Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by RipCurl
nice racist remark. Barely competent? You do realize that the some of the 19 were highly educated who attended collage. Several were trained soldiers (top ranked).

And six or seven of the "hijackers" are so talented, they're "alive and well"!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

really? you are still grasping on this LONG debunked claim?
www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

can you list all the cameras that were pointed at the pentagon wall and recording on 9/11/2001. their locations please.

You do realize that this side of the pentagon, faced a freeway and was on a side that normally did not have foot traffic.

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by RipCurl
nice racist remark. Barely competent? You do realize that the some of the 19 were highly educated who attended collage. Several were trained soldiers (top ranked).

And six or seven of the "hijackers" are so talented, they're "alive and well"!

really? you are still grasping on this LONG debunked claim?
www.bbc.co.uk...

"Long-debunked?" Please show me where any part of that story was retracted or declared to be untrue.

An explanatory addendum does not equate to "long-debunked."

Why not think of things this way:

A true (not programmed) debunker is really seeking resolution to the same problem you are, although they are doing it in a different way.

They find holes in your argument that disagree with your assessment and reference them as contrary to your data. What is wrong with that? If you are well read on your subject, then you should be able to dispense with those disagreements in short order. If you are not, then you have more to read up on it or.. if you are proven in error, then you politely fess up to it and give them the credit due.

It's all about understanding the true nature of the problem, and sometimes your ego has to take a vacation. It works on both sides.

Without this control, people get to say things that become gospel because nobody chimed in with an opinion. It is the way of science, and the way all discoveries in other diciplines work. Without the sceptic, or 'person who does not believe your viewpoint", where would we be today? Give it a break and accept controversy as an opportunity to show everyone that you know what you are talking about.

Professional debunkers will be easy to weed out, becaue the first data exchange with them on an itellectual level should expose them for what they are. Go for it, do not fear it.

(Edited for spelling)


[edit on 30-11-2009 by charlyv]

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

well if the hijackers were kind enough to run a red light before crashing into the pentagon, we would have a nice image.


your argument holds about as much water as a single cat hair. to rephrase it "there are cameras watching lots of roads, how come they didnt get a picture of a plane at one exact specific split second?"

im sick of hearing people complain about debunkers and skeptics. its f-ing moronic. theres already WAY too much group think here, the people that actually question claims thrown out are refreshing and try to keep things a bit reasonable. they demand proof of conspiracy claims. in other words, they ask people for a reason to believe whats being said. if you cant withstand that type of scrutiny, then what you have to say obviously isnt important enough to make it worth the effort to build a case.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Minimal? nearly all the floors within WTC 7 was on fire. As described by several firefighters on scene, they called the building Fully engulfed in fire.

Yeah, here's the north face of WTC 7, with "nearly all the floors on fire" (ONE floor that appears to have been set):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3b266208771.jpg[/atsimg]

Southeast and southwest face of "fully-engulfed" WTC 7: (upper right)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d435533fe5d.jpg[/atsimg]

In contrast, here's a high-rise fire in Madrid, Spain that burned for 10 hours and never collapsed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2578d659fda1.jpg[/atsimg]

As a matter of fact, no steel-framed high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

So much for your honesty and credibility.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


This one did friend. I guess you had to be there....

It's the Original Posters one fall-back argument. Condensing shills, do not worry about it, he's known for it, just take it that he is saying "I can't" to any proper debate. Oh well, I'm sure he means well - he doesn't resort to this all the time.

I usually keep out of the 9/11 form after a promise I made, but my god, when I venture in I am treated with relentless, pure self mutilation slapstick comedy.

*flame suit on*.

[edit on 30/11/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Nah,
It reads "Ready when you are".

Pictures are crap, Knowledge is power.
Give it a go.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


i am with you completely...i believe there are gov paid members here..
a person can notice that...
they were some threads which bugging in my mind for quite some time but the idea of gov paid members didnot came to me,few weeks ago i read this on some other place that ATS has many gov paid members,it finally clicked..

[edit on 30-11-2009 by zilch]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by zilch]

To expand, they did have pictures of the event but selected frames aka cherry picking but there's no plane. Besides a plane that size should have produced tons of debris and on and on.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

well if the hijackers were kind enough to run a red light before crashing into the pentagon, we would have a nice image.

your argument holds about as much water as a single cat hair. to rephrase it "there are cameras watching lots of roads, how come they didnt get a picture of a plane at one exact specific split second?"

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
To expand, they did have pictures of the event but selected frames aka cherry picking but there's no plane.

a camera, the only one that caught the plane was recording 1 frame per second. a plane traveling at 800 ft per second would barely be caught on film from this camera. The plane appeared in 1 frame before explosion. So the frames before and after the impact were provided.

Besides a plane that size should have produced tons of debris and on and on.

it did. or do you continue to ignore that the entire lawn fronting the crash site was LITTERED with debris. or the testimony of 8000 crash site cleanup and investigator who cataloged and collected the parts?

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

well if the hijackers were kind enough to run a red light before crashing into the pentagon, we would have a nice image.

your argument holds about as much water as a single cat hair. to rephrase it "there are cameras watching lots of roads, how come they didnt get a picture of a plane at one exact specific split second?"

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

An explanatory addendum does not equate to "long-debunked."

you just quoted where I provided the proof that it was debunked. Jeez do you even read what you replying to? STraight from the source that started the damn rumor.

reply to post by RipCurl

I have read enough of the nist report to conclude its bogus!

reading the table of contents will not give you what the Entire report stated.

Of course, you can list here all the things that NIST got wrong..

Here I'll start a list for you :

1) Nist got _____ wrong for this reason:


There.. now please fill in the blanks and provide proof for your reason to believe its wrong.

I just nailed you about NIST on “page 5” I gave you the most creditable sources that exposed NIST and their lies. YOU were giving the sources of what lies NIST printed and told. Yet you total ignored my entire post and run right back and demand everyone to post what lies did NIST tell or print.

In fact you haven’t even quoted my articles, sources why?

The fact is all three WTC blew to pieces in mid air and here is the proof that NIST did their very best to avoid to explain the truth. and in fact NIST has the top leading experts in Nano Thermite & Nano Thermate. But when NIST is approached on the subject of Nano Thermite they act stupid on the subject. This tells me they are hiding the facts.
This tells me that NIST are criminals and should be held accountable don’t you think?

The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence
for energetic materials
Kevin R. Ryan Æ James R. Gourley Æ
Steven E. Jones
Published online:

www.springerlink.com...

The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-
Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur
System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center
Buildings on 9/11/2001
By
Jerry Lobdill
June 15, 2007

www.journalof911studies.com...

Jones v. Robertson
A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center

journalof911studies.com...

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01
By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

www.journalof911studies.com...


These are not simple mistake and I believe everyone can agree on that, don’t your think?






[edit on 30-11-2009 by impressme]

Ok so what about 1, 2, 3, 4 + seconds after shouldnt there be some plane?

Something clearly happened there but not how they are saying.

It's just my 2 cents. It doesn't add up.

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
To expand, they did have pictures of the event but selected frames aka cherry picking but there's no plane.

a camera, the only one that caught the plane was recording 1 frame per second. a plane traveling at 800 ft per second would barely be caught on film from this camera. The plane appeared in 1 frame before explosion. So the frames before and after the impact were provided.

Besides a plane that size should have produced tons of debris and on and on.

it did. or do you continue to ignore that the entire lawn fronting the crash site was LITTERED with debris. or the testimony of 8000 crash site cleanup and investigator who cataloged and collected the parts?

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

well if the hijackers were kind enough to run a red light before crashing into the pentagon, we would have a nice image.

your argument holds about as much water as a single cat hair. to rephrase it "there are cameras watching lots of roads, how come they didnt get a picture of a plane at one exact specific split second?"

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
\

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3b266208771.jpg[/atsimg]

early in the day photograph when it was just hit by the collapse of WTC 1.

Nice that you cherry pick your photographs




smoke covers every floor of the building later in the day.

this video shows the extensive damage the smoke nearly coming out of every floor:

www.youtube.com...



Listen very carefully to the audio. the firefighters on scene were very clued in and believe the building would collapse.

Southeast and southwest face of "fully-engulfed" WTC 7: (upper right)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d435533fe5d.jpg[/atsimg]

this photo doesn't show what you are claiming.

In contrast, here's a high-rise fire in Madrid, Spain that burned for 10 hours and never collapsed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2578d659fda1.jpg[/atsimg]

yes, a photo taken of a raging fire at NIGHT will definitely be more dramatic that one TAKEN during the day.

apples and oranges dear. WTC 7 fully constructed STEEL high rise building with a cantilever design for the first 6 floors (due to the CONED station it was built right over) - so unlike the CONCRETE CORE supported structure of the MADRID tower, the two buildings had nothing in common. YOU however, omit that the STEEL PORTIONS of the Mardrid Tower DID collapse due to the fire. Why do you omit that? Why are you leaving out this information? Also, the MAdrid tower, despite efforts of the firefighters, was able to fight the fire, but unable to save the portions that collapse.

Care to explain where the Madrid tower is today?
Oh sorry deary, it doesn't exist. it was so heavily damaged that they government CONDEMNED the building at it was subsequenlty torn down.


First 17 floors of the Madrid tower was supported by a concrete core. The top floors were steel only. The floors affected by the fire collapsed.

Why do you truthers continue to misrepresent the events of MAdrid tower, when NOTHING in that fire even SUPPORTS anything you claim.

If the Madrid fire wasn't so "bad" as you are trying to make it out to be, why was the building deemed unsafe and then demolished?

As a matter of fact, no steel-framed high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

still trotting out this false choice fallacy? So, i guess you dont believe that we can fly? go to the moon? invented the wheel? First time for everything, however the EVENTS of 9/11 to all three buildings are based on a set of unique circumstances.

NO time in history has a nearly fully fueled aircraft used as a missile to take out two of the largest buildings in the New York skyline. Yet that is what happened on 9/11/2001. Guess that didn't happen by your logic.

You conveniently forget that wTC7 was hit by the collapse of WTC 1 causing sever damage to the building. And the fact that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were hit by giant aircrafts that had the equivalent energy of an atomic bomb.why do you denier continue to misrepresent the facts?

So much for your honesty and credibility.

sorry, but im not the one who is being dishonest. YOu used Madrid to support your claims when it did nothing of the sort (you left out pertinent information). Simple research would have shown you that you were wrong to use it as a means to support your factless claims

This is my problem, as an outside observer.

I watched 9-11 happen live on television from the second plane impact forward. When it happened, I was, like most of us, awe-struck. Even in that awe and terror, however, I did see the collapse as strange. It looked like a controlled demolition to me. That's what it looked like, but I'm not a physicist, structural engineer, or demolitions expert, and I'm horrible with numbers, so I have only their experts' word to go on. The same is true of the various conspiracy hypotheses and the official story as well.

I've read the NIST report. I've read the 9-11 Commission report. Every time some new facet of the official story is published, I read it. Likewise, every time there's a new angle to one of the various conspiracy theories, I read, watch, and/or listen to them as well. I've watched every video, read every article, and seen every piece of evidence everyone else here has. Some of them seem like they have merit. That's how they seem, but, again, I'm not a structural engineer, physicist, or demolitions expert, and I'm horrible with numbers. Bottom line: I. Don't. Know.

At the end of the day, my dilemma is: all there are are hypotheses. The official story and the various conspiracy stories are all hypotheses. They have supporting evidence, some stronger or weaker than others, yet ultimately they all lack irrefutable proof that can't allow for any additional questions to be raised, or holes to be poked in them.

Do I feel, in my gut, and in my heart, that something other than what we've been told happened that day? Yes. Has that been irrefutably proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, though? No. Has the official story been proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, either? No.

As a layperson and someone open minded to conspiracy theories, it seems to me as though it would be easier, more cost effective, and safer for the conspirators to let the people who already long aspired to attack us in such a horrific way "get away with it" as a means to an end. The fact that there are historical precedents (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.) also makes me feel inclined to lean in that direction, rather than toward theories of controlled demolition, missiles, or holographic planes. That's how it seems and how I feel but, once again, I. Don't. Know.

I think being able and willing to admit that is important, and indeed, crucial, if the truth is really what one is pursuing.

So, as a skeptic, I am forced to refrain from jumping to any conclusions, let alone asserting those conclusions as facts (as some do, on both "sides.") So, does that make me disinfo agent? Because as far as I'm concerned, it just makes me rational and honest. But no one here can prove that, either, and that's the point.

We. Don't. Know.

Someone does, though, presumably. When one of you meets them, please let the rest of us know.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by impressme



I just nailed you about NIST on “page 5” I gave you the most creditable sources that exposed NIST and their lies. YOU were giving the sources of what lies NIST printed and told. Yet you total ignored my entire post and run right back and demand everyone to post what lies did NIST tell or

acutally you didn't.

again, easy enough

1) nist go this ______ wrong. My evidence :



I've yet to see your list.

In fact you haven’t even quoted my articles, sources why?

I didn't see any articles worth reading. First, point to an article published by the ASCE? Arthictecture digest? Fire Safety? Controlled Demolitions...



...oh wait....there are none that have been submited by anyone in the truth movement.


however, a lot of articles published in many respected publications that debunk many of the claims by truthers.

The fact is all three WTC blew to pieces in mid air and here is the proof that NIST did their very best to avoid to explain the truth. and in fact NIST has the top leading experts in Nano Thermite & Nano Thermate. But when NIST is approached on the subject of Nano Thermite they act stupid on the subject. This tells me they are hiding the facts.

This proves you have no idea wtf you are talking bout. the WTC towers didn't blow to pieces in mid air. They collapsed

Provide a link showing in video or photographs that the towers were blowing up.

This tells me that NIST are criminals and should be held accountable don’t you think?

excuse me, but the only criminals here are the ones fleecing gullible people like you to buy into their proganda of explosives, thermite and no planes via DVD's, tshirts, videos, and donations.

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.springerlink.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

journalof911studies.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

BWHAHAHA. Journal of 911 lies and Kevin Ryan the water boy? You really have to do better than that. Care to provide why they haven't submitted their papers to REAL journals? JO911S is a sham journal. Thermite?

Thank you for taking us back to 2006 when all of these claims were long debunke.d

Those espousing thermite can't even keep their stories straight. first it was thermite (but it isn't an explosive) so the idiots changed it to thermate (which still isnt' an explsoive) so now its "super duper secret nano-thermite" which dsoesn't exist in large quantities outside of laboratories (and didn't exist in reality till AFTER 2001), and still isn't an explosive.

So when pointed out, the idiots change their tune and now claim that its thermite with Explosives (thermite was used to ignite the explosives) however, no one heard explosision charactertic of what a CD sounds like.


aLL claims that fail reality and of course, NOT supported by physical evidence.




So, list all the things that Nist got wrong

1) NiST got ________ wrong; here is the evidence


provide links to published reports in respected peer review journals to support your claims.

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Ok so what about 1, 2, 3, 4 + seconds after shouldnt there be some plane?

what are you talking about? a plane traveling at 800 ft per second will last 1/10th of a second in view of a camera that only takes a pic 1 frame per second. it was lucky that the camera did capture what it did. It was far more likely that it would have caught the wall before and after the impact, and no plane in between.

I'm sensing tons of hostility here.

Negative energy is running wild ...