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.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 17
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
If you can't take part in debate without such silliness, you might want to pick another forum.

This is a brief summary, for you Shroom.

You make claims and/or statements. You're asked to back 'em up. You cite a source. Your claim is rebuked further. You refuse to acknowledge the other party's source. You start flinging insults. You admit to trolling.

See the pattern here?

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion, centering on the events which did, or did not occur, on 9/11.




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
You're obviously missing the other pattern and why all of this started. I'm not on trial here so I'll think I'll leave the explanation for that as an exercise for the reader.

Besides that a couple of you seem to be mounted pretty high on whatever mamal they prefer riding and can't seem to make a post without adding how wonderfull their life is, how meaningless ours is, how smart they are compared to us.


And let me add that "debunking" is not just "AHAHAHA wikipedia sez Nazi's, hahahaha, fool".

If you call that a civil debate well then kiss my *ss but I'll just act like it.

None of you have come close to debunking anything I belief and I'd be surprised if any of you knew how I really felt about the attacks.
And yet all they do is generalize us into Alex Jones fanboys with a tin foil hat.

Don't be surprised when 2 fools act like they've invented hot water and all of a sudden the thread goes bad.






[edit on 31-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Then please, for the rest of us mere mortals, do come back and rebuke what's been said so far.

You refuse to read material pertinent to the inquiry, and you refuse to consider sources which lay doubt on the claims of Alex Jones et al; what are we meant to conclude from this?

With that in mind - please, offer your rebuttals to the points made repeatedly so far.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I'm still waiting for proof of that video from 2 pages back ..

Other then that there was nothig serious going on in this thread anyway.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Shroomery. In all honesty, you are just about the most irrational and illogical thinker I have ever met. Yes, we have indeed refuted many of your claims and we have discredited many of your alledged "evidences" that you say prove conspiracy. A simple camera vibration is not evidence for a national conspiracy. An article written by a tabloid which clearly has bias against the Bush administration is, no matter what your little mind thinks, not a credible source to be looked to for reliable evidence in debate. In addition, we have come up with many peices of hard and unrefutable evidence that pretty much prove Al-Queda's direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks. All you have given us is conjecture and speculation. And despite all this, you seem to think that you are the majority and WE are the ones denying facts. You seem to think that the overwhelming majority of the people who support the official story are somehow the minority questioning "generally accepted stories." Look, if you aren't going to wake up and smell the coffee and quit with this absurd denial you are in I don't see how we can take you seriously. Even your conspiracy friends are starting to dislike your conduct.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 31-8-2005 by DaTerminator]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
In addition, we have come up with many peices of hard and unrefutable evidence that pretty much prove Al-Queda's direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks.


What, those videos? Like the one where Osama writes with his right hand, when he's supposed to be left-handed?


Maybe you guys can mosey on out of this cesspit of a thread to some of the more researched threads, where you can go from the equivalent of ego-boosting harrassments that you see here, to trying to recreate progressive collapses and/or explain the squibs away using science, etc. This topic is really contributing nothing to ATS.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What, those videos? Like the one where Osama writes with his right hand, when he's supposed to be left-handed?



Maybe his ambidextrous? or someone did a horizontal flip on that video for some reason..?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Your 'models' are nothing unless you can proportionally use materials of the equivilent density/strength/etc and replicate the building exactly. You also have to replicate the damage that occured and also alter gravity so it has the equivilent effect on the scaled down building. Your not going to do it with your cocktail sticks and pancakes, in fact your not going to realistically do it with anything unless you either rebuild them exactly and replicate the exact conditions or move into the 21st century and use a computer, not your cruddy P4 HT pc sat on your desk, you need a supercomputer, even on the supercomputer they used it took a week I believe.

Problem is you don't trust the 'official' results but the plain and simple fact is your not going to replicate it at home.
In fact some people would find it quite insulting that you think that you, me or anyone here (unless they are trained) have the capability to carry out an experiment that has taken years of training for professionals to carry out, and it's still new ground even for them.

This isn't Blue Peter, while I like your idea when you appreciate the parameters involved it's not going to happen realistically and it's either unbelievably arrogant or naive to think that it will.

It's a good idea on paper, don't get me wrong, but in practice it's a no-hoper.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you guys can mosey on out of this cesspit of a thread to some of the more researched threads, where you can go from the equivalent of ego-boosting harrassments that you see here, to trying to recreate progressive collapses and/or explain the squibs away using science, etc.


I thought the "squibs" matter was another unproven theory?

If I've missed the proof, let me know. Ta very much



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
People have attempted to explain the squibs using science, but it wasn't good enough.. If the answer isn't good enough then there are no other options, so without going back in time and checking it will never be resolved for sure.

I did show a 'squib' in one of the videos of it collapsing, exactly the same effect but in the video it is clear that it is an existing hole with smoke coming from it, and as the tower initiates collapse the air is forced out causing the 'squib' effect.

You initially responded with:


The squibs could not possible have been caused by air, because it would require compressed air to travel uninterrupted like a jet through less dense air. Air doesn't behave like this. It would equalize instantly.


and then with



Originally posted by AgentSmith
Also what's this? Another squib! Oh it's so lonely up there, why was it put there I wonder?

It's funny that there was obviously a hole there which smoke was coming out of already, and that the smoke bellows out of the existing holes as it collapses in the same way.



You're just using straw-man tactics now. No one claimed that was a squib, for reasons you just mentioned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No one claimed it was a squib for reasons I just mentioned, but it still looks like one even though it's impossible right? like you said?

here it is again (please not the camera is not 'shaking' I created the GIF by cutting and pasting still video frames, my inaccuracy causes the 'shaking'.



Emm, looks like the other squibs too me, especially if you imagine seeing it side on.
How do we know the structure was not already compromised in those areas? we don't and it is no more certain than the demolition theory. Only thing is the demolition theory is less viable and less likely.

So there are scientific explanations for the 'squibs, you just don't like them.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by bsbray11
What, those videos? Like the one where Osama writes with his right hand, when he's supposed to be left-handed?



Maybe his ambidextrous? or someone did a horizontal flip on that video for some reason..?


Wow.

Maybe he was tripping on '___' or shrooms and forgot which hand he's supposed to write with. Maybe.



Your 'models' are nothing unless you can proportionally use materials of the equivilent density/strength/etc and replicate the building exactly.


Not necessarily. In fact, the challenge does not even call for a recreation of the WTC collapses.

The challenge simply calls for a recreation of a progressive collapse in general that has similar features to the WTC collapses, such as the same ejections of material, etc. No limits on what you use, or how you accomplish the challenges, as long as the only force you work with is gravity. I'm even allowing computer models, and the wind speed to be adjusted to proportion. Everything is totally fair and legit. You just know that you can't do it, so you attack the challenge, which is perfectly legit, instead of actually trying it.

Because the challenge is unlikely to be met does not make it illegitimate automatically. The reason it's impractical or impossible, if it actually is either, is because the government theory is faulty. No two ways about it.

If you can't do it with computer simulations, take an hour or two out on some rainy day when you're bored and do it in real life. You can make any sized 6:5 ratio building you want, and even use material that's as weak and breaks as easily as you wish. Use whatever materials you desire to keep things in proportion. Like I said, I'm even allowing wind speed to be adjusted to proportion. Nothing is rigged against you.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you guys can mosey on out of this cesspit of a thread to some of the more researched threads, where you can go from the equivalent of ego-boosting harrassments that you see here, to trying to recreate progressive collapses and/or explain the squibs away using science, etc.


I thought the "squibs" matter was another unproven theory?

If I've missed the proof, let me know. Ta very much


What could possibly be unproven about the squibs?

"Squibs" is just a term applied them. Call them cottage cheese if you want. The explosions themselves are observable fact, and can be witnessed on major media footage, photographs, etc., etc.

Maybe if you're blind, then they're unproven. Otherwise, check out some videos. Click here for a very in-depth post WeComeInPeace put together some time back, which includes links to video footage and further insight.

The problem is that there is no explanation for them that fits the official story. It can't be air because air equalizes when it mixes with less dense air. Someone has even claimed they were screen smudges, which is absolutely ridiculous, as they were recorded from multiple angles. I think AgentSmith has suggested they were caused by exploding jet fuel or something, which is also impossible because there were no flames or fire with the explosions; there was only solid debris, such as concrete dust, being ejected out of them.

Any remarks or commentary, Tinkle?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
AgentSmith,

Compare your "squib" with the others that are available via video footage, etc., and you'll see you're comparing apples and garbage trucks.

There is a fire behind your "squib," and not to mention that it was already smoking before the collapse even initiated. You can see smoke being forced out of all the sections that were on fire upon the initiation of collapse. The actual squibs, again, were actual explosions, sending out solid debris of the same material as the dust cloud that followed the building down during collapse. The squib explosions also occured before the collapsing regions of the building reached the squibbing regions, which is another difference that sets your example apart. I could go on. They're not the same, dude.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I think AgentSmith has suggested they were caused by exploding jet fuel or something, which is also impossible because there were no flames or fire with the explosions; there was only solid debris, such as concrete dust, being ejected out of them.

Any remarks or commentary, Tinkle?


I said what I thought in the post above, with the video, you seem to have dodged around that one again.. Can you please explain why the same effect is seen when it obviously ISN'T an explosion? Oh and don't forget that:


Originally posted by bsbray11:
The squibs could not possible have been caused by air, because it would require compressed air to travel uninterrupted like a jet through less dense air. Air doesn't behave like this. It would equalize instantly.


Oh and here's the definition of ambidextrous:


Ambidexterity is the ability of being equally adept with each hand (or, to a limited degree, feet). See laterality. The word "ambidextrous" is derived from the Latin roots ambi, meaning "both," and dext, meaning "right." Thus, "ambidextrous" is literally "right on both sides".en.wikipedia.org...


It's not that unlikely, I know a couple of people that are. Unless you know better from his profile on FriendsReunited.com or something?




[edit on 31-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The squib explosions also occured before the collapsing regions of the building reached the squibbing regions, which is another difference that sets your example apart. I could go on. They're not the same, dude.


Well they look the same, and fuel did go down various shafts and such like. It's not impossible or that unlikely that there were smaller fires in some areas and when the air was compressed by the falling building it was jetted out of existing holes in the same way. That IS something that could be easily reproduced with a model.
When something collapses at that speed it will suddenly force air out exceedingly fast out of the easiest route.
Build a model with some holes in the outside and a load of rooms and shafts inside, set fire to areas inside and let the smoke fill and tehn push on it, look the smoke jets out of the holes!

It's not really any different, and that CAN be repoduced with one of your models.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I said what I thought in the post above, with the video, you seem to have dodged around that one again.. Can you please explain why the same effect is seen when it obviously ISN'T an explosion?


I thought I just did.


The same effect isn't seen because you are comparing smoke being forced out of the building from a hole that already existed, to an explosion that ejects solid debris in the form of dust.

There are other differences. I posted them above. Anyone who is interested further can simply scroll up and re-read what I just said.


Oh and here's the definition of ambidextrous:


Ambidexterity is the ability of being equally adept with each hand (or, to a limited degree, feet). See laterality. The word "ambidextrous" is derived from the Latin roots ambi, meaning "both," and dext, meaning "right." Thus, "ambidextrous" is literally "right on both sides".en.wikipedia.org...


It's not that unlikely, I know a couple of people that are. Unless you know better from his profile on FriendsReunited.com or something?


I know what abidextrous means. The problem is that your whole argument here is "maybe." "Maybe" a lot of #, AgentSmith. Maybe pigs will grow wings in the future. But you don't base convincing arguments on "maybe."

CIA intelligence holds that Osama is left-handed. Again, you counter this information with a "maybe" argument. Like I said, maybe he was high on shrooms and just lost track of his dominant hand. Maybe he was drunk and was simultaneously peeing in his large clothes. Who knows?

Or quite possibly, it wasn't him. Osama is not right-handed, but the man in the video apparently is. Therefore Osama and the man shown in the video contrast each other. That's called evidence. I don't even know what maybe's are called.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Well they look the same,


Yeah, I guess, but the smoke that comes out of that hole contrasts to the debris being ejected from the 'squibs,' which seems to me more consistent with the dust cloud that can be seen engulfing the WTC complex after the collapses.


and fuel did go down various shafts and such like.


Yep, and it's a possibilty that fuel somehow leaked down onto those floors, I suppose, but there are still problems. Like, first of all, there were no reported fires down as far as many of the squibs were. There were also no visible flames, etc. from the explosions as you would expect from jet fuel ignition, and the squibs also appear to eject concrete dust similar to the dust that made up the clouds, which not even the initial impact fireballs accomplished.


Build a model with some holes in the outside and a load of rooms and shafts inside, set fire to areas inside and let the smoke fill and tehn push on it, look the smoke jets out of the holes!

It's not really any different, and that CAN be repoduced with one of your models.


Yep, but keep in mind the same points as I mentioned above. You would have to actually reproduce the squibs, and not just smoke coming out. And there weren't fires even near most of the squibs, which would be another issue to address.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The chances of him being ambidextrous are far more likely than pigs ever growing wings.
You want to believe that a complicated array of explosives were installed into the WTC towers without anyone noticing, but you find the idea that Osama might be ambidextrous is outragous!


And you use the fact that it's on the 'incompetent' CIA's file as proof!

I think you'll find the explosives are a 'maybe' as well, but that's just fine isn't it?




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The chances of him being ambidextrous are far more likely than pigs ever growing wings.
You want to believe that a complicated array of explosives were installed into the WTC towers without anyone noticing, but you find the idea that Osama might be ambidextrous is outragous!


I don't find it outrageous as much as I don't see any evidence in the least to support it.

Maybe that's a clue for you as to why I believe there were explosives in the WTC.



And you use the fact that it's on the 'incompetent' CIA's file as proof!

I think you'll find the explosives are a 'maybe' as well, but that's just fine isn't it?



I don't remember ever calling the CIA incompetent, but unless you consider them incompetent, you're using double standards in your criticism anyway, because the CIA did release that information.

There is actually evidence for explosives in the WTC, which I know you're familiar with, as it's argued all over this part of the forum. I have yet to see anything to confirm Osama's ambidextriousness. And what if he isn't? Do you believe that the videos are completely authentic on this thought alone, that 'maybe' Osama is ambidextrious, despite CIA information releases?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   



"Squibs" is just a term applied them. Call them cottage cheese if you want. The explosions themselves are observable fact, and can be witnessed on major media footage, photographs, etc., etc.


Right then. If we're just using "squibs" as a generic term for "explosion", then sure. There were explosions. Of course there were!

This by itself however in no way proves that those explosions were caused by bombs, charges, TNT, or any other substance. That is really the bit that's not convincing me...that those little explosions were actually planted deliberately.

Explosion does not equal "deliberate".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join