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: 19
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No jet at the pentagon? What rebuttal do you have to discredit all the work from Scientists for 9/11 truth showing a jet struck the pentagon?
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.911truth.org...

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
www.journalof911studies.com...


It is clear that the basis for the Pilots’ claim that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon is without foundation as it depends on a flawed assumption about the path the plane would follow and an incorrect g-force calculation. As the Pilots assert that they do not have a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, their simultaneous assertion that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as quoted above, is contradictory. To hold that the plane did not hit the Pentagon is to adopt the only remaining position, namely that it flew over the Pentagon. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much good work to obtain and analyze the FDR data files.
Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have not shown themselves to be willing to consider doing so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just the executive, is not clear.59 It appears likely that the majority of members have not carefully examined the claims in their own website.


You failed to address a number of conspiracists misconceptions on the Shanksville thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is your no BS evidence of CD at the WTC? Going to talk about your uneducated view on nuke bombs again?

Waiting on you to discredit evidence and testimony from both sides of the Aegis VS WTC 7 owners lawsuit that shows the NIST conclusions are scientific and credible.
edit on 29-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last paragraph

edit on 29-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording




posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




thanks for pushing false authority


You're welcome.


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?


So you didn't look it up? Well, here you go:


First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided. For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent that outweighs the competing need for accountability?

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Nope. I don't think marginalizing Ketcham (and/or his credentials) is going to change a thing.

Any further questions?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What did he find that was false and where was it in the final report?

Please point to a specific item that is false from the NIST reports. A section reference or page number.

Can you prove what Ketcham saw made the final reports.

I would think if Ketcham really cared, he would have noted the specific items that troubled him and address why.

So you still have vague innuendo from an app designer that was not involved in the investigations that cannot cite a specific item that troubled him from a publicly published report?

He marginalized himself.

Thanks for playing the "ignore the direct question game".

Thanks for playing the false authority link game by referencing a page with no specific example, and that links too this response...

(By the way? Did you ready everything you linked to?)


www.europhysicsnews.org...


It is the policy of EPN to publish by invitation. Pro- spective authors are suggested by members of our Editorial Advisory Board, who cover various disci- plines and come from di erent countries.
This particular Feature article 'On the physics of high- risebuildingscollapses',relatedtotheattackontheWTC, followedthesameroute.Weexpectedthistopictobeof wide interest to our readers and thus invited the sug- gested authors to submit their manuscript. EPN does not have a formal review/rejection policy for invited contributions.
In the present case we realized that the nal manuscript contained some speculations and had a rather controversial conclusion. erefore a 'Note from the editors' was added, stressing that the content is the sole responsibility of the au- thors and does not represent an o cial position of EPN.
Since some controversy remains, even among more com- petent people in the eld, we considered that the correct scienti c way to settle this debate was to publish the manu- script and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments. erefore we askedNIST,asprincipalinvestigatoroftheWTCcollapse,to send us a reaction to the article. eir response can be found elsewhere on these pages.
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. n



EPN is quoted there is only speculation. Got citable evidence to prove otherwise?
edit on 29-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




vague innuendo


Agreed to disagree. "ANSYS collapse initiation model" is anything but vague, actually...

So you think withholding data for national security purposes is kinda ... cool? Cool! We only need to know what we need to know, eh?




posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

No. Asked you to cite specific examples and items from the NIST reports.

I asked you to cite specific examples Ketcham found that where not credible from the final NIST reports.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux




vague innuendo


Agreed to disagree. "ANSYS collapse initiation model" is anything but vague, actually...

So you think withholding data for national security purposes is kinda ... cool? Cool! We only need to know what we need to know, eh?



Another conspiracists game. Change subject when asked to cite specific falsehoods from NIST reports.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

No?

So you don't like the secrecy involved with withholding said data? You seem to struggle with a straight answer, is there anything I can do to ease the pain?

Debunking is about transparency and the scientific method, innit?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What does false allegations of NIST pseudoscience have to do with secrecy?

Did Ketcham say what NIST was keeping secret?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

Why are there so many conspiracy debunkers?

Because the internet makes it easier for people to communicate and argue.

What motivates us? Well on ATS its the motto, deny ignorance. So many "beliefs" held by those who believe in a US Government conspiracy are easily dismissed with some honest research.


You have a point there: more-and-more people are online everyday, and it seems so many of us use the relative anonymity of the internet, to speak our beliefs, in a louder voice than we might do in a face-to-face situation.
So that is one possible explanation, but perhaps there are more?

Why do the discussions seem to turn so easily to polarizing comments, then arguments, then insults?
Can we try and do better, and be more respectful?

Motivations: Yes: many here on ATS, take that motto to heart, and try their best to show light on perceived ignorance.
It's fine if you want to debate against those whom believe that there was a US Government conspiracy.
But do you believe that there might also be some honest folks, whom neither believe on the 9/11 original story, nor that it may have been a US Government conspiracy ?
Do you think that there might be other options?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Nothin

One of the reasons, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory is because that particular theory is contradicted by all the known facts. No airliners in 2 locations, wrong airplanes or unknown airplanes at other locations, admissions by Kean and Hamilton that their commission was set up to fail, calls for perjury charges against some witnesses, other important witnesses' testimony not included in the final report, Senator Mark Dayton saying NORAD lied, and on and on.

The preponderance of the evidence works against the official story. That is why there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory.



Hi Salander. If you permit: may we please try and use some common language.
You have introduced a new term with your post: "official conspiracy theory".
Is that a new term that you want to introduce? If so: please give it a definition.
This is just a request for clarity, and not rebuking any of the ideas you posted.

This thread has been about the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy-theory debunkers.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sure, lets just let all the bs in with no filter.

So much better.


Some people call out BS when they see it, and I'm glad for that.

Deny Ignorance, it can grow like a cancer and infect society.


edit on 29-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

I am not a big fan of the 9/11 conspiracies. I do think if the truth movement could form some sort of governing body to better police itself, it be a step in the right direction.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin




If you permit: may we please try and use some common language.
You have introduced a new term with your post: "official conspiracy theory".
Is that a new term that you want to introduce? If so: please give it a definition.
This is just a request for clarity, and not rebuking any of the ideas you posted.



What I can come up with.

9/11 was a US government false flag operation
No plane hit the Pentagon
Remote controlled planes and controlled demolition at WTC
Osama Bin Laden a fabrication of US intelligence
No film footage of the Pentagon explosion exists
Eyewitness testimonies of the Pentagon crash are suspicious
Photos offer no evidence of the debris typical of an airplane crash
A missile hit the pentagon
A Russian missile hit the pentagon
Black smoke indicates a died down fire
Falling into own footprint
The tops of the towers should have toppled over
Everything has to fail simultaneously
The core should have been left standing
Design loads, the towers should have been able to support the weight
Voice simulation used to fake the phone calls
The low passenger count on each flight is suspicious
Thermite
Nano Thermite
Men in Orange Jail Jumpsuits
Mini Nukes
Holographic Planes
Fake flight recorder data
Hijackers not able to fly
Planes couldn't handle the forces, wings would have fallen off
Faked lamp post damage
Pyroclastic clouds that combusted vehicles
Vanishing engine blocks
Disappearing door handles

There's lots more, you would have to mix and match them and come up with your own pet theory.
edit on 29-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

I am not a big fan of the 9/11 conspiracies. I do think if the truth movement could form some sort of governing body to better police itself, it be a step in the right direction.


OK: so you have not seen a 9/11 conspiracy theory, that you can believe in. That's fine.
You have said that you like to have facts, and provable research, before you accept ideas. That is good.

Things appear easier, when there is an illusion of choice, between two polar-opposites.
(In this case: 9/11 official story, vs what you suggested: a cohesive truth movement.)

But things always seem to be so complicated, and there is the appearance of less and less cohesiveness in our beliefs and behaviors. Maybe it's a trend, maybe it's the natural evolution of a free-thinking populace. Who's to say?

What am trying to say is: anyone whom does not believe the 9/11 official story, does not necessarily have anything to align them with aspects of the truth movement; and folks or associations that consider themselves part of the truth movement, seem to have more than a few conflicting beliefs, compared to others.

So unfortunately: these doesn't seem to be a way to have so many tidy, black and white, debates.
The grey-zone dominates now, as folks resist being pigeonholed.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin




If you permit: may we please try and use some common language.
You have introduced a new term with your post: "official conspiracy theory".
Is that a new term that you want to introduce? If so: please give it a definition.
This is just a request for clarity, and not rebuking any of the ideas you posted.



What I can come up with.

9/11 was a US government false flag operation
No plane hit the Pentagon
Remote controlled planes and controlled demolition at WTC
Osama Bin Laden a fabrication of US intelligence
No film footage of the Pentagon explosion exists
Eyewitness testimonies of the Pentagon crash are suspicious
Photos offer no evidence of the debris typical of an airplane crash
A missile hit the pentagon
A Russian missile hit the pentagon
Black smoke indicates a died down fire
Falling into own footprint
The tops of the towers should have toppled over
Everything has to fail simultaneously
The core should have been left standing
Design loads, the towers should have been able to support the weight
Voice simulation used to fake the phone calls
The low passenger count on each flight is suspicious
Thermite
Nano Thermite
Men in Orange Jail Jumpsuits
Mini Nukes
Holographic Planes
Fake flight recorder data
Hijackers not able to fly
Planes couldn't handle the forces, wings would have fallen off
Faked lamp post damage
Pyroclastic clouds that combusted vehicles
Vanishing engine blocks
Disappearing door handles

There's lots more, you would have to mix and match them and come up with your own pet theory.


Hi D8Tee. Thanks for taking the time to list those 9/11 conspiracy theory talking points. There are surely many more, and would be quite a massive undertaking to try and list them all.

Seems to me that there are folks and/or groups, that believe in some of those, but not others.
That's why it is difficult to try and group 9/11 conspiracists, and some truth movements, all together in a tidy bunch.

Ergo the difficulty for a 9/11 conspiracy-theory debunker, to keep a vigilant eye, and to know exactly who and what they are dealing with. This is normal, and understandable.

Then it gets even more complex: with folks not adhering to this, nor that, nor any other.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

If stuck to rational arguments like

1) Why were fire codes weakened. 1938 code required some 4 inches of concrete or terra cotta masonry around
steel members to pass . WYC had only at first 1/2 inch of spray on fire protection. Later increased to 1 1/2 inch
This often peeled off exposing under lying steel

2) Why were number of exits reduced from 6 in Empire State Building to 3, all clustered in central core and
vulnerable to being cut off

3) Why was fire proofing not tested before being installed on building . Why after asbestos was banned was reformulated
fire proofing not tested for fire resistance and adhesion to steel members

4) Why was sheet rock used to enclosed building core, sheet rock offered no resistance to impact, aircraft was able to
penetrate into core and destroy stairway, elevators and sprinkler/standpipe plumbing for fire fighting

Might have had a chance attracting some main stream support

Of course conspiracy types go for gusto - we have death rays from outer space, nuclear bombs on every floor,
thermite on structural steel, demolition charges on each floor, hologram planes. etc



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




9/11 was a US government false flag operation
No plane hit the Pentagon
Remote controlled planes and controlled demolition at WTC
Osama Bin Laden a fabrication of US intelligence
No film footage of the Pentagon explosion exists
Eyewitness testimonies of the Pentagon crash are suspicious
Photos offer no evidence of the debris typical of an airplane crash
A missile hit the pentagon
A Russian missile hit the pentagon
Black smoke indicates a died down fire
Falling into own footprint
The tops of the towers should have toppled over
Everything has to fail simultaneously
The core should have been left standing
Design loads, the towers should have been able to support the weight
Voice simulation used to fake the phone calls
The low passenger count on each flight is suspicious
Thermite
Nano Thermite
Men in Orange Jail Jumpsuits
Mini Nukes
Holographic Planes
Fake flight recorder data
Hijackers not able to fly
Planes couldn't handle the forces, wings would have fallen off
Faked lamp post damage
Pyroclastic clouds that combusted vehicles
Vanishing engine blocks
Disappearing door handles


You forgot that the space ray was powered by a hurricane in the Atlantic.
Too bad they can't settle on one unified theory.
But wait ! They can !
It's called the OS.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

You mean the one based on NIST conclusions? Conclusions that are alleged pseudoscience? But when you ask conspiracists for specific examples of NIST pseudoscience, that is when they want to talk about Bush, Cheney, Iraq....... And ignore the pseudoscience of the truth movement.....



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Or they want to talk about debunkers being apologists for the government. But when asked, they cannot produce one quote from the 9/11 forum of an individual exonerating the government, or saying the government is totally free of blame for 9/11?
edit on 30-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: D8Tee




9/11 was a US government false flag operation
No plane hit the Pentagon
Remote controlled planes and controlled demolition at WTC
Osama Bin Laden a fabrication of US intelligence
No film footage of the Pentagon explosion exists
Eyewitness testimonies of the Pentagon crash are suspicious
Photos offer no evidence of the debris typical of an airplane crash
A missile hit the pentagon
A Russian missile hit the pentagon
Black smoke indicates a died down fire
Falling into own footprint
The tops of the towers should have toppled over
Everything has to fail simultaneously
The core should have been left standing
Design loads, the towers should have been able to support the weight
Voice simulation used to fake the phone calls
The low passenger count on each flight is suspicious
Thermite
Nano Thermite
Men in Orange Jail Jumpsuits
Mini Nukes
Holographic Planes
Fake flight recorder data
Hijackers not able to fly
Planes couldn't handle the forces, wings would have fallen off
Faked lamp post damage
Pyroclastic clouds that combusted vehicles
Vanishing engine blocks
Disappearing door handles


You forgot that the space ray was powered by a hurricane in the Atlantic.
Too bad they can't settle on one unified theory.
But wait ! They can !
It's called the OS.


So the official story of what happened is only a theory?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join