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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
You cant "win" a argument about 9/11. How often do you hear "yeah i was wrong, now I believe you"?

Waste of time. And for the record, this is the most obvious inside job in history. Dont bother convincing others if they still cant see it, because it will only lead to you getting frustrated and losing time you could have spent doing something fun instead.


Most truthers didnt get there by simply listening to others. They checked out the facts. So why do truthers try to get others to believe by a method they were not subjected to themselfs?

Anyone interested in this will find whatever truth that is intended for them. You cant make them believe in something you believe by showing facts, because this is more an emotional thing than logical.

Lets say 9/11 would have been in Iran. I bet 99% of Americans would believe the Iranian government did it to their people without looking at the facts. That proves that this is an emotional argument where feelings for your country and government will decide what most people believe.



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by demonseed
 



And you seemingly ignore half of my arguments. Im not really sure who the loopy conspiracy theorist here is...


I've countered every single argument you've put forward! You seem intent on ignoring the effects of KE. The towers did not collapse symmetrically, and they did not collapse in freefall!!! Resistance in the structure did provide a countering force to gravity, yet a net force was still downwards! The energies have been calculated, and it's much higher than the structures can support, especially when weakened.

The arguments you've put forwards assumes the collapses were in freefall, which is completely incorrect. That's why the truthers ideas of:

1. Momentum and energy not being conserved,

2. Underestimating the kinetic energy produced by stored gravitational potential energy (which does increases with more mass!),

3. An apparent make-believe extra super-resistance that holds up all the supports,

4. That constant acceleration means constant forces at separate masses,

Are all truly stupid!

You complained that I called you "stupid"
which you obviously have been.

It's only frustration that led to that, because of the many times you haven't used science correctly.

I'll think I'll stick with just concluding truthers will always be ignorant, and leave you to your own devices.

Ironically in your own mind you will feel some false sense of vindication. It's not surprising that most people don't bother arguing with you. The majority who are frustrated with the lack of critical thinking applied, does not constitute as proof of your beliefs. Luckily any frustration is shortlived, as I won't bother discussing this subject again. It's a complete waste of my time!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]


You just keep talking in a loop about the same theory.

I think you are frustrated because i have countered every rebuttle you have put forth, while you keep regurgitating the same F= MxG equation as if just stating an equation is going to prove a point.

As many people have already put forward there is not enough kinetic energy for a tower to plow through the floors below, its simply physically impossible.

There are no Red Bandana Al Queda terrorists.
The WTC tower fell inward into its own footprint.
And there is no debris in shanksville.

I made it very easy for you. Providing one of those would have been sufficient, but you could not.

Claiming that "something of this magnitude has never happened before so i cannot show you anything like it" is saying basically what we "stupid ignorant truthers" are saying. Nothing like this has ever happened before, therefore we have to look at it with sheer scrutiny.

Believing some government self-appointed commission is not going to validate the official story.

You came in here with your beliefs.

You asserted your beliefs by calling all of us ignorant, stupid, looney and so forth.

And in the end, you ignored the topic and strayed off only to be hurdled by even more debate at which you could not compete with.

Now, you are mad because you can no longer argue your side at the same level of dignity at which you could before, because your mindless attacks have been dodged.

you claim to be a genious, but any idiot can write down simple equations and make themselves sound intelligent.

Cigarettes where "scientifically" proven to be healthy, maybe you should go smoke a few to test their hypotheses hmm?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
You cant "win" a argument about 9/11. How often do you hear "yeah i was wrong, now I believe you"?

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]


People dont like being embarrassed. Just because you didnt hear it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

All kinds of views will be reading this thread and lets face it we wont convince everyone but the more we convince the better our world will be in the end.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
ya, the way to win the debate is to bring up WTC7. first they lied and said a load of fuel from the plane caused the building structure to fail, and no kerosene fire can be hot enough to burn steel. second if kerosene fire COULD burn steel how would the building just suddenely colapse in less than 7 seconds at nearly free fall sped when there were only a couple small fires inside the building. third, 5 days after the colapse they tested the temperature of the rubble and it was 1,341 degrees and this high of a temperature is an indication of exploses. but the real truth is they said they couldnt handle the fire inside anymore and the smartest thing to do is pull the building so they did...then they lie agan. it is impossible that anyone could run around and plant all the bombs at the exact place within 7 hours when it takes skilled pros weeks to plan and place the charges. that means there were allready bombs planted inside. if you dont belive look it up yourself



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


ya, the way to win the debate is to bring up WTC7. first they lied and said a load of fuel from the plane caused the building structure to fail, and no kerosene fire can be hot enough to burn steel. second if kerosene fire COULD burn steel how would the building just suddenely colapse in less than 7 seconds at nearly free fall sped when there were only a couple small fires inside the building. third, 5 days after the colapse they tested the temperature of the rubble and it was 1,341 degrees and this high of a temperature is an indication of exploses. but the real truth is they said they couldnt handle the fire inside anymore and the smartest thing to do is pull the building so they did...then they lie agan. it is impossible that anyone could run around and plant all the bombs at the exact place within 7 hours when it takes skilled pros weeks to plan and place the charges. that means there were allready bombs planted inside. if you dont belive look it up yourself



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by king9072
 



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.


Small fires?!!! LMAO!! Witnesses described the tower fires as an inferno, and these transferred to smaller building during the collapse because of fiery debris causing lots of smaller fires in building 7 that gradually built up into even larger fires, which eventually led to its collapse in a similar fashion and for similar reasons.

Firstly the collapses weren't symmetrical, and secondly you're contradicting Newton's Laws of Motion.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]
ya, the way to win the debate is to bring up WTC7. first they lied and said a load of fuel from the plane caused the building structure to fail, and no kerosene fire can be hot enough to burn steel. second if kerosene fire COULD burn steel how would the building just suddenely colapse in less than 7 seconds at nearly free fall sped when there were only a couple small fires inside the building. third, 5 days after the colapse they tested the temperature of the rubble and it was 1,341 degrees and this high of a temperature is an indication of exploses. but the real truth is they said they couldnt handle the fire inside anymore and the smartest thing to do is pull the building so they did...then they lie agan. it is impossible that anyone could run around and plant all the bombs at the exact place within 7 hours when it takes skilled pros weeks to plan and place the charges. that means there were allready bombs planted inside. if you dont belive look it up yourself



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
New book on the WTC 7 collapse!
www.911blogger.com...




In Chapter 10, “From Thermal Expansion to Global Collapse: Fabrications and Contradictions,” Griffin shreds the last pillar of NIST’s account: its claim that thermal expansion of steel floor beams and girders caused “global collapse.” He shows that this claim is based on highly implausible assumptions, outright fabrications, denial of the existence of structural elements that did in fact exist, and fabrication of a “differential thermal expansion” result from its computer simulations by modeling heating of the steel beams but not of the floor slabs! Griffin delivers the coup de grace by showing that NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 did indeed fall at free-fall speed for more than two seconds during its collapse, which would only be possible if all resistance to the fall had been eliminated by removal of the lower portion of the building by explosives. This demonstrates that NIST has resorted to a miraculous “explanation” of the collapse of Building 7, in which no explosives were used and yet free-fall still occurred, and has thus violated the scientific principles of non-contradiction and impermissibility of claims implying that laws of nature have been violated.


[edit on 13-9-2009 by conar]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Rare video of the collapses



0:20 smoke coming up of the ground


Building 7 very interesting, new angle



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   


the first seconds of the collapse are cut out, and the lowest floors are censored / pixelated at beginning of collapse, so we cant see the explosions taking down the building



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
no matter how much we speculate on this, lets face it we're probably never gonna find out the truth (although i hope the truth does come out in my life time) but lets be honest, there is NO WAY two towers specially designed to have jumbo jets crash into them we're taken out by them!!!

Its just too crazy to comprehend!!! Jet fuel wouldn't be able to turn steel molten for starters, if it did there would NEVER be anything left of any plane crash
and don't get me even started on WTC7, it came down due to fire or something ... how convenient that is was some CIA or FBI building with all the fat cats criminal records lost forever (sorry if my facts aren't 100% accurate but this did happen 8 years ago and i'm from the UK



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well well about this matter, i did see couple days ago document in TV @ 9/11. It did make us humans look real bad how we handel a bad situtation, worst of all thous firemen i feel sorry for them Really, when the second plane hit the second tower that was a sight to back up the area if you value your life, but no brave firemen did haste theyr deaths FOOLS!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join