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.

 

Demonization of the Truther's Movement by the Lapdog News Media

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Actually, I stated that the average collapse time was just over 9 seconds. Nice try though..


Here's a nice quote from the ridiculous NIST report for you though:

"The Towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact, and the extensive multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST. P. xxviii

i.e., it was the fire that weakened that steal that caused the collapse. The plane impacts did nothing except dislodge some fire proofing that would cause collapse. Right from the horses mouth there buddy.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Oh, I misrepresented them?
I damn near quoted the whole thing and left you the source? Come on now, you can do better. None of these so-called experts had anything to work with, since most of the evidence had been shipped away and destroyed. They began with a falty premise, based on nothing but "my boss tells me so," and then arrived at a ridiculous and falty conclusion.

Thousands of scientists, physicists, and engineers did review the findings of the report and found it severely lacking. Again, can you answer my simple question or is it too far above you head? I had thought that I had simplified things for you quite nicely.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

the core, not just the floors was constructed of concrete and steel. Nice try at dodging obvious evidence here, but I guess that Wikepedia got it all wrong, right?




What about this troofer website then?

911research.wtc7.net...

No where do they mention concrete reinforced core columns. They say:

"The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. "



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Well, then that site must not be entirely correct, not that it means that the entire site is incorrect (that would be a logical fallacy) but I could find a hundred errors on every website of some kind or another.

I have found multiple sources, besides the one above that confirm that concrete was part of the core.

It is clear by the above statements by JT that he isn't serious about debunking any of this. He's merely playing games and dodging questions, while providing nothing. I mean, come on! How can you say that i got it wrong when I just quoted the damn source, which is Wikipedia? How can you say that I misquote, when I provided the source for your viewing? That's just dumb..



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by HothSnake

the core, not just the floors was constructed of concrete and steel. Nice try at dodging obvious evidence here, but I guess that Wikepedia got it all wrong, right?




What about this troofer website then?

911research.wtc7.net...

No where do they mention concrete reinforced core columns. They say:

"The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. "


The cores had stairways and elevator shafts, = concrete.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 


Actually, I stated that the average collapse time was just over 9 seconds. Nice try though..


But the actual collapse time average was 14 seconds.

Nice try at a dodge, HothSnake, but you failed.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

The cores had stairways and elevator shafts, = concrete.



Sure they had stairs and elevator shafts, but this doesn't mean that the core columns were reinforced with concrete.

IIRC, the stairs were steel, and the shafts had sheetrock 'liners'.

Do you think that the troofer website is incorrect then?

Maybe you should contact them and let them know.

Let us know how that works out....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
Oh, I misrepresented them?
I damn near quoted the whole thing and left you the source? Come on now, you can do better. None of these so-called experts had anything to work with, since most of the evidence had been shipped away and destroyed.


Another false claim you can't back up


They began with a falty premise, based on nothing but "my boss tells me so," and then arrived at a ridiculous and falty conclusion.


Another claim you can't back up.


Thousands of scientists, physicists, and engineers did review the findings of the report and found it severely lacking.


Nope. Another of your false claims which you cannot back up.


Again, can you answer my simple question or is it too far above you head?


I easily demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about


I had thought that I had simplified things for you quite nicely.


It's very easy to count your false claims that you have no ability to back up.

Now, let's see you demonstrate your claims with actual evidence.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
No point in trying JT, considering that I have done nothing but offer you evidence and sources to back them up, while you dodge them and sidestep every question. Why would I provide you with more sources and more evidence that you will then just ignore? I'll give you nothing more until you answer my question, which you won't because you can't. Besides, if you would simply just watch some of the videos that I have posted, then all or most of it is right there, but that might require some time and effort on your part, which your lazy bones just can't handle.

Here's an example JT: I provide source, quote source exactly, and then you neglect to even read source, while claiming that I misquoted source. It's a tireless game that I'm not going to play with you.

Now, artful dodger, where's that answer?



But the actual collapse time average was 14 seconds.


What's your source for this? Can you back up your claims? I have provided you several links and video sources for my contention of just over 9 seconds, if you had bothered to follow them.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by HothSnake]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by HothSnake]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


According to my sources, which I showed you above, plus an old documentary that I watched, the cores were partially filled with concrete, which has nothing to do with floor slabs.

As for your quote from that site, obvisouly that statement is incorrect, for we know that concrete is in the core one way or the other.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   


Another false claim you can't back up


Um, see, this is what I'm talking about.
The source is there in the above post, and the quote? I'm starting to think that jthomas is Hellen Keller... he has to be def, dumb, blind, and stupid. Keep it up JT and I'll have to start telling tasteless Hellen Keller jokes, like the one about her dog.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by HothSnake]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

According to my sources, which I showed you above, plus an old documentary that I watched, the cores were partially filled with concrete, which has nothing to do with floor slabs.

As for your quote from that site, obvisouly that statement is incorrect, for we know that concrete is in the core one way or the other.


Then I double dog dare you to tell them that.

And post the emails here.

Or even better, get a mod to act as an intermediary, so that we can see the smackdown you'll get in all its glory....



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

What's your source for this? Can you back up your claims? I have provided you several links and video sources for my contention of just over 9 seconds, if you had bothered to follow them.


But you never bother to research beyond what you want to believe.

Now 14 seconds has been known for years:

WTC 2: www.911myths.com...

Wtc 7: www.youtube.com...

Get your stop watch, then concede you are wrong.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by HothSnake

What's your source for this? Can you back up your claims? I have provided you several links and video sources for my contention of just over 9 seconds, if you had bothered to follow them.


But you never bother to research beyond what you want to believe.

Now 14 seconds has been known for years:

WTC 2: www.911myths.com...

Wtc 7: www.youtube.com...

Get your stop watch, then concede you are wrong.



Um, this is a joke, right? The first video is impossible to time, since the video cuts away at the end, and second video.... well, that makes the debunkers movement look really foolish.
That BBC clip is classic! I must admit that i hadn't seen that one before, so thank you for that sparkling gem of the truthers movement. It's right up there with this one in showing the news media's complicity in the coverup:

BBC WT7 collapse before it happened

In yours, they claim that it is going to collapse? In mine, they claim that it already had collapsed? How the hell did they know that it was going to be demolished? Answer: it was an obviously rigged demolition. Thanks for bolstering the truth movement.


Then there's this classic gem: Larry Silverstein

Of course, Silverstein uses classic demolition industry lingo when he said that he told them to "pull it"... not once, but twice in this segment. Then he states that they watched the collapse. This, the visual evidence, and the video segment that you provided above is overwhelming evidence that WT7 was a controlled demo.

I finally get you to put up something... anything, and that thing, which you put up actually bolsters my case. Great job JT! You might make a truther yet.


FYI, I did time one of the towers and it came out at around 10 seconds.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by HothSnake]

[edit on 14-8-2009 by HothSnake]

[edit on 14-8-2009 by HothSnake]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by HothSnake

What's your source for this? Can you back up your claims? I have provided you several links and video sources for my contention of just over 9 seconds, if you had bothered to follow them.


But you never bother to research beyond what you want to believe.

Now 14 seconds has been known for years:

WTC 2: www.911myths.com...

Wtc 7: www.youtube.com...

Get your stop watch, then concede you are wrong.



Um, this is a joke, right?


The joke's always on you, Hoth Snake.


The first video is impossible to time, since the video cuts away at the end, and second video....


Impossible to time? Stop being silly. One can easily see the collapse progression and hear the collapse after the last frame in which the collapse is seen.

Here is one of the last frames showing the collapse. At 12 seconds into the collapse the collapse front of WTC 2 has not even reached the level of the top of the adjacent Marriot Hotel, itself a 22 story structure:





That BBC clip is classic! I must admit that i hadn't seen that one before,...


I am not surprised. Your 911 "Truth" Movement has done everything to keep that video from you knowing you wouldn't do any research on your own. Why do you think 9/11 Truthers are particularly gullible?

So let's show you frames from the CBS video instead:



Gosh.

Frankly, I don't know why you are posting here, HothSnake. You never can get your facts straight.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ah well we got NISTs report revised and IMHO thats more than you'll ever do with your life. I know they say attack the post and not the poster but The first part of my statement is fact and the second part is opinion based with MUCH evidence.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ah well we got NISTs report revised and IMHO thats more than you'll ever do with your life. I know they say attack the post and not the poster but The first part of my statement is fact and the second part is opinion based with MUCH evidence.


You can spin all you want. But 8 years of it has gotten you nowhere and you just languish here doing nothing but getting angry for being called out on it.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Now it is getting really hard to take you serious JT. You completely ignore my sources and misquote me, while dodging every question, then you post irrelevant BS like your 14 seconds crap? Are you serious? Is this all that you've got? You dodge evidence and questions with this pathetic side show? What does it matter? 14 seconds, ten seconds? Either way it is a ridiculously little amount of time for a 110 story steel framed, concrete reinforced building to be pulverized into dust. I've seen estimates as high as over a minute for it to happen without any explosives, and I think that that is a very conservative assessment. You're purposefully splitting hairs over irrelevant crap, while ignoring the bulk of the evidence.

I am convinced that either you're a kid, possibly still in grade school, or you're a government goon of some kind. Either way you utilize cheap debating tactics with smoke and mirrors, while clearly avoiding the truth at all cost. Your obvious goal is deflection and misdirection, as opposed to an honest search for the truth.

What pulverized both giant steel, concrete reinforced cores to dust in a matter of seconds? What could have done that? Fire on the top floors? I don't think so. So, honestly, without any more tricks and an honest answer, if that is possible from you: what caused this?

Maybe I should call your mommy and daddy and let them know what you are doing with your free time. Maybe they can get an honest answer out of you?


In the meantime, educate yourself... I have proven my case, and I'm still waiting for you to prove yours. Here's a nice video for you to educate yourself with.

video.google.com... ay?docid=4026073566596731782&ei=OGGESqHUAY7EqgKq-5ShBA&q=Improbable+collapse&hl=en



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


In all honesty jthomas has never been a sincere poster. And by that I mean he has never really had an apparent desire to respond to anything new, unless it's a story about Judy Wood. He's been ever since I can remember, so at least a few years I have been familiar with his posts. If you go back and look through posts you would find I have asked him at least 10 or 15 times to show me what evidence he bases his confidence on from the NIST report or any other, but he has never once responded with anything but sarcasm and other cop-outs. He has so much faith in his government apparently, that is why he won't bother to argue about trivial details he must consider unimportant to anything. Either that or he is paid to post the same thread about Judy Wood twice in two weeks, but I never like accusing people of such dirtiness as that so I will refrain.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yeah, I've noticed that he really isn't being honest at all. In fact, it is almost like he is arguing with what his own eyes have seen, because that is his job or something. He's almost as bad as the MSM with his cheap deflection tactics, while refusing any real honest debate.

By the way, NIST's official collapse time figure is 11 seconds, which JT seems to be in stark contrast to... not that it matters anyhow, just thought that i would prove him wrong again. It's really not all that hard.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by HothSnake]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join