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: 44
24
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine



Maybe our eyes don't lie but A&E surely does.


To bad, you couldnt debunk anything from A&E, how is your ridiculing A&E making you credibal? How is that working for you?




I thought A&E pushed the Jones' thermite paper which I soundly debunked. Then, there is the laughable Gage cardboard box demo that was debunked by so many that it was not even a challenge.




posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Can you state what devices fit your CD narratives?

So you have no proof or credible argument?

The only thing you have is the misinterpretation of the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7? And projecting and dictating your misconceptions unto others?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


which I soundly debunked.


Not true.


edit on 20-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Funny how conspiracists like Dave from the red pill video have a "spiritual awakening" to believe the conspiracies?

While the "debunkers" here demand evidence to support a scientific argument?

Conspiracists ask you to have faith...

Debunkers ask you to prove or discredit, not believe....
edit on 20-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


which I soundly debunked.


I debunked you about Jones paper many years ago, fact was you lost. How is the pseudo NIST report working out for you? Have you turned anyone around yet?

The member did not lose. The paper was thoroughly debunked.
edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

edit on 20-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: removed post because it would have broke ATS TC towards member.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


The member did not lose. The paper was thoroughly debunked. How soon we forget.


Seriously? You where not a member back then? Care to show me the Thread??
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you think I have to be a member here to read threads? I've been reading them since 2004.
edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


which I soundly debunked.


Not true.



I did such a good job that A&E has now abandoned Jones' theory. As I remember, you couldn't defend Jones theory other than your usual deflections and avoidances. I offered to debate the thermodynamics with you and you declined. When the going got tough, you left town and had your memory erased so you could return to reargue your points again.
You are as predictable as old faithful.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

The material of Jones's not refereed?

The peer review where people that contributed to the paper were the persons conducting the peer review.

Where it would be impossible for thermite to be detected in WTC dust. If there was .001 pound of thermite in each pound of WTC dust and ruble, 10 percent thermite went unreacted, for the 1,000,000 tons of building dust/ruble, something like 2,000,000 pounds of thermite would have had to be used?


The experiments that could not have the results reproduced.

The experiments never conducted in an inert atmosphere to prove the material would create a self sustaining reaction?

With paints and building materials using iron oxide, aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, finding thermite in the dust would be like finding table salt in the Dead Sea.

edit on 20-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Wrong.

Wrong thread.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I've done elemental analysis for a living, operated all the instruments and was responsible for reporting in an ISO accredited lab. I've read the Jones paper. It's bunk. ICP, GC, HPLC, X Ray Spec, you name it I've likely operated it.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

edit on 20-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: Not worth my account suspension. member is dishonest in remarks towards self.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

I could detect iron and aluminum in that residue, was the fire caused by thermite?
edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I read the NIST Report and it is Bunk as well.

You all have a nice day.
edit on 20-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

I read the NIST Report and it is Bunk as well.

You all have a nice day.


Care to cite an example?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Are you taking about the falsehoods from the red pill video from Dave? Like the false claim of NIST referring to melted steel? Cite from the published NIST reports and conclusions that melted steel brought down the buildings at the WTC?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Jones paper


From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
The only journal that would publish the Jones paper is a known Pay to Publish Journal. Did they expect not to find aluminum and Iron in the debris? It's a far stretch to go from there to calling it nano thermite. You could take debris from most any fire and find aluminum and iron in an elemental analysis.
edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
You and I go way back many years. The fact You and I spent days going back and forth and I caught you twisting Jones work to pieces. Not only did I call you out on it many times, so did many ATS members at the time.

You were being very dishonest. In fact the Mods removed some of your rants and fallacies, while you where hurling condescending, snide remarks in every post toward me, as you still demonstrated here.

Speaking of being predictable, you still demonstrate how dishonest you really are.

Have a nice day.


Again, just wanted to say I see no dishonesty in your posts pteridine , not sure what you did to deserve that attack.
Also it's not hard to twist Jones work to pieces, it's not worth the money they paid to the Journal to get it printed in. It's bunk, pure and simple, your analysis is correct.
edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Funny a specific individual was all about peer review until it was shown over and over NIST peer reviewed and published thier work.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




The government said that all the floor Joist way below the WTC, magically failed all at once when they were not on fire.
All at once? i don't agree thats what happened. Is that what the reports say?

edit on 20-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join