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.

 

My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Therefore, based on the above facts and since fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to globally collapse in history, fire and the plane impacts are completely irrelevant as the cause of the demise of the twin towers.


Your whole argument presented comes down to the buildings not collapsing because they were built to withstand the impact of fuel laden planes.

Well they did collapse. Just as cars designed to withstand impacts end up with the occupants, dead, nuclear reactors designed not to be subject to uncontrolled reaction do go out of control, airplanes designed to withstand any weather conditions crash. Dams designed not to burst do burst.
Things that aren't supposed to happen, can't happen - do happen.

The people who designed the WTC so that it would resist plane impacts did not anticipate every possible contingency. We know that now.

Do you actually think thousands of professional worldwide haven't examined the data and documentation? Involved professionals and hobbyists alike?

Can anyone seriously think even the most malign government backed perpetrators would take the huge risk of planting explosives to bring down buildings that were already destroyed?

No one in 8 years has provided anything remotely resembling a credible scenario of materials, required wiring, rigging, sequencing of explosions.
Or any credible forensic evidence.

Thousands of demolition experts have looked at the evidence, including the nature of the collapses, the forensic evidence, the complete absense of any indications of explosive charges.

Not one single person has ever come forward claiming knowledge or involvement in planting charges.

A lot of after the fact quarterbacking, even professional design firms like the one you quote may try to claim otherwise. Yet not one document has ever emerged outlining a credible detailed scenario of controlled demolition. Not one person has ever been named, not one scrap of paper showing anything.

But mountains of speculation.

Mike




[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Did you see the second link that says INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER CONFIRMS ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL?

It's been confirmed by independent people. That means it's repeatable. That means it's provable. Your blatant ignorance and denial is noted.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Sorry, but I'll take the word of the chief structural engineer of the WTC, the witnesses (civillian and first responder), and all other available evidence that all contradicts anything you have to say.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The independent researcher, a member of one of the lesser truther organizations, merely confirmed the elemental composition using SEM and EDAX. He did not do the DSC and has no idea how much energy would be released, if any. Of course, he is biased and predisposed to discovering thermitic materials, so I am sure he will try his best to make it happen. As of yet, nothing was proved, other than his paint chip looks like Jones' paint chip in the SEM.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Karl Marx is central to the entire 911 situation and most every thing back to the murder of JFK. Take it overseas to the murder of Czar Nikolai and the Bolsheviks.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by pteridine
 


Did you see the second link that says INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER CONFIRMS ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL?

It's been confirmed by independent people. That means it's repeatable. That means it's provable. Your blatant ignorance and denial is noted.


Thermite is not an explosive. The tested millimeter thin chips Jones claims are thermitic would do little more than warm up steel a few degrees.

Jones neglected proper procedures or controls in his tests immediately bringing them into doubt. Those who have analyzed his results have shown his samples are red oxide primer paint - nothing else.

No credible peer review scientific journal would publish his work. They appeared in a Dubai based vanity publication. They publish anything for an $800 fee - even computer generated random nonsense papers - as has been shown.

Jone and Harrit have control of all samples. There is no way of knowing if they have been contaminated or even their authenticity.
They have created a situation where they can claim anything they want. The same for the tests done by their confederates

Jones-Harrit are claiming a thermitic reaction, but have admittedly been unable to show anything resembling the energy yield required for an effective explosion or even the ability to melt steel as they try to imply.

It is bogus razzle dazzle science designed to impress Truthers. Nothing more. Online are dozens chemists, thermodynamics and demolition experts have thoroughly debunked the tests. Check out Italian thermodynamics specialist Enrico Manieri's site. It goes into detail.

Your childishness and gullibility are noted.

Mike


[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Some of your arguments are sound, some are not.

I agree the government knew, the Saudis and Pakistanis financed, ect. However, I must disagree that fuel fed fires burned hot enough to weaken enough steel and collapse the buildings. Even NIST and FEMA estimates, technically, do not really support fire hot enough to do the necessary structure wide weakening and collapse.

However, the collapse of the WTC and the question of controlled demolition are not central to my own arguments of government complicity/involvement in the attacks, and there are tons of threads that go into the whole debate of WTC collapse. Its not central, only a curious question mark in the whole puzzle.

Regardless, I agree that debates of missles/no planes hitting Pentagon or WTC do kinda kill any serious movement for the truth.





Do not be fooled by mumbo jumbo double talk. Just sayin. If you walk the fence on the 911 issues please research the data available. Make sure whoever says something, backs it up with a statement and a signature.
That way you can at least have a thread of hope that it is somewhat factual. Before you discount a theory check out what is technically available and possible to the POWERS that be.
Remember most people think the US landed people on the moon 40 years ago. Pretty high tech then eehh. This is not a laughing matter as some detractors revel in. Just sayin.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by pteridine
 


Did you see the second link that says INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER CONFIRMS ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL?

It's been confirmed by independent people. That means it's repeatable. That means it's provable. Your blatant ignorance and denial is noted.





Independent, says who? What are their credentials? How can they be independent if they're compleletely reliant on Jones-Harrit for their sampling. Some guy named Belisle, a self-proclaimed Truther yesman is independent verification? This is a joke? Right?

You won't understand it, I'm sure, but this is Forensic testing. That means they have to divide the same samples into batches and do their tests simultaneously. Double Blind. Wasn't done.

Jones has a history of these kinds of media attention seeking pseudoscientific stunts. The other supposed signers of the paper with Harrit turn out to be lab managers, including his own - and a water tester.

It's rigged. The scientific community is collectively smart enough to see through all this.

That's why no credible journal would publish it, though something solid would be great publicity.

Do proper research - which does not mean Googling Truther sites.

Ease up on the foaming at the mouth while you're at it.


Mike



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
That's why no credible journal would publish it, though something solid would be great publicity.


This is the funniest statement in your last post. If something "solid" was published, it would only be "solid" until someone like you took 1 look at it, saw what it said, and immediately started looking for a way to trash its authors and/or publishers. In other words, no science whatsoever indicating 9/11 was an inside job would be "solid" to you because you have very strong opinions already. No one believes you when you say you're open-minded, and then attack any one of us with a string of insults indiscriminately. You said yourself you don't even bother posting science anymore. You're no different than a cheerleader, except without the positive attitude. That's what you do here. We will NEVER have solid evidence according to you, whether it is really scientific or not. There can always be more trash for you to talk.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




Couldn't say it better myself. Not even close.
Beefcake's link to Marx backs up a lot of the psychology of 911.
BS debunkers won't touch it. oooooo

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
That's why no credible journal would publish it, though something solid would be great publicity.


This is the funniest statement in your last post. If something "solid" was published, it would only be "solid" until someone like you took 1 look at it, saw what it said, and immediately started looking for a way to trash its authors and/or publishers. In other words, no science whatsoever indicating 9/11 was an inside job would be "solid" to you because you have very strong opinions already. No one believes you when you say you're open-minded, and then attack any one of us with a string of insults indiscriminately. You said yourself you don't even bother posting science anymore. You're no different than a cheerleader, except without the positive attitude. That's what you do here. We will NEVER have solid evidence according to you, whether it is really scientific or not. There can always be more trash for you to talk.


The Search Function on ATS provides endless pages of scientific data. Either put forward by contributors, summarized, or linked to outside sources. People like yourself generally dismiss what conflicts with what you want to hear. It gets pointless after a while. Typing practice I don't need.

After 8 years we are going by the most solid evidence we have. This is the case in science, history, any discipline. So far what we have answers maybe 95% of the questions. So far no conflicting documentation of any weight or crediblity even comes close.

People who distrust the American government, it's allies, and it's agencies can spend the rest of their lives going over the gathered information and combined intelligence of a dozen countries. That's where you'll find the final secrets of who knew about the attacks on the US.

The controlled demolition scenario lacks substantiation and defies logic. I gain nothing by noting that. If one of Dick Cheney's companies planted explosives and Mossad agents set them off, it's no skin off my nose.

But there is zero hard evidence or testimony to show anything like that ever happened.

Because a few scuzzy opportunists like Steven Jones make a career out of their pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo is insignificant. But people on conspiracy sites often buy into this stuff. I point out that they've been misled by bad information sources.

If you don't like hearing this, avoid threads where I'm on, don't read my comments, put me on ignore.

Sometimes this stuff can be entertaining, but when you find yourself saying the same things to the same people, with no .way, you just get irritated.


Mike





[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Here's the problem, mmiichael.

You say re-posting evidence is a waste of typing, practice that you don't need.

I say re-posting the same tired insults is an EVEN BIGGER waste of typing (that you don't need?), unless your ego is just that hungry and important to feed to you.

No one wants to log on just to read your bad attitude and string of sarcastic and miserable insults on others' intelligence. If you don't want to post any data or evidence, why do you want to post here at all? Why must it be part of your daily ritual to log on here and insult people?

[edit on 27-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
That's why no credible journal would publish it, though something solid would be great publicity.


This is the funniest statement in your last post. If something "solid" was published, it would only be "solid" until someone like you took 1 look at it, saw what it said, and immediately started looking for a way to trash its authors and/or publishers. In other words, no science whatsoever indicating 9/11 was an inside job would be "solid" to you because you have very strong opinions already. No one believes you when you say you're open-minded, and then attack any one of us with a string of insults indiscriminately. You said yourself you don't even bother posting science anymore. You're no different than a cheerleader, except without the positive attitude. That's what you do here. We will NEVER have solid evidence according to you, whether it is really scientific or not. There can always be more trash for you to talk.


It is unfortunate that you lack the technical training and scientific background to understand how science is done and how it is communicated. I will write this off as inexperience.
You are also assuming that those who have standards in the evidence that they accept are blind to evidence opposing their current position. Perhaps it is because your standards, and the standards of many of your fellow travellers, are low when the evidence seems to support your predetermined conclusions.
As to attacking with a string of insults, you are not innocent of such a tactic. Your arrogance and ignorance is often exposed in your posts and it is certainly difficult for many not to give back what you dish out.
So far, there is no evidence for explosives or thermitic materials because of the botched analysis by Jones, et al. Mark Basile, who repeated or had a trained microscopist repeat the SEM and EDAX analyses of a Jones red-gray chip, is certainly not an "independent reasercher." His affiliation with AE911truth makes his motives and data suspect.
Note that he only repeated the SEM analysis and confirmed that the chip has the same elemental composition as the previous chips and has not repeated the DSC or any other analysis.

There is no proof of thermite by Basile or Jones, et al.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Here's the problem, mmiichael.

You say re-posting evidence is a waste of typing, practice that you don't need.

I say re-posting the same tired insults is an EVEN BIGGER waste of typing (that you don't need?), unless your ego is just that hungry and important to feed to you.

No one wants to log on just to read your bad attitude and string of sarcastic and miserable insults on others' intelligence. If you don't want to post any data or evidence, why do you want to post here at all? Why must it be part of your daily ritual to log on here and insult people?



I risk appearing defensive by replying to your questions. But I respect you intelligence and am always hoping we can exchange insights rather than try to find faults with each other.

I enjoy scientific discussions, but find those trying to drive a point outnumber those wanting to understand more. So you see my more hostile side. I have a great distate for bad science pushed down peoples throats. Part of my personal history.

Why you feel the need to track me is a real question. You challenge me to provide scientific data. It's obvious you want something to shoot down. Maybe pull out your Eutectic Reaction argument.

I notice you put pteridine on ignore, but I find he's one of the few contributors who actually offers solid science. So much for your alleged quest for scientific debate.

Most of us who frequent a site like this are fruitcakes. What kind of people go to bars in bad neighbourhoods where they get into fights?

I came here interested in finding out if there actually was any substance to all the stories about 9/11 floating around. The member have provided the answer resoundingly. It bunk.

But I stick around because it's intersting.


Mike



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
what are you talking about there is no "evidence", it was all sold before the value of steel went down the drain along with other things.

if its not thermite then you guys had very poor graded steel that is very rusty and brittle in the frame of that building ,

heck if the space shuttle goes up in flames and is scattered over a 100 square mile radius they piece it together as much as they can , on the wtc incident they sold every bit and piece they could find before any investigation even had been thougth of...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
what are you talking about there is no "evidence", it was all sold before the value of steel went down the drain along with other things.

if its not thermite then you guys had very poor graded steel that is very rusty and brittle in the frame of that building ,

heck if the space shuttle goes up in flames and is scattered over a 100 square mile radius they piece it together as much as they can , on the wtc incident they sold every bit and piece they could find before any investigation even had been thougth of...



Your statements are conjecture. There is no evidence.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I enjoy scientific discussions, but find those trying to drive a point outnumber those wanting to understand more. So you see my more hostile side.


You have to remember you are discussing a very controversial subject that doesn't consist of a lot of closed answers. It wouldn't matter if you were trying to spoon-feed us knowledge as if you're the only one to possess it, because you will admit yourself there are many unanswered questions that are very relevant to all the things we discuss. And since the people you argue with day in and out want ADDITIONAL research/investigation/etc. done, OF COURSE they are always going to focus on the things you can't answer, and the data you don't have. That is where you're supposed to stop and agree and say, "You know what? We really COULD use some additional data here," and you could EVEN say that without calling us stupid under your breath at the same time, believe it or not!

But more to the point. Why 'practice typing' to insult us repeatedly if you won't 'practice typing' (really just cutting and pasting, you know) showing us data and hard research? You can't defend yourself from that question. It's obvious from your own admission you are more interested in making fun of people and barraging them with insults, repeatedly, than talking about science repeatedly.


I notice you put pteridine on ignore, but I find he's one of the few contributors who actually offers solid science. So much for your alleged quest for scientific debate.


You are such a drama queen. I have told you time and again, if he's such a genius, all you have to do is post what he says in your own words. Are you really that lazy? All you ever do is keep bringing up the fact that I have him on ignore, like I'm supposed to suddenly have sympathy and give a damn. Just repost what he says if he's the only one around here posting any evidence of anything! You don't because NEITHER of you are posting squat but repeated personal attacks and trash talk. Re-read your own posts yourself. All you do is endlessly bicker over the stupidest things (like this; like whether or not you are posting evidence
) and insult professionals you've never even met. Maybe I should just start posting unrelated facts and evidence just so you can get an idea of what such posts are supposed to look like? I think that's what I'll do next, just so you will finally understand what I have been talking about this whole time, that perpetually ranting and insulting people is not and never was scientific.


BTW,


Why you feel the need to track me is a real question. You challenge me to provide scientific data. It's obvious you want something to shoot down.


There are, what, 3 duhbunkers that post regularly in the 9/11 forum? No, I think you must be stalking all of us!


[edit on 27-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Double post.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are such a drama queen. I have told you time and again, if he's such a genius, all you have to do is post what he says in your own words. Are you really that lazy? All you ever do is keep bringing up the fact that I have him on ignore, like I'm supposed to suddenly have sympathy and give a damn. Just repost what he says if he's the only one around here posting any evidence of anything! You don't because NEITHER of you are posting squat.


You claim you want science. Unless it conforms to what you want to hear, you ignore it from other contributors, from other sources.

You're full of it.

You just want reinforcement for some lame notions about controlled demolitions so you can somehow think you're elevated through your great knowledge of science. Must be half a million science degrees issued every year. It's not a great achievement having basic knowledge. It's what you can do with it that matters.

You get some level of credibility among conspiracy-minded types who will fall for anything couched in technical jargon.

Kind of an underachiever aspiration on your part.

You don't want to go anywhere except in circles.

Please put me on ignore.


M



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


A person is not proof of anything. (That's also why personal attacks are not "proof.")

Please, for the love of god, stop ranting. If you have evidence of something, it damned sure isn't pteridine. Drama queen.


I'm going to break this cursed cycle with this:

wtc.nist.gov...

Unexplained severe corrosion and melting of the WTC steel by a eutectic reaction. That's called a chemical analysis, and it's "scientific"! Ie not a rant!!! I didn't call anyone a name or imply anyone was stupid! In fact I didn't have to mention ANY NAMES AT ALL! WOW!

[edit on 27-8-2009 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join