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.
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]
Originally posted by jfj123
1. You post conspiracy sites as source material all the time. Obviously you've forgotten that...remember now???
2. The site I posted uses actual science and as we all know science has not taken a side and is not biased
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]
Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the science is wrong, please PROVE it.
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]
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]
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]
Originally posted by jfj123
There is only ONE kind of science and it has no bias.
Originally posted by jfj123
No they don't have their own science.
Originally posted by jfj123
Glad we got that resolved huh?
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.
It can most certainly be biased,
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.
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
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?
Where is the physical evidnece to support the science on the website?
Originally posted by jfj123
I have worked on fire damaged and physical damaged buildings.
On the website.
Hopefully this helps answer your questions.
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?
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]
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
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.
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.