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: 29
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
For anyone who thinks NIST's report is "peer reviewed"...... you need to have a look at this.


You could have a look at this.

First, 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




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

No one has seen NIST models?


'jeapardise public safety'. When pushed, they go on to suggest that the data could be used by potential terrorists to programme their own computer and use that to discover how to bring down other steelframe highrise buildings.


www.metabunk.org...

Public safety?
I am calling it BS.

I believe NIST models cannot stand up to their Report. That is why it is a secrete. I believe someone has their foot on NIST throat.

Yea, I wish they had released all the data as well, but they didn't.
Are you aware that AE Truth is building their own model?
Should be done right quick.

eta: AE for 911 truth has pushed back the release date from May 2017 to August 2017
edit on 2-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes I am aware, still waiting for their outcome. From my understanding they are going to have it properly Peer Reviewed as well.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
For anyone who thinks NIST's report is "peer reviewed"...... you need to have a look at this.


You could have a look at this.

First, 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


Let me quote the second paragraph of that link:



First, 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: cedb.asce.org...



I went ahead and looked up the website for that publication.

ascelibrary.org...

I looked all over the site, and I could not find any mention of peer review at all. Not every periodical about a technical field has peer review.

The link here is for the editor's page. He doesn't mention peer review anywhere in his statements about what kind of submissions he wants from authors.




originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Yet, there are people saying it's all been Peer Reviewed, and is accepted by all scientists all over the world.

How can anyone only Peer review part of science, when parts of it is not accessible, because it is under National security and is top secret?

What part of this so call science would be a national security risk?



Maybe the buildings were sabotaged using classified technology?

Oh wait! That would only be true if there were sabotaged!

If they weren't sabotaged then the national security issue would be .....um.... well.......... a little help here? Can anyone think of a way national security could possibly be impacted, even in the slightest?


edit on 2-6-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: fixed quoite



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


I looked all over the site, and I could not find any mention of peer review at all. Not every periodical about a technical field has peer review.


Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted June 25, 2009; accepted February 16, 2011; posted ahead of print February 18, 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398

Paper
edit on 2-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions
www.reddit.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Off topic warning! But fishing with the family lots better than hanging out with biased conspiracists that get debunked over and over again.... for the last 15 years....
How is that truth movement stuff working out?



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




If they weren't sabotaged then the national security issue would be .....um.... well.......... a little help here? Can anyone think of a way national security could possibly be impacted, even in the slightest?


Think about the aftermath. Angry protesters, demonstrations in all big cities and a revolution of sorts, possibly with leos demonstrating as well. Could be the end of that militarized Police State as well, who knows.
Given the military-industrial complexes, an end of this War with Terror poses national security risks on it's own. A whole industry is going down the drain once you stop throwing bombs and they wont take their losses lightly...



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


I said that there are a lot of misinformed individuals out there, primarily those that listen to groups with "4 911 truth" in the name


And what about the people that don't listen to the group with "4 911 Truth, are they all misinformed as well?

Do you believe that credible firmen that went on historic record as eyewitness said they saw and heard explosions in the WTC?

Or do you believe in the NIST report?




Have the people that do not listen to 4 911 truth groups done honest research? If they have, then they are informed.

Firemen. Have you talked to any of the firemen who saw/heard explosions? They come in two groups. Firemen who were in the North Tower when the South Tower collapsed and they say that they were hearing the collapse, but since they could not SEE what was going on they described the noise as explosion like..... Then there is the other group that heard/saw explosions....but know that its things they see in large fires and not bombs. I have yet to speak to a fireman that was actually there that thinks there were planted explosives.


The NIST report. Pretty sure I have made my position known about it more than once. Due to the lack of data collection devices inside of the buildings, there is a lack of solid knowledge in regards to the exact sequence of failures in the buildings. In other words, the NIST report, is an educated guess based on analysis of the available evidence.

Videos/photos of the exterior damage...check

Videos/photos of the fires in the impact zones...check

Videos showing the buckling of the exterior columns....check

Photos showing what appears to be sagging trusses....check

Audio of any demolition style explosions...nope (and, there is no way to hide that noise. The "bang bang bang bang" cadence is quite distinctive and would have been recorded on every news camera in the area)

Seismic evidence of the steady series of explosions used in a controlled demolition....nope

Wiring of the style used for demolition explosions found in the debris...nope

Remains of blasting caps found in the debris....nope

Evidence of explosive detonations on columns known to have been in the area where the collapses initiated in WTC 1 and 2.......nope

Evidence of thermite use....nope. (again, would have left distinctive marks on the columns in the areas where the collapse was observed to have started)


If anything, NIST tried too hard to answer conspiracy theorists, instead of just saying, each building suffered massive damage from the impacts, the environmentally friendly fireproofing they used in the towers was already known to have been in bad shape then, what was there, being brittle, likely busted off during the impacts, and the fires had all the access they needed to the unprotected steel to heat them to failure points. Of which, the steel used in the Towers, was rated to survive three hours of fires...but only if the fireproofing was intact.

So, in my opinion, the NIST report, is an educated guess based on the available evidence/lack of evidence.

Side note....two engineering failures of the 21st Century....The Towers collapse and the Columbia burn up.....both had a common factor. Environmentally safe materials used for fire proofing/external tank foam, even though in both instances those "safe" materials were known to be brittle and not as reliable as the old fashioned, not environmentally safe materials.



And, I, would advocate that any future buildings of that height, have interior load bearing walls, instead of the tube within a tube structure.








edit on 2-6-2017 by cardinalfan0596 because: forget to address the NIST report



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




I have yet to speak to a fireman that was actually there that thinks there were planted explosives.

So they paid off every NYFD person too?
What about the cops? They were there too?

I want my cut too!



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




I have yet to speak to a fireman that was actually there that thinks there were planted explosives.

So they paid off every NYFD person too?
What about the cops? They were there too?

I want my cut too!


Yeah I keep badgering OPM to hire me as one of the "gubmint disinfomasyn speecialists" I keep hearing that they have. I mean, I like ATS, but would be nice to get paid to post facts....



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
It's funny when you mention why you can't hear explosions on any of the videos, I actually had a member on here tell me that the reason you can't hear the explosions is the sound of the building falling is too loud. They actually don't understand that the initial explosion would've had to happen before the building started collapsing, therefore the sound of the explosion would've had to reach the camera before the sound of the building collapsing.

This simple concept is too complicated for them to understand. If they can't understand something that simple, it's useless to try to argue with them.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
They actually don't understand that the initial explosion would've had to happen before the building started collapsing, therefore the sound of the explosion would've had to reach the camera before the sound of the building collapsing.

This simple concept is too complicated for them to understand. If they can't understand something that simple, it's useless to try to argue with them.


What "initial explosion"? What "sound of the building collapsing"? You are making up a hypothetical event in order to debunk it. It's called a "straw man argument". Demolition of the North Tower started nearly a thousand feet up on the 90th floor or thereabouts. WTC1 and WTC2 never collapsed, so the issue of the noise it made collapsing is just the concoction of your imagination. Instead, each floor was blown to smithereens in rapid succession, making it impossible to distinguish visually the scenario of floors collapsing from the scenario of their being blown up. There was never ONE explosion that happened before the towers blew up. Nor did the towers actually fall as the result of one explosion. Instead, each floor in succession was turned by demolition charges into mostly dust and smoke. The 240 core columns had already been weakened by thermite. That's why they failed to remain standing up when the floors were blown up (and - NO - the floors did NOT fall to pancake on one another).



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

I'm gonna explain this very slowly so you can follow it.

Both world trade center towers collapsed on 9/11. You do know that happened right? I didn't make that up.

Some of these conspiracy theorists think the reason the towers collapsed is because there were explosives clandestinely planted in the building and detonated an hour after the planes crashed into the buildings. I didn't make that up, the conspiracy theorists did.

I asked some of these conspiracy theorists if this was the case, why can you not hear the sound of these explosives going off before the collapse starts, and they responded that the sound of the building collapsing (which would have had to start AFTER the supposed explosives went off) was too loud and drowned out the sound of the explosions. That's physically impossible because if explosives caused the buildings to collapse, the explosives would have had to go off before the collapse started, and therefore the sound of the collapsing building could not possibly have drowned out the sound of the explosions because when the imaginary explosives would've went off the building wasn't collapsing yet.

Are you following now? Do you understand? This is a remarkably simple sequence of events. Supposed explosives go off, THEN the building falls. Sound of the building falling can't drown out the sound of the explosives going off, because it hasn't happened yet. I can't explain it any simpler. A grade school student understands cause/effect and has a general concept of the arrow of time. How is this beyond the comprehension of some of you people?
edit on 2 6 17 by face23785 because: I was so dumbfounded at having to explain this even simpler than I already did that I had a lot of typos to fix



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
It's funny when you mention why you can't hear explosions on any of the videos, I actually had a member on here tell me that the reason you can't hear the explosions is the sound of the building falling is too loud. They actually don't understand that the initial explosion would've had to happen before the building started collapsing, therefore the sound of the explosion would've had to reach the camera before the sound of the building collapsing.

This simple concept is too complicated for them to understand. If they can't understand something that simple, it's useless to try to argue with them.


Whom is this: "them", that you are casually insulting?
Why introduce yourself onto a thread with an insult?

Do you consider yourself to be a 9/11 conspiracy debunker?



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Also, newsflash, demolition charges are loud. Some of those demos are filmed from further than 1000 feet away and you can still hear them going off. Your theory has a gigantic hole in it called the laws of physics.
edit on 2 6 17 by face23785 because: removed offensive stuff



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

I consider myself someone who has at least a gradeschool level education and understands that a building falling after explosives were set off can't possibly make it impossible to hear said explosives going off because the building wasn't falling yet when said explosives went off.
edit on 2 6 17 by face23785 because: removed offensive stuff



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Nothin

I consider myself someone who has at least a gradeschool level education and understands that a building falling after explosives were set off can't possibly make it impossible to hear said explosives going off because the building wasn't falling yet when said explosives went off.


Fine.
The topic of this thread isn't about anyone's level of education, (ego mind-trap), nor is it about the detail of what may, or may not have happened on 9/11.

So: to help you out: what do you think of the OP?
Do you consider yourself to be a 9/11 conspiracy debunker?
Why do you think 9/11 conspiracy debunkers show-up in every thread connected to 9/11?
Do you think 9/11 conspiracy debunkers always seem to resort to insulting other posters?



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

The topic of the thread isn't what we each consider ourselves, which is what you asked me. I responded to your off-topic question, don't put that on me.

My first post on this page may not have been a direct response to something in the OP, but it was addressing something in the discussion his/her post initiated, being why debunkers do what they do. I don't consider myself dedicated enough to call myself a debunker. There are others in this thread who get much more into the weeds than I do. I just point out painfully obvious stuff like the fact that a building collapsing after an explosion can't drown out the sound of said explosion that happened before the building started collapsing. And some truthers still argue with me. Perhaps that's why debunkers insult truthers? This is a simple fact of the laws of physics and some of them still can't grasp it, yet they're spouting off their baseless theories as if they're informed enough to even be posting on the subject. It's like working with the mentally ill. It's a noble thing, but it's only for people with an extraordinary amount of patience.

Edit: And for the record, not all the debunkers in here have been hurling insults. I commend them for the monumental amount of self discipline it must take to stick strictly to the issues while dealing with page after page of the kind of ignorance on display in these threads.
edit on 2 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Nothin

The topic of the thread isn't what we each consider ourselves, which is what you asked me. I responded to your off-topic question, don't put that on me.

My first post on this page may not have been a direct response to something in the OP, but it was addressing something in the discussion his/her post initiated, being why debunkers do what they do. I don't consider myself dedicated enough to call myself a debunker. There are others in this thread who get much more into the weeds than I do. I just point out painfully obvious stuff like the fact that a building collapsing after an explosion can't drown out the sound of said explosion that happened before the building started collapsing. And some truthers still argue with me. Perhaps that's why debunkers insult truthers? This is a simple fact of the laws of physics and some of them still can't grasp it, yet they're spouting off their baseless theories as if they're informed enough to even be posting on the subject. It's like working with the mentally ill. It's a noble thing, but it's only for people with an extraordinary amount of patience.

Edit: And for the record, not all the debunkers in here have been hurling insults. I commend them for the monumental amount of self discipline it must take to stick strictly to the issues while dealing with page after page of the kind of ignorance on display in these threads.


Got it!
Thanks for spelling that all out.

Don't expect you will spend much time here with the "mentally ill", so in case you don't come back: goodnight.


edit on 2-6-2017 by Nothin because: sp




top topics



 
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join