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.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 22
21
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
NIST was in charge of the investigation of the collapses of the WTC towers not the 9/11 Commission. Neither stated there was "molten steel" prior to the collapses as you claim

I directly quoted the 911 commision report stating that there was molten steel. You are in denial, like you always claim 'truthers' are. You can talk all the smack you want but I quoted it directly and its there for everyone to see.


Its plain as day in text in front of you. You can try to spin it any way you like but the facts are laid on the table for everyone to see.


You have painted yourself in a corner again. Your claim is laughable and you know full well that NO ONE claims that the steel melted before the collapses. And as you well know. Brian Dunning is speaking about the conditions BEFORE the collapse. It is in fact, quite the opposite, so why do you fib about it, jprohet?

What claim is laughable? Please illustrate the claim I have made that is laughable. Show me what I said that is incorrect. I dare you. You won't be able to however because of your complete ignorance. I did not fib, I cited the 911 commision report directly. if you don't believe the report thats fine with me. It too bad that you didn't read the report yet continually make references to it taken out of context.


13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

I did not cite NIST

...

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

I did not cite NIST

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

I did not cite NIST


NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

I did not cite NIST

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

I did not cite NIST


wtc.nist.gov...


So much for your misrepresentations, jphrophet420

I cited your source, skeptiod.com, and my source, the 911 commission report. While the NIST report may differ from NIST, I could care less. The claim was not mine, it was the 911 commsion reports, and is therefore not a misrepresentation.


You have lost this debate hands down good sir, it was a pleasure pwning you.


Once again, I showed your intellectual dishonesty and easily refuted your claims. Not ONCE have you been able to support a claim about which I've called you on the carpet.

Once again, the claim I made was from the 911 commision report, and not my own claim. If you have refuted it good for you, you just put a hole in the OS. Its almost too bad you can't see it. The Monty Python skit "None shall pass" comes to mind.


See you in another thread, where you'll create more truthers out of people who were previously on the fence.


Fortunately we have your example of intellectual dishonesty and attempted deception right in this post and in this thread. You've completely lost.

inellectual dishonesty indeed. Ill see you at the drive thru later when I order a mcdouble




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
NIST was in charge of the investigation of the collapses of the WTC towers not the 9/11 Commission. Neither stated there was "molten steel" prior to the collapses as you claim

I directly quoted the 911 commision report stating that there was molten steel. You are in denial, like you always claim 'truthers' are. You can talk all the smack you want but I quoted it directly and its there for everyone to see.


I already pointed out your attempted deception of trying to use claims of molten steel after the collapses as claims of "molten steel" before the collapses is intellectually dishonest.

Your outburst trying to maintain your attempted deception is a perfect example of the deceit of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

You don't fool anyone, jprophet420, and you should apologize.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


...trying to use claims of molten steel after the collapses as claims of "molten steel" before the collapses...

Please show me where I said that. If you can quote me I'll quit ATS forever.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


...trying to use claims of molten steel after the collapses as claims of "molten steel" before the collapses...

Please show me where I said that. If you can quote me I'll quit ATS forever.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jprophet420]


You know what the podcast was about: Before the collapses.

You know what the quote from the 9/11 Commission was about: After the collapses.

JT: "If you can't address the subject matter of the podcast, the fact that it didn't require that fire melt steel for the towers to collapse, don't bother."

JProphet: "Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not."

I look forward to you upholding your promise to quit, jprophet420.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


...trying to use claims of molten steel after the collapses as claims of "molten steel" before the collapses...

Please show me where I said that. If you can quote me I'll quit ATS forever.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jprophet420]


You know what the podcast was about: Before the collapses.

You know what the quote from the 9/11 Commission was about: After the collapses.

JT: "If you can't address the subject matter of the podcast, the fact that it didn't require that fire melt steel for the towers to collapse, don't bother."

JProphet: "Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not."

I look forward to you upholding your promise to quit, jprophet420.


I said I would quit if you could show me where I stated it, not where you inferred it.

And you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Look at this fodder from your source, Its a joke:

Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."


Of course it is implied that he also means in the aftermath of a fire, in the inspection. It would not be possible for the steel to be liquified and him to be 'in' the fire observing liquid steel. If you think that he meant that he was in an ongoing fire inspecting the steel beams it would seem you only have selevtive powers of inference. Its obvious that you are capable of doing so as you were able to point it out in my quoting of the 911 commission report. If you can only do it in one direction it simply proves that your ignorance is intentional.


One tactic used by conspiracy theorists that has frustrated engineers is their use of a straw man argument, which is where you repeat your opponent's position and carefully reframe it to be weaker and obviously false. Here, the conspiracy theorists have reframed the engineers' position as stating that the World Trade Center fire melted the steel. This is not true, no such claim has been made, as actual melting was neither necessary for the collapse nor possible with the amount of heat that was available.

Let's review the numbers one more time, if you're not already sick of hearing this over the past six years. Steel melts, or liquefies, at 2750°F. Let's take that off the table, because nobody claims that it got that hot, and it wasn't what happened


The world trade center fire certainly melted steel. It did get that hot, and it was what happened. If he means it never happened before the collapse he should say so.

The reason this is important is because even after the collapse there would have to be a fuel source.


temperatures preceding the collapse reached a maximum of 1832°F,



We know that steel melts at 2750°F



Jet fuel burns at up to 1500°F


There was liquid steel present after the collapse.

Therefore the temperature was greater than 2750°F. Therefore there was another energy source present besides jet fuel and office equipment.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


...trying to use claims of molten steel after the collapses as claims of "molten steel" before the collapses...

Please show me where I said that. If you can quote me I'll quit ATS forever.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jprophet420]


You know what the podcast was about: Before the collapses.

You know what the quote from the 9/11 Commission was about: After the collapses.

JT: "If you can't address the subject matter of the podcast, the fact that it didn't require that fire melt steel for the towers to collapse, don't bother."

JProphet: "Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not."

I look forward to you upholding your promise to quit, jprophet420.


I said I would quit if you could show me where I stated it, not where you inferred it.


You stated it in direct response to me. There is no other one than YOU who stated it. I repeat:

JProphet: "Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not."

"MY" report - the Podcast - ONLY deals with before the collapses. YOU know that.

You don't dissemble well, jphrophet420.

Now, stick to your your promise to leave ATS.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Well mayvbe you should learn how to comprehend what is written then, instead of taking what you want out of it like a typical tin foil conspiracy theorist. Thats a form of denial, your favorite passtime.

And again I quoted a piece of your artice that deals with after the fire:


Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



That's a classic evasion of your 9/11 Denial Movement. Declare it "disinformation" or the "Official Story" and relieve yourself of having to deal with facts, evidence, science, and logic.


EXACTLY, what you do every time someone gives you scientific proof that the 911 OS is a lie. POT CALLING KETTEL!


Continue to wallow proudly in ignorance, impressme.


One only needs to read your posts to know who is wallowing in ignorance and hate. Prove me wrong?


[edit on 7-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Well mayvbe you should learn how to comprehend what is written then, instead of taking what you want out of it like a typical tin foil conspiracy theorist. Thats a form of denial, your favorite passtime.

And again I quoted a piece of your artice that deals with after the fire:


Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."



In reference to steel melting before the collapses - the specific subject matter of the podcast: "What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

You really do not dissemble well at all, jprophet420. You just keep blowing smoke and demonstrating you can't own up to your attempted deception.

Give it up.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You really LOVE strawman arguments.


You are the one that keeps changing the subject and avoiding the questions asked of you. You use insults and deflection but nothing born out of reality.

That's the only defense you can come up with. You just can't admit that none of us depend on "stories". You've been so indoctrinated in the "official story" canard that you worship it on your knees. You can't STAND evidence.



OK, I will ask you again. This seems to be really difficult for you since I have asked about 10 times already. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT THEN?????

If the term "official story" bothers you so much, then please won't you tell us what you want to call the story about hijackers from the middle east on a jihad? That is the story our government told us. That makes it the official story in my book but please, tell us what it says in your book.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it sad that 9/11 Truthers are so taken in with their own illogical claims that none of you can understood that none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say about the events of 9/11 for us to know what happened on that day?

But you don't want to know that and refuse to listen. And you wonder why you get the derision you earned?




So we should not listen to the government? You believe they shot down a plane and lied about it and your solution is to offer that there is no need to listen to them anyway?????? If our government murdered innocent civillians and lied about it, it seems to me that what they have to say is worth hearing.

Let me ask this...who should we listen to then? Who is so trustworthy that you take their word for what happened on 9/11?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it sad that 9/11 Truthers are so taken in with their own illogical claims that none of you can understood that none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say about the events of 9/11 for us to know what happened on that day?

But you don't want to know that and refuse to listen. And you wonder why you get the derision you earned?




So we should not listen to the government? You believe they shot down a plane and lied about it and your solution is to offer that there is no need to listen to them anyway?????? If our government murdered innocent civillians and lied about it, it seems to me that what they have to say is worth hearing.

Let me ask this...who should we listen to then? Who is so trustworthy that you take their word for what happened on 9/11?


Why do you have such trouble understanding what I wrote?

Try again. Read carefully.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Why do you have such trouble understanding what I wrote?

Try again. Read carefully.


Hmmmm. Good question. My guess is that I have understood and responded to everything you have written just fine. The problem is that you just whip this out when you have no argument to make. I asked you a question. I answered all yours but when I pose one to you, you whip this out.

Ok, lets call me on it. What is it that I did not understand???? Point me to the post, show me the quotes, help me understand.

Or, just tell me why you are even here. Either/or.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ahhh Thomas my good friend. So good to see you here. I see you play this "deaf/dumb/blind" game with more than just me. I also see you were asked a direct question and avoided it as you always seem to do. I think it is a good question for you and all OSers. I will repeat if for you


Let me ask this...who should we listen to then? Who is so trustworthy that you take their word for what happened on 9/11?
-evil incarnate.


I am curious who it is that I should turn my ear to when it comes to this? Internet desk experts? The government? The organizations that the government hires to conclude what they were told to conclude? Who?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I am afraid you will not get an answer for that question. You may as well be talking to a rock. Some people on here have their own agendas and we know the truth is not one of them as we can clearly tell by reading their posts.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ahhh Thomas my good friend. So good to see you here. I see you play this "deaf/dumb/blind" game with more than just me. I also see you were asked a direct question and avoided it as you always seem to do. I think it is a good question for you and all OSers. I will repeat if for you


Let me ask this...who should we listen to then? Who is so trustworthy that you take their word for what happened on 9/11?
-evil incarnate.


I am curious who it is that I should turn my ear to when it comes to this? Internet desk experts? The government? The organizations that the government hires to conclude what they were told to conclude? Who?


I rely on the evidence you pretend does not exist. That would be your problem. The evidence, if you chose to pay attention to it, is independent of what anyone says or doesn't say about it. That fact never penetrates truther brains.

And please demonstrate your claim: "The organizations that the government hires to conclude what they were told to conclude?"

And dispense with your standard evasion that you didn't make that claim.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

If the term "official story" bothers you so much, then please won't you tell us what you want to call the story about hijackers from the middle east on a jihad? That is the story our government told us. That makes it the official story in my book but please, tell us what it says in your book.


How many times do I have to repeat my answer and listen to you pretend you can't read?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I rely on the evidence you pretend does not exist.


That is not very helpful now is it. You want me to know the truth, right?
Why would you not tell me what evidence and where it may be found.
Will you if I ask real nice?


That would be your problem. The evidence, if you chose to pay attention to it, is independent of what anyone says or doesn't say about it. That fact never penetrates truther brains.
Yeah, them truthers are all a bunch of nuts anyway. They are unpatriotic retards. So um...now that I am on your side, will you show me this evidence?


And please demonstrate your claim: "The organizations that the government hires to conclude what they were told to conclude?"


NIST, FEMA, 9/11 COMMISSION.


And dispense with your standard evasion that you didn't make that claim.


Wow. That really hurts. Calling me out on the carpet like this and all. I should really really hate myself. I should put myself through every manner of physical and emotional punishment. I should hide from the world, never to cause anyone harm again. I mean really...making a claim and then not backing it up. That is the lowest kind of scum there is.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


How many times do I have to repeat my answer and listen to you pretend you can't read?



While you are helping me out with that evidence, could you please show us where this "answer" is. Quite a few of us would really appreciate a link or description or just repeating it. The question was - what do you want to call the story that the president told us about 9/11?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Satisfying the conditions for my OP, we have GenRadek.

In this current thread we see how GenRadek has made a false claim of association about me that he will not be able to support:

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah yes tezz, and nearly 200 eyewitnesses see the plane crash into the Pentagon, including the handpicked "stars" for CIT, all confirm it slammed into the Pentagon. But to you and CIT it must be false.


It is typically poor form that GenRadek, an official government story believer, wants to falsely include me with his favourite truther beliefs.

Thanks for proving my OP true, GenRadek. You've joined some select company with your false claim about me.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join