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: 27
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Where's tangible evidence of the supposed controlled demolition, a sequence of explosions, seismic record consistency? Anything solid?


Do I have evidence of numerous explosions throughout the buildings, and even seismic evidence of detonations at the times of impact that even match with witness testimonies and photographic evidence?

Yes. And many people have had this evidence for years.


Do I have anything that you're not going to respond to with a huge string of logical fallacies and then immediately dismiss out of hand?

No. Because that is the sole reason you come to post here.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do I have evidence of numerous explosions throughout the buildings, and even seismic evidence of detonations at the times of impact that even match with witness testimonies and photographic evidence?

Yes. And many people have had this evidence for years.

Do I have anything that you're not going to respond to with a huge string of logical fallacies and then immediately dismiss out of hand?

No. Because that is the sole reason you come to post here.


Posted on 9/11 threads all I've seen is interpretations of selected photographs, a handful of self-serving testimony quotes, scattered scientific factoids, and a ton of speculation.

Where is a coherent paper on the explosives used? How and when they were planted? Show a demonstrable a demolition sequence? Where is the material evidence - remnants of blasting caps, wiring, explosive residues, etc.

Disprove the vast quantities of evidence showing how uncontrolled fires cause steel beams to lose crucial structural integrity?

8 years of nattering is not sufficient. Documentation is how claims are verified. Not with vague statements that 'evidence is there'

Where is something even resembling annotated cited documentation?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do I have evidence of numerous explosions throughout the buildings, and even seismic evidence of detonations at the times of impact that even match with witness testimonies and photographic evidence?

Yes.


No you do not actually - care to show us the siesmographs showing the "explosions"



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Jones doesn't even merit a second look by chemists. The experiment procedures are fatally flawed, there is no provenance for the material, the conclusions are wrong.


Yeah, and who is saying this again? You? Who are you again?

Do you have a link to a published paper that refutes Jones'?


Let's recount the ways in which Jones knows better than you, and most other people on the face of the Earth:

1st) Jones received a Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in the late 1970s.

2) He did his Ph.D. work on the Stanford Linear Accelerator.

3) He then continued post-grad research at Cornell University.

4) He then continued further research at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility for the Department of Energy.

5) He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

6) He then studied experimental condensed matter physics and deuterium for the Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute from 1990-1993.

7) He also collaborated in scientific studies with Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF.

8) He collaborated with research at the Japanese high-energy physics research center KEK.

9) He collaborated with scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford.

10) He was a pioneer of the study of cold fusion, and unlike Pons and Fleishchmann's work, Jones' has since been validated and had theoretical basis all along, despite him receiving a lot of crap because of the perceived similarity to P&F's work.


So far your own qualifications that I have seen, is that you are capable of reading and writing and using a computer. Any other reasons I should think you (or anyone else supporting your opinions) are more qualified as a research scientist than Jones?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do I have evidence of numerous explosions throughout the buildings, and even seismic evidence of detonations at the times of impact that even match with witness testimonies and photographic evidence?

Yes.


No you do not actually - care to show us the siesmographs showing the "explosions"


www.journalof911studies.com...


Apparently you have never noticed that the seismic records don't match with the impact times reported with various other sources.

Apparently you have also failed to consider simultaneous witness testimonies of there being TWO discernible events when the first plane hit, one being the plane itself and the other being "something else."

Real-time Police and FBI reports of vehicles with explosives being detonated at the same time the planes hit, including a police officer reporting a similar incident over radio that morning as he witnessed it, which was recorded.

You don't want evidence. You want to be right. So you ignore all this crap. Well too bad. You are dead wrong anyway.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Apparently you have never noticed that the seismic records don't match with the impact times reported with various other sources.

www.911myths.com...
and
Yes they do, and if you have a look at www.popularmechanics.com...

You can see the planes hitting the towers etc at the above, also "Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)"

also forums.randi.org... explains the times, also wtc7lies.googlepages.com...:critiquesoftheinept also debunks that paper.

So where did the writers of that "paper" get their degrees from?

So once again the conspiracy theory bites the dust!



[edit on 22/12/09 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Apparently you have never noticed that the seismic records don't match with the impact times reported with various other sources.

Apparently you have also failed to consider simultaneous witness testimonies of there being TWO discernible events when the first plane hit, one being the plane itself and the other being "something else."

Real-time Police and FBI reports of vehicles with explosives being detonated at the same time the planes hit, including a police officer reporting a similar incident over radio that morning as he witnessed it, which was recorded.

You don't want evidence. You want to be right. So you ignore all this crap. Well too bad. You are dead wrong anyway.


8 years of fishing for inconsistencies among tens of thousands of pieces of data and forensic evidence. Anecdotal testimony accounts.

Now we have a vehicle detonated at the same time the planes hit. Specific location? Type of vehicle? Explosives used? Residual signature? Explanation how a explosion at the base of a building can cause a top-down collapse?

Explanation how hundreds of structural engineers, demolition experts, building fire experts, fire chiefs, etc can be totally wrong in their findings?

Solid proof to substantiate the mythical Controlled Demolition. Accompanying peer reviewed documentation from credible experienced professionals.

I keep hearing about the Official Story. So where is the Unofficial Story? 8 years is a long time.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


All you proved just now was that you didn't read the link I posted.


Can you answer me, why am I not surprised that you didn't even read it?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I'm just going to tell you that you personally are correct in everything you say, because I think it is literally impossible to show you anything you do not WANT to see.

I don't care what you believe anyway, you have no significance here or anywhere else really. Your posts consistently are nothing but ranting and logical fallacies that have to be corrected.


I asked what rebuttal you had to Jones' paper, I didn't get one, well, I am fine with not getting what I asked for. It's typical.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by dereks
 


All you proved just now was that you didn't read the link I posted.
Can you answer me, why am I not surprised that you didn't even read it?


I did read it, and the links I posted debunked your Conspiracy Theory again

Once again, what qualifications do the 2 people who wrote your article have - I guess as you ignored that question they did not have any, as opposed to the people who debunked their statements!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


While Jones shows his expertise in physics, he displays his ignorance of chemistry in his vanity journal paper. Using the data he provides in the paper, it can be shown that the material is too energetic to be thermite and contains significant amounts of carbonaceous material, much like paint. There is also much more evidence of his chemical ignorance that has been brought up previously.
Further, Jones realized that the DSC in air does not prove thermite and has promised a new paper showing thermitic reaction in the absence of air. I await his results but I am not really expecting much.
His backtracking also casts doubt on his paper. When it was pointed out that thin layers of thermite don't do much, he suggested that it was secret fuse material. He estimated that at least ten tons were in the dust and has no explanation for ten tons of unburnt fuse.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked what rebuttal you had to Jones' paper, I didn't get one, well, I am fine with not getting what I asked for. It's typical.


www.debunking911.com...

"Bentham, where Jones has submited his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been critizied in the past for passing "gibberish".

www.libraryjournal.com...

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"?"



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I only know Gordon Ross is a mechanical engineer, but their qualifications aren't going to change the validity of the data they present anyway.

You debunked the wrong freaking conspiracy theory when you responded, that's how I know you didn't (and STILL HAVEN'T!) read the paper. Either that, or your reading comprehension is such that you can't even tell two different pieces of information apart from one another. Probably both.

You have a list of several "official" government sources, all of them contradict each other as to when the freaking planes hit the towers, which we all watched live on TV that day through news media sources with clocks sync'ed to the atomic clock.

But thanks again for demonstrating your bull-headedness and total refusal to even consider anything I post long enough to even read it.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It's easy for you to claim Jones doesn't know chemistry when you know even less than he does.

I asked for a published paper refuting his. Why don't you post me one instead of criticizing the intellect or expertise of someone who is totally out of your armchair league?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

All you proved just now was that you didn't read the link I posted.

Can you answer me, why am I not surprised that you didn't even read it?


Bombs 17 seconds before the crashes?

Nobody takes that laughable amateur Furlong & Ross junk data seriously.
It won a lifetime award for worst scientific investigation ever. Jones was runner up.

Even thoroughly discredited Truther disinformation is never allowed to die of natural causes.


forums.randi.org...

Just to nail this point thoroughly -- and this is worth doing, because this is perhaps the single most airtight example of the Idiot Movement being exposed for what they are -- the answer is "no."

We had a whole thread discussing this issue here, with the tipping point occurring here

forums.randi.org...

Paper co-author Craig Furlong appears in the thread as quicknthedead, an unimpressive showing to say the least.

Here's what happened: The Columbia Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory likes to release seismic records in 40-second chunks, with the seismic event centered. This gives the reader a way to visualize approximately what the background noise was before the event, and how quickly the event decays into noise afterwards.

The two WTC impact signatures were approximately 12 and 6 seconds in duration on the seismic traces, respectively. If you center these events within a 40-second window, they start at (40 - 12) / 2 = 28 / 2 = 14 seconds and (40 - 6) / 2 = 34 / 2 = 17 seconds into the 40-second window.

Craig Furlong and co-author Gordon Ross, in their zeal to discover "anomalies," read the wrong time off the plots. They plugged in the time at the start of the window, not the start of the event. Thus, they show "errors" of 14 and 17 seconds. However, even though we pointed their mistake out to Mr. Furlong in person, they still stand by their interpretation that bombs must have gone off 14 and 17 seconds prior to aircraft impact.

I stand by my assessment that the above is, perhaps, the worst scientific investigation of all time.





[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
But thanks again for demonstrating your bull-headedness and total refusal to even consider anything I post long enough to even read it.


You are the one refusing to consider anything that destroys your conspiracy theory, and there is so much that destroys it, after 8 years you are not getting anywhere, nothing will happen, in 20 years time the ct's will still be insisting they are correct, everyone say there there, gives them a little pat on the head whilst the ct's sit quietly babbling to themselves

[edit on 22/12/09 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Omg you are able to make jokes, this makes me reconsider everything I have ever believed...

Did you notice the independent eyewitness testimonies and photographic evidence of damage to the lower building that validates that paper? No, you totally ignored that. OMG what a mind-blower you are. I guess those witnesses get the award for tripping the hardest on 9/11 so as to totally hallucinate things or lie about things that never happened according to you.

reply to post by dereks
 


Yeah okay, you still didn't even read the damned link I posted. Call me what you want, the best case scenario for you is that you're a hypocrite. That's the BEST case scenario.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah okay, you still didn't even read the damned link I posted. Call me what you want, the best case scenario for you is that you're a hypocrite. That's the BEST case scenario.


If I did not read it how was I able to post links showing they were wrong.... You really are having a problem keeping up - or are you just trolling?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
If I did not read it how was I able to post links showing they were wrong.... You really are having a problem keeping up - or are you just trolling?


I thought I already explained but I don't guess you read that either?

You posted some crap from a magazine that was published a year before the paper I linked to, and didn't even address the same information.


You ask for proof -- then don't even read what I post.

Then I respond to your ranting -- and you don't read that either.

I think I'm done talking to you. Your posts speak for themselves, they are there for everyone to read and make up their own mind. Someone is definitely trolling, yes, I agree. Don't pretend for one second that you came here for a fair and open discussion, you will just be lying to yourself.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You posted some crap from a magazine that was published a year before the paper I linked to, and didn't even address the same information.


Oh dear, talk about not reading posts - you missed this little bit
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


and the discussion debunking those claims - the paper you posted was titled exactly the same, so the JREF discussion debunked the very same paper you posted!

So you are the one not reading posts and following links, is that because you know your links will be debunked there?


Your posts speak for themselves, they are there for everyone to read and make up their own mind. Someone is definitely trolling, yes, I agree.


and people will see that is you!

[quote[Don't pretend for one second that you came here for a fair and open discussion,

I did, but is appears you did not!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join