9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 71 times

Topic started on 27-2-2010 @ 01:08 PM by _BoneZ_

Here is an interview from Russia Today with Jesse Richard of TVNewsLies.org. Jesse says that he once believed the official version, just as I and most everyone else have. But the evidence against the official version is damning and overwhelming:

YouTube Link

Unlike many of the "debunkers" here and elsewhere, Jesse has taken the time to examine the official version of 9/11 and examine the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. What he didn't do was allow his denial to get the best of him when he read sites like "9/11 Myths".

NIST has not released any computer models to the public to support their theories of what happened on 9/11. In essence, those who believe the official account are taking the word of agencies such as NIST with zero proof other than their word.

I would suggest to those that believe the official version of 9/11 to actually take the time to take a look again at what little evidence is presented by the official version of events, and what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence. And by "take the time", I don't simply mean a couple hours or a day. There's alot of information to look over, take in, and understand.

Lastly, while looking at what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence, "mini nukes", no planes at the WTC, "pods", and other such nonsense are not supported by the greater 9/11 truth movement, nor acknowledged by the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement as credible theories.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:23 PM by seethelight

Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

Statistically, that means NO engineers do, because most surveys/studies have a margin of error of AT LEAST 1%.

So less than a 10th of that is meaningless.

Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail

And on and on...

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:29 PM by Sean48

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Excellent thread sir.
The Truth Movement is growing leaps every day.
All it takes is a little research , for the critical thinker , to see the Truth.

S@F

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:38 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by seethelight
So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

What's not very impressive is your numbers. They're incorrect and deliberately false.

What you forgot to include in your numbers is that out of all the architects and engineers around the world who have publicly made a statement for or against the claims of AE911T, the 1000+ architects and engineers at AE911T is a very significant number and even more than any number of architects or engineers that do not agree with AE911T.

Therefore, your number that 1/10th 1% of the worlds engineers think the WTC was CD'd is absolutely false. Because I guarantee that you cannot post 1000 names of architects and engineers that disagree with AE911T.

What you're attempting to do is claim that any architect or engineer that has not gone public with an opinion on 9/11 and specifically AE911T's findings, automatically disagrees with AE911T's findings. That would be dangerously false and irresponsible of you because you would, in essence, be putting words in peoples' mouths that never said as much.

Silence/neutrality does not mean that someone automatically sways a certain way of a two-sided argument.

So, the world's architects and engineers that have not publicly made a statement about AE911T's findings do not count in your numbers as they haven't gone public with an opinion and you don't speak for them.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:39 PM by Alfie1

Never mind Russia Today.

If the American Society of Civil Engineers or the American Institute of Architects start voicing concerns then I shall be all ears.

Hasn't happened yet though.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:40 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
Hasn't happened yet though.

I emphasized the keyword above. Just remember that word.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:43 PM by SphinxMontreal

"Russia Today is NOT a credible source."

And I am assuming someone who makes assertions anonymously on a website is a "credible source"?

"So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive."

Where did you get these statistics from? Did you have a chance to personally interview every engineer in the world? You must have quite a bit of time on your hands.

The guy in the video makes a good point. A significant number of people started out believing the Official Fairy Tale and then when they had a hard look at the evidence, or lack thereof, began believing they were hoodwinked. Very little, if any, people started out believing it was an inside job and then switched to believing the Official Fairy Tale.

Of course, someone who is brain dead (or on the Official Fairy Tale payroll) would not be able to draw an obvious conclusion from this trend.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:53 PM by Jibblin

Here is my take on the 9/11 truther stuff...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning your government.

People who completely disregard the truther idea as being radical and what not are not critical thinkers (imo). I don't think there is really that much evidence to support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't think it's smart to just simply rule it out because it sounds crazy.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:54 PM by MemoryShock

The one thing I do know is that the CIA and various other organizations have admitted to misrepresentation in the past.

It is time they slept in the bed of their making. Accountable they should be, at the least, for operating in a field of misleading information and at the most, whomever is involved, should be held accountable for their contributions to this tragedy...

You don't have to be rich anymore to play their "game"...

[edit on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:55:04 -0600 by MemoryShock]

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:56 PM by SphinxMontreal

"If the American Society of Civil Engineers or the American Institute of Architects start voicing concerns then I shall be all ears."

If they did, I guess their members can kiss those Government Grants and Government Contracts goodbye. What's the old saying? Never bite the hand that feeds you.

Let's face it, the Government has these people over a barrel. You have to be a naive idiot to think these people and other professionals have the freedom to speak their minds about 9/11. Only the very few professionals who do not have a reason to kiss the Government's ass speak candidly about the insanely inexplicable events of that day.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:04 PM by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
But the evidence against the official version is damning and overwhelming

Then why havent you posted this "damning and overwhelming" evidence then?

and examine the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.

You mean claims like mini nukes being used, holographic airplanes, pod carrying airplanes, beam weapons, invisible silent explosives.... and you think that they are valid claims?

take a look again at what little evidence is presented by the official version of events, and what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence.

Except the "truth" movement offers nothing in the way of evidence, no peer reviewed articles, just websites made by people pushing their own particular conspiracy trying to make money from 9/11

the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement

Except there are no "professional research orginisations" inside the truth movement - if there are, care to name them?

The real professional orginisations totally ignore the silly truth movement

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:05 PM by seethelight

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Yes, acrually they do count.

What you have is 1000 people that claim to support a theory.

The US has about 1.3 million licensed Engineers.

It has millions more retired one.

So, I'll be generous and say there's 3 million in the US and another 3 million in the rest of the world (and I am being generous).

So, that movement AE9/11 has been able to record 1000 out of 6+ million.

If there was ANY evidence that 10s of thousands of engineers were on record supporting these theories (which there isn't) you might scratch 10%.

What you have now, if a small fraction of 1%.

That is undeniable.

You can assume that many more (some guessed amount that pulls you closer to 1%) believe, but you have no proof.

The proof you have says a fraction of 1%.

Why do I always have to explain the difference between evidence and faith to you guys?

In addition.

As you will see in ANY thread based on an RT source, most rational folks, even on ATS, discount their stories.

And guess what, most people that have been paying attention know that the Washington Times was, for years, one of the neo-con mouthpieces of choice.

And now, you guys are spreading them around as a credible source and as an example of the MSM. They are neither.

I used to be a truther, but I saw enough facts, actual facts, to realise that it's just a bunch of people trying to prove what they already believe.

That's not how I role.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:13 PM by seethelight

YouTube Link

Here's the origin of the fake photo.

drjudywood.com...

Why not ask why Stephen Jones would create propaganda?

Why not name another non-steel-reinforced building over 40 stories?

Why not explain why the hundreds of timed explosives needed to demo two skyscrapers were NEVER reported by a single witness?

Why not ask why the buildings started falling at the point of the plane's impact? How'd the secret demo team know where the planes would hit? (I know I know remote controlled planes/holographs.)

I have yet to get any REAL answers for any of these questions.

If you want to try and convert me to your faith, start by answering these.

No one will.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:17 PM by Sean48

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Let's face it, the Government has these people over a barrel. You have to be a naive idiot to think these people and other professionals have the freedom to speak their minds about 9/11. Only the very few professionals who do not have a reason to kiss the Government's ass speak candidly about the insanely inexplicable events of that day.

this is the truth sir.

Not to mention the number of people who were silenced.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:17 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by dereks
Then why havent you posted this "damning and overwhelming" evidence then?

I and many others have posted it time and time again in many threads and it's posted on many websites. Just because you would choose to ignore it or disbelieve it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by dereks
You mean claims like mini nukes being used, holographic airplanes, pod carrying airplanes, beam weapons, invisible silent explosives.... and you think that they are valid claims?

I would suggest you stop your trolling. My OP specifically mentions just the above claims and how they are not valid claims. Therefore, you didn't even read my OP and you're only trolling.

Originally posted by dereks
Except there are no "professional research orginisations" inside the truth movement - if there are, care to name them?

We already covered this in another thread. More trolling from you, it would seem.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 02:25 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by seethelight
Yes, acrually they do count.

No, actually they don't count, so I'm going to shut you down right here. During an election, only those who get off their butts to get out and vote to elect presidents, governors and congresspeople, count in electing said officials. Those who did not vote do not count in the election results.

If no engineer publicly states an opinion for or against AE911T's findings, they do not count in your numbers and you do not speak for them and therefore you do not have the right or authority to claim they are for or against AE911T's findings either. Clear?

You cannot provide a list of names of engineers anywhere near 1000 that is against AE911T's findings. Therefore, out of those who have voted (gone public), there are more architects and engineers that support AE911T than not. All the millions of architects and engineers that have not voted (gone public with an opinion) do not count.

Hope that's clear enough for you.

Edit to add that I do understand what you're saying. That the 1000+ architects and engineers at AE911T out of all in the entire world might be a low number, but it's a very significant number among those who have gone public with an opinion either way and that out of those that have gone public either way, the AE's at AE911T far outnumber those who are against 9/11 conspiracies.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 03:12 PM by seethelight

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Sure I'll play this game.

Imagine Ron Paul ran for president and the same percentage of US residents voted for him as there are Engineers on record against the OS.

The US has 300M people.

That would mean Ron Paul would get less than 30 THOUSAND votes.

Imagine the laughter if he stood up the day after the election and said either of these things:

I got a significant number of votes.

I got a significant percentage of the vote.

People would say (justifiably) that he was delusional to say getting less than 30K votes in a national election was significant in ANY WAY.

To put that in perspective, Walter Mondale received 37Million votes.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 03:18 PM by seethelight

More perspective:

In 1920, Eugene V. Debs, a staunch socialist who had been convicted by the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech that he made in Columbus, Ohio, ran a write-in campaign from his federal prison cell in Atlanta. Debs received almost a million popular votes out of approximately 26 million cast, the most votes a Socialist Party candidate has received in U.S. history.

So one in every 26 American voters.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 03:28 PM by K J Gunderson

reply to post by seethelight

Your comparison is way off. When it comes to voting, you are counting the people that did vote for someone over the people that did not vote for someone. This is because you have people that voted for someone else.

What percentage of the pool you are discussing here has voted in favor of the OS?

You cannot compare people who voted for opposition with people who have not voted at all.

If what you are saying is true at all, then you can easily find more than a 1000 engineers, architects, etc to state on record that they support the OS. Until you have that number, your logic here is not even remotely correct.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 03:32 PM by seethelight

reply to post by K J Gunderson

I'm not trying to make that comparison, that would imply I have evidence.

I am simply putting your numbers into perspective.

1000 people would be a lot to fit into a VW bus, but it's not a lot of engineers, no matter how you look at it.

And really, we've seen that at least some of those thousand are screwballs. and of course the real numbers would have to include retired engineers and that would make the percentage MUCH MUCH smaller.

Btw., those questions you couldn't find are a few posts up.

Please answer them if you can.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^