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.

 

Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No, he means he believes the evidence is far too inconvenient. So do you.


Is that what I mean? You know my intentions and my thoughts? You are psychic now? Maybe you should collect jref's million dollar challenge. Oh, that's right they pulled that offer.




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

NIST never .... released critical structural information..... and no one else has even had access to the evidence in the first place!



NIST is prohibited by law from releasing the structural docs. No one else is entitled to see them.

Your complaints about the docs not being available should be directed at the PA/Silverstein/ possibly Robertson.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Is this the Sheraton video?

It's been released.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by tide88
 


Ok how about this:


Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

www.structuremag.org...


www.debunking911.com...

Ok. Even debunking9/11 and structure magazine say that one critical column was enough to globally collapse WTC 7.

But, we have jthomas quoting people from jref who claim it would take thousands of tons of explosives.

Does anyone see the contradiction here?


You're not thinking logically, Griff.

How can you ignore the evidence of what happened to WTC 7 before it collapsed and then pretend that all one had to do was remove one column and that was it, even when the prior damage to WTC 7 is explicit in the article:


The failure of WTC 1 and WTC 2 sent flaming debris into the
southern face of WTC 7. This impact and fire damage initiated a sequence that would lead to global collapse. Eyewitness observations by building occupants, NYPD, FDNY and bystanders indicated that the damage was
located on the south face between floors 8 and 18, and that there was a fully involved fire on the south side of floor 7, which included the transfer elements. From 3:00 to 5:00 PM, fires were still burning in the building, which may explain why it took several hours for it to collapse. The continued heat of the fire weakened steel structural components until they failed at 5:21 PM, nearly seven hours after the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

"http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
No, he means he believes the evidence is far too inconvenient. So do you.


Is that what I mean? You know my intentions and my thoughts? You are psychic now? Maybe you should collect jref's million dollar challenge. Oh, that's right they pulled that offer.


I only go on by what you write here.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hey jthomas, I think you missed my post where I called you out for not being able to post any real evidence for the "official story" in the first place.


You missed my post where I made it quite clear that one cannot post "evidence" for something that does not exist, i.e., the so-called "official story."

Are you still confused about that?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
You agree with me that we do not need any videos whether they exist or not to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. THAT is the subject matter.

And you haven't shown that any evidence about AA77 is being "hidden."


You are so set in your argumentative ways it's pathetic. How many times do I have to post that I believe Flight 77 hit the pentagon?


Then you agree with me that we do not need any videos whether they exist or not to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. THAT is the subject matter.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by Griff
 


Is this the Sheraton video?

It's been released.



I must have missed it. Can you post it? Thanks. If so, I will gladly reconsider my point that I BELIEVE FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON.


How many times do I have to say this to people who turn a deaf ear?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Then you agree with me that we do not need any videos whether they exist or not to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. THAT is the subject matter.


Yes, I can agree with you on this only because I have spoken to at least 3 building engineers who saw it first hand. NOT because of the evidence hiden or otherwise.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Like the Citgo video, it doesn't show much.




Your article was from Sept '06.

I believe this was released in Dec.



[edit on 16-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You missed my post where I made it quite clear that one cannot post "evidence" for something that does not exist, i.e., the so-called "official story."

Are you still confused about that?


The official story is NIST, FEMA, and the Kean Commission. Why are they official? Because they were commissioned by the federal government.

Do you think semantic games are a real substitute for evidence?

Come on, jthomas. When are you going to humor me and try to actually post something of substance?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I would have to agree with Whaaa.
I would rather believe those people than some BS gov't "report" started 14 month AFTER the "attacks" happened!! Guess they didn't want to start an investigation until the latest possible time after we were already in Afghanistan.
Interesting, but look at one of the members on that website who happens to be a a former ATS member after they kicked him off for talking about the truth!!
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

I would believe him as well as the rest of those pilots before anyone else since the whole attack is predicated on "terrorists hijacking planes" and "flying them into buildings".
Anyone who still believes the official story is probably already too far gone or brainwashed to believe otherwise. The people you need to convince are our so-called leaders but they mostly ignore it all and the will of the people.
You can check out his interviews online on youtube and on ProjectCamelot, his most recent interview is posted on their website.

The truth will probably never be told to the worldwide community and the perps holding the "scare the population" strings will never allow that info to get out.

Purduegrad05



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
NIST is prohibited by law from releasing the structural docs. No one else is entitled to see them.


Why? And please address your answer to Griff, who, being a professional engineer, no doubt knows a lot more about the legality of structural documentation being typically in public domain than either you or I would.

There is no good reason to essentially classify structural documentation for three buildings that don't even exist anymore, unless you are hiding something. Especially after they all 3 catastrophically collapsed like no one has ever seen before, killing thousands of people. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....

I hope you also realize that this is no excuse. Because they locked the plans up, you are lacking hard evidence, not abundant in it! You guys can't post ANY evidence for us, despite asserting there are virtual legions of engineers presenting proof after proof in public domain. What is the freaking problem? Do you have a logic phobia? Is ATS the only website you can visit on the internet anymore? Where is some proof?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Well then, my bad. See, I can be reasonable.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
BTW jthomas, I'm still waiting for an answer to debate me head-to-head in the debate forum.

A forum where name calling, obfuscation, and just saying "there's evidence" is not allowed. Scared? Or do you know you have no leg to stand on?

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Well then, my bad. See, I can be reasonable.



After judicious use of a cattle prod.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
After judicious use of a cattle prod.


Somehow, I believe you'd actually take great pleasure in that.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Engineering backgrounds do help in these matters, but most of the fallacies of 9/11 boil down to high school physics. One major law that is overlooked is "the path of least resistance." When structures fall, they fall where there is the least resistance. If you watch the videos of the towers collapse, the first tower to fall has a massive section of building that begins to teeter to the side. We would expect this large section to fall off to the side, with the rest of the building in tact if the laws of physics apply. However, as this section starts to fall, the entire building collapses and falls at freefall speed. We could expect the section of building to collapse at free fall speed if it fell off to the side, however, it didnt, but yet the building still fell at the same rate. How do the official story believers explain this anomoly? How does the building below offer no resistance unless aided with explosives or some other destructive force?

Dr. Judy Wood offers a great explination at www.drjudywood.com and another hypothesis could be a direct energy weapon. Our military technology is hundreds of years ahead of the civilian technology, and undoubtedly we have weapons that could pinpoint at large building. This also offers an explanation for the fineness of dust particles in NYC that day and the weeks to follow.

Another interesting note is that the major proponent of controlled demolition, Steven Jones, also happens to have worked at Los Alamos on Direct Energy Weapons. Disinformation agent anyone?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well then, I suggest you review the 5th Amendment and what it says about property rights.

Because contrary to what you seem to believe, the structural docs are NOT the property of the US Guv. They are in posession of them during the investigation, but this doesn't mean that they are theirs to distribute as they please. They must return ALL property that it receives for its investigation, after that investigation is over. there are exceptions of course, like guns used during the commission of a crime, etc, but they are the exception.

The guv releasing the docs would be a violation to rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and I'm sure you're not for that.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
BTW jthomas, I'm still waiting for an answer to debate me head-to-head in the debate forum.



This would be great!

Come on jthomas, you know you want to make a fool of us in front of everyone.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join