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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
what about reasonable doubt? is that evidence? because they can use against you and i, why not against them? theres a lot of reasonable doubt.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The bottom line to all of 911 is this:

BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.


That is not how science works in a case like this.

For starters no one will ever have 100% of the facts. Millions of tons of debris, the largest structures ever built collapsing, hundreds offices and contents destroyed, thousands killed. This was by far the most massive forensic study ever done. There will always be some unexplained anomalies with the sheer magnitude of elements.

But the vast majority of relevant questions have been addressed and thousands of experts worldwide have concured on the conclusions.

Truthers will continue to try to cast doubt which is a reasonable position.

But after 8 years we still have just endless claims of evidence but no one wants to put together a credible all-encompassing alternative scenario.

The accusation is the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong. So prove it.

The Truther Movement seems to have a lot of loose notes. Amateur websites, videos, messages on forums. But where is their paperwork? The solid documentation, assembled material evidence, validated testimony, credible citations, published papers in professional peer review journals? These would form the minimal basis for convincing an official body to open a new formal review.

They’re not there and it looks they never will be at this rate.

M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
at this rate ill settle for a sincere apology by bush. i think his reaction that day is part of the reason why people cant believe "official story" because he acted like such a putts.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
at this rate ill settle for a sincere apology by bush. i think his reaction that day is part of the reason why people cant believe "official story" because he acted like such a putts.


Bush personally is guilty of conflict of interest, at the very least. Probably more. He and the gang ixnayed implicating the Saudis and Pakistan with 9/11. That's the big story. The Saudis have put a steel trap muzzle on this getting into the press, suppressing dozens of books and articles through legal intimidation.

The controlled demolition theory is Kiddie Konspiracy used as a deflection from the real issues. Chomsky has elaborated on this a number of times.

Mike

[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The controlled demolition theory is Kiddie Konspiracy used as a deflection from the real issues.


Is this what you call debating someone with facts/evidence/logic?

I'm going to keep looking out for where the facts or evidence are in your posts, that support the enormous number of opinions you espouse. So maybe you can help me out by making them easier to find? (By actually adding some to your posts?)



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
The controlled demolition theory is Kiddie Konspiracy used as a deflection from the real issues.


Is this what you call debating someone with facts/evidence/logic?

I'm going to keep looking out for where the facts or evidence are in your posts, that support the enormous number of opinions you espouse. So maybe you can help me out by making them easier to find? (By actually adding some to your posts?)


Check the archives with the Search function. My small contributions, mostly links, are ther and the I massive ones of others are all there to read. 95% of the time dismissed as disinfo or some minor detail -or just ignored. Your favourite method of avoiding what conflicts with your chosen conclusions.

I don't retype a few thousnad words every time someone says "show me your evidence."

Show me your unambiguous hard evidence evidence there was a controlled demolition. Right now.

Mike



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by jprophet420
The bottom line to all of 911 is this:

BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.


That is not how science works in a case like this.

For starters no one will ever have 100% of the facts. Millions of tons of debris, the largest structures ever built collapsing, hundreds offices and contents destroyed, thousands killed. This was by far the most massive forensic study ever done. There will always be some unexplained anomalies with the sheer magnitude of elements.

But the vast majority of relevant questions have been addressed and thousands of experts worldwide have concured on the conclusions.

Truthers will continue to try to cast doubt which is a reasonable position.

But after 8 years we still have just endless claims of evidence but no one wants to put together a credible all-encompassing alternative scenario.

The accusation is the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong. So prove it.

The Truther Movement seems to have a lot of loose notes. Amateur websites, videos, messages on forums. But where is their paperwork? The solid documentation, assembled material evidence, validated testimony, credible citations, published papers in professional peer review journals? These would form the minimal basis for convincing an official body to open a new formal review.

They’re not there and it looks they never will be at this rate.

M





The vast majority of questions have not been answered. You have not answered any. You constantly spin the posts of others without a definitive bit of fact. Science is not fact. Science can be taken into consideration in a court of law. Where it can be cross examined. The folks that oppose the bunk the nat geo spews is not allowed in to the testimony of any court. There in lies the problem. Only an Anti-American would defend any position that prevents Americans from Jurisprudence. Forget about the jury being "still out' it was never invited in to a trial that has never happened. YET
You bring nothing to the table here m. Well except a deep disrespect of the USA and others here that defend the US Constitution. IMO.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Check the archives with the Search function. My small contributions, mostly links


What you "contribute" here is more than "mostly links."

If I searched through your posts, I would read 1000 posts of insults and garbage before I would find anything of any value even within its own context.

You literally spend hundreds of posts arguing and insulting and bickering but every time I ask for some kind of fact or evidence to SUPPORT your opinions you tell me to use the search bar. Every single time, you tell me that. If I searched, I would only find those posts. Again. God forbid 1 in 5 posts or even 1 in 10 have any verified and objective data in them. God forbid it. I would only find much more of the same. Literally. Because it's all you post. For anyone who actually is interested in debating (ie WITH FACTS), all you do is take up thread space and take attention away from any debunker who DOES want to try to use facts and data. If you are trying to represent people who believe the OS then you are only doing yourself harm. You obviously are not familiar with the raw data yourself because you never get within 20 feet of it. You make me miss HowardRoark.

Didn't see any facts to support your opinions in that post, either...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply by bsbray11

There's a regular contributor to this forum who supplies solid scientific data consistency who you put on Ignore. Maybe because he's demonstrated Jones's alleged thermite is actually primer paint.

Yet you read my posts and complain about them.

This is about your attention seeking and control. Not science.

Go to one of a hundred science forums online if you don't find what you read here.

Difference is they have professional who know what they're talking about. Not people with little scientific knowledge who can be blown away with anty scientific doubletalk form websites videos and the people like yourself.

Good luck


M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I just took pteridine off of ignore so you can stop making that stupid excuse that has absolutely nothing to do with YOU.

Seriously, why else would you post here but to feed your ego when you don't even bother to contribute actual information/data/evidence? Ok stop. Breathe. Re-read and think. You admit yourself you are not interested in scientific debates. Why do you post here?!?!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I just took pteridine off of ignore so you can stop making that stupid excuse that has absolutely nothing to do with YOU.

Seriously, why else would you post here but to feed your ego when you don't even bother to contribute actual information/data/evidence? Ok stop. Breathe. Re-read and think. You admit yourself you are not interested in scientific debates. Why do you post here?!?!


I don't have to supply reasons for posting here.

At first I came to see how much merit there was to claims of things like controlled demolition. I got the answer.

I also got to see a level of manipulation and distortion of information I'd never imagined. It made me furious to see the malign perpetration of outright lies being passed on to the uneducated, the ill-informed, kids too young to differentiate fact from someone's agendas or delusions.

90% of the people reading messages on this thread we will never hear from. A lot are young and impressionable. They should not be growing up believing an perpetuating the self-serving misinformation that is so often spread around.

There are many serious issues and injustices that need addressing. As Chomsky points out, needed activism energy and resources are being diverted to frivolous conspiracy theories. In the process those people, governments, and agencies that pose a peril to all our liberites are encouraged to carry on without fear of retribution.

Hope you get the drift.

Mike



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Now that you 'have your answer', you're not going to explain to us why you linger behind to constantly mock and deride professional scientists? Explain to us what grim satisfaction you get out of it?

Btw, I notice you never applied a skeptical thought to NIST or FEMA. Is that because you don't understand their reports? Is that also why you never want to talk about their "science"?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Now that you 'have your answer', you're not going to explain to us why you linger behind to constantly mock and deride professional scientists? Explain to us what grim satisfaction you get out of it?

Btw, I notice you never applied a skeptical thought to NIST or FEMA. Is that because you don't understand their reports? Is that also why you never want to talk about their "science"?


I don't mock and deride professional scientists. I have worked with many and am in regular communication with dozens, I just despise the tiny handful of opportunists like Jones, Harrit, Gage, various nameless lab mangers, trying to make a quick buck off those in conspiracy thrall. They may have gotten their various degrees somewhere but are not acting in a professional manner. There's a good reason why they operate in isolation from their respective communities.

Science is to move forward with new information not disseminate misinformation.

NIST and FEMA have their shortcomings as even their contributors will attest to. A lot of data was processed and with some observed phenomena for there will never be definitive answers. At this point most of the errors are in fine point aspects where my cursory knowledge can add little. I leave that to the professionals.

Just as I don't analyze my haemoglobin count and trust my doctor's assessment. But if we was pushing some health cure for self gain, I would not.

I again recommend a discussion group of, say, metallurgists or thermodynamics specialists for your unresolved questions.

Mike



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Check the archives with the Search function. My small contributions, mostly links, are ther and the I massive ones of others are all there to read. 95% of the time dismissed as disinfo or some minor detail -or just ignored. Your favourite method of avoiding what conflicts with your chosen conclusions.


Do not drink and type.


I don't retype a few thousnad words every time someone says "show me your evidence."

Show me your unambiguous hard evidence evidence there was a controlled demolition. Right now.

Mike



Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. (Show me) right now. I just hate a sentence fragment.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon.


You just joined yesterday. Before signing up, did you spend a few months perusing all of the data, links, pictures, discussions, etc here on ATS??

Your request has been supplied here, countless times.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by Lillydale


Do not drink and type.


Good advice.

Never drink when you drive. You might spill it.


Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. (Show me) right now. I just hate a sentence fragment.


I don't own evidence. I also don't supply on demand what is easily accessible all on the Net.

I've seen dozens of indepth sites, not counting Truther video hawking ones.

This one I use as it's arranged chronologically and cross-indexed. Unofficial, open source w/ proper citations from credible sources, pics. Check the comments sections for updates.


www.historycommons.org...


Click on sub-heading: Flight AA 77 (url too long to include)

Happy reading. Truth is stranger than fiction.


Mike



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't mock and deride professional scientists. I have worked with many and am in regular communication with dozens, I just despise the tiny handful of opportunists like Jones, Harrit, Gage, various nameless lab mangers, trying to make a quick buck off those in conspiracy thrall. They may have gotten their various degrees somewhere but are not acting in a professional manner.


Ok, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If I had room in my signature, I would put this there with this post to serve as an endless example.

I don't take this rant you just made seriously in the least. Because you don't even want to talk about the technical aspects of their work and you have no idea what you are talking about when you try to. So unless you just don't care to be misinformed, why can't you just stick to the facts, and avoid these rants?

You don't understand the NIST report. They did NOT determine everything to within a minutia of a margin of error. Not even close. They carried on the hypothesis that had already existed since 2001 and tried to give it legs to stand on. This is something we can actually talk about, that I would LOVE to talk about with you, if you are up for LEARNING about the issues I am talking about for yourself.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't understand the NIST report. They did NOT determine everything to within a minutia of a margin of error. Not even close. They carried on the hypothesis that had already existed since 2001 and tried to give it legs to stand on. This is something we can actually talk about, that I would LOVE to talk about with you, if you are up for LEARNING about the issues I am talking about for yourself.


I read about 50,000 words a day depending on work I'm doing. I read over the NIST and FEMA material when they became available focusing on the questions I had. I have no reason to keep referring to them, but have 5 or 6 people I know who will give me their professional opinion on matters they know or care about.

Why don't you list the issues you have. If it's about the famous Eutectic reaction, I think the contributor Genradek provided as clear an understanding as anyone. Different steel beams were subjected to a variety of extreme temperatures and chemical contacts. And many were bathed in a potent chemical 'soup' for days and weeks. So it's hard to make judgements on noted anomalies and be all-encompassing.

But I have seen these issues discussed on a couple scince forums I have visited. I don't know why you don't check these out if you're unsatisfied with the level of scientific discourse you see here.

Is it the need for an audience? Just wondering.


M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I read about 50,000 words a day depending on work I'm doing. I read over the NIST and FEMA material when they became available focusing on the questions I had. I have no reason to keep referring to them, but have 5 or 6 people I know who will give me their professional opinion on matters they know or care about.


I know people, too, and I use my own head, and the members Valhall and Griff are both professional engineers that read the report and took issue with it, that offered their names and credentials for anyone looking for verify them. There is not a consensus here mmiichael, and no, not every person with a problem publishes a freaking paper. "Why?" is not a rebuttal to that fact.


Why don't you list the issues you have. If it's about the famous Eutectic reaction, I think the contributor Genradek provided as clear an understanding as anyone. Different steel beams were subjected to a variety of extreme temperatures and chemical contacts.


So what? How does that answer any of the questions about how the given material formed on the columns? It's hard for you to answer, not for me. Really you have no answer.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon.


You just joined yesterday. Before signing up, did you spend a few months perusing all of the data, links, pictures, discussions, etc here on ATS??

Your request has been supplied here, countless times.


Interesting how every request for this evidence is so conveniently avoided. Why did you even bother to post? Look at what you wrote - NOTHING.

Do not concern yourself with my sign-up date, ok. That does not answer the question, does it? Nope. If you want to start a thread all about me, then I would be thrilled to help you out there, otherwise, try not to worry about when I signed up. I could have been lurking here for years. I could be an old member with a new account. I might have just learned to read yesterday. No matter what the circumstance, I asked for specific evidence. Either provide it, or reply to someone else with your pointless personal observations.




top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join