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.

 

3 Easy ways to win a 9/11 truth debate.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Owned by logic, fact, truth, and of course vocabulary.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by john124
 


Hmm. the laws of physics state that gravity will pull an object throught the path of least resistance. So while gravity brought them down there were certainly other forces at play in the equation. Its too bad to date no one has been able to illustrate these forces.


In this case the path of least resistance is approximately downwards because of the overwhelming mass above causing a momentum downwards. The more floors that collapsed, the more massive the momentum and so on.

None of the collapse happened symmetrically, the whole idea of symmetry has been lost during the process of brainwashing by 9/11 truthers false information and bad science.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnmhinds

Originally posted by demonseed

2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.



What kind of stupid argument is that.

A, I can't show you a photo of another 400m+ collapsing after a Boeing 767 has crashed into it because that's never happened to a building anywhere else before of after 9/11.

Why don't you provide me with a photo of a 400m+ building that didn't collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767.

You can't because it hasn't happened anywhere else.


Having no evidence for an imaginary event isn't proof that it didn't happen in New York to the twin Towers.

B, They didn't collapse symmetrically anyway!

Look at this large shard of one of the towers that didn't collapse at the same speed as the rest of the tower.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]


I didnt ask for a photo of a boeing 747, i asked for a photo of any airplane.

Or fires...?

Buildings just dont collapse the way they did on 9/11. Not to mention 3 of them.

As for the Red Bandana wearing terrorists...

Just because you cant find evidence for something doesnt make it irrelevant.

But its ok, you still have 1 option left...

thats
#3!!!

Oh, but you wont find any evidence there either. And that is probably why you completely ignored it.

The only people who will look at these questions as ridiculous are people who are bound by the world they live in.

Step outside and think for yourself and everything will be much more enjoyable.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


1. Show me a picture of one of the Flight 93 hijackers behind the controls NOT wearing a bandana.

2. Show me a building that has been hit by a high speed 767 and NOT collapsed.

3. Flight 93 wreckage in Shanksville

news.bbc.co.uk...


Your "easy ways" to win a debate might work with truthers. It wont work with someone who can think for themselves.


BTW




Buildings just dont collapse the way they did on 9/11. Not to mention 3 of them.


Show me three buildings like WTC 1,2,7 that have been subjected to the same events and not collapsed.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Seriously... do you think that if there was an 'easy way' to win a 'truth debate' we'd all still be here 8 years down the track going from post to post, thread to thread...?

Rewey



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?

WTC7. GOOD GAME.

There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.


Fires were NOT responsible for buildings falling SYMMETRICALLY. Symmetry is completely unrelated to fires. And how is the 14+ second collapses anywhere CLOSE to freefall speeds? It is not, so why are you claiming it?


In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.


FALSE. The unfought fires during WWII bombing raids caused thousands of steel-framed buildings to collapse. The historical record, including the actual steel and photographs, are preserved in museums in Dresden, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere.

Now, tell me, where do you 9/11 "Truthers" come up with your nonsense? Well, we know, don't we? You are determined to believe what you want to believe, to hell whether it is true or not.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseedI didnt ask for a photo of a boeing 747, i asked for a photo of any airplane.


And my point was that I can't show you a photo of the results of a another 767 (or another jet liner of a similar size) crashing into another 400m+ skyscraper because it hasn't happened anywhere else.

You can't make the claim that a 767 & the resulting fires "can't make a 400m+building collapse" because you don't have any comparative data to back that claim up.

Your broken logic is astonishing.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by johnmhinds]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



No, I meant the people who were either on the plane, or allegedly on the plane from your perspective. Therefore my point still stands


You didn't have a point... Your original Rebuttle:


Can you explain where the people went if their plane did not crash.


This question poses 2 assumptions.

1. There were people on the plane.

2. IF their plane did not crash, then the people who you believe were on the plane (That you have no evidence for) vanished.


Occam's Razor... There was no one on the plane to begin with.


2).


Gravity if what keeps you on the ground, acceleration downwards of any objects mass due to the Earth's gravity affects every single object on this planet.


Then why have you not fallen to the center of the earth yet?

IS there some solid substance beneath you that impedes your downward acceleration?

OR is this "Magic"?


Yes supports that were on fire due because of burning jet fuel Have you seen the videos of the fire, it was an inferno of burning glass, steel and wall & flooring materials.


911research.wtc7.net...

Yes... hot enough to melt structural steel... and yet gentile enough to not char the bodies of these people.

Nice work there Detective.


The collapse wasn't exactly symmetrical...


Oh, I beg to Differ.



That, was "Not Exactly Symmetrical"



That, was not exactly Symmetrical, either...



And neither was that...


Symmetry: Exact correspondence on either side of a dividing line, plane, center or axis.

Now, if we take a look at this "Fire" cause collapse (And remember, the Fire in question weakened all parts of the structure Symmetrically... which is exactly what fires DON'T do.)




Did you see the left and right sides of the building?

Collapsing at the same speed, same rate, etc, etc, etc...


This is what the word "Symmetry" means.


Do try again.


but since the towers were built approximatetly symmetrical, you would expect a roughly symmetrical collapse downwards for some of the structure, but not all of it!!




Now, did this Building fire look symmetrical to you?


-Edrick

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Nobody really understood my comment, it's a shame that nobody else on this thread has used their brain yet.

1. I didn't say there were no photos of this, only that is was irrelevant. What would that even prove if that were the case - nothing substancial!

2. The collapse was not symmetrical, it's only from a long distance away that it appears so. There has been videos from youtube showing similar collapses, but only from smaller buildings probably because there has been no other large tower demolitions/collapses as to date. If you set such impossible criteria, then you'll have to wait until a tower has been demolished to satisfy your curiosities!


the ENTIRE building had total global collapse

did the "top crushing block", that NIST and Bazant, CLAIM in their HYPOTHESIS...shoot off the side of the building, leaving some floors and structure remaining?....NO...That's what is meant by the building falling SYMMETRICALLY...BOTH towers had total global collapse..at a CONSISTENT speed, SLOWER than free fall ACCELERATION in a vacuum, but FASTER than a natural falling body falling through the air from that height, with AIR resistance

BOTH towers had SYMMETRICAL total global collapse...from totally different ASYMMETRICAL damage.

different columns were affected, from different impact areas, from different floors...SAME EXACT RESULT



3. It's interesting how you all feel it applicable to poke holes in the official theories, yet you feel your own theories are beyond criticism. Where did those people go then?? It's a perfectly valid question.



ok then...I have a new question 3... HOW is 100+ ft. of vertical support removed from 7, to get the EVEN decent of the ENTIRE building at free fall ACCELERATION...as fast as an object falls through the AIR

You can ONLY have ACCELERATION if there is a CLEAR PATH...NOTHING in the way

This is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, in an interview at around three min into the vid. I posted below...it's the NIST Q&A briefing BEFORE the final report came out

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=channel_page

so what happened to 100+ft. of vertical support to have occur, what WE ALL SEE.....the EVEN decent, as fast as falling through AIR
[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
None of those videos can be compared to the WTC collapse because they aren't the same buildings.

You can't even compare them to each other and then say there is one single way for a building to collapse because they all react differently.

What you are trying to do is the equivalent of comparing a 30mph highway crash to a 200mph nascar crash and then saying the nascar was full of explosives because it acted differently.

There are completely different levels of forces going on in all of those videos, and using them as any kind of scientific comparison is stupidity of the highest order.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?

WTC7. GOOD GAME.

There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.


Fires were NOT responsible for buildings falling SYMMETRICALLY. Symmetry is completely unrelated to fires. And how is the 14+ second collapses anywhere CLOSE to freefall speeds? It is not, so why are you claiming it?


and where do YOU get 14 seconds?


In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.

FALSE. The unfought fires during WWII bombing raids caused thousands of steel-framed buildings to collapse. The historical record, including the actual steel and photographs, are preserved in museums in Dresden, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere.


lol...and YOUR actually referencing buildings that were initially BOMBED to back your claim of collapse from fire?

you find ONE building that has had NATURAL TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE for ANY reason, like what happened to the towers...ANYWHERE...and THEN we will compare causes



Now, tell me, where do you 9/11 "Truthers" come up with your nonsense? Well, we know, don't we? You are determined to believe what you want to believe, to hell whether it is true or not.


me personally...I use the NIST HYPOTHESIS'S...no better fairy tale than that



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnmhinds
None of those videos can be compared to the WTC collapse because they aren't the same buildings.

You can't even compare them to each other and then say there is one single way for a building to collapse because they all react differently.

What you are trying to do is the equivalent of comparing a 30mph highway crash to a 200mph nascar crash and then saying the nascar was full of explosives because it acted differently.


this is an incorrect analogy because, you use different velocities to justify your comparison
the vids show how, a building, acting as a SINGLE UNIT, which it is, is affected by GRAVITY.
if you noticed, the 'tipping building', starts s-l-o-w-l-y, hits the 'other' buildings, WE SEE it STOP, just for a millisecond, because it has to transfer it's energy of falling to what ever it hits, and then WE SEE it break apart in HUGE chunks, w/very little dust and debris SHOOTING out from all 4 sides



There are completely different levels of forces going on in all of those videos, and using them as any kind of scientific comparison is stupidity of the highest order.


there is really only 1 force at work...gravity
in theory, there should have been NO WAY, we get the SAME NATURAL results from 3 buildings with VERY DIFFERENT damage....but WE DID

TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE....2-110 story towers, total global collapse at a CONSISTENT speed, slower than free fall in a vacuum, but FASTER than a free falling body from the same height with the effect of air resistance

1-47 story tower that DID fall at free fall ACCELERATION...WE SEE it EVENLY falling...according to Laws of Physics, THAT can ONLY happen if there is a CLEAR PATH....NOTHING in the way...if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance and THAT would mean...NO ACCELERATION....you can't accelerate if there is SOMETHING IN THE WAY



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


1. I fail to see how this is relevant. I could say "show me one image of an IRA bomber wearing a guerilla suit", does that prove the IRA didn't exist?

2. I completely agree with this one. Collapses due to catastrophic failure, if it were the case, would follow the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE! This is scientific fact, not fantasy or make believe. Even if a "global failure" were the case, the building would not fall symmetrically into its own footprint, the top could fall off (away from the rest which would be the path of resistance) or it could topple at its weakest point. But there is no chance in hell that these three buildings somehow defied all the laws of physics for one day. To suggest so is both insane and ignorant.

Have none of these people ever played Jenga? Seriously, it is THAT SIMPLE. Those who deny these very basic facts should be ashamed of how willingly stupid they are.

People who stick to this argument need to go back to school, and I mean from the start, all over again. This is the kind of stuff little kids know, and yet millions of adults fail to grasp this very basic concept.


3. Again, very true. A plane doesn't simply disintegrate in that manner. They never have before. Even over Lockerbie where the plane was literally blown out of the sky, large debris was scattered for miles causing incredible damage and loss of life on the ground.
If the plane is supposed to have crashed into the ground at speed, the wreckage would be spread over a large area and it wouldn't comprise of just small pieces. This wasn't a swamp it crashed into, the ground didn't suddenly open up and swallow it. At the very least, however the jet hit the ground, parts of the wings and engines would be visible above ground. Unless of course it was a clever new kind of plane that somehow manages to tuck its wings in before impact!
I don't know what this suggests, but a commercial jet certainly did not crash there.
Neither did a fighter blow one out of the sky.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I came up with these questions yesterday, although I meant them as questions to ask BEFORE arguing lol

1. What year did 9/11 happen?

2. Where did the four planes hit?

3. What buildings collapsed? (looking for a mention of WTC 7)

If they can't answer these questions, and you'll be surprised about the first one, then there is no use even talking to them about it.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
this is an incorrect analogy because, you use different velocities to justify your comparison
the vids show how, a building, acting as a SINGLE UNIT, which it is, is affected by GRAVITY.
if you noticed, the 'tipping building', starts s-l-o-w-l-y, hits the 'other' buildings, WE SEE it STOP, just for a millisecond, because it has to transfer it's energy of falling to what ever it hits, and then WE SEE it break apart in HUGE chunks, w/very little dust and debris SHOOTING out from all 4 sides



But it's not the same building is it.

They are made out of different materials.
They have a different mass/weight.
They are collapsing for different reasons.

You can't compare 2 completely different buildings doing different things and say they should both be reacting in the same way.

That's failed logic on an epic level.

Nothing you say can be taken seriously until you acknowledge this as being such an obviously flawed comparison.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by johnmhinds]



new topics




 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join