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 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by Jeff Riff

Only (well, the first) problem is, the main smoke column after the WTC collapse wasn't really continuing upwards like an eruptive column does. It was mainly vertical like that because it takes dust time to settle from such a height when its in air.


If you are referring to the mushroom "stem, neither did the following at the website. It actually looks like an upside-down mushroom. However, it did not stop it from being a bona fide pyroclastic flow from nuclear energy:

www.zvis.com...,tzar

In the case of twin towers, the buildings themselves became the mushroom cloud "stems", when we could still see them dropping. We lost sight of them as the pyroclastic flows covered up the "stems", while everything was so rapidly getting closer to ground level.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

No I am not. This is the 2nd time I am asking this-Which questions? I will sincerely do my best to answer them if I know what they are.

If you don't want to discuss holograms, that is fine also, just tell me.


I asked you what you could scientifically prove directly related to the "official" reports, in order to validate your points of argument position concerning 9/11. You have yet to respond, directly or indirectly, to that.

I beleive I did make my position clear, concerning your above second comment, when I twice posted what follows. Was there another way it could have been made more clear for you?

How does your comment apply to the direct questions I asked, which had nothing to do with holograms? After all, I stated repeatedly holograms were only possible. I never said they were used. Therefore, I have no idea why you took your response off topic as you did. Perhaps you could explain, and then respond directly to the topic questions I did ask?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

No I am not. This is the 2nd time I am asking this-Which questions? I will sincerely do my best to answer them if I know what they are.

If you don't want to discuss holograms, that is fine also, just tell me.


I asked you what you could scientifically prove directly related to the "official" reports, in order to validate your points of argument position concerning 9/11. You have yet to respond, directly or indirectly, to that.

OK calm down a bit. I couldn't respond until I knew what the question and or statement was. Now I do know what your statement is.

Here's my response.
I have reviewed the FINAL NIST report and believe it to be more or less accurate.


I beleive I did make my position clear, concerning your above second comment, when I twice posted what follows. Was there another way it could have been made more clear for you?

Maybe your position got lost in all your sarcasm. Instead of trying to figure out how to post the most sarcastic response, why don't you simply treat others the way you want to be treated? It's a good code to live by my friend



How does your comment apply to the direct questions I asked, which had nothing to do with holograms? After all, I stated repeatedly holograms were only possible. I never said they were used. Therefore, I have no idea why you took your response off topic as you did. Perhaps you could explain, and then respond directly to the topic questions I did ask?


You asked if I had any direct evidence. I said the only evidence I had was regarding holograms not being possible. Although that does not directly support "the official story", it puts a nail in the coffin for one of the truther ideas. deezee and a few others have completely destroyed the hologram idea and there is no coming back from it. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Im curious, why would someone still post the garbage from Killtown's site after its already been shown to be a bunch of bull on another thread?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

OK calm down a bit. I couldn't respond until I knew what the question and or statement was. Now I do know what your statement is.


Don't you find it annoying when you ask someone a question more than once, and that person consistently heads off into a completely different topic from the question asked? I certainly do.




Here's my response.
I have reviewed the FINAL NIST report and believe it to be more or less accurate.


What science used by NIST convinced you NIST has correctly following the principles and laws of science? Can you state in your own words what convinced you scientific methodology, not pseudo-science opinion, was used by NIST?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

OK calm down a bit. I couldn't respond until I knew what the question and or statement was. Now I do know what your statement is.


Don't you find it annoying when you ask someone a question more than once, and that person consistently heads off into a completely different topic from the question asked? I certainly do.

Yes I do




Here's my response.
I have reviewed the FINAL NIST report and believe it to be more or less accurate.

What science used by NIST convinced you NIST has correctly following the principles and laws of science? Can you state in your own words what convinced you scientific methodology, not pseudo-science opinion, was used by NIST?


Does it really make sense for me to rephrase the entire NIST report?

Can you DISPROVE the Final NIST report using scientific principles? This is a YES or NO question.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Does it really make sense for me to rephrase the entire NIST report?

Can you DISPROVE the Final NIST report using scientific principles? This is a YES or NO question.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by jfj123]


That is not what I asked. I asked the following:

What science used by NIST convinced you NIST has correctly following the principles and laws of science? Can you state in your own words what convinced you scientific methodology, not pseudo-science opinion, was used by NIST?

I have to disprove nothing. It is entirely up to you to prove why NIST personnel convinced you they are correct and others are not.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   




The report as a whole, for the most part, convinced me. It wasn't one particular thing.

I'm not sure how else to answer that as there is still no point in me rephrasing the entire report.

So will you answer my previously posted questions?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 





This is NOT an engineering or scientific review of the NIST report. This is an educated observation of probability.

I'm an aerospace engineer and I COMPLETELY agree that the probability exists of a plane strike on one of these towers and the resultant fires that COULD ensue, OVER TIME, could cause structural damage that could lead to localized and possibly global collapse.

Now - with that said, my statement above does not qualify, nor should it be taken as, as acceptance, approval or endorsement of the NIST report or that the findings, modelings or conclusions of that report prove out that the above scenario is what happened.


Absolutely; proper and timely peer review of data (including data collection methods) is central to scientific cogency in published work.

The interpretation of the data, however, and the conclusions reached are then a matter for the (often differing) acknowledged experts in the field.

What struck me was that - in my little straw poll anyway - the experts who I spoke to were so consistent in their seeing nothing at all unusual in the complete vertical collapse of the towers even after each being impacted at different locations of their interior/exterior structure.

These are rough quotes from memory, but I'll give you the gist of their most important points as I saw them:

On the complete vertical failure of the towers

People don't understand what they're looking at when they look at those towers. I'll give you an analogy. Imagine a balloon, alright? Now, in every case, if you put a pin in a balloon it bursts. In the physics of the reaction, the pressure differential between the interior of the balloon and the atmosphere surrounding it moves to a state of equilibrium. After the reaction has completed, there will still remain large pieces of the balloon still intact.

Now imagine another balloon which represents the towers from a structural engineering point of view. This balloon has a hairline Cartesian grid covering the entirety of its more or less spherical surface. The grid represents the technology of the structural engineering and design that went in to the towers. That technology is special in a particular way which is illustrated by what happens if we put a pin into one of the cross hairs of the grid. The balloon will not burst! The hole made by the pin is instead distributed over the entirety of each cross hair of the grid, so that a tiny microscopic hole appears more or less instantaneously at each cross hair of the grid. If we were to add up the surface area of each hole, we would get the diameter of the pin. A failure at one point is taken up and distributed over all the rest of the grid points.

Now, this applies UP TO A CERTAIN DIAMETER of pin, a certain EXTENT of failure at one point. That is, if the pin was above a certain diameter, yes, our towers analogy balloon would burst, but it wouldn't burst the way our first ordinary balloon burst, it would burst AT EVERY GRIDPOINT SIMULTAENEUOSLY.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Appearantly the whiz kids at MIT dont believe the demolition theory either...
dspace.mit.edu...
web.mit.edu...

Neither does this guy...

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

The report as a whole, for the most part, convinced me. It wasn't one particular thing.

I'm not sure how else to answer that as there is still no point in me rephrasing the entire report.

So will you answer my previously posted questions?


First, please specifically answer mine. You have continued to give me nothing but non-answers.

Try being specific in what you think NIST personnel used for science in reporting. What specifics of their work convinced you they are correct, and others are not? How can you be convinced of what they report, if you do not scientifically understand what they reported?

If you understood it, you would have no problem briefly, scientifically explaining your convinction positively leaning toward NIST personnel report.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You can do what you wish for source linking. However, Thomas Eagar's name is already highly suspect as an unqualified source of peer review. He name is on that source you gave from MIT.

Thomas Eagar is not a structural engineer, architect or physicist with hands-on expertise. He is solely an academic dependent on others' field experience for his teaching material. He had no qualifications to present his non-peer reviewed version to the White House, for use as the "official" report.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Hmmm MIT, another Engineer..and you still bring up this guy?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Hmmm MIT, another Engineer..and you still bring up this guy?


Because his name is on the source you gave. I made that clear in my prior post. Did you not bother to read the names at the end of your own source?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Funny how you fixate on ONE name out of....40 or so other engineers, architects and others....



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Funny how you fixate on ONE name out of....40 or so other engineers, architects and others....



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


Try being specific in what you think NIST personnel used for science in reporting. What specifics of their work convinced you they are correct, and others are not? How can you be convinced of what they report, if you do not scientifically understand what they reported?

If you understood it, you would have no problem briefly, scientifically explaining your convinction positively leaning toward NIST personnel report.


No one is ever obligated to prove why they have chosen to accept or reject something. The only time proof is required is when you shove your belief down another's throat and act as though they are flaming idiots for not accepting your beliefs as their own.

He has stated that his personal level of confidence has been met by the report. That's all he has to give you.

Each person's level of confidence will differ depending on their education, their areas of expertise, and their level of caring. Irrespective of which of these factors has set his bar - his bar has been met by the report and he is not requesting anyone join him in that decision.

So why don't you back off.

[edit on 1-29-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

The report as a whole, for the most part, convinced me. It wasn't one particular thing.

I'm not sure how else to answer that as there is still no point in me rephrasing the entire report.

So will you answer my previously posted questions?


First, please specifically answer mine. You have continued to give me nothing but non-answers.

Try being specific in what you think NIST personnel used for science in reporting. What specifics of their work convinced you they are correct, and others are not? How can you be convinced of what they report, if you do not scientifically understand what they reported?

If you understood it, you would have no problem briefly, scientifically explaining your convinction positively leaning toward NIST personnel report.


My concern is that you won't understand it. You see, I've asked you questions in the past and you've made claims of expertise such as in construction then you've made comments that someone with construction knowledge would not make.

To be frank, I'd need to review the NIST report again before posting any information and if you won't be able to understand it, why bother.

This is an ongoing problem with you in many threads. You tell me people to answer your questions but never answer their questions.

Hopefully you see my point

In addition, I've read the Popular Mechanics article regarding 9/11 myths and found that also to be reasonable. There are many, many other sources such as the Purdue University simulation which also supports "the official story".

My other problem is that you've already decided that the government is guilty and now you just need to prove it. If our court system worked that way, there would be a lot more innocent people in jail.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Funny how you fixate on ONE name out of....40 or so other engineers, architects and others....


Here is valid information you do need to consider. The author of that thesis is going for a master's degree as an undergraduate student. He has no experience working in the field, because he is a continuing education student from Geneva College.

One of the peer reviewers he had to please was Thomas Eagar of MIT, or Thomas Eagar would not pass him on peer review, IF the student had contradicted Thomas Eagar. That is the politics always working in the ivory tower of academia. If people thought the academic world is always objective, it is not and never was. It is an ego trip for too many tenured professors. That leaves the ethical tenured and associate professors surrounded by the metaphorical choking dust of politics.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...









[edit on 29-1-2008 by SkepticOverlord]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join