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.

 

Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas
 


Its clear from looking at your account that you obviously have an issue with seeking the truth regarding 911.


Not in the slightest. I have an issue with those who repeatedly make claims they cannot support - like claiming "9/11 was an inside job."


Something that you do not seemed to be too concerned about doing despite that 85% of Americans believe that the US Gov was complicit in some manner regarding the events of 911.


The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be. Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" _ the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet _ quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.
Scripps News Service


I also have an issue with Truthers who misrepresent the facts. The above survey is from July 2006 - almost 4 years ago - and states quite clearly:


"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."


The most recent survey, "Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor: The People and Their Government, April 18, 2010" from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, does not even mention anything about 9/11. See: pewresearch.org... and for the full survey:people-press.org...


Seems like the more the discussion goes on the more that people such as yourself try to insult rather than anything else in regards to discussing 911.


The subject of the OP is that the poster was called a 9/11 Truther as a pejorative for asserting "that 9/11 was an inside job." I have simply made the observation why Truthers get derision.


Despite what you believe normal folks just move on if they think that something is "stupid" or otherwise, but people like you step into the middle of it because you know for a fact your position is full of lies when based on the official explanation of 911.


My position has always been clear: the burden of proof is on the shoulders of 9/11 Truthers to support their claims. In 9 years, they haven't, they won't, and they can't.


The 911 report you people try to defend is a lie, ...


Neither have I "defended" the 9/11 Commission report nor do I need to. You have to refute it and you haven't. I simply challenge you truthers to support your claims and I point out the fallacious nature of those claims and how Truthers never can demonstrate the validity of those claims.


...and thats not my opinion rather its the statement by the Senior Counsel to the Commission.


I should not have to remind anyone that the 9/11 Commission stated:


"On September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with knives, box-cutters, mace and pepper spray penetrated the defenses of the most powerful nation in the world. They inflicted unbearable trauma on our people, and turned the international order upside down."


and John Farmer agrees.


Here is my evidence stated it was an inside job.

www.youtube.com...

BBC statement saying the arabs names of the so called terrorists were still alive.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
I believe you are now ready to admit I have no reason to believe there was molten steel.

Your denial gives you reason to admit there was no molten steel. All while ignoring the dozens upon dozens of witnesses that have testified to seeing the molten steel.


Dealt with in my two-part post above. No evidence of molten steel.


You would think firefighters, who see fires every single day, or controlled demolition experts, would know what molten steel looks like. I even posted an image that the president of CDI says exists of molten steel.


Dealt with above. Firefighters know how to estimate temperatures from observation of burnt items and melted metals. That's why their estimates of maximum temperatures never exceeded 2,000 degrees F., insufficient to melt construction steel.


There are, however, things you need to consider:

2.) There could very well have been molten aluminum mixed in with the pools of molten metal in the basements of the towers, but you have to ask yourself: where did all the energy come from in the basements of the the towers, some 7-storeys below the ground, to melt all that steel and aluminum? Where did the energy come from to sustain it for weeks and months?


You forgot that you have no evidence of molten steel anywhere. None. Zero.


3.) The melting point of aluminum is almost 1300-degrees. At that temperature, you're getting dangerously close to the maximum temperature of office fires which is about 1800 degrees under the most ideal, oxygen-fed, open-air conditions.


The temperatures were sufficient to melt aluminum. They were insufficient to melt steel. You have not demonstrated otherwise and I have showed you above why you are unable to demonstrate any evidence of melted steel.


There was not enough oxygen below ground to fuel any kind of fires that may have magically bypassed a quarter-mile of dust/debris and made it into the basements from above.


There is no evidence of melted steel. None.

Rather than repeat your assertions, you need to address my points in my two-part post above. They show why you cannot claim there was molten steel.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Step 2: Sources say that evidence of demolition is not valid (explosions, thermite, etc) and give specific reasons why. Refuting the conspiracy theroy

Demolition has never been refuted. They think it's refuted with their opinions and theories, nothing more.



Originally posted by iamcpc
there was no evidence of demolition and I'm unable to find ANY

Allow me. This is proof of controlled demolition:





These concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. Numerous first responders, by-standers, and survivors heard the detonation sequence when both buildings fell.

Any minute now, debunkers will be along to say how those plumes are just air being compressed out of the windows. But it will only be their opinions because you will never find an image or video of a building collapse anywhere the exhibits these concentrated plumes except for controlled demolition. And in my research, I've seen videos of building collapses from earthquakes, fires, you name it, those concentrated plumes never show up except for controlled demolition.

If you've watched the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness", then you will have seen this:





There were about 9 large explosions that came from the WTC before the south tower collapsed. If you read the First Responder Oral Histories, you will see that there are first responders that testify to that exact number of pre-collapse explosions before the south tower collapsed. That is video proof and corroborating witness testimony to pre-collapse explosions.

In the First Responder Oral Histories, there are also numerous first responders that saw low-level flashes going up, down, and around both towers in the lower and middle levels of the buildings while they were collapsing up above. Some first responders even described popping or exploding sounds with the flashes.

In other words, the structure was being weakened below as the top part was coming down. Hence the concentrated plumes shown in my collage above.

Furthermore, there's this:




Controlled demolition companies don't use fire to bring steel-structured high-rises down because fire can't. Yet we're led to believe that's exactly what happened to WTC 7.

I've challenged others to start their own controlled demolition company and show us how to bring down steel-structured high-rises with fire. Nobody has obliged yet.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Theorists say there were eyewitnesses who heard explosions.

Not only did they just hear the explosions, they were knocked around on my different floors in those buildings because of the explosions. FDNY firefighter John Schroeder said he and his team were bounced around like pinballs in the stairwells from the explosions. Numerous witnesses reported being blown, thrown, bounced around, and knocked out from the explosions.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Demolition grade explosives are so powerful that they would rupture unprotected eardrums within a certain radius

That may have some truth to it if you were very near to the explosives, say within a few feet. But, there are about 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in controlled demolitions. Some being more powerful than others, some being louder than others.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Refers to a photo that I saved that clearly shows the point of falure on the building to be where the airplane hit (the bottom part is standing upright and the top part is falling over).

You must be talking about this photo:




You can make any building fall any way you want with the right timing, delays, and explosives.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Then explains that if demolition explosives were on those floors before the planes hit then they would have detonated from fire long before the towers collapsed

That's not entirely true. Although that could have and may have happened, and could very well have explained some of the explosions, the explosives above and below would have been just fine. And on top of that, there are many explosives that would not detonate just because of fire.



Originally posted by iamcpc
In bulding demolition exploves have to be attached to load bearing steel support colums.

And remember those load-bearing support columns were hidden in the cores of both buildings, easily accessible through the elevator shafts.



Originally posted by iamcpc
In a bulding the size of the WTC (a MEGA demolition project) it would have taken a crew of over 100 professionals over 6 months to prep the building for demolition

And it could've taken a smaller team even longer. One of George W. Bush's brothers was on the board of directors for the company that handled electronic security at the WTC through the late 90's up to about a year or two before 9/11.



Originally posted by iamcpc
EVERYONE who went into that building would know that it was being prepped for demolition with explosives.

That would be false. According to construction workers who survived 9/11, there was always construction work going on somewhere at the WTC. People at the WTC would have seen construction workers day in and day out, and would never think twice about seeing workers coming in and out of the buildings each day. There have also been numerous upgrade projects that explosives could have been brought in under the guise of normal construction.

Then we have Turner Construction company who occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1, who also has done demolitions. The CEO of Turner Construction became a very popular person to George W. Bush. You can read more about Bush's brothers and Turner Construction in this thread here.



Originally posted by iamcpc
If someone was next to my desk jackhammering concrete away from a steel support beam anywhere in my building EVERYONE would know.

But people did hear and know. Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor of WTC 2 had this to say:

"It must've been at least 4 to 6 weeks before 9/11. It was like rebuilding work going on upstairs. The tenants, the people from Aon moved somewhere else and the offices were just vacant. And there was alot of heavy machinery work going on. It was almost like pneumatic drills and lots of hammering. So much so that the floors were shaking. That's how noticeable it was. It was almost as if something heavy was being moved and then it was being taken off wheels and then it was like BOOM! Our floor underneath literally shook. You could feel the weight above you. That's how large it was.

On one occasion, I opened a door to see what was going on, being nosey, when I opened the door, the whole office space was empty. There was nothing there at all."

Scott Forbes continues with more amazing detail:

"Probably the week leading up to 9/11, every morning I would come in and the dust was incredible. It was like the cleaners weren't cleaning. Right were the windows were, there was a sill with radiators (registers) and were thick with dust that was appearing on the window sills. It was dirty gray. And very, very noticeable in that week leading up to 9/11."


And talking about the company that moved "Aon" that Scott Forbes mentioned, that company's managing director was none other than George W. Bush's cousin, Jim Pierce. Bush's cousin "coincidentally" just so happened to reschedule a meeting from the WTC to the Millennium Hotel across the street just the night before. You can read more that here.


Too many inexplicable coincidences happened on 9/11 and never before or after. Too many questions are unanswered and most can't be answered until there is a new, independent, international investigation. If you're truly interested in finding out what happened on 9/11, keep researching.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
Step 2: Sources say that evidence of demolition is not valid (explosions, thermite, etc) and give specific reasons why. Refuting the conspiracy theroy

Demolition has never been refuted. They think it's refuted with their opinions and theories, nothing more.



Originally posted by iamcpc
there was no evidence of demolition and I'm unable to find ANY

Allow me. This is proof of controlled demolition:





These concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. Numerous first responders, by-standers, and survivors heard the detonation sequence when both buildings fell.


There is no comparison between "explosive squibs" and what actually occurred.

Long ago completely debunked:

www.debunking911.com...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Not debunked. Only "opinioned" because you have no proof of compression like that anywhere in any other building collapse in history besides a controlled demolition.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas
 


Not debunked. Only "opinioned" because you have no proof of compression like that anywhere in any other building collapse in history besides a controlled demolition.


No, it's completely debunked.

There is no point in repeating debunked claims.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


The word "opinioned" that he just used is accurate.

Offering personal speculation is not "debunking." It's offering your personal speculation.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

These concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.


What a sad statement.

You KNOW about verinage. You KNOW that there are NO explosives used. You KNOW that there are similar jets of debris and dust in these collapses.

And yet this claim is made.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You KNOW that there are similar jets of debris and dust in these collapses.

That would be 100% completely false information. You will never find isolated ejections like I have shown in my collage, anywhere in any building collapse besides controlled demolition. You will never be able to prove otherwise. Therefore, it is a fact and your "theory" or "interpretation" is only your opinion as is those who espouse the same opinion.

I've said it millions of times before and I'll say it yet again: until anyone provides images or videos of isolated ejections like are shown in my collage, then it will remain a fact that those isolated ejections are only found in controlled demolition and anything else that anybody tries to claim they are is just opinions, fantasies and theories, nothing more.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
It's clear that no "demolition squib" has the characteristics of what happened with the WTC towers and none has been demonstrated.

This is just another illustration of why 9/11 Truthers will not be able to get a new investigation.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That would be 100% completely false information. You will never find isolated ejections like I have shown in my collage, anywhere in any building collapse besides controlled demolition. You will never be able to prove otherwise.


Ahhh, so once you narrow it down to such a narrow scope, anyone can make such a claim. How boring.

But what is 100% true, is that air is ejected during a verinage demo. Proving the simpler explanation.

What is also 100% true is that you will only use still photographs in your mockumentary to try and prove your delusional point to truthers.

What is also 100% true is that you will NEVER do a motion analysis of the air ejections at the towers, and compare them to verified demos. This is because such a motion analysis will absolutely prove that the air ejections from the towers, and the squibs from confirmed demos will have absolutley nothing in common.

I have 100% confidence in this. i also have 100% confidence that if anyone ever bothers to debunk this point of your mockumentary, you will deny the scientific quality of said debunking.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ahhh, so once you narrow it down to such a narrow scope, anyone can make such a claim. How boring.

So, in other words, you can't debunk that fact. Thanks for admitting it in not so many words.




Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What is also 100% true is that you will only use still photographs in your mockumentary to try and prove your delusional point to truthers.

This statement is 100% misinformation based on, well......nothing, really.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What is also 100% true is that you will NEVER do a motion analysis of the air ejections at the towers, and compare them to verified demos.

Yet more misinformation based on nothing.

I've got numerous videos of known CD's and there are some that have ejections that are identical to the WTC. Don't worry, there will be little, if anything, to debunk.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ahhh, so once you narrow it down to such a narrow scope, anyone can make such a claim. How boring.

So, in other words, you can't debunk that fact. Thanks for admitting it in not so many words.


For a "fact" to be debunked, the fact must be presented. Your logical fallacy is not a fact. There is no comparison between "demolition squibs" and what happened in the WTC towers. You have presented nothing to relate them.

Feel free to present actual evidence, not more claims.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Um, the fact that they are present in controlled demolitions and nowhere else is fact enough that they are related. The people that heard the detonation sequence for both towers would also corroborate that fact as well.

Just you claiming they're not related does not make it so. Until you show some actual proof in the form of image or video that isolated ejections exist in other building collapses, then you have nothing but opinions and theories, period.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas
 


Um, the fact that they are present in controlled demolitions and nowhere else is fact enough that they are related.


Already debunked years ago.

The fact is that they don't resemble each other in any material characteristics whatsoever.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Already debunked years ago.

The fact is that they don't resemble each other in any material characteristics whatsoever.

Which means you have no proof and therefore have to play little games akin to sticking your fingers in your ears.

Anyone researching the ejections will know with little research that isolated ejections will never appear in any other type of building collapse except controlled demolitions. That debunker website you like to post is based on someones opinion with no actual proof to the contrary.

So, you can stick your fingers in your ears and say "been debunked for years" all you like, but until you show some image or video with isolated ejections from a building collapse that is not a CD, then it's not really been debunked and everyone can and will see that.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Don't worry, there will be little, if anything, to debunk.




Correction.

There will be little need, if any, to debunk it.

It'll just depend if someone feels like doing their impersonation of a cat playing with a mouse.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

but until you show some image or video with isolated ejections from a building collapse that is not a CD, then it's not really been debunked and everyone can and will see that.



See, this is what i meant by narrowing the scope.

This is the only thing that you will accept as a debunking.

Sorry, but you don't get to choose what it takes to debunk your, well, bunk.

But, that what the typical truther does. No big surprise there...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join