1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 28
99
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Also, if someone was going to explain these "squibs" as compressed air using the piston theory they would have to explain how the wave of compressed air was able to maintain a high enough pressure while accelerating down the building at a higher rate than the pancaking floors were.


I agree with you and here is my opinion on this subject.
The idea of the "piston theory" might sound nice and perhaps someone can come up with an explanation how these jets of air, or "puffs" of air, were able to shoot out several floors below the impact zone. The problem is that we are attempting to argue too many points using this impact zone which is obfuscated by the pulverized concrete and dust. There is no real way anyone can prove either way using these videos, we need more information.

My original point still stands though. There are several pieces of evidence that are in favor of explosives being used, I don't understand how anyone can dismiss all of these, yet no investigation into this theory was ever officially done. This is at least incompetence on the part of the official investigators if not negligence. How can anyone trust anything that has been said in the official investigation with this obvious level of incompetence?

All of the expected markers, or signs, of explosive demolitions can be found in the collapse of these towers yet we are left to speculate as to how this might have been caused by office fires and gravitational collapse. I am not OK with all of these speculations and I can not understand how anyone ever could be.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
pull all your money from the banks and bugout.
STOP PAYING TAXES

this is the only way to rid this country of the government

STOP PARTICIPATING



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by exponent
Did you read the page? Architects are not engineers


Architects and engineers, Jesus.

Now are you going to explain why you just accused him of lying when he wasn't?

If you want to talk about peer review, let's look at who peer reviewed the NIST report first.


I wish I can give you multiple stars for that last comment.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Bugger, forgot to post this post too, I'll get to the rest of the posts here as soon as I can:


Originally posted by Azp420
It shows the net force being applied to the top section averaged from measurements taken at 2/10th second intervals. Individual member forces are obviously not being measured, with the force in some members and at some points in time exceeding the net force. I would still expect to see some sort of difference between the net resistance provided by the initiation zone and the undamaged structure.

Ok. I can agree with the start of this, the problem is that there were two claims here.
1. The upper block is not exerting as much force as it should, because the time-averaged force is lower than 1g.
2. There should be a detectable difference between the descent rate or acceleration through damaged and undamaged floors.

#1 is false, this is what I have been trying to argue. It's based on a principle that any building descending is a controlled demolition, and as I mentioned it still applies to known controlled demolitions implying that there are further secret demolitions going on.

#2 is possibly false, this is something I don't entirely disagree with, I just think that the tilt makes it extremely unlikely this can be detected.
edit: Just so you know, the energy required to bend all columns down over a full floor (from my understanding) is 500MN/m in Bazant + Zhou (2002) but I know it was revised in BLBG. I will get to re-reading that shortly and give you the #s so you can figure out what sort of resistance you'd expect.


Light and strong?

Reasonably strong yes. I don't want to scare you, but maybe not as strong as you think. Here is the max demand/capacity ratio in WTC1:

With no damage, and with live loading the towers at that level had a reasonable amount of reserve capacity, but remember that the only force applying here is the weight of the upper block and some minor wind loading effects. A descent will at the very minimum double that force, which already hits capacity limits.


There's another video showing the whole collapse where Chandler programed a line to accelerate at the same rate as the top section then maintain that same rate when dust obscured everything. The acceleration did not increase.

Well yes if he makes a line at a constant rate then i'm sure it will maintain a constant rate


Perhaps you could reword this paragraph as it is confusing.


The mass can stay, that only helps my argument. Instead of 'non-existent equivalent structure' I will now refer to it as 'almost non-existent equivalent structure'.

Fine by me



If this was the case then why wasn't the carrying capacity of the side of the structure where horizontal progression started overcome before the opposite side? Why did it have to wait for the opposite side to be ready?

Not all carrying capacity was destroyed simultaneously, this is getting into enough detail that you should read the NIST report. It contains far far more information on this than I could ever easily convey here, and you can answer many of your questions yourself.

I don't mind providing my opinions etc, but you should at least check out what the 'official story' is first.


That doesn't satisfy it at all. I'm looking to see one or two corners begin to fall noticeably ahead of the opposite corners. The 'kink' where the middle sags in just reminds me of a classic controlled demo. How can the middle drop before the 8 stories of almost non-existent equivalent structure on the side where horizontal progression started?

Just because a progression starts somewhere doesn't mean it is at its worst. The east side of the building was held up with several massive columns, attached to several transfer structures. As far as I know NIST believes these survived and were what stopped collapse initiation beginning as the east penthouse failed.


Hasn't most of the upper section of the internal fame already collapsed by the time the external frame collapses? It sounds as though the external frame was standing almost like a birdcage with only a small amount of internal structure loading it (asymmetrically).

No, not at all. In fact the total drop between internal and external was likely only a metre or so. These beams do not deflect far, but once the exterior wall has become loaded due to internal failure, that force is going to pretty quickly buckle the supports. There's no 'birdcage' effect, just a lot of low level destruction. As soon as the sections supporting the central and western penthouses failed, the internal structure and penthouse starts to descend, fractions of a second after that the global collapse begins. There's no big 'clearing out' of structure beforehand.


Can't find it at the moment, I'll have another look.

No problems.


I don't see anything particularly strange here? Two huge sections of building are impacting each other, and some debris and air is expelled as a result of this. I must say I don't have audio at the moment so if he's making some brilliant point I am missing it.



Watch them with audio, he explains it better than I would.

Still don't have audio, remind me to at some other point.


What would cause a piece of debris to break into two in mid air with such force that the majority of the mass changes its trajectory by approximately 90 degrees?

What is so shocking about this? A rotating piece exerts centripetal forces on the components, there are endless ways for something to break up in midair. You can't both claim that the 'majority of the mass' changes direction, and then claim it's suspicious. Vector addition of the two pieces will give you the original trajectory + rotational inertia. Unless you believe some sort of crazy thing is going on there's nothing that could affect steel like that mid air.

Again, no sound though, so I may be missing something vital here.

Also as an aside, I thought I'd try automated analysis of the video Chandler uses. Turns out a lot of hand work is needed:

No obvious trends there.

edit on 20-9-2010 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
This thread seems to have died, but I still owe at least one response to Devino before I start looking at the WTC7 Compartmentalised thread.


Well I guess this argument is very difficult because what we see in the energy of the collapsing buildings (towers 1&2) is a mass of pulverized concrete, smoke and dust being ejected outwards and trailing behind the point of destruction. My point is that this can really go for or against either argument. It can not be proven from the videos that the top potion of the collapsing buildings, or any of the lower floors during collapse sequence, are causing or even contributing to the buildings collapse nor can it be proven that they are not. I think we should consider this as questionable either way.

I'm fine with speculation, but as long as it's not reinforced by ignorance.


Personally it was the interviews with the firemen of hearing explosions that sold me.

I fail to understand how all of these sounds can be explained as due only to fire and/or gravitational collapse. This is, in my opinion, very substantial evidence in favor of explosive demolitions. These eyewitnesses heard these sounds and many of these sounds were recorded as well. These sounds are signs of explosive demolitions, are they not?

Of course they're not. In any fire explosions are common and this video just cherry picks accounts to find mentions of 'explosion'. For example, 'numerous people covered in dust from secondary explosion' sounds like the building collapse to me. Is the building collapse a secondary explosion?

The 'two isolated pockets of fire' is the oldest misleading quote that exists. This was the lowest floor of fire in the WTCs and pretending that the above floors matched this one is just dishonest (not accusing you directly of course).


This is simply speculation unless we can prove that "squibs" are formed from non-explosive building demolitions. I have yet to see a video comparison of squibs being made by both types of building collapse. We know that other controlled demolitions using explosives have these squibs that are caused by these explosives. This particular sign, or marker, is evidence of an explosive demolition, is it not?

Of course it isn't. No building anywhere near this scale has collapsed before, and demolition explosives don't produce constant streams of dirt and debris, they produce almost instantaneous massive overpressure . You'll notice in any explosive forced ejection, the velocity of the ejection starts quite high, and then slows. In these ejections, the velocity starts slow, and then increases, because they are being caused by an increase in pressure inside the buildings.


I see any explanation for this as other than burning thermite simply "grasping at straws", as it were. Here again we know that this is evidence in favor of an explosive demolition, thermite does create molten steel that looks like this, yet it remains unproven that this is from anything other than what it looks like. We know that this is not melted aluminum and the explanation that this is from batteries is simple ridiculous.

None of this makes sense
1. Thermite is not an explosive, and not used in demolition
2. 'it looks like it' is not acceptable to prove the source of something.
3. There are plenty of perfectly plausible sources for this metal. The floor it is coming form housed a large bank of UPS batteries, the whole building was full of glass. Plus, the key question: what the hell was so much thermite doing in the corner of the building? Why was it there in such excess quantities?


This is where I disagree with you. I don't feel that only fire and gravitational collapse can adequately explain all of this evidence so therefore new information is needed. I would like an official investigation to look for other signs of explosive demolitions, it should not be difficult to find if it is there.

The problem is you've already made the situation impossible, by both saying 'explosive demolition' and then mentioning thermite, which is an incendiary. The two things work on entirely different principles, and you can't pick and choose between them in an investigation.


So my question is, do we or do we not have evidence in favor of the use of explosive demolitions in the collapsing of any of the three WTC towers? I would like to add that evidence 'in favor of' does not prove definitively that explosives were used. But in my opinion there is more than enough cause to at least investigate this theory.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical because I have seen years and years of debate where people will happily conclude that anything they can't understand is definitely 100% evidence of a controlled demolition, but then won't look at the other side of the story and realise they can't explain half of what is going on to any level at all.

Not the most succinct of my replies and not really addressing many facts so I apologise for that, but I did only just wake up so let me know if there's anything more specific you want addressing.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Also, exponent, recall that the entire exterior of the WTC was clad in aluminum paneling. It is not too hard to see how a few panels may have also entered the building on impact and melted inside along with the aircraft, batteries, and such. Just another source for the molten material.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Sorry, I've been busy and haven't had much time for ATS lately.


Just so you know, the energy required to bend all columns down over a full floor (from my understanding) is 500MN/m in Bazant + Zhou (2002) but I know it was revised in BLBG.


500MN/m is huge (its also not energy). It equates to 192,000 tonnes required per level. But we know the OS claims the floors just pancaked and slid down the columns (which if were true would there would be evidence backing it up of very long broken up sections of columns in the rubble).


Reasonably strong yes. I don't want to scare you, but maybe not as strong as you think. Here is the max demand/capacity ratio in WTC1:


That doesn't scare me, that's about as strong as I predicted. That's about as strong as a lot of buildings are designed for.


A descent will at the very minimum double that force, which already hits capacity limits.


If the force was doubled we would have to see some sort of deceleration. If the force was double, how could we have ~2/3rds free fall deceleration? That's a free lunch.


Well yes if he makes a line at a constant rate then i'm sure it will maintain a constant rate

Perhaps you could reword this paragraph as it is confusing.


Sorry, I didn't word that well. The line was programmed to accelerate at a constant rate equal to what the top section fell at and the leading edge of ejections moving down the tower was then observed to keep up with the line.


Just because a progression starts somewhere doesn't mean it is at its worst. The east side of the building was held up with several massive columns, attached to several transfer structures. As far as I know NIST believes these survived and were what stopped collapse initiation beginning as the east penthouse failed.


It's just a little to convenient for me that for the entire external structure that was about to turn into 8 stories of almost non-existent equivalent structure waited until the entire perimeter of the structure was ready, then somehow all turned into marshmallows simultaneously. I don't buy that for a second.


No, not at all. In fact the total drop between internal and external was likely only a metre or so.


Oh, that's worse than I thought. The internal structure also turned into ~8 levels worth of marshmallows. Dropping it fractions of a second ahead screams controlled demolition.


Still don't have audio, remind me to at some other point.


The first one is good because a burst of material is seen ejecting out of a corner box column at ~ the 98th floor just as the top section begins to fall (not out of a window due to compressed air from pancaking floors). The column is severed as a result of these ejections. It does not in any way resemble what a column looks like in compressive failure.


What is so shocking about this? A rotating piece exerts centripetal forces on the components, there are endless ways for something to break up in midair.


How could something break up like this in midair? We don't see any piece breaking off of it, so any piece breaking off would have been extremely small.


You can't both claim that the 'majority of the mass' changes direction, and then claim it's suspicious. Vector addition of the two pieces will give you the original trajectory + rotational inertia.


A piece so tiny to change the direction of the main piece would have to shoot of like a bullet to change the direction of the main mass like that. What on earth could cause this in midair?


Unless you believe some sort of crazy thing is going on there's nothing that could affect steel like that mid air.


My point exactly. There's nothing that could affect steel like that in midair if you subscribe to the OS version of events.


Also as an aside, I thought I'd try automated analysis of the video Chandler uses. Turns out a lot of hand work is needed:

No obvious trends there.



I wouldn't expect there to be. Not every piece is changing trajectory like this.



I'm also quite interested in the "squibs".


In these ejections, the velocity starts slow, and then increases, because they are being caused by an increase in pressure inside the buildings.


A compressed air ejection would start with a high velocity as the highest pressure would be at the point in time right before with window breaks due to the pressure. The ejections don't last long so the "pressure" is obviously very quickly dissipated. If what you are saying is true, the pressure would be at its maximum right before it became completely dissipated. Don't tell us it suddenly runs out of material to eject and is continuing to eject air with no dust.

How is the wave of air pressure (which is continuously dissipating itself during collapse by blowing out windows) able to accelerate down the building at a higher rate than the "piston" is pushing it?

How is the air pressure able to blow out a window quite far below the collapse wave then almost straight after that blow out a window only a few levels above that?




Air pressure?

edit on 25-9-2010 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Sorry, I've been busy and haven't had much time for ATS lately.

That's fine and understandable. I seem to have killed a few threads recently.


500MN/m is huge (its also not energy). It equates to 192,000 tonnes required per level. But we know the OS claims the floors just pancaked and slid down the columns (which if were true would there would be evidence backing it up of very long broken up sections of columns in the rubble).

I'm pretty sure this is being used as a measure of energy, IE 500MJ consumed in bending every column down to the floor of the next level. It's not really that huge considering the kinetic energy of the upper block after a one floor fall.

Secondly, the 'official story' doesn't suggest that floors pancaked and 'slid' down the columns. The 'official story' theory is that the floors were disconnected from the columns by bolt tear out at the impact levels due to fires and truss sag, and vertical impact and truss seat failure below the impact zone. Debris studies (NCSTAR 1-3) support this.


That doesn't scare me, that's about as strong as I predicted. That's about as strong as a lot of buildings are designed for.

It's as strong as high rises would be at their minimum, most buildings, especially reinforced concrete low rise ones are a lot stronger, but some people predict insane 20x load factors in the WTC. Just wanted to make sure.


If the force was doubled we would have to see some sort of deceleration. If the force was double, how could we have ~2/3rds free fall deceleration? That's a free lunch.

Because as we've already been over, it all depends on how much energy will be expended. I can apply billions of newtons to a toothpick, but it's still going to take a minimal amount of energy to fail it. Compare the amount of energy consumed to the estimated 4.2GJ available over a single floor fall. There's a significant difference, and once again (in reality) this did not happen, the tower did not fail equally.


Sorry, I didn't word that well. The line was programmed to accelerate at a constant rate equal to what the top section fell at and the leading edge of ejections moving down the tower was then observed to keep up with the line.

That's interesting, but I don't see how it's relevant. Chandler's theory of 'lower than 1g upward force = demolition' just does not use physical principles, so I don't know what exactly he's trying to demonstrate here.


It's just a little to convenient for me that for the entire external structure that was about to turn into 8 stories of almost non-existent equivalent structure waited until the entire perimeter of the structure was ready, then somehow all turned into marshmallows simultaneously. I don't buy that for a second.
...
Oh, that's worse than I thought. The internal structure also turned into ~8 levels worth of marshmallows. Dropping it fractions of a second ahead screams controlled demolition.

I really don't see what your point here is? There's no 'waiting until the entire perimeter was ready'. The entire perimeter fails in a progressive fashion as soon as the columns are overloaded. You explained yourself how a weight suspended by a string will fail its supports extremely quickly when overloaded. Am i supposed to believe that ball was 'just waiting'?


The first one is good because a burst of material is seen ejecting out of a corner box column at ~ the 98th floor just as the top section begins to fall (not out of a window due to compressed air from pancaking floors). The column is severed as a result of these ejections. It does not in any way resemble what a column looks like in compressive failure.

So I guess we could make a prediction from this fact: that corner sections of the towers should have had an open area like windows in order to produce this pressure ejection. Something like this maybe? 911research.wtc7.net...


How could something break up like this in midair? We don't see any piece breaking off of it, so any piece breaking off would have been extremely small.
...
A piece so tiny to change the direction of the main piece would have to shoot of like a bullet to change the direction of the main mass like that. What on earth could cause this in midair?
...
My point exactly. There's nothing that could affect steel like that in midair if you subscribe to the OS version of events.

Leaving aside any 'official story'. What exactly could cause this? You can't seriously be suggesting invisible explosives so you must have some other theory.


I wouldn't expect there to be. Not every piece is changing trajectory like this.

I was hoping to get a more accurately sampled derivation of descent. I need to manually remove the smoke areas from the automatic system though.


A compressed air ejection would start with a high velocity as the highest pressure would be at the point in time right before with window breaks due to the pressure.

That might be true if a floor had been pressurised and that was it, but in fact the upper block is descending into this area, compressing it and reducing the volume, that's why the ejections increase in velocity later on.


The ejections don't last long so the "pressure" is obviously very quickly dissipated. If what you are saying is true, the pressure would be at its maximum right before it became completely dissipated. Don't tell us it suddenly runs out of material to eject and is continuing to eject air with no dust.

I don't know if you've watched the videos but in fact they do continue on for quite some time. This is key in showing they were not explosively driven, as demolition explosives are over and gone within a few milliseconds.


How is the wave of air pressure (which is continuously dissipating itself during collapse by blowing out windows) able to accelerate down the building at a higher rate than the "piston" is pushing it?

Air pressure progresses at the speed of sound. It is sound.


How is the air pressure able to blow out a window quite far below the collapse wave then almost straight after that blow out a window only a few levels above that?

Why is this surprising? Different levels had different configurations, different windows will be under different force. One might fail at 2.5psi, one might fail at 2.6psi.

Without meaning to be offensive, it just seems like you're trying to pick minor points here. How exactly could all of these be tied together into some sort of conspiracy theory that provides a usable alternative?

I mean, you seem to have explosives that are extremely powerful and eject large quantities of material (squibs) but then you have explosives which are invisible and exert large forces but displace no material (beam changing direction) etc.

You seem to be doubting what I post, rather than researching it and coming up with alternatives. I don't want to have a go at you, but this is the #1 failure of the truth movement, that they're too busy arguing minor points to come up with a convincing theory.

At least you're using your brain and evaluating things relatively fairly. That alone is a small blessing


edit: I misread the last one. That image is not of 'squibs', it's of pre-damaged windows. Air gets expelled from them as the building descends, lowering its volume:


edit on 26-9-2010 by exponent because: Adding WTC7 Image



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT


The phrase "conspiracy theory" harbors an ambiguity, since conspiracies are widespread and theories about them need not be mere speculations. The application of scientific reasoning in the form of inference to the best explanation, applied to the relevant evidence, establishes that the official account of the events of 9/11 cannot be sustained. Likelihood measures of evidential support establish that the WTC was brought down through the use of controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. Since these hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to null (because they are not even physically possible), assuming that sufficient evidence has become available and "settled down", these conclusions not only provide better explanations for the data but are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1. "Conspiracy Theories"

We need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys knock off a 7/11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq. Insider trading is a simple example, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies".1 The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9/11.

One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?

For more, www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Trimmed and added 'ex' tags



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

For more, www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

As has been pointed out many times on this forum, the 9/11 truth movement does not support holograms, "no planes at the WTC", pods, CGI, DEW, etc. that the website above is associated with. The real Scholars broke off from the above website and created "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".

See this thread for more information:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the 9/11 truth movement does not support holograms, "no planes at the WTC", pods, CGI, DEW, etc. that the website above is associated with


The truth movement DOES support those and other silly conspiracy theories like explosives were used, the jews did it etc.

All because YOU do not believe their silly conspiracy theories does not mean that they are less valid than YOUR silly conspiracy theories. They probably think that YOU are not part of the truth movement.

You do not get to pick and choose what is part of the "truth movement"



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
The truth movement DOES support those and other silly conspiracy theories like explosives were used, the jews did it etc.

Really? Can you please show which 9/11 truth organization supports those disinfo theories?



Originally posted by dereks
You do not get to pick and choose what is part of the "truth movement"

No, the truth movement years ago already "picked and chose" what is part of the truth movement and what is not. That is clearly lined out in my thread above, and at every website in the truth movement. And also why the real scholars broke off from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and created "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".

Move along, dereks. You're commenting on something you know nothing about. If you can't know something as simple as what the 9/11 truth movement supports, then you shouldn't be commenting on this topic at all.








edit on 29-1-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


The truth movement DOES support those and other silly conspiracy theories like explosives were used, the jews did it etc.


Why is it in every 911 thread you debunkers cannot debunk “given topic” and always attack people who do not believe in your opinions?

Fact is, if anyone believes in silly conspiracies stories, it is the debunkers who support the proven lies that the Truthers have exposed.

Do you have evidence that there were no explosives used, or do you have evidence that Jews did not have anything to do with the attacks? Just because you don’t believe in something, it doesn’t mean it is not true. I consider myself a Truther, however I don’t believe the Jews had anything to do with 911, and that is my opinion. But I am not going to say it is a fact because, I have no evidence and neither do you.


All because YOU do not believe their silly conspiracy theories does not mean that they are less valid than YOUR silly conspiracy theories. They probably think that YOU are not part of the truth movement.


The fact is most people looking for the truth do not believe the nonsense that many of you debunkers get from very few people who cannot critically think for themselves. Many of you debunkers like to lump all people who question the OS or are looking for Truth as all being unable to think critically, as if only you debunkers are above all logical thinking men and women.


You do not get to pick and choose what is part of the "truth movement"


I don’t believe you even understand what the Truth movement is.
Do you really believe that every 911 debunker believes’ in everything that you believe in? If so, I would like to see the evidence?
edit on 29-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
and always attack people who do not believe in your opinions?


That is exactly what bonez is doing, attacking those truthers that do not believe HIS silly conspiracy theories!


Do you have evidence that there were no explosives used,


once again you show your ignorance, you cannot prove a negative. Explosives being used is your silly conspiracy theory, so it is up to you to prove it. And you are completely unable to do that.


or do you have evidence that Jews did not have anything to do with the attacks?


See above.


I don’t believe you even understand what the Truth movement is.


Yopu are the one who does not accept what it is, it is made up of people making silly conspiracy theories up, like holograms, explosives, drones etc being used, some are in it to make money, others just for the fun. The one common point is that they are actually not interested in the facts and the truth.

edit on 29/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Do we really need architects and engineers to warrant a real investigation? Isnt the fact that no tests for explosives and acclerants have been done although we were supposedly dealing with an TERRORIST ATTACK?? It does not take an architect to tell you that something was seriously wrong with the goverment led investigation.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
That is exactly what bonez is doing, attacking those truthers that do not believe HIS silly conspiracy theories!

They're NOT truthers. What you're doing now is deliberately spreading misinformation. My thread here clearly shows the contrary. Furthermore, I've asked you on more than one occasion to show an actual 9/11 research organization that supports the disinformation posted in my thread. You keep ignoring the request.

You can't keep spreading misinformation and then ignore continued requests to back up that misinformation.

I'll ask yet again:

Please show a 9/11 research organization that supports any of the items listed in my thread.



Originally posted by dereks
Explosives being used is your silly conspiracy theory, so it is up to you to prove it. And you are completely unable to do that.

I've already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in this post here that explosives were used in the towers.

If you think you can debunk that post, please try.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

The truth movement DOES support those and other silly conspiracy theories


Typical, someone who can't get past names and labels to see the real truth that's behind the semantics.

We can't just be a bunch of unorganized citizens who are unsatisfied with the "investigation" so far. No, it can't be that simple. We have to all think the same thing and belong to some massive global conspiracy ourselves.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
Unfortunately, we are just a bunch of unorganized citizens right now. And some of the criticisms are valid, relating to the 'truth' movement. 'They' have something to hide. We do not know who 'they' are. So, naturally our focus must be broad. All I know is, the towers didn't fall because of airplanes, something other than a plane hit the pentagon and Shanksville is a fraud. I didn't have to point one finger to say that. I showed no disrespect for the victims. I simply want to know what really happened that day, and that does not make me a nut. Somehow we will find a way to organize, and demand the answers to our questions.I have faith.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Do you have evidence that there were no explosives used, or do you have evidence that Jews did not have anything to do with the attacks? Just because you don’t believe in something, it doesn’t mean it is not true. I consider myself a Truther, however I don’t believe the Jews had anything to do with 911, and that is my opinion. But I am not going to say it is a fact because, I have no evidence and neither do you.



Do you have evidence that there were no explosives used,

once again you show your ignorance, you cannot prove a negative. Explosives being used is your silly conspiracy theory, so it is up to you to prove it. And you are completely unable to do that.


You have been shown scientific evidence many times. We cannot help it if you do not understand science.


I don’t believe you even understand what the Truth movement is.

Yopu are the one who does not accept what it is, it is made up of people making silly conspiracy theories up, like holograms, explosives, drones etc being used, some are in it to make money, others just for the fun. The one common point is that they are actually not interested in the facts and the truth.


“All” these people in my below source are in the Truth Movement they do not buy into their own government lies and are asking questions, I suppose they to “all” believe in “all” the “conspiracy theories , like holograms, explosives, drones etc being used,” right?

Why don’t you tell that to these people?


220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,400+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
400+ Medical Professionals


patriotsquestion911.com...

That is all many of you debunkers can do is ridicule, because debunkers "cannot" prove their OS true.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
You know how it is, if you do not buy into the official story you have some kind of agenda.





new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join