It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC steel experiment you can try at home

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:50 AM
lol do i qualify as a 'debunker'?

if so then i stand by my opinions.

if i dont qualify as one, (and i really do hope that is not how im perceived), then that leaves me like many others, no clue what really happened, a few qualified opinions as to what didnt, and pretty sure we dont have all the facts from the powers that be.

congrats on a good thread spoon, and thank you for being able to be open minded and discuss ideas you dont agree with rationally and not flying off the handle. it was a nice change

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:50 PM
Dam, i would classify you as a skeptic. A very far cry from a debunker.

Believe it or not, i would also consider myself to be a skeptic.

To discuss skepticism further, let us begin with a definition;

1) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

2) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.

A skeptic is an individual that does not immediately take sides on an issue, rather is critical of all opinions. A skeptic does not make a decision until sufficient evidence is presented with which to make a determination.

Debunkers are often mistakenly labeled as skeptics. This is very, very wrong. A debunker has already decided not to believe without ever looking at one piece of evidence. No matter what evidence or proof is presented to them, they will continually find inconsistent and baseless grounds to deny. They often times will not look at the evidence so as to maintain, "I have not seen any evidence that...."

Debunkers rely of baseless accusations that are couched in emotive language seemingly designed for cinematic effect. Their goal is to distract their audience from the fact that they have absolutely no evidence, let alone proof of what they are saying.

For an instance of skepticism as opposed to debunking, Geocentrism versus heliocentrism;

Early western astronomers were attempting to reconcile the vast array of inconsistencies presented by the church's Ptolemaic theory of Geocentrism. What the church said directly contradicted what cold hard science presented. Obviously, scientists would have to be idiots to just jump on heliocentrism like they had previously believed in geocentrism. So, through a skeptical enquiry known as The Scientific Method, they accumulated enourmous evidence with which they could use to develop heliocentristic theories.

The church, facing the prospect of admitting they are only humans with no divine knowledge and no direct line of communication with god, refused to capitulate. They wined and moaned like a bunch of babies, despite hard evidence.

Dam, you do raise some interesting questions based upon solid fact that actually make me think. Whereas debunkers make ridiculous assertions like, "Thats impossible!" or "That can easily be explained" to which they then offer no explanation, of pull some illogical BS out of thin air.

Or they will say, "If they could fake 911 then they could plant WMD's in iraq!" Which, let me debunk the debunkers on this one right here and now. Its called forensics. Why dont you guys ask the government how well their original "Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks" claim went over once investigators actually looked at the samples and proved conclusively that it had come from Ft. Dietrich. Chemical weapons are produced different ways by different countries. Tell tale chemical signatures left by manufacturing are impossible to conceal. Biological weapons have something known as DNA!!!. Nuclear weapons are made from nuclear material. Nuclear material must be processed, enriched, and otherwise fabricated. Nuclear material has very definitive levels of isotopes. Isotopes analysis is how they do carbon dating. Isotopes decay is how they use atomic clocks. Isotopes can be put into Gas chromatography / Mass spectrometers. Nuclear materials / weapons can be traced back to the exact reactor from which they originated. Post event forensics not only tell you who or where but when and how nuclear material was created...

[edit on 2/14/2007 by sp00n1]

[edit on 2/14/2007 by sp00n1]

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:56 PM
I have no problem with skepticism, in fact i encourage it!

I want you to be just as critical of what the government and mainstream media tell you as you are of what i tell you.

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:13 PM
ok get your selfall the iron beams you can find and support them on the ends with no suppots in the center put a cup of thermite above them and start the thermite reaction...what have a ton of iron beams cut in half and a huge pile of molten metal at the base

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Kkannon
ok get your selfall the iron beams you can find and support them on the ends with no suppots in the center put a cup of thermite above them and start the thermite reaction...what have a ton of iron beams cut in half and a huge pile of molten metal at the base

did you mean cup in an abstract "not very much" sense or a literal cup like 2 cups to a pint?

cuz the military incendiary grenade doesnt contain much more than a cup or two of thermite and when i saw one go off, about all it did was melt through the hood of an old jeep.

i see a lot of people that seem to think just a few grams of thermite could have brought down the towers.

and while i slept through some of my science classes in college and highschool id still reccomend reading up on caloric theory and thermodynamics. wont prove or disprove anything on the surface but will give you an idea or two to put things in perspective anyway.

a lot of thermite may do what some speculate but a little thermite is going to do about as much as a cheap 4th of july sparkler.

and spoon, i like the term "open minded skeptic". its what i strive to be even when i fail at it (everyone can be stubborn or closed minded from time to time), i still try.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Damocles]

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:16 AM
it takes 1 gallon of thermite to melt thru a car engine, 1 gallon is a "drop" compared to my opinion of how much was used at WTC 1 and 2 ive watched the video of the planehitting over and over so many times i should be legally insane...theres stuff wrong with the not gonna step into that in this post due to i have started a post about the molten metal found and in there i go into my theory of what i think happened

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:29 AM
The pancaking theory is ok with me.

Its the WTC 1993 bombing with out a further eye on the enemy
when clearly we had one seems to be a conspiracy.

By the time Osama said we were going to be attacked we
had no clue according to the Secretary of National Security.

Thats seven years of planning. And bombs inside the WTC or
terror plotters inside the USA on training missions, all went in
on without a clue.

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:28 PM
For those of you that liked this thread;

Please flag it as i would like to get some more feedback and debate regarding this issue instead of watching it wither into the desolate isolation that is the "past".

[edit on 2/18/2007 by sp00n1]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in