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.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 20
7
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
that's good research, nicon.
however, i think NIST's refusal to admit there was molten metal at ground zero for weeks afterward, and NIST's unrealistic farce concerning wtc7 (see gif above on this page), and NIST's inability to get their simulated towers to even initiate collapsing without them tweaking the parameters all to "worst case" which involved inputting unrealistic parameters, and the NIST's failure to model the entire collapse, even roughly, pretty much proves that the NIST has an agenda and is willing to fudge and ignore data to come to their predetermined conclusion.
the actual trusses that NIST tested did not fail after one hour, nor two hours.
the actual columns that were tested showed steel temperatures reached only 250C on three, and 650 C on one.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
i guess debunkers don't work weekends, anymore, lol!



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i guess debunkers don't work weekends, anymore, lol!



My doctor told me to lay off exposure to too much bunk. Bad for the Mental Health. He says my IQ is way down.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
that's good research, nicon.
however, i think NIST's refusal to admit there was molten metal at ground zero for weeks afterward, and NIST's unrealistic farce concerning wtc7 (see gif above on this page), and NIST's inability to get their simulated towers to even initiate collapsing without them tweaking the parameters all to "worst case" which involved inputting unrealistic parameters, and the NIST's failure to model the entire collapse, even roughly, pretty much proves that the NIST has an agenda and is willing to fudge and ignore data to come to their predetermined conclusion.
the actual trusses that NIST tested did not fail after one hour, nor two hours.
the actual columns that were tested showed steel temperatures reached only 250C on three, and 650 C on one.



which proves you:
1) didn't read any of the NIST reports and are going by the claims of truthers.
2) know that such metal, wouldn't be caused by any other means than by the fires that were sustained underground by fuel and oxygen.

Google Centralia, PA.

And the metals that existed in the towers? Steel, iron, aluminum (A LOT OF aluminum) gold, silver, platinum, so on and so forth.

Can you tell us what exactly those "pools" of molten metal were?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


i read a lot of NIST's spew. not all 10, 000 pages, but enough to know BS when i see it.
and, despite your assumptions, i learn as much about the events of the day from "debunkers" as i do from "truthers". mostly, i do my own research, and come to my own conclusions.
that's why i'm toxic to the likes of you (whom i've never "met", before. it is clear you are another parrot of the propaganda brigade).
have a nice illusion.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
which proves you:
1) didn't read any of the NIST reports and are going by the claims of truthers.


Have you read the NIST report? Because it does not sound like you have. It sounds to me as if billybob has read more of it than you have, and I say this because I myself have reviewed the technical parts of their report relevant to their hypothesis regarding the towers (which they did not verify). What he says about their inability to find columns elevated to such temperatures is correct.


2) know that such metal, wouldn't be caused by any other means than by the fires that were sustained underground by fuel and oxygen.


How are you going to prove this one?



Can you tell us what exactly those "pools" of molten metal were?


Is that billybob's responsibility to you now? Why don't we already know what those pools of molten metal were? I don't suppose you have proof of what they were, either.


Bottom line is you can ask rhetorical questions all day but you still don't know what in the hell that metal was, and imo it was probably steel like all the firefighters were saying. Molten aluminum is silvery, and doesn't look like "lava" like one firefighter is quoted as describing it. Steel/iron does. But who's responsibility was it to figure this stuff out for sure? How about the people who were supposed to investigate all this crap to begin with? No? No, that would make too much sense for you.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i read a lot of NIST's spew. not all 10, 000 pages, but enough to know BS when i see it.
and, despite your assumptions, i learn as much about the events of the day from "debunkers" as i do from "truthers". mostly, i do my own research, and come to my own conclusions.
that's why i'm toxic to the likes of you (whom i've never "met", before. it is clear you are another parrot of the propaganda brigade).
have a nice illusion.


I'll bet you haven't read the NIST report, just snippets the Truthers think they can find fault with.

A debunker is someone trying to get rid of "bunk" aka "junk"

There is no Official Story - a Truther invention.

There is what thousands of ordinary people witnessed in broad daylight, plus warehouses full of forensic evidence, accounts, photos and video.

Ther hasn't been much ambiguity on what happened that morning for 8 years.

You and others just want to bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

Hope you're more discriminating in real life - separating fact from other people's fiction.

If a Nigerian banker sends you an email saying he's going to gibe you millions for a small transaction fee. Don't send any money.

Lots of bunk online.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no Officla Story - a Truther invention.


There are no "Truthers." It's just a name "debunkers" use all the time to lump large amounts of people into a group so it's easier to smear them all with ad hom and you can't even get moderated for it.


Official story = government reports = Kean, FEMA, NIST.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no Officla Story - a Truther invention.


There are no "Truthers." It's just a name "debunkers" use all the time to lump large amounts of people into a group so it's easier to smear them all with ad hom and you can't even get moderated for it.



That is false. it was the Truthers who came up with the name.


Official story = government reports = Kean, FEMA, NIST.


absolutely wrong. there is no such thing as an "official story'> only evidence and fact based reports published by respectable journals. Over 20 of them have been published by independent researchers who all came to the same conclusion that NIST had: unfought fires in buildings that were heavily damaged weakened the steel and caused a cascade failure that lead toe the collapses of all three buildings.

Would you mind telling us why architects and engineers world wide are using the NIST reports and recommendations of how to approach construction, the way they are building current steel structures?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Ther hasn't been much ambiguity on what happened that morning for 8 years.


See my thread on 20 questions, none of which you could answer. Police seeing vehicles explode under the towers and reporting it over radio, tons of accounts of basement explosions. And still no resolution as to what was causing all those things.

(And no, mmiichael, you aren't god, and just because you have a pet theory from JREF doesn't mean you have any evidence to back it up so you could finally explain any of those types of things.
)


You and others just want to bury your head in the sand and ignore it.


Just like you ignore the sorts of things mentioned above. Ahhh, I get it now. You are projecting.


Lots of bunk online.


And you're here contributing to it with your non-stop ranting and your personal scientific ignorance. Congrats.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no Officla Story - a Truther invention.


There are no "Truthers." It's just a name "debunkers" use all the time to lump large amounts of people into a group so it's easier to smear them all with ad hom and you can't even get moderated for it.


Official story = government reports = Kean, FEMA, NIST.



You're right. You're right.

Hi BS,

In a good mood today.

You should start a human rights protection organization - maybe Council on American-Truther Relations to prevent unfeeling insensitive people like myself from unfairly maligning Truthers.

They're human too. Well, sort of.


M



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Hi BS,

In a good mood today.


Does that mean your rants will be twice as long today?


You should start a human rights protection organization - maybe Council on American-Truther Relations to prevent unfeeling insensitive people like myself from unfairly maligning Truthers.


You don't bother me personally. The stupidity of lumping us all together speaks for itself. You speak for yourself as well. I consider you like a running joke here. The only thing that gets old about you is your nasty habit of ranting and ranting and ranting and ranting and never posting substance.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
That is false. it was the Truthers who came up with the name.


Oh, yeah, I forgot. I'm a "truther" and I came up with the name you call me.

We have a genius amongst us.




Official story = government reports = Kean, FEMA, NIST.


absolutely wrong. there is no such thing as an "official story'> only evidence and fact based reports published by respectable journals.


Neither of those 3 reports were published in journals nor even peer reviewed. Try again.

The published papers you are referring to did not have access to physical evidence or even structural documentations. They are based on a bunch of speculation and bullocks. I have seen plenty of them myself. Everything from Greening to Bazant, it's all trash and doesn't have anything behind it. Greening especially is an idiot and has contradicted himself a number of times anyway. You're right that someone can publish anything they want in a vanity journal. Everything except something that hurts your pride and makes you feel sick to your stomach because it makes too much sense, anyway.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't bother me personally. The stupidity of lumping us all together speaks for itself. You speak for yourself as well. I consider you like a running joke here. The only thing that gets old about you is your nasty habit of ranting and ranting and ranting and ranting and never posting substance.



What, personal insults on this discussion forum?


IF so inclined I could do a character assassination just composed of quotes from others.

As you put people on Ignore that burst your bubble feel free to do the same fo me so as not to suffer through so-called rants. Why do you even read them?

btw - where's the breakthrough Eutectic Reaction paper that is going to prove once and for all WTC collapses were controlled demolition.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Who would have thought that you, of all people, would skip out on such a great opportunity to explain once again the overwhelming evidence behind what caused so many basement explosions, explosions all over the rest of the buildings, and police reports of vans exploding under the towers.

I would have never guessed that you would totally ignore anything remotely relevant to 9/11 just to make more personal snipes and other rantings. Seriously, a golden opportunity to smack me down with evidence once again, but oh, instead you chose to bitch and whine about me personally and not even mention 9/11 issues. What a shocker. Totally unexpected. Never would have guessed. In a million years. That your post would be substance-less. Again.

Why don't I put you on ignore? Because when I do you think you've "won" something like a little 4-year-old. Maybe I just like watching you squirm around whenever we talk about something relevant, since you're such a smart mouth the rest of the time.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Double post!

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Triple post!

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who would have thought that you, of all people, would skip out on such a great opportunity to explain once again the overwhelming evidence behind what caused so many basement explosions, explosions all over the rest of the buildings, and police reports of vans exploding under the towers.

Why don't I put you on ignore? Because when I do you think you've "won" something like a little 4-year-old.



I'm on this forum. Admission I'm a loser.

I don't know about basement explosions but from what I saw discussed thought that was satisfactorily cleared up. Explosions on other parts of the building consistent with generators, fire extinguishers, trapped air pockets, etc.

More to the point nothing substantiates the popular alternative explanation of planted bombs. I'll discount the claim of the guy who worked for the design firm in 1964 claiming the bin Laden's made inquiries about bombs in the walls or whatever.

Despite what paranoids choose to believe, people dismissing bizarro theories of why the Towers fell are not automatically Bush admin supporters. They just don't like seeing BS thrown around.

I do hat little I can to introduce an element of reason and sanity. Some 10 year old may be reading this and needs to be shown how foolish and unfounded some claims being made actually are.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't know about basement explosions


Then shut your smart mouth. Seriously, it's like the most you can possibly manage just to not trash talk us as a group in 4 out of 5 posts, if not more. That's all you can do. Then you say "I don't know about basement explosions"? And can't even back up the crap you suggest with any facts? You are a prime example of the kind of garbage that passes for a legitimate opinion on the internet. You will be quick to reflect that back at me but you seriously are. Put up or shut up, or just shut the hell up with all your trash talk in general. And put up something of substance for a well-needed change.



but from what I saw discussed thought that was satisfactorily cleared up. Explosions on other parts of the building consistent with generators, fire extinguishers, trapped air pockets, etc.


Why don't you show us what you have 'seen', then, that has so convinced you of these explanations?


While you're at it, show me what those police officers were talking about when they reported that van exploding. It's on the first page of the 20 questions thread if you need a link. Trash talk just wastes internet space and no one gives a damn what your opinion is when you can't even back up anything you say.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by RipCurl
 


i read a lot of NIST's spew. not all 10, 000 pages, but enough to know BS when i see it.
and, despite your assumptions, i learn as much about the events of the day from "debunkers" as i do from "truthers". mostly, i do my own research, and come to my own conclusions.


then you do not know what you are talking about. I read all 10,000 pages. Why? because I knew that your ilk would misrepesent their findings like they've been doing for the last 3 years. And you still continue to misrepresent their findings.

Please provided your educational background in engineering and architecture so that we have a basis as to why you think its BS. Make sure to include links to all papers you have published in peer reviewed journals so that we can weigh in on how your "expertise" allows you to comment on the findings done by NIST (which was a collaboration of over 200 engineers and scientists).


that's why i'm toxic to the likes of you (whom i've never "met", before. it is clear you are another parrot of the propaganda brigade).
have a nice illusion.


Yes, keep sticking those fingers in your ears. Toxic? Im toxic. Sorry if the truth is toxic to your weak beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join