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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.


You have been shown I am correct. You cannot refute the evidence.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have been shown I am correct. You cannot refute the evidence.


This is your entire argument.

You never post the evidence you base your various claims on, you just make the claims and say you don't have to prove anything. Then claim you haven't been refuted and you're right.

Can you explain how your method of debating is any different at all than what an elementary schooler could offer?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


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

The town I live in is not very large , but there are at least 4 other people in town who share my first and last name .

If one of them dies tonight , that doesn't necessarily mean that I will be dead tomorrow .



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The pics you posted are in no way 'proof' of explosions or CD .

Simply because you post pics showing squibs does not prove anything in the way of explosives .

I fail to comprehend any truly legitimate reason that you and others refuse to consider that the floors INSIDE (unseen) the building were probably collapsing in advance of the exterior (visible) columns of the building .

I gave a reasonable explanation of this in my thread , but you and others chose to ridicule me for my opinion instead of discussing the possibilty in a mature manner .

Seems to me that none of you could refute it in an intellectual manner , so all of you chose instead to seek out the next available 9/11 thread wherein to post your redundant claims of 'proof' , without actually offering any 'proof' to this thread either .

Repeating 'proof' and 'been de-bunked already' does not make it so , no matter how often you say it .

How about PROVING that those squibs are evidence of CD , instead of just claiming that they are .

My theory makes more sense , as it is more plausible and probable .

You are a big part of the reason that you will never get another investigation .

Producing pictures of squibs and saying this is proof that CD was apparent will always fall upon deaf ears .

If you actually had proof of CD , you would have been given your day in court years ago .

So , why is it that the TM can't get on a docket somewhere ?

Don't bother to answer , we all know why already .



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Just for the sake of argument , let's put everything else aside and entertain your claims that a few random and isolated 'squibs' are proof of CD .

How can you claim that planes impacting the buildings , doing damage to NUMEROUS columns , and the resultant fires that caused considerable further damage , was not enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse , while at the same time you claim that an isolated explosion here and there was enough to cause collapse ?

If the squibs were indeed charges going off , then it is apparent to even the untrained eye that those 'charges' were taking out no more than one (1) column at a time , in random locations .

Planes and fires couldn't weaken the structure , but an isolated charge here and there could ?

Show me a controlled demolition where the charges were placed in such a haphazard manner .

You've got to be kidding .

We all know charges in controlled demolitions are placed systematically in key locations . They are not placed in such seemingly random locations and sequences .

Your claims to the contrary are without merit from an educated and intelligent standpoint .

[edit on 6-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
_bonez_ thank you so much for replying to my questions. You bring up very good points and sources to research in my quest for the truth about 9/11. I had thought I hit a dead end and you have pointed me into new directions and I thank you for that. Several things you mentioned I am currently researching.

You said:
That may have some truth to it if you were very near to the explosives, 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.

There are 1000's of different types of explosives but only a few that can bring down a large building like the WTC and not explode in fire and at the same time being powerful enough to blast through huge steel support beams. I have to research before I make the claim that there are no explosives that can bring down the WTC in the way that it was brought down without rupturing eardrums. It's something worth looking into

You also pointed out a building that was collapsing in almost the exact same way the one of the twin towers was. That almost had me 100% conviced right there. Then I asked myself a question. Which one of these two buildings was hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane and then set on fire and which one wasn't?

The fact that the building was hit by the airplane at the point of failure makes it impossible to find any sort of irrefutable evidence.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I have to repeat myself for some posters:

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

Long ago completely debunked:

www.debunking911.com...

For any 9/11 Truthers here who still believe they have special privileges to claim it's not their job to explain anything and support their claims but can "just ask questions" and "demand answers", you need not reply. Instead, head directly to the authorities to demand a new investigation on that basis.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Repeating 'proof' and 'been de-bunked already' does not make it so , no matter how often you say it . How about PROVING that those squibs are evidence of CD , instead of just claiming that they are .
My theory makes more sense , as it is more plausible and probable . You are a big part of the reason that you will never get another investigation.


Here we go again okbmd, the claims that this is OWNED by an individual must stop, this is ridiculous, seriously!

This person you refer to has nothing to do with whether a new investigation will go forth or not, it has nothing to do with HIM..

It has to do with the explanation and details of the events do not make sense.

Grow up!

This isn't a forum to disrespect people!

Ohh I forgot I am on ignore!



[edit on 6-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

It has to do with the explanation and details of the events do not make sense.


Could you explain just what doesn't make sense to whom?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


to bonez to me....

will I get in trouble for that one line reply?





posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 


to bonez to me....

will I get in trouble for that one line reply?




You didn't say what doesn't make sense. Explain.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


A few threads of explanation of what is believed to not make sense.
A Nail in the offical story! Sept 12th 1970 4 planes hijacked by Islamic Jihad!
New News Five Demolition Teams Cleaned Up WTC Site!
A Question of Accuracy in FEMA Reports
DNA vs Melting Aircraft Metals: Who Wins?


jthomas I have 14 threads and plenty of posts that list what doesn't make sense. Please go search through them so we don't derail another 911 thread ok?

Or make a thread and we can chat there, ok?




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Better a truther than a sucker.

Seriously, it's amazing that after all the evidence that's been released about 9-11 that people still buy the govt's lies.

They say there's a sucker born every minute. According to answers.com there were actually 7.9 suckers born every minute in the USA in 2005.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by lucid_dream_tricks]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Simply because you post pics showing squibs does not prove anything in the way of explosives .

It absolutely does. That phenomena has only been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

Unless you have images or videos of the same phenomena outside of controlled demolitions, then there's nothing else to discuss on this point.



Originally posted by okbmd
I fail to comprehend any truly legitimate reason that you and others refuse to consider that the floors INSIDE (unseen) the building were probably collapsing in advance of the exterior (visible) columns of the building .

That's because you have failed to do any real, legitimate research. There are some ejections as far as 60+ floors away from the collapse wave, nowhere near any collapsing floors. But you can feel free to make up whatever you like to explain away those ejections that far down the building.



Originally posted by okbmd
How about PROVING that those squibs are evidence of CD , instead of just claiming that they are .

I've shown proof with my collage. It has yet to be legitimately refuted.



Originally posted by okbmd
My theory makes more sense , as it is more plausible and probable .

You can make up whatever theories that make sense to you all you like. Whatever makes you sleep at night.



Originally posted by okbmd
Producing pictures of squibs and saying this is proof that CD was apparent will always fall upon deaf ears .

It hasn't yet. And it still hasn't been refuted by any legitimate proofs yet, either.



Originally posted by okbmd
How can you claim that planes impacting the buildings , doing damage to NUMEROUS columns , and the resultant fires that caused considerable further damage , was not enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse

Because, as we've stated a million times over and over again, the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of jetliners traveling at 600mph and the resulting fires. Just as every other steel-structured highrise has survived fires all throughout history.



Originally posted by okbmd
while at the same time you claim that an isolated explosion here and there was enough to cause collapse

This is where real, tireless research comes in. It wasn't "isolated" explosions. There were hundreds of explosives in those towers. Many demolitions use multiple types and strengths of explosives to bring a building down.



Originally posted by okbmd
We all know charges in controlled demolitions are placed systematically in key locations . They are not placed in such seemingly random locations and sequences .

You obviously don't know. However, the charges were not random:





posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Which one of these two buildings was hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane and then set on fire and which one wasn't?

That's irrelevant. The towers were designed to withstand impacts of jetliners traveling at 600mph, and survive the resulting fires, just like every other steel-structured highrise has survived fire all throughout history.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no comparison between "explosive squibs" and what actually occurred.

You forgot to add "according to someone's theories and opinions" to the end of your claim.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


Exactly, Jthomas. In their pursuit of their make believe, these conspiracy people honestly don't see anythign wrong with offering yet more make believe.

In the real world, the WTC towers had their structural supports in the interior core, and along the perimeter of the building. These are necessarily the locations where these imaginary, "controlled demolitions" would need to be, and both of these locations were in high traffic areas. The internal core was in constant examination for metal fatigue, rust, water damage, etc like ever OTHER skyscraper in the world, while the exterior columts were out in the tenant areas and sabotage would have been immediately noticable.

Not that it matters, since any controlled demolitions charge powerful enough to defeat the structural steel without precutting the steel (mandatory for controlled demolitions) woudl be powerful enough to have caused very noticible flashes. Even in conspiracy world it's a given that physics have to apply to them, too.

These controlled demolitions stories are just plain unbelievable.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by okbmd
Simply because you post pics showing squibs does not prove anything in the way of explosives .

It absolutely does. That phenomena has only been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.


Repeated fallacious reasoning. What happened to the WTC towers is completely different than explosive squibs. No "explosive squibs" have the characteristics of that seen at the WTC Towers.


Unless you have images or videos of the same phenomena outside of controlled demolitions, then there's nothing else to discuss on this point.


That reasoning is as bad as claiming there is no evidence that the Titanic sank or AA77 did not hit the Pentagon because no images or videos exist of either event.

No positive evidence of explosives at the WTC site have ever been demonstrated. None of the characteristics of explosives use has ever been found, either as residue or the necessary effects on the steel revealed by the use of explosives.

The subject of "explosive demolition" of the WTC towers is dead. To keep bringing it up shows why the 9/11 Truth Movement will never get another investigation.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   


Tested for evidence
thermite was found

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Mr Zeropoint]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
Which one of these two buildings was hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane and then set on fire and which one wasn't?

That's irrelevant. The towers were designed to withstand impacts of jetliners traveling at 600mph, and survive the resulting fires, just like every other steel-structured highrise has survived fire all throughout history.


Please give us the source for your claims.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join