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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Once again Seymour, you are telling me nothing that I don't already know. My only question is why are these scumbags hiding the real reasons those buildings fell when it was such a catastrophic and completely unprecedented series of failures? Do they have something to gain by it? You wouldn't be able to answer that one for me.

Actually there is another question -- how does this, in any way, allow for you to have solid evidence of any failure mechanism?

The fact that those documents are basically classified, aside from reinforcing what I already believe, doesn't stop NIST at all from reproducing their theoretical failure mechanism in the lab and proving that it works like they said it would. So why didn't they? Or even giving free body diagrams that explain the transfer of forces, etc. So where are those?

For the umpteenth time, where is any freaking definitive evidence of what you believe happened to those buildings?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by bsbray11]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Once again Seymour, you are telling me nothing that I don't already know.

My only question is why are these scumbags hiding the real reasons those buildings fell when it was such a catastrophic and completely unprecedented series of failures? Do they have something to gain by it? You wouldn't be able to answer that one for me.

The fact that those documents are basically classified, aside from reinforcing what I already believe, doesn't stop NIST at all from reproducing their theoretical failure mechanism in the lab and proving that it works like they said it would. So why didn't they? Or even giving free body diagrams that explain the transfer of forces, etc. So where are those?

For the umpteenth time, where is any freaking definitive evidence of what you believe happened to those buildings?


1-All I was trying to correct was your statement that NIST won't release the structural docs. But since you now state that you already knew that they were prohibited by law from releasing them, I have no idea why you stated that in the first place.

2- your assertion that they're hiding the real reason has no basis. It's your belief only.

3- why didn't they in the original doc? IMHO, because they didn't know that CTerz would be nitpicking it to death, looking for any crack they can find to put their pry bar in, in order to justify to themselves their already preconceived beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job.

4- Lotsa evidence is freely available. To name just a couple - video evidence of the planes and the observable damage to the outside. Broken windows that indicate the heat inside the towers - circumstantial evidence. Some structural detail IS available, copied in the NIST as hand written docs. The core column data is freely available. There's more if I care to put the effort into it.

Some CTerz DO put the effort into it and have found a lot of info. Like here - he seems to have found and/or deduced quite a bit of information:

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
To set the record straight, when NIST created the official story, they brought in a team of skilled engineers, etc. to determine the cause of failure, not the cause of global collapse. NIST admits to this day they have no reasoning or explanation for the global collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7. Also, when these "experts" were brought in to analyze the cause of collapse, there were several important assumptions made. One of them was that "there were no explosive devices of any sort used to aid the collapse." So their findings only work if you assume there were no explosives. So even though it looked like a controlled demolition, the NIST could have never reached that conclusion based off their assumptions.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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?


Well, that sums up this thread in a nutshell--the debunkers debunk themselves. Auto-destruct in 5, 4, 3...

Thank you jthomas, for finally showing us the kwan.

We now have your definitive word on 9/11. You've been defending a chimaere (and badly).





[edit on 16-6-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
[edit on 16-6-2008 by DOcean]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Mod edit- please if you have nothing to say that is construtive to the topic then please do not post on it,


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by asala]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
3000+ people died that day. Many more have died since as a consequence.

The perpetrators are yet to be unmasked and hung by their thumbs.

Time and time again governments have been caught lying.

The reports and information held by those in power will never, ever, be fully released.

We scream at each other over who is to blame, who's foreign policy sucks the most, who is fat, who has the straightest teeth. Who won this war, who kicked your ass that time, you suck, they suck, you'd be speaking German etc etc etc.

None of it, none of it, makes a blind bit of difference. Until we stand as one.

Shoulder to shoulder. Hand in hand. For the sake of our children and our world.

We must say together to all sides, religions and ideals; enough is enough.

We are so divided that the truth doesn't matter if it takes us out to a movie and makes sweet love to us after. In a world where technology has given us the chance to unite, once and for all, we have never been so far apart.

In the small hours of the morning, I weep. At the setting of the Sun, I weep.
For the blind ignorance and intolerance of us all, I weep. ( Kleenex does well out of me )

Now debunk that, penes frons. Peace and love to all.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 



Oh come on now! You can't rely on those people. They are just people out to make money! They don't know what they are talking about! Their degrees are worthless! (Hope you see the sarcasm)

That is pretty much what the people who are debunking the 911 conspiracy will say. Yet more and more and more of these people keep coming out. I keep seeing posts about how the 911 conspiracy is dead and blah blah blah.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a fact that there are serious questions left to be answered. That's not a conspiracy.

I love seeing sites like this with real credible people backing it.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
4- Lotsa evidence is freely available. To name just a couple - video evidence of the planes and the observable damage to the outside.


Already believe planes hit, sorry.


Broken windows that indicate the heat inside the towers


Already believe there were fires in there, sorry.


Some structural detail IS available


Nothing conclusive.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thillygooth
To set the record straight, when NIST created the official story, they brought in a team of skilled engineers


Actually the team they "brought in" included the exact same people involved with the ASCE and FEMA reports.

Just out of curiosity, I don't suppose you've seen the Associated Press article featuring one of the original engineers on the FEMA BPAT team saying that, after years of trying to simulate the collapses, he has concluded that the original ASCE report was falsified? His name is Astaneh-Asl.

He also testified before Congress right after his role in the investigation, complaining that he was not allowed to see critical structural information or even get much more than a brief tour through the scrap yard to look at the forensic evidence. He is among the "top" engineers (out of very few to begin with) associated with developing what would ultimately become the working theories, and I wonder what he was really even able to contribute.



NIST admits to this day they have no reasoning or explanation for the global collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7.


But the "debunkers" don't realize this yet.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
And the report for the "cause of collapse" for Tower 7 is long overdue.

Thanks for responding to me.

If you look into the 9/11 Commission itself there are a ton of provable lies and deliberate ommissions. Another problem I have with the "debunkers" is that they never address these. They only want to talk about WTC 1 and 2 and say how they saw the plane hit and it makes sense that it fell. Keep injecting your body with aspartame and flouride, its the only way to keep the bliss of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Listen bro!!! i have one thing to say;

Your sources are obviously FABRICATED by the very people under investigation!! wake up.

These people are PROFESSIONALS,
the best at what they do, the best of the best, thats why they are chosen for government.
If they set their mind on DECEIVING, they will do it in the best way possible, using the highest most effective techniques because they are the best of the best.

"The motivation for people in power is to stay in power, no matter what" - a.k.a.V4Vendetta



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I suggest starting with CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon and saying, "after my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." From there, it only gets worse.

I have a serious question for you Golden Fleece. Where did you get that Jamie McIntyre quote and what does the quote actually tell you?

CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre's report is well known (even though it only aired once.) He goes on to say, "there are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."



What does that quote tell me? Exactly what he said -- there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

So what hit the Pentagon?

I'll let former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld answer that question, from an interview he did with Parade magazine at the Pentagon:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building..."

www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 




Yes, read the book by David Ray Griffin "Debunking 9/11's Debunkers"

It rejects everything the debunkers say



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
evidence, all conviction aside..

i don't understand people that believe in the official story..

see:

if you had to sign a document to agree on new laws/rules and half of the text is grayed out. would you sign it ?

Many guys who don't believe in a conspiracy in ANY way, in this case, would sign it. You wouldn't ? Why you believe in the official story then ? So much is still hidden to the public domain...

Eh. It's just so silly that i have responce here.

If you dont know anything, don't buy it!

THINK!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'd like to see the debunkers debunk that!

There is still a piece of footage from the BBC I have not seen since that day. I remember it vividly as I commented to my friend about it, and it is the sole reason I'm here. It left too many questions for my liking, and the more I read on this subject, the more holes appeared in the "official story". Throw the events surrounding the Iraq war into the mix and well, the rest is history...

One problem is that debunkers only have the official story to lean on for evidence. I've yet to see a credible attempt at the official story being proven without having to go to officials in government for witnesses. The reason they're the only source for that story is because the evidence was destroyed, and those who were there don't believe the official story.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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.


In other words, there is evidence. And the "needing a video" canard that I attack is nothing more than a smokescreen, isn't it?

Now, since I haven't seen it anywhere, do you agree WTC 1 and 2 collapsed as a result of combination of aircraft attacks and subsequent uncontrolled and unfought fires?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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



Sources said in 2002 that the FBI confiscated a hotel security camera video that showed the attack on the Pentagon. It's not known if that tape is being released.



www.cnn.com...


Where's the video? It hasn't been released as far as I'm aware. This is evidence whether you want to believe it or not. If it's not being released then it is hiden. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Actually, not so. We agree that the FBI has the right to confiscate any videos that might exist. Legally, it has the right to withhold them as evidence in any possible future prosecution. These videos are not hidden. They are legally held. By law. And your claim that a "hidden" video is a criminal act certainly cannot be applied to the FBI as you claim. Furthermore, any video confiscated by the FBI that is not from a government source may not be released by the government or its agencies without the express permission of the original owner.


I knew I shouldn't have come into this semantic game thread were people with blinders will be able to post lies and get away with it. YES JTHOMAS YOU ARE A LIAR AND SHOULD BE DELT WITH. Yet here you are allowed to continue with your lies. WHY ATS MODS?


I deal in facts and evidence. I challenge those who don't think critically about their claims.

Now show me how I am a liar or apologize to me right here.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas
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?


Well, that sums up this thread in a nutshell--the debunkers debunk themselves. Auto-destruct in 5, 4, 3...

Thank you jthomas, for finally showing us the kwan.

We now have your definitive word on 9/11. You've been defending a chimaere (and badly).


Too bad your canard is repeatedly deep-sixed, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'd like to see the debunkers debunk that!

Thanks, but they'll do what they always do -- ignore it and hope no one notices.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join