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.

 

How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by jthomas
 


B) You state "The available evidence, none of which could possibly be withheld from us by anyone...". So what are the videos of the "plane" crashing into the Pentagon that the FBI conviscated and has refused to release then, if not withheld by the government?]


So, you think videos are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon?




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
To date, no one has yet come up with any evidence that would refute any of the evidence, the NIST investigation, or the ASCE investigation, the claims-without-evidence from 9/11 truthers, notwithstanding.


To date, the NIST report hasn't been peer reviewed.


So you agree that there is a report that can be peer reviewed. That's a start. How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?


They hold all the evidence when it comes to the structural documentation. So, to date there is no evidence to refute what NIST has told us because we don't get to see the evidence. How hard is this to understand?


We don't need to understand a strawman argument. You have yet to demonstrate that those more qualified in the respective fields, object to, refute, or claim that there is insufficient evidence, bad methodology, and faulty conclusions of the NIST report.


If you're fully satisfied with the NIST report even though you get to see no evidence to back it up, so be it. I don't live in that kind of denial.


We see that you're wholly unable to back up your claim.


It would be like me writing a paper explaining in detail all my evidence that concludes there is a government conspiracy but when asked for my evidence I claim national security and you can't view. Would you just trust me? No.


You are just making a claim about NIST. You have yet to demonstrate it. The onus is STILL and ALWAYS will be on you to back up your OWN claims.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Griff
If you're fully satisfied with the NIST report even though you get to see no evidence to back it up, so be it.


It all goes back to jthomas's not even wanting to know. He only needs the shadow of evidence, and with this he is content thinking that everyone else is wrong.


One cannot know something which you "claim" and don't back up with evidence. You want me to accept your claims on faith.


No one has objected except for "truthers"? You mean, the ~30% of the population that still has the same unanswered questions? Ah, those few million people don't know anything! It's jthomas who knows, because he refuses to see otherwise.


You STILL have the obligation to back up your claims and show your "unanswered" questions have any validity. You cannot go around declaring them valid and expect anyone to accept them on faith. Sorry.


Jthomas, it's a simple equation: there are no issues, because you refuse to see them.


There are only issues that are demonstrated as valid. You have yet to show HOW or WHY your claims and "unanswered" questions have any validity. You just want everyone to believe they are on faith. Sorry, that does not work in the rational world.


At the end of the day you still can't answer our questions because, outside of your own little head, you don't really know. That's also a very simple fact, or else wouldn't you be explaining more to us? Griff is a civil engineer. Call him a "truther" and he magically goes away. Can you not see how dense your whole way of looking at this is? Do you think only inferior people post on the Internet? Who are you?


At the end of the day you are deceiving yourself. Let me make it as clear as I can. You all are making CLAIMS and declaring them VALID. It is up to you to back them up. You seem oblivious to the fact that WE do not accept claims without evidence. You do not accept that most of the claims and "unanswered" questions have been repeatedly addressed and dispensed with. You just ignore the answers and repeat the claims.

It matters not that Griff is a civil engineer. He STILL has to back up his claims. He still has to demonstrate that HIS claims and "unanswered" questions are VALID.

Just because truthers THINK they are without demonstrating it is why you are just as stuck in the mud now as you were 6 1/2 years ago.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
I was 95% sure 9/11 was an inside job, after reading the O.P.'s link,... I am 99% sure...


[edit on 7-6-2008 by coastlinekid]


I feel for you...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Red herring. Try again. You don't need serial numbers to know that all four planes crashed and what flights were.


Yes we do need the serial numbers to verify what planes were used that day.

Since we hvae no actaul evidence of what planes were used.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonyo1
I have only one question for Jthomas.
Why were none of the hijacked aircraft on 911 intercepted?


What does it mean that they were not intercepted?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You all are making CLAIMS and declaring them VALID. It is up to you to back them up.


Gee isn't this somethng like POT MEET KETTLE?

I have yet to see anyone that believes the official story back it up with actual evidence.l



[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
For example: the WTC collapses are the most studied building collapse in history.


How do you study a building's collapse without the structural documentation to do your analysis?


How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
There is no new information from truthers, just the same questions repeated for almost seven years.


Release the structural documentation and maybe we can stop asking.


Red herring.

Please demonstrate any relevance. You haven't.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


When we ask questions that NIST hasn't answered, for example, it also means that YOU can't answer them.


That's both an arrogant and meaningless statement. WE don't have accept your "questions" as valid until and unless you can demonstrate ANY validity to them.


It relates to you. You have been lied to and you bought it. Why should you continue to be so stupid?


Don't continue to insult our intelligence. You're shifting the burden of proof once again. When will you stop evading your responsibility to back up YOUR claims, bsbray11?


[edit on 8-6-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?


NIST report states that NIST failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.



SEE I CAN BACK UP MY CLAIMS, CAN YOU ???????



[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


You're telling me that semantics matter more to you than the message.

The Devil is in the details; are you the Devil?



Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals


www.zogby.com...

Read it and writhe; you "debunkers" are still losing ground, simply because you are ignorant (and yes I know that poll is from 4 years ago; let me guess, you probably think there were more "conspiracy theorists" right after 9/11?
).


It's a measure of the failure of your "movement" that you have to rely on a poll instead of evidence. (We note you didn't mention that only 4.6% believe "9/11 was an inside job.")

You just don't see that the 9/11 Truth Movement has not been able to demonstrate its claims despite our constantly asking you to so. That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is declining rapidly. It has nothing to offer.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You just don't see that the 9/11 Truth Movement has not been able to demonstrate its claims despite our constantly asking you to so. That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is declining rapidly. It has nothing to offer.


Funny how i can post facts and evidence to support what i post but people like you cannot.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia

Errrr, I don't know what's going on, I guess you can't read or are just willfully lying, but I never claimed it fell faster than free fall speed, where did i claim that?


Correct, you did NOT say "faster." This is what you DID say:


"I would love for you to tell me how all 3 buildings fell at free fall speed, in contravention of the laws of physics. You answer that, and I'll answer your question, deal?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


My answer:


They didn't fall at free fall speeds and violated no laws of physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



And you and Butz and others claim all "truthers" are wrong, and they have to prove their right.


Well, of course. ANYONE making claims has the onus of proof on his or her shoulders. Did you not know that?


Then to prove your position, you post a video on YouTube???


Yes, it clearly shows WTC 2 did NOT fall at a free fall speed as you claimed. It refutes your claim.


If I posted a video on YouTube that showed the towers fall at free fall speed (of which there are many),...


Obviously, you have not posted a video that shows "the towers fall at free fall speed." We're still waiting.


Your video is conclusive and every other video isn't?


It certainly is conclusive evidence that WTC 2 did NOT fall at a free fall spped as you claim. What's your problem with evidence, Alethia?


All the others are faked and yours isn't?


A) I never said any video was fake. Show me where I said that.
b) You haven't provided ANY video one could even comment on, much less one that shows the towers falling at free fall speed.


Your video which, by the way, has a camera totally panning away from the collapse on 2 separate occasions, is irrefutable proof?


When the last shot of WTC 2 shows the collapse front of the building still far above the ground at 12 seconds, we can easily see that it did not collapse at the free fall speed that would show the collapse ended at 9.6 seconds.


Face it guys, everything you say can be picked apart, every piece of evidence you have can be countered.


It looks like you've completely failed to demonstrate that.


And that's the big point you willfully miss. You guys are stating, as a matter of fact, conclusively, without question, what happened on 9/11.


No, the point is that we see that ALL of the evidence supports the conclusion you don't accept. You claim it is wrong.

We're happy to see you back up your claims but we've already been waiting for you to do that for 6 1/2 years and none of you have presented anything a rational person would see as remotely REFUTING the evidence and conclusions.


You have evidence that proves it happened that way and that evidence can not be refuted. Do you understand what refuted means?


Obviously. I refuted you easily.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Red herring. Try again. You don't need serial numbers to know that all four planes crashed and what flights were.


Yes we do need the serial numbers to verify what planes were used that day.

Since we hvae no actaul evidence of what planes were used.


Red herring. Try again. You don't need serial numbers to know that all four planes crashed and what flights were.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
You all are making CLAIMS and declaring them VALID. It is up to you to back them up.


Gee isn't this somethng like POT MEET KETTLE?


Yes, when you keep making claims you cannot support.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?


NIST report states that NIST failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.



SEE I CAN BACK UP MY CLAIMS, CAN YOU ???????


Sure, you demonstrated it for me above that you can't refute my statement. You provided nothing to invalidate the existing evidence or conclusions that NIST reached.

That was easy.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
You just don't see that the 9/11 Truth Movement has not been able to demonstrate its claims despite our constantly asking you to so. That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is declining rapidly. It has nothing to offer.


Funny how i can post facts and evidence to support what i post but people like you cannot.


Actually, you finally agreed that the evidence showed a plane hit the Pentagon (after denying it forever).

But you made invalid claims you could not support concerning evidence and facts. So we have no reason to doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon until you can demonstrate otherwise.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Airline records indicate what hull numbers were on those flights that day.

ATC records indicate that those flights took off that day.

ATC radar tracks show those flights from take off to impact. Yes, granted after the transponders were shut off, it wasnt immeadiately appearant which blip was which. HOWEVER, the "forensic" examination of the tapes resolved that. (of which there are reports)

We have flight data recorders that match those on the planes.

Witnesses watched all four airliners hit.

We have wreckage identifible to both model/airline that matches above hull numbers.

Sorry Ultima, but we DO have evidence that those four flights did indeed takeoff, were hijacked, and crashed.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

I would have to disagree when I read the legislation. They did conduct an investigation:

(a) In General.--The functions of the Commission are to--
(1) conduct an investigation that--
(A) investigates relevant facts and circumstances
relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
including any relevant legislation, Executive order,
regulation, plan, policy, practice, or procedure; and
(B) may include relevant facts and circumstances
relating to--
(i) intelligence agencies;
(ii) law enforcement agencies;
(iii) diplomacy;
(iv) immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and
border control;
(v) the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations;
(vi) commercial aviation;
(vii) the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation; and
(viii) other areas of the public and private
sectors determined relevant by the Commission for
its inquiry;

and I notice that part A does not limit them to only the evidence found by other agencies and section viii in part B in my opinion gives them enough latitude to take their investigation anywhere they chose to go.

Also, then in part B of their function:

(b) Relationship to Intelligence Committees' Inquiry.--When
investigating facts and circumstances relating to the intelligence
community, the Commission shall--
(1) first review the information compiled by, and the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of, the Joint
Inquiry; and
(2) after that review pursue any appropriate area of inquiry
if the Commission determines that--
(A) the Joint Inquiry had not investigated that
area;
(B) the Joint Inquiry's investigation of that area
had not been complete; or
(C) new information not reviewed by the Joint
Inquiry had become available with respect to that area.

And in the section describing their powers:

(d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for
the performance of the Commission's functions.
(2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the
assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and agencies
of the United States may provide to the Commission such
services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services
as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law
.


There are more instances in the legislation I could highlight but these I think show that they had the authority to pursue any avenue they thought appropriate (or as it says in SEC. 602 #3, "build upon the investigations of other entities") But I think they were hampered by lack of funds and an unnecessary deadline.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join