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 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 64
10
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You wouldn't be cherry picking from a preliminary report from June of 2004 when the final report is available would you? Because that would be dishonest, wouldn't you agree?



No i am not like you are, cherry picking anything that repeats the official story. I post facts and evindece that find doing something called research. Somethig you do not seem to understanad or want to do

Are you saying the NIST computer model is wrong?

Are you saying all the other reports that state the impacts and fires did not casue the collapse are wrong and only you are right?

That would be immature, wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that. I just quoted the NIST final report on the collapse. Why would you use their earlier reports other than to obfuscate the truth. If I have the final product why would I consult the initial sketch? I'm sure in your "extensive" research you've seen the final report available. You're caught trying to peddle incomplete information as the final conclusion. Just like every other baseless point you make, you cherry pick to find something that fits your "theory" and then dismiss any other information. Throughout several threads you've been proven foolish on everything from impossible low flight, monstrous jetblast/wake turbulence, difficulty of aircraft control, ability to see a building wider than the Sears Tower is tal, etc et all. At best your "research" has been incompetent, and at worst dishonest. Lying to sell a book is disgusting wouldn't you agree?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that.


Sure just like NIST never recovered any steel from building 7 to test, that shows that NIST is not very good at doing completed data.

Do you really think the computer model was completely wrong, becasue the final reports states exactly the opposite of what their own computer model states?

Plus the fact that many other reports also state that neither the plane impacts nor the fires were enough to casue the collapse.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that.


Sure just like NIST never recovered any steel from building 7 to test, that shows that NIST is not very good at doing completed data.

Do you really think the computer model was completely wrong, becasue the final reports states exactly the opposite of what their own computer model states?

Plus the fact that many other reports also state that neither the plane impacts nor the fires were enough to casue the collapse.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



You're very correct for once. Neither the fire or the impact was enough to cause a collapse. It was the unique combination of both events.


From the NIST page:


3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.



So once again, you've obfuscated by saying neither single cause is reported sufficient to cause a collapse, yet you neglect the very essence of the findings.
You can stop the BS now. Which do you think is more comprehensive: the first one or the one 15 months later? If the NIST is so terrible at it's job, why are you citing from it? Oh, that's right you cherry picked it because it supported your conclusion.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
If the NIST is so terrible at it's job, why are you citing from it


I site the NIST reports because they contridict each other and that questions the official story, something that is known to be BS.

I means 1 report states the impact and fire did not casue the collapse but the other reports does. I wish they would make up thier minds.

Oh and now they are even checking out blast scenarios, so i guess the next report will say it was explosives that casue the collapse.

Funny how i can use the NIST reports to question the official story that you use to support the official story.







[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm certainly saying the NIST final report has a greater likelihood of being true if there is a contradiction.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm certainly saying the NIST final report has a greater likelihood of being true if there is a contradiction.


Why becasue it goes along with the official story?

Oh and now they are even checking out blast scenarios, so i guess the next report will say it was explosives that casued the collapse.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why becasue it goes along with the official story?



Becasue[sic] it is the final report. The result of all the research. The conclusion. Finis. End.

I'm sorry I don't choose my data with the same evident bias that you do.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Becasue[sic] it is the final report. The result of all the research. The conclusion. Finis. End.

I'm sorry I don't choose my data with the same evident bias that you do.


Thats funny, if its the final report why are they doing blast scenarios? Its like saying NIST will also come up with a final report on building 7 when they did not even recover any steel to test.

Thats really funny, people like you who believe the official story are the biggest bunch of biased people there are or you would still not believe the official story.

You only want to beleive what you been told on the TV or by the media becasue you want to live i n a safe fantasy world and not knwo about what really goes on in the world, you do not care about or want to find the truth of what really happened.

You only repeat the same thing over and over when asked for evindece and its not real evidence only statements or opionions with nothing to support them.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Sad someone would go out of their way to twist terrible events to market a book. I'm sorry you think anyone not agreeing with you is biased. Surely the only two available options, like you said are that I am biased or I agree with you.
Feel free to employ the martyr complex; I'm sure someone will feel sorry for you. It just won't be me.


If the NIST issues a new find saying that it was explosives that caused the collapse, can I reject it on the same grounds you reject the final study? I mean, after all it apparently contradicts their previous project. So it wouldn't be true, right?


[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Sad someone would go out of their way to twist terrible events to market a book.


How did i know you were going to change the subject, everytime you are asked for evindece or proven wrong about something you have to change the subject or post something that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Why do you dishonor those that died that day by not wanting to find the truth? Are you really that afraid of the truth?


[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Here's my evidence from YOUR source:




The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


Just like we've provided evidence to refute your claims on every other inane event you've invented.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Just like we've provided evidence to refute your claims on every other inane event you've invented.


Show me official reports or evidence to prove the following is wrong, and by official i mean other then NIST since they have been proven to make mistakes.


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


You really are living in a fantasy world. I can show you everything you have no evidence to support. This is just a few items you have failed to show.

You have no official reports or evidence to show what planes hit the towers.

You have no official reports or evidence to show what plane hit the Pentagon.

You have no official reports or evidence of the fire in the towers being hot enough to cause the molten steel found in the basemements and debris.

You have no official reports or evidence of what caused building 7 to collapse.

Face it, you have failed to show any real evidence to support your fantasies or the official story fantasy.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You're right of course. I live in a fantasy world because I'm not smart enough to figure these things out like you, or I'm too afraid to admit the truth. Those are clearly the only options available to me. I've been pigeon-holed so neatly into the slots you've alloted me; whatever shall I do.

How many books have you sold on this tripe?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You're right of course. I live in a fantasy world because I'm not smart enough to figure these things out like you, or I'm too afraid to admit the truth.


Well all you had to do was show 1 official report or 1 piece of hard, physical evidence to support your claims or the official story.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Keep spamming that. Someone will take your side, I have no doubt.

So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?


Why do you have to insult me because i am trying to find the truth? You must not care about the people that died that day or you would want to find the truth too. You have not posted 1 single official report or 1 shred of hard evidence.

I will keep doing research and posting facts and evidence.

I will not respond to you anymore because you will not even provide basic information when asked.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?


Why do you have to insult me because i am trying to find the truth? You must not care about the people that died that day or you would want to find the truth too.

You have not posted 1 single official report or 1 shred of hard evidence.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


You must not care about the people that died that day or you wouldn't package tripe for profit. It's a fair question: If I free lance an article about Northrop Grumman products and/or stock, I am required to disclose if I work for the company or own their stock.
There are pages upon pages of discussion in several threads that suggest your last statement is patently false. If you'd like to find them, I'd suggest the use of the search function. The game is played out. We've chased these weasels around the mulberry bush already.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You must not care about the people that died that day or you wouldn't package tripe for profit.


Last post.

You have not posted any evidence to debate what i have posted, just statments and opinions and as far as the people that died that day i am trying to find the truth so they did not die in vain. You should be doing the same.

You have not posted 1 single official report or 1 shred of hard evidence when asked.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
There are pages and pages and more pages showing where we've disassembled your several hypothesis on which you've built your claims. It's not hidden to anyone who looks. Even when obviously wrong, you use smoke and mirrors never admitting error because it might affect a product you sell. It's contemptible. I entered the conversation with you in good faith. I gave you a chance to display your evidence. So far your main evidence is that no one else gives you evidence acceptable to your standard.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join