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.

 

9/11 demolition theory debunkers

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


How would you know?

You haven't done any.




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus
 


How would you know?


Well it happened 9 years ago so I had plenty of time to read and think critically about the evidence.

It becomes painfully obvious when you actually do some research.

I’m sorry I won’t let you bait me into a senseless argument.

Anyway…good luck.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


This isn't - or rather wasn't - a senseless argument. It wasn't even about 911 being an inside job per se.

It was about your claim to have some sort of original research. Since you've failed over the course of a dozen or so posts to even imply what that research might be I think it's fairly safe to assume that you just made it up.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus
 


How would you know?


Well it happened 9 years ago so I had plenty of time to read and think critically about the evidence.

It becomes painfully obvious when you actually do some research.

I’m sorry I won’t let you bait me into a senseless argument.

Anyway…good luck.
It's not a senseless argument, it's simply you getting you to show that you did some actual research, since you keep claiming that you did. Is it really that hard to admit on a internet forum, that you've done no actual research, or critical thinking for that matter? Seriously, why all the dodging? It's not even as embarrassing as you're making it out to be; in fact, a lot of Truthers don't do any research at all. They'll usually just read Alex Jones or watch youtube videos and assume that's all true without looking at any credible sources containing actual facts and information, and they'll use straw man arguments such as the towers fell at free fall speed, or perfectly into their own footprints, or the temperature wasn't hot enough to melt steel, or that many pilots couldn't do the maneuvers they did.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

in fact, a lot of Truthers don't do any research at all.

As opposed to the critical thinkers who just automatically accept that what they're told by the government as the unvarnished truth. Seriously, how is thinking that any of the three buildings that collapsed at freefall on 9/11 is a strawman argument? Do you even know what a strawman is? I think you mean improperly researched fallacies (if that was even the case, not strawmans), but even NIST themselves have admitted periods of essential freefall for all the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. Oh, and the temperature wasn't hot enough to melt steel; the highest temperature that NIST recorded on a recovered core column was 250C and steel melts at around 1500C and jet fuel, depending on its kind burns between 650C-1000C.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
but even NIST themselves have admitted periods of essential freefall for all the buildings that collapsed on 9/11.


Care to show where the NIST admitted WTC1 & 2 had periods of freefall?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Care to show where the NIST admitted WTC1 & 2 had periods of freefall?

In NCSTAR 1 they say that "since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in freefall, as seen in videos" (talking about the WTC towers). Note: they say this period of essential freefall didn't last for the entire duration of collapse, just for the collapse initiation.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Oh, not MELTED steel again ! Please show me where NIST referred to melted steel.

While you are about it please let me have a source for WTC 1, 2 & 7 falling at freefall speed.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Oh, not MELTED steel again ! Please show me where NIST referred to melted steel.

I never said they did ferrgoodnesssake. Re-read what I wrote. I simply said that the temperatures weren't sufficiently high enough to produce melted steel. NIST argues that the melted metal is aluminium from the planes, which I think is apocryphal for numerous reasons, not least the colour, but that still doesn't explain the molten metal found at WTC7.


While you are about it please let me have a source for WTC 1, 2 & 7 falling at freefall speed.

Good God, I just quoted NIST. Just type the passage I quoted into Google and you'll come up with links to NIST's website. But I doubt you're capable of pulling that off, I wouldn't want you to strain your brain, so I'll just provide you with the direct link instead. wtc.nist.gov...

EDIT: And BTW: WTC7 did fall at freefall for 2.25 seconds (around 120 feet) according to NIST. Can you look that up for yourself or do you need me to provide you with another link?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
but that still doesn't explain the molten metal found at WTC7.


Except that no molten metal was found at WTC 7.... Why do the truthers persist with this lie?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
It's not a senseless argument, it's simply you getting you to show that you did some actual research, since you keep claiming that you did.


It is senseless to get into a debate with someone that isn't trying to learn.

If you want to learn something the evidence is easily found.

Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change reality...



Originally posted by technical difficulties
They'll usually just read Alex Jones or watch youtube videos and assume that's all true without looking at any credible sources containing actual facts and information


Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.

You haven't learned anything because you are just looking for other people's "facts and information" that support you preconceived notions and conclusions.

Research and critical thinking is about challenging the information and finding out what checks out.

Stop expecting other people to do the work for you.

Learn something for yourself.

It only takes a little bit of time to realize how ridiculous and impossible the official story is.

Or you could just keep talking in circles...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Both technicaldifficulties and I are trying to learn what research you have done. If you have only read blogs and somebody-for-truth sites as your research just say so and stop evading the question. If you have conducted field research, just say what you have done and what you have discovered or provide a link to your work.

Another canned response about "critical thinking" is evasion and we will then know that you have done no original research.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.


I suppose it's about looking at sources that you think lack credibility? That would make sense, given what you seem to believe.

Still waiting for your "original research", by the way. But don't worry. If you want we can just agree that you had a squint at youtube and skimmed through some 911blogger.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I suppose it's about looking at sources that you think lack credibility? That would make sense, given what you seem to believe.




Seriously?

You actually admit that you don't bother looking at evidence that conflicts with your preconceived notions...

Whoa...

You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.

You actually have to investigate the evidence and make sure it checks out.

Stop just believing whatever you think is credible.

Stop waiting for other people to prove it to you.

Do some of your own research and think critically.

Don't just accept, trust, or have faith in other people.

THINK a little.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.


Priceless. What is it about? Trusting the least credible? Or one with very little credibility? Where on the scale should I be looking?

This can't get any better.




Stop just believing whatever you think is credible.


Oh no, hang on a sec. It can.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


You actually admit that you just trust whatever source you think is credible!



You make fun of me because I say I don't trust any source and judge the evidence objectively.

I guess I just figured out how someone could possibly believe the official story...

In science you don't TRUST people's claims regardless of how credible you think they are...

Learn to think for yourself...

I still can't believe that you actually are proud of the fact that you blindly trust sources that you personally think are credible...hilarious.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


I still can't believe that you actually are proud of the fact that you blindly trust sources that you personally think are credible...hilarious.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Jezus]


Show me a source that you think lacks credibility but that you believe to be true.

And while you're at it, let's have some of that "original research". You might be able to kill two birds with one stone here.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Show me a source that you think lacks credibility but that you believe to be true.


See this exactly your problem.

You simply decide whether or not to "believe" sources based on your perception of their credibility.

If you actually do some analysis and critical thinking then you can prove it to yourself and support your beliefs with facts and evidence.

Be critical of sources that are both for and against your personal views.

Think for yourself and challenge your own preconceived notions.

This way you don't have to have faith in a source and blindly accept their claims...

Credibility is a useful guide but you STILL have to THINK for yourself...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by okbmd
 


Without turning this into a personal attack , suffice it to say , that I can point out several of your requirements that you have failed to meet , time after time .


We all can say the same for you as well.


And , not all of us are kids , as I am a retiree with grandkids .


Then learn to debate, and stop demanding everyone to accept your opinions as facts.
You want people to find you credible, then start posting sources. Anyone can give opinions.





[edit on 14-8-2010 by impressme]


Anyone can link to a source also, anybody can read something on the internet and believe it.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Double post, sorry.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by Segador]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join