Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 107
10
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
www.debunking911.com...


Thats too funny. You posted a answer to a question from conspiracy site using a conspiracy stie.

When are you guys going to learn about actual professional and government research sites?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. You post conspiracy sites as source material all the time. Obviously you've forgotten that...remember now??? I just thought I'd help you remember so you wouldn't look like a complete hypocrite. It's ok, we all forget sometimes, I just didn't want you to look bad on the thread
You're welcome


2. The site I posted uses actual science and as we all know science has not taken a side and is not biased


Thanks for your input though. Glad we were able to clear that up




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1. You post conspiracy sites as source material all the time. Obviously you've forgotten that...remember now???


I only use infomration form a conspiracy site that has been verified form other sites.


2. The site I posted uses actual science and as we all know science has not taken a side and is not biased



WRONG, the site is biased. Just like Popular Mechanics was biased and debunked many times.





[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
1. You post conspiracy sites as source material all the time. Obviously you've forgotten that...remember now???


I only use infomration form a conspiracy site that has been verified form other sites.


2. The site I posted uses actual science and as we all know science has not taken a side and is not biased



WRONG, the site is biased. Just like Popular Mechanics was biased and debunked many times.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it. Failure to prove it is a defacto admission I am correct. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it.


Every conspiracy site has thier own science. Can you provide any other sites to prove the science on the site you posted?

Failure to provide proof of the science will debunk your claim.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it.


Every conspiracy site has thier own science. Can you provide any other sites to prove the science on the site you posted?

Failure to provide proof of the science will debunk your claim.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



Science is science and no matter how biased the site, science still remains unbiased. For example, 4+4 always equals 8 no matter what site it's on. So the science on the site is either right or it's not. If it's not, you can prove it with unbiased science.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it.


Every conspiracy site has thier own science. Can you provide any other sites to prove the science on the site you posted?

Failure to provide proof of the science will debunk your claim.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


No they don't have their own science. There is only ONE kind of science and it has no bias. Things always work the same way no matter what site they're found on. 4+4 is always 8. So you can use unbiased science to disprove what's on the site I've posted. Can you?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it.


Failure to provide proof of the science will debunk your claim.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Excellent then my claim is proven as that site I posted shows the chemistry of how metal can stay molten for weeks in the debris. Glad we got that resolved huh?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
OK....look, I have no power whatsoever in any debate, any more than any other member who wishes to bring an opinion, or fact, into a debate!

But, as a third member, I have seen both of you, jfj and ULTIMA, bicker too much! In this thread.

I am certainly not qualified to say this, since I have no authority in this forum, but here goes:

I have come to respect both of your positions, based on some of what ou have posted. I would like to ask each of you, as ATS members, to please stop.

There seem to be more than one 9/11 threads...I think that's obvious....

This is one I've not paid attention to, for a while, since it's just full of bickering. Again, I don't care if you wish to bicker, but when I am engaging another member in a discussion, and if this thread is distracting, then that other discussion suffers.....capiche????

I realize I have no right, per se, to complain. Maybe I just don't wish to spread myself out too thin....

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

WW



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
There's nothing I could/would do about it, but I agree the bickering in this thread seems to have been going on for an extreme length, just by checking what's going on here every few days.



Originally posted by jfj123
There is only ONE kind of science and it has no bias.


That is a very dangerous way to think.

"Science" does not exist apart from humans. It can most certainly be biased, and historically it has happened (both intentionally and unintentionally) many times. And in those cases, who are you to take an arbitrary position and simply agree or disagree, as if you're some kind of special science judge? What research have you done that gives your bias automatic precedence?

All you have is faith unless you can see or show something to be reproducible as predicted. That is what science was originally invented to eradicate. But here you are sounding almost like a Catholic fundamentalist about 300 or 400 years too late for your own time.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No they don't have their own science.


All sites use the science to get thier own results.

Just like the NIST computer model where they started with an answer and tweaked the computer model till it came out the way the wanted it to.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Glad we got that resolved huh?


Not really. Its just too bad ther is no physical evidence to support the so called science on your site.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's nothing I could/would do about it, but I agree the bickering in this thread seems to have been going on for an extreme length, just by checking what's going on here every few days.



Originally posted by jfj123
There is only ONE kind of science and it has no bias.


That is a very dangerous way to think.

"Science" does not exist apart from humans.

Yes it does as universal principles exist whether humans do or not.


It can most certainly be biased,

Actually no it can't. Only the interpretation of it can be biased.

Look, Ultima may be right and the science behind the website I posted, could be completely wrong. I would like to know one way or the other. Based on my experience and education, what I've read from the website, is correct. I am however not a perfect being and have been and in the future will be wrong so if ultima or anyone else can debunk the websites science I would appreciate to read about it so I can learn something new. Please understand that I'm serious and no sarcasm is intended.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Science" does not exist apart from humans.

Yes it does as universal principles exist whether humans do or not.


Can you show me the formal relationship between "universal principles" and "science"? Because I was only talking about "science," not any pseudo-metaphysical ideas you may have about it.


If you miss it, my point is that there is no non-human system you can use to determine whether anything you think is objectively "right" or "wrong." It ultimately falls to other humans to decide anyway. You just pick and choose who you have faith in, unless you have a brain of your own.

Newton's theory of gravity was wrong, but hundreds of thousands of people had faith in it anyway for a long time. Granted, it seemed pretty intuitive and it wasn't obviously wrong by very much, but when you get to subjects like 9/11 the discrepancies between "science" and reality have potential to become extreme, and it requires more faith on your part to believe that this or that actually happened that day. Most of the actual evidence, including structural documentations and physical evidence, is simply unavailable for reasons that have never been made clear. You literally have no idea what is being kept from you. That is not reason alone to disbelieve, it's only a damned good reason for you to not be so damned sure of yourself and the "science" you read, which is a start.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Based on my experience and education, what I've read from the website, is correct. I am however not a perfect being and have been and in the future will


What experience and education?

Where is the physical evidnece to support the science on the website?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Based on my experience and education, what I've read from the website, is correct. I am however not a perfect being and have been and in the future will

What experience and education?

I am a licensed builder.
I have worked on fire damaged and physical damaged buildings.
I have 3 degrees
I have a background in computers, physics, and laser technology.



Where is the physical evidnece to support the science on the website?

On the website.

Hopefully this helps answer your questions.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I have worked on fire damaged and physical damaged buildings.


And how many of the fire damaged and physical damaged buildings collapsed?


On the website.

Hopefully this helps answer your questions.


Can you show me the actual evidence from your website?



[edit on 15-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

I have worked on fire damaged and physical damaged buildings.


And how many of the fire damaged and physical damaged buildings collapsed?

Quite a few. I can't give you an exact number but it's fairly common for structural collapse after a fire depending on a number of structural and insulative factors pre-fire or other physical damage


On the website.

Hopefully this helps answer your questions.


Can you show me the actual evidence from your website?

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I've posted excerpts on the board already. So as not to waste server space unnecessarily, you may want to go back a few pages and review those posts. Thanks for your responses. Let me know if you'd like me to answer any other questions or provide additional details.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 15-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Quite a few. I can't give you an exact number but it's fairly common for structural collapse after a fire depending on a number of structural and insulative factors pre-fire or other physical damage


Thats funny because most sites even firefighter sites state that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire no matter how severe.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Quite a few. I can't give you an exact number but it's fairly common for structural collapse after a fire depending on a number of structural and insulative factors pre-fire or other physical damage


Thats funny because most sites even firefighter sites state that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire no matter how severe.


1. I never said "steel framed buildings"
2. Yes a few of the buildings I have worked on were steel framed that collapsed. They were small buildings and not skyscrapers.

And correct me if I'm wrong but has there ever been any skyscraper that was hit by a 767 that started fires in the building? Has that ever happened before?

So to say "NO" steel framed building ever collapsed from fire is absurd.

Look, we both no where this is going. You're going to misquote and say that the WTC's didn't collapse because of the plane impacts.... etc. etc. etc. Just one circular argument.

My thought is that this particular thread is dead so I am probably done posting here myself unless someone else comes by who is interested in factual info.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's nothing I could/would do about it, but I agree the bickering in this thread seems to have been going on for an extreme length, just by checking what's going on here every few days.


This happens in a lot of threads in the 9/11 forum...and there is one consistent thing about the threads with bickering...Ultima.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by scotty18]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join