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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Oh okay. So this is just a play on definitions. A semantic corrective.

At a stretch I suppose you could say you're making a point about the fragility of the government's narrative, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly sophisticated way to do it. Plus it's really just an expression of your opinion. Fair enough though.




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is like most people don't comprehend eliminating a negative. You don't have to know what did do it in order to know what could not do it.


No. But you have to eliminate it properly. And then if you want to be taken seriously you then have to provide a counter-narrative.

You'll notice that that's what Sherlock Holmes did in his investigations. Eliminate everything until one thing was left. And then articulate it. Conversely Truthers concentrate on eliminating one strand of evidence and never seem to get round to the second part.

Which isn't great, because it's the only way Holmes ever found any of the actual criminals.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
As a long-time "truther" since 2004 I would like to respond that not all 9/11 truthers subscribe to the argument that pre-planned demolitions brought down WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7; and that there is some very unusual damage to WTC 6.

Many in the truth movement progress through several stages:

• Ineptitude -- The government was inept in preventing the attacks, in some cases, almost criminally so...

• LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose: the government let it happen to further their various agendas.

• MIHOP - Made It Happen On Purpose: the government facilitated the actions of individuals and organizations to make it happen.

• TDI - my own categorization -- They Did It: the government and
and key AMERICAN players (individuals, corporations, organizations) and possibly foreign organizations were responsible.

So, to answer the questions posed by this thread -- Yes, you can be a truther and not believe in pre-planned demolitions. It all depends on your progress in your own research and analysis. Also, depends on your ability (or inability) to analyze technical information concerning demolitions.

Most truthers, after a period of solid research, believe in pre-planned demolitions.

Researchers within the 9/11 truth community are not discussing IF, but HOW the demolitions were conducted. And not just discussing the technical aspects, but important issues such as access to the buildings, who benefited, who were the players, etc.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is like most people don't comprehend eliminating a negative. You don't have to know what did do it in order to know what could not do it.


No. But you have to eliminate it properly. And then if you want to be taken seriously you then have to provide a counter-narrative.

You'll notice that that's what Sherlock Holmes did in his investigations. Eliminate everything until one thing was left. And then articulate it. Conversely Truthers concentrate on eliminating one strand of evidence and never seem to get round to the second part.

Which isn't great, because it's the only way Holmes ever found any of the actual criminals.


I am not concerned about being TAKEN SERIOUSLY by people that can't figure out needing to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers is important to knowing if NORMAL AIRLINERS could destroy them. They have already made themselves ridiculous by not asking.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Do we have to argue about that?

Skyscrapers must withstand the wind. Do we have to argue about that?

So why shouldn't we expect accurate data on the building that was supposedly destroyed by the NORMAL AIRLINERS? But we constantly hear this "fully loaded" crap about the planes. But in actuality they were only at 40% of fuel capacity.

I don't have any dust to analyze from the buildings so that is just second hand information to me and everyone else here. But we can all understand that buildings must hold themselves up. So why are the distributions of steel and concrete such a problem?

I have at least built models. How many debunkers just TALK? Let's see somebody build a self supporting model that CAN COLLAPSE.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

If I should have to provide a counter narrative then you should have to PROVE a normal airliner could destroy the buildings and you certainly can't do that without accurate data on the buildings. I can only imagine people not wanting that info in order to keep their delusions of denial from being destroyed. The NIST doesn't talk about something as simple as the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

This entire business is scientifically ridiculous.

psik



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I am not concerned about being TAKEN SERIOUSLY by people that can't figure out needing to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers is important to knowing if NORMAL AIRLINERS could destroy them. They have already made themselves ridiculous by not asking.


Glad you can admit that no one takes you seriously. Doesn't that fact alone bother you a little bit?


Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Do we have to argue about that?


Yes, because you must define it much better than that. Buildings may do much better than just hold themselves up and some may be design and built just on the edge of what it takes to "hold themselves up". How a building reacts under stress can vary greatly depending on exactly where they are on the "hold themselves up" spectrum and may vary greatly depending on the form of the stress.


Skyscrapers must withstand the wind. Do we have to argue about that?


Again, define your terms. "The wind" is a pretty open statement.


So why shouldn't we expect accurate data on the building that was supposedly destroyed by the NORMAL AIRLINERS? But we constantly hear this "fully loaded" crap about the planes. But in actuality they were only at 40% of fuel capacity.


All that data may be nice if your doing some sort of theoretical model for unlimited endurance, but unfotunately, we don't have to think about it theoretically, it actually happened.


I don't have any dust to analyze from the buildings so that is just second hand information to me and everyone else here. But we can all understand that buildings must hold themselves up. So why are the distributions of steel and concrete such a problem?


Well, they are obviously just a problem to you. What good would they do you anyway? Kind of a moot point supplying you with data since you obviously do not have the intellectual capacity or ability to deal with it in any meaningful way.


I have at least built models. How many debunkers just TALK? Let's see somebody build a self supporting model that CAN COLLAPSE.


Washers, paper loops and pogo sticks again? I thought that was all cleared up. The only thing your "model" proved was

a) Things fall when you let them go (not exactly a blinding revelation)
b) What happens to paper loops and washers on a pogo stick when something falls on them. If that ever comes up then you'll be the go-to guy for data.


If I should have to provide a counter narrative then you should have to PROVE a normal airliner could destroy the buildings and you certainly can't do that without accurate data on the buildings. I can only imagine people not wanting that info in order to keep their delusions of denial from being destroyed. The NIST doesn't talk about something as simple as the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.


Ignoring for the time being the erroneous nature of your statement, it has already been proven to the whole world on 9/11. Live audience, life size model, video recorded and verified by millions of witnesses. Now, if you contend that something other than a "normal airliner" (whatever that is) crashing into the building caused the collapse, well then please, present your evidence. Direct evidence. Not indirect, poorly constructed and incredulity laced negative suppositions.


This entire business is scientifically ridiculous.


Well, you got something right.

hooper



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

If I should have to provide a counter narrative then you should have to PROVE...


You misunderstand. I don't have to prove anything to you. My view is the widely held one - that hijackers flew planes into the structures causing them to fall. This view will continue to be the most commonly held opinion as long as you fail to counter it with a cogent narrative of your own.

You can insist as much as you like, but the court of public opinion is clear in this case. The traditional history of what happened on 9/11 persists because no one has posited something which convincingly replaces or counters it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

If I should have to provide a counter narrative then you should have to PROVE...


You misunderstand. I don't have to prove anything to you. My view is the widely held one - that hijackers flew planes into the structures causing them to fall. This view will continue to be the most commonly held opinion as long as you fail to counter it with a cogent narrative of your own.


So you BELIEVE the laws of physics give a damn about democracy.

There is no question that this is probably the greatest event in PSYCHO-HISTORY.

But the laws of physics are incapable of caring about psychos. It doesn't change the FACT that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and after 9 years the weight of a complete floor assembly can't be found on the internet.

Check a psychology book. 75% of the population scores below 111 on I.Q. tests and 90% scores below 121.

Do you think computers, airliners and skyscrapers are designed by them?

www.eskimo.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Glad you can admit that no one takes you seriously. Doesn't that fact alone bother you a little bit?


Not being taken seriously by people that think they can prove a point by totally distorting what was said does not bother me in the least.

I find people that advertise their incompetence by twising linguistics somewhat amusing.

Why don't you check out A..E. van Vogt's novels relating to General Semantics?

www.roger-russell.com...

They are derived from the work of Alfred Korzybski.

www.gutenberg.org...

psik



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you BELIEVE the laws of physics give a damn about democracy.

There is no question that this is probably the greatest event in PSYCHO-HISTORY.

But the laws of physics are incapable of caring about psychos. It doesn't change the FACT that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and after 9 years the weight of a complete floor assembly can't be found on the internet.

Check a psychology book. 75% of the population scores below 111 on I.Q. tests and 90% scores below 121.

Do you think computers, airliners and skyscrapers are designed by them?

www.eskimo.com...

psik


Look, I doubt you care what I think, and I certainly don't care what you choose to believe. But in the end my opinion is the one that has carried the day so far. Put bluntly, people agree with me.

You can keep pointing out what you perceive as inconsistencies in what you consider to be an "official" narrative, but it won't get you far. You need to put together some sort of theory of your own or my view will continue to be the dominant one.

Notice that Sherlock Holmes, when asked who killed somebody, didn't tend to point at someone and reply "not him". Because that leaves rather a large number of possibilities for who actually did do it.

At the moment you're doing just that - picking holes in one suspect and failing to isolate one of the three million others who might actually be responsible. And personally I don't think you're doing it that convincingly.

Also I should perhaps point out that when I mentioned the "court of public opinion" I didn't mean what most people think. I meant what most intelligent people - the academy, if you like - believe. And there is even less support for the TM among the them.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Look, I doubt you care what I think, and I certainly don't care what you choose to believe. But in the end my opinion is the one that has carried the day so far. Put bluntly, people agree with me.


Physics is not about BELIEVING. Do we need to BELIEVE that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? If not, then we KNOW the designers had to figure out how much steel and concrete to put on every level. So thinking that this event can be analyzed without accurately KNOWING that information is absurd.

But that is the point. PHYSICS is incapable of giving a damn about PEOPLE.

en.wikipedia.org...

home.tiac.net...

How many people believe what is irrelevant. No one can KNOW the planes could do that much destruction in that little time without KNOWING the distributions of steel and concrete. Analyzing physics means having accurate data.

psik



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Okay, well good luck finding all the stuff you're looking for.

Let me know when you have it all figured out and are going to the media with it. Or whatever it is you're going to do.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.


The evidence is easy to obtain.
If you can't find it you aren't looking hard enough.

I'm not going to debate someone that is simply trying to argue and won't do research.

If you attempting to understand the information their are plenty of resources available.

Don't be lazy...

If it's so easy to obtain, then it should be no problem for you to show us (Plus, if it's so easy to obtain, then we would've had another investigation at this point, it being 9 years after the tragedy). Truthers tend to reply with the "oh the evidence is there, you just aren't looking for it hard enough" nonsense. Seriously, just show us this "evidence", or admit that you have no evidence. And while you're at it, show us all of these inconsistencies in the Official Story that you claim to be there.


You can easily find many many many threads with all the available evidence.

If you start with the conclusion that the "official story" is correct than you are never going to be able to do objective research.

There are only two possibilities for someone that claims to have done the research and believes the "official story".

1. You are in denial and rationalize the evidence away because it is disturbing to you.

2. You aren't concerned with the truth and are peddling the official story for "personal" reasons.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Okay, well good luck finding all the stuff you're looking for.

Let me know when you have it all figured out and are going to the media with it. Or whatever it is you're going to do.


You consider why the media can't think to ask about the steel and concrete on every level of the skyscrapers. Do you need a PhD in physics and and masters in structural engineering to comprehend that each and every level must be strong enough to support the total weight above?

It is the ability of so many people to REFUSE to see the obvious that makes this situations so ridiculous. Ignore the obvious so you can believe what you prefer. VERY INTELLIGENT!

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
You can easily find many many many threads with all the available evidence.

If you start with the conclusion that the "official story" is correct than you are never going to be able to do objective research.

There are only two possibilities for someone that claims to have done the research and believes the "official story".

1. You are in denial and rationalize the evidence away because it is disturbing to you.

2. You aren't concerned with the truth and are peddling the official story for "personal" reasons.


Nobody really starts out with the notion that something called the "OS" is 100 per cent correct though. Certainly I've seen hardly anyone who does.

I have, however, seen absolutely loads of truthers who start out with the absolute certainty that what hey have been told is untrue. Nothing will shake them from this conviction.

I imagine this is because they are in denial and find the events of 9/11 disturbing. They need closure. And it helps them feel superior to everybody else - initiated, if you like.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


They flew planes into the buildings. The buildings burned and eventually fell down, beginning their collapses at the point where the aircraft struck. The buildings were, it's safe to say, somewhat compromised by the crashes.

I bet I know what you'll write in response to this.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.


The evidence is easy to obtain.
If you can't find it you aren't looking hard enough.

I'm not going to debate someone that is simply trying to argue and won't do research.

If you attempting to understand the information their are plenty of resources available.

Don't be lazy...

If it's so easy to obtain, then it should be no problem for you to show us (Plus, if it's so easy to obtain, then we would've had another investigation at this point, it being 9 years after the tragedy). Truthers tend to reply with the "oh the evidence is there, you just aren't looking for it hard enough" nonsense. Seriously, just show us this "evidence", or admit that you have no evidence. And while you're at it, show us all of these inconsistencies in the Official Story that you claim to be there.


You can easily find many many many threads with all the available evidence.

If you start with the conclusion that the "official story" is correct than you are never going to be able to do objective research.

There are only two possibilities for someone that claims to have done the research and believes the "official story".

1. You are in denial and rationalize the evidence away because it is disturbing to you.

2. You aren't concerned with the truth and are peddling the official story for "personal" reasons.
The only person in denial is the person believing in a idea backed by no evidence at all. If you had evidence, you would've shown it to us already, but you haven't, and therefore you probably don't. Once again, no different than creationists.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You consider why the media can't think to ask about the steel and concrete on every level of the skyscrapers. Do you need a PhD in physics and and masters in structural engineering to comprehend that each and every level must be strong enough to support the total weight above?

It is the ability of so many people to REFUSE to see the obvious that makes this situations so ridiculous. Ignore the obvious so you can believe what you prefer. VERY INTELLIGENT!


In your mind is there a ratio or distribution of concrete to steel that would allow the towers collapse due to plane crashes?

If yes - then please tell us what you think that ratio maybe and why.

If no - then why do you need the numbers and why would anyone else?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Each and every level DID NOT support the weight of all the levels above .

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have tried to make people aware of that and another dollar for every time that it is entirely ignored by a truther .

Anyone who supports that belief knows absolutely NOTHING about the construction of the Twin Towers .

Each and every level was attached to and supported by the COLUMNS , not the floor level below it . The columns went up THROUGH each level as well as providing support along the perimeter .

Each level DID NOT set ON the columns , nor did the columns set ON each additional level .

Each level was supported INDEPENDENTLY , not by the level below it .

Do your homework , look at the construction phase .

This is yet another part of the TM that needs to be put to rest as it is totally FALSE .

Check it out , and then come back and tell me I am wrong . Here is a good place to start :

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

Skyscrapers must withstand the wind. Do we have to argue about that?


Again, define your terms. "The wind" is a pretty open statement.


You need someone to explain to you what wind is?

The towers were 208 feet wide and 1360 feet tall. Air moving against those buildings at 50 to 150 mph would create a HUGE sheer force against them. If you check the core column information on Lon Waters site you will see that the core columns in the 1st 10 levels above the ground were thicker than the columns in the basement.

Why was that?

The columns in the basement had to support a greater gravity load. But the columns just above the ground had to MOVE. They had to cope with tens of thousands of tons swaying back and forth in the wind. They had to cope with gravity and sheer forces while those on the basement levels just had to deal with gravity.

So any supposed analysis of this event had to account for these facts so people that have not even asked about them simply demonstrate that they never understood the problem in the first place. They don't know what to ask about.

BELIEVING does not require THINKING.

So why don't we have a table from the OFFICIAL SOURCES specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? We don't even know the number of beams that connected the 47 core columns.

psik



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So why don't we have a table from the OFFICIAL SOURCES specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? We don't even know the number of beams that connected the 47 core columns.


Again, why? Do you believe that there is a distribution model that would facilitate the collapse as shown by the NIST? If so, what is that model?

If you do not believe that the NIST model is possible than why do you need any more data?

As for the wind - why stop at 150? That's really what my question was - wind can mean anything from a barely noticeable breeze that just rustles the leaves to hurricane. If I said I designed you a building that could stand up to wind what would your first question be?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join