so we write the law in a smart way, and enforce the law as written. Let justice prevail and hope it discourages others.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I just cannot imagine someone trying to control the story......




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

That is not an argument. And you wonder why a majority of people are disillusioned with the truth movement.

You brought it on yourselves.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Can you define what you mean? I was citing works by scientists that are also trying to prove CD as the WTC. What is their benefit to lie about a large jet hitting the pentagon?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I just can't imagine anyone buying science, can you?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

I just can't imagine anyone buying science, can you?


What are you getting at?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

I just can't imagine anyone buying science, can you?


Glad you put AE 9/11 in a nut shell. Hope for you yet. Or would you be more specific with your evidence.
edit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Glad you put AE 9/11 in a nut shell. Hope for you yet. Or would you be more specific with your evidence.


I never made that claim. I was talking about the NIST Report.

Bought and paid for by our government. The fact is, science was used for political purpose to follow a political narrative, including it's so call Peer Review, all bought and paid for by the Bush administration and all controlled under the Bush administration.

Another credible fact, the NIST report already had a predetermined ending from the beginning, and the real evidence was ignored.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Have you read the NIST report?

Do you have the technical background to understand it?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Have you read the NIST report?

Do you have the technical background to understand it?


Not only have I read it, I have debated on it for over 10 years on ATS.

Have you ever read the NIST Report?

Do you understand it?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Yes I have and thats why I don't understand your comments about "so called peer review" and "predetermined ending from the beginning, and the real evidence was ignored".

What evidence was ignored?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Yes I have and thats why I don't understand your comments about "so called peer review" and "predetermined ending from the beginning, and the real evidence was ignored".

What evidence was ignored?


You and I are pros into 911, why are you playing stupid?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I'm asking you to substantiate your allegations and debate fairly, is that too much to ask of you?
Many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world.
Link


You and I are pros into 911, why are you playing stupid?

I'm not playing stupid, I have an engineering background, i understand the reports and am wondering if you do.




edit on 27-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join