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: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Please provided your educational background in engineering and architecture so that we have a basis as to why you think its BS.


I'm not sure where you got your degree but someone's degree is not a "basis" by which you determine whether or not information is valid.

It's sad when the best argument you can put up is to try to turn this into a pissing contest. You can either address what billybob has pointed out, and correct it, or you can just do what you've done so far, and deflect and make any number of statements and assertions based on fallacious reasoning.

Why do "debunkers" suck so bad at being logical anymore?




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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



absolutely False. NIST held an open review of their findings for a year up to the publishing of their findings on the WTC towers. They did the same for their report on WTC 7.

NIST 's publications IS the peer review journal. Scientists an engineers with varying degress and affiliations (most who belong to the ASCE) help write and research for those publications.

You can find the ASCE contributors from this list:
www.asce.org...
www.asce.org...


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.


Absolutely false.

Wow, how many false things can you say in just two paragraphs?

NIST report contained hundreds of schematics including images from debris collected and tested. They included reports from their testing and modeling as well as tests that were done prior to 9/11/2001.

And to corroborate the findings of NIST, Purdue University conducted their OWN independent research and their conclusion SUPPORTS NISTS' findings.

www.purdue.edu...
www.homeland1.com... -nist-report/





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.


Please provide your expertise. Link to any published articles on engineering that you have written in peer reviewed journals.

None? then you have as much credibility to weigh on the findings of NIST and the 20 other independent investigations as the CIT has on the Pentagon (which is zero)



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by RipCurl
Please provided your educational background in engineering and architecture so that we have a basis as to why you think its BS.


I'm not sure where you got your degree but someone's degree is not a "basis" by which you determine whether or not information is valid.


Actually, i didn't ask about any degrees. I asked what their background in engineering and architecture is.

I find their information valuable if they have EVIDENCE to back their claims.

So far, anyone who says the official story is "bunk" has provided a big fat ZERO in evidence to support their claims.


I ask for their educational background because I want to understand why they come to believe what they do. I have an understanding in Structural Engineering but I minored in Architecture. I understand what the NIST report says based on my background.

Nothing provided by the truth movement has been able to convince me that NIST is 100% wrong in their conclusions ( I do disagree with some of their findings, and some usage of terms that caused some confusion - however it didn't affect their entire argument).


It's sad when the best argument you can put up is to try to turn this into a pissing contest. You can either address what billybob has pointed out, and correct it, or you can just do what you've done so far, and deflect and make any number of statements and assertions based on fallacious reasoning.


Its not a pissing contest. Its whether or not you are ABLE to understand the conclusions.

Since many of the truth movement have no experience in Engineering or architecture, refuse to SPEAK to those that do, and the truth movements' own "arthictest and engineers" can't even get their own work published in a respectable peer review journal (ASCE does have a nice journal), why I am going to believe what they say if they have NO evidence to back their claims?



Why do "debunkers" suck so bad at being logical anymore?


Seems that you dont know what the word logical means.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
absolutely False. NIST held an open review of their findings for a year up to the publishing of their findings on the WTC towers. They did the same for their report on WTC 7.


Absolutely false. You are obviously confused about the term "peer review." Go look it up. I am aware of what NIST did, but it does not fall under the "peer review" process. No one was able to check their models without their data, etc.



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.


Absolutely false.

Wow, how many false things can you say in just two paragraphs?

NIST report contained hundreds of schematics including images from debris collected and tested.


First, I was talking about actual peer-reviewed papers, not NIST. That's why I mentioned Greening and Bazant in particular. Therefore what I was saying (in regards to THOSE papers) is absolutely correct. They did NOT have such access.

Second, the building schematics were not even complete in the NIST report. I have seen plenty of professional engineers even on these very forums try to recreate models of the towers for simulations but were unable to get all the data needed from the NIST report. They give some information, not all, even for checking THEIR work.


Please provide your expertise. Link to any published articles on engineering that you have written in peer reviewed journals.


You like pissing contests don't you? Too bad there is no logic in your demand.

Post any paper you like, that you think is conclusive of something, and we will discuss it. My qualifications are that I have a brain and can read and think. That's enough, if you have the same. If all you can do is take what people with degrees say as gospel, then I have nothing to say to you anyway, because that is about the definition of ignorant, something Christians call "faith."

[edit on 29-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Actually, i didn't ask about any degrees. I asked what their background in engineering and architecture is.


Then you must not have either, because it takes a degree to get much into those fields.


I ask for their educational background because I want to understand why they come to believe what they do. I have an understanding in Structural Engineering but I minored in Architecture. I understand what the NIST report says based on my background.


That doesn't really impress me. I have seen men with more degrees and experience than you in the relevant subjects make very stupid claims. I'm sure you could claim the same seeing that there are organizations consisting of 100's of engineers, including "relevant" ones (how relevant an SE is to a dynamic physical system or even metallurgy is debatable to begin with) that all disagree with official reports.


Nothing provided by the truth movement has been able to convince me that NIST is 100% wrong in their conclusions ( I do disagree with some of their findings, and some usage of terms that caused some confusion - however it didn't affect their entire argument).


What I am looking for is their objective verification of their hypothesis. Show that to me and you will be golden.


Its not a pissing contest. Its whether or not you are ABLE to understand the conclusions.


And a degree does not determine that, obviously, unless you are admitting that you don't understand it, either. My major is electronics engineering, and I have had physics and statics, so what civils do is not totally alien to me and in fact I work with much of the same (and even more complicated) mathematics.




Why do "debunkers" suck so bad at being logical anymore?


Seems that you dont know what the word logical means.


Demanding a degree to even listen to what someone has to say on an issue that may or may not be relevant to that degree -- is not logical. Especially when you don't even have said degree. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That doesn't really impress me. I have seen men with more degrees and experience than you in the relevant subjects make very stupid claims. I'm sure you could claim the same seeing that there are organizations consisting of 100's of engineers, including "relevant" ones (how relevant an SE is to a dynamic physical system or even metallurgy is debatable to begin with) that all disagree with official reports.

Demanding a degree to even listen to what someone has to say on an issue that may or may not be relevant to that degree -- is not logical. Especially when you don't even have said degree.


An experienced professional is still a better bet than an untrained know-it-all. Qualified professional are often wrong. Unqualified amateurs are usually wrong

If you get hit by a truck go to the nearest hospital and see an MD and maybe a surgeon. Your naturopath or your Doctor of Philosophy may be the best there is, and the MD barely competent. Tske the advice of the doctor above that of the other two,



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why do "debunkers" suck so bad at being logical anymore?


Because only the illogical are left debunking?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
let's watch john gross squirm and then lie through his teeth, again...



the NIST lies. period.

and, once more, what building seven looks like as it falls in their computer simulation:



the NIST lies. period.

and, ripcurl, mmichael, etc. you guys are going way off topic. the topic is "what evidence would YOU except to prove 9/11 was an inside job". if you have no imagination to determine the answer to that question, then don't post on this thread. this thread is not a debate about what happened.

i keep posting evidence that convinces me. in fact, the faster than freefall events are proof of an inside job. all you "debunkers" are doing is setting us back on the endless staircase with your baiting, suppositions and deflections. luckily, i'm wearing hover boots, and my evidence is very convincing. i hope lots of people see it.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
let's watch john gross squirm and then lie through his teeth, again...


I think it would be far more entertaining to watch you squirm over your claim:


PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


I bet you came up with a doozer of a statistician for that one!




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you guys are going way off topic. the topic is "what evidence would YOU except to prove 9/11 was an inside job". if you have no imagination to determine the answer to that question, then don't post on this thread. this thread is not a debate about what happened.

i keep posting evidence that convinces me. in fact, the faster than freefall events are proof of an inside job. all you "debunkers" are doing is setting us back on the endless staircase with your baiting, suppositions and deflections. luckily, i'm wearing hover boots, and my evidence is very convincing. i hope lots of people see it.


With all the hundreds if not thousands of supposed planners and enablers of a 9/11 "inside job" even one coming forward who planted explosives or something unambiguously illegal would go a long way.

With all the lamenting of an so-called "Official Story" where is the "Unofficial Story" with anything resembling an logical plausible scenario supported by tangible evidence, multiple testimony, credible citations, etc?

A pile of anecdotes and factoids is all that has emerged in 8 years and 2 months. I keep hearing about "tons of evidence" but no one seems capable of assembling it in any coherent manner. Let's see it already.

The handful of on the skids professionals and academics dining out on 9/11 theories Griffin, Jones, Gage et al have not gone beyond the Conspiracy fringe circuit - talk radio, low budget conventions, fear mongering books, websites and videos.

Where is the high profile spokesman for the movement and his paperwork?
Someone credible would go a long way. Not a has-been actor like Sheen but a respected intellectual writer or historian would do wonders. And any professional body coming out in support - ideally structural engineers. Gage can't even drum up 1% of them - and many complain now they were railroaded into signing a request for a re-investigation.

If there is no "Unofficial Story" to counter the version of events generally accepted - there is no contest.



M



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
oops.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
An experienced professional is still a better bet than an untrained know-it-all. Qualified professional are often wrong. Unqualified amateurs are usually wrong


Let me find something in this post that suddenly changes my opinions.... Nope, looks like another substance-less rant.


I asked you to show me what has convinced you that the explosions were exploding "generators, fire extinguishers, trapped air pockets, etc."

Of course you opted not to do that. Nor did you respond to the police reporting a vehicle exploding under the towers, ignoring that for a 2nd or 3rd time in a row as well. Instead, you post 2 or 3 more posts, that are just paragraph after paragraph of ranting. What message do you think that sends me? I'll tell you: it shows me that you don't know what in the hell you're saying and ALL YOU CAN DO is rant. Everyone has an opinion. Dime a dozen. If you can't back it up, then shut up. No one gives a damn about your opinions if you don't base them on facts we can see.



(I expect another rant in response to this post, and for you to totally avoid responding to the section in bold again. I'm convinced that you never learned how to present an argument with facts and references.)

[edit on 30-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Of course you opted not to do that. Nor did you respond to the police reporting a vehicle exploding under the towers, ignoring that for a 2nd or 3rd time in a row as well.



You want to attach some significance to one of the numeorus misreports from Sept 11. There were dozens of erroneous reportings from police and media that morning. In the rush to give any story to a hungre press or to check out possible related activities many were taking crowd talk seriously. Cops were responding to anonymous tips phoned in. Lines were getting crossed on all levels. Mostly sorted out within a few days.

You can check with the reporters and the cops who were given incorrect information. It's no big secret. Called human error. Happens with great frequency particularly in panic situations.

But after 8 years even with no evidence of bombs going off desperate Truthers still cling to anything to keep the controlled demolition fantasy alive.

You'll be 44 and still looking for your phantom evidence of something that never happened. Good luck.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I see a lot of excuses but still no explanation for either the police reports of vehicles exploding or the many, many accounts of explosions, particularly on the basement levels.

You just told me that you had 'seen' things that convinced you the explosions were just "generators, fire extinguishers, trapped pockets of air"... Well what were they??

You also say the information the police were reporting was incorrect. Can I see your evidence that this was the case, or are you just making things up as you personally see fit?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I see a lot of excuses but still no explanation for either the police reports of vehicles exploding or the many, many accounts of explosions, particularly on the basement levels.

You just told me that you had 'seen' things that convinced you the explosions were just "generators, fire extinguishers, trapped pockets of air"... Well what were they??

You also say the information the police were reporting was incorrect. Can I see your evidence that this was the case, or are you just making things up as you personally see fit?


Last message to you. You're on ignore after this.

You want to harangue on your Truther fantasies not find out what really happened. Saw you discussions with Joey C on the mysterious explosions in the basement. Go back and read them again.

You really can't comprehend anything beyond Truther disinfo. Anyone whose worked in the press knows there are always mistaken reports when a crisis situation is happening.

That major Hasan shooting has misreports. The military saw 2 soldiers running from the building and assumed it was more than one shooter. People thought Hasan was dead when he lay unconscious and shot up.

Misreporting cleared up when the fuller story emerged.

There were dozens of similar mistakes with 9/11. One source said 3 planes were in NYC, another said a light plane had accidentally flown into the WTC before the second one hit.

Were there not a rabid subculture desperate to prove their "Bid Bad Guvvamint did it" theories, no one would remember any of this a day later.

Find the whistleblower, a scrap of incriminating paper, some tangible irrefutable evidence. Anything.

After 8 years and thousands of stay at home Inspector Clouseus what do we have?

A bunch of anecdotes, some witness memory lapses, some prompted responses, lots of manipulated data, Divinty profs playing demolition epxerts, fruitcake profs saying paint chips are a super secret explosive, Israelis in an empty van, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it' in reference to a firefighting operation, endless frame by frame Youtube videos with red arrows, and on and on and on.

Sum total of evidence. Zero.

Like don't you get it?

Muslim terrorists hijacked planes. They even said so.

Flew them into buildings. Snap, Crackle, Pop.

Destroyed property. Dead bodies.

It happened. Deal with it. Get a life.



[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


So YOUR response to me asking you for evidence for your claims is to put me on ignore. What a hypocrite.

Your rants aren't worth responding to. I asked you for specific evidence for your claims, and never got it. Enough said.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


So YOUR response to me asking you for evidence for your claims is to put me on ignore. What a hypocrite.

Your rants aren't worth responding to. I asked you for specific evidence for your claims, and never got it. Enough said.


Just under the wire.

This is really dumb. I said a few reports had mistakes.

Proof is the mistakes themselves. They were corrected.

Do you need proof a typo is a typo, an addition mistake is an addition mistake, you forgot your wallet at home, you left your brain at home?

You'll be 88 and still looking for any ambiguity, any minor detail error, any inapplicable science factoid to sustain your fantasies of controlled demolition. Still asking for "proof'. Still trying to demonstrate how smart you are. Still out of touch with reality.

Bye




[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The "mistakes" were "corrected"? Where? Have you STILL not learned how to provide sources or references?

Still waiting for you to show me the things you have supposedly 'seen' that convinced you that all the explosions were fire extinguishers, generators and trapped pockets of air, too. Eventually you will learn that ranting does not amount to evidence for your case.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
no debunker has responded to the wtc7 twisted, deformed, complete with three fault lines along which it folded (in the sim), NIST graphic that looks nothing like the actual collapse.
NIST did it with the two towers, too. tweaked COMPUTER MODELS until they actually collapsed (virtually), ignoring the fact that their final simulations behaved nothing like the actual towers.
"bad science" is too kind for the NIST spew.

but, "they" will happily ignore anything that doesn't support the "big bad gubermint".



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
no debunker has responded to the wtc7 twisted, deformed, complete with three fault lines along which it folded (in the sim), NIST graphic that looks nothing like the actual collapse.
NIST did it with the two towers, too. tweaked COMPUTER MODELS until they actually collapsed (virtually), ignoring the fact that their final simulations behaved nothing like the actual towers.
"bad science" is too kind for the NIST spew.

but, "they" will happily ignore anything that doesn't support the "big bad gubermint".



which shows you never read the report.

nice to know that those who dont read the reports are here to try and convince those that did, what is wrong.

Please try. It wont work, but its hella funny to watch you struggle.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join