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.

 

Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 23
86
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
The concept of disproving a theory is what has confused you. The idea is to prove a theory with evidence. If we ask you to disprove the theory that magic was responsible, you cannot do it because we can counter every argument you make with "special magic."
Look up logical fallacies.


pteridine - you need to get a grip on your fallacies! The idea is to test a theory to confirm it or prove it incorrect. You can confirm it til you're blue in the face but all it takes is one solid proof that it's incorrect and your theory's disproved. Of course, the 911 Commission didn't see their OS as a theory so didn't spend any time testing it's validity.




posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Yes they did. Where has any 9/11 truther proved with a solid piece of evidence that their conclusions were false?



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
pteridine - you need to get a grip on your fallacies! The idea is to test a theory to confirm it or prove it incorrect. You can confirm it til you're blue in the face but all it takes is one solid proof that it's incorrect and your theory's disproved.

No it doesn't, talk to any actual scientist. Of course, if they can repeat an experiment and it definitely contradicts the theory, then something is wrong with the theory. Not everything, just something. Sometimes theories are disproven entirely and restarted from scratch, but often it's as simple as accounting for a phenomena that was unexpected.


Of course, the 911 Commission didn't see their OS as a theory so didn't spend any time testing it's validity.

When people make comments like this it exposes their ignorance. Have you ever even read the commission report? What theory exactly didn't they test? It's a reference work, a compilation of the various other reports and investigations that were carried out.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Once again, we have "badgering" and denial by the same old, same olds, over......

nothing.

"...ask any scientist...."

"...no one has ever disproven..."

Molten Steel and 9/11. The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile". I believe that IS the topic.
Was it there? Yes.
It has not been "disproven", I would say it has been proven.
"Any scientist" would probably agree, but the same old, same olds here are not looking for answers, are you?



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
Once again, we have "badgering" and denial by the same old, same olds, over......

nothing.

"...ask any scientist...."

"...no one has ever disproven..."

Molten Steel and 9/11. The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile". I believe that IS the topic.
Was it there? Yes.
It has not been "disproven", I would say it has been proven.
"Any scientist" would probably agree, but the same old, same olds here are not looking for answers, are you?




Care to explain how the molten metal disproves anything in the OS? I haven't seen it done yet. What's been disproven is the "pools" of molten metal, as if there was some kind of magma chamber created within the rubble of the trade centers. What has been proven is that underground rubble fires can get to temperatures high enough to melt steel over time. Thermite has also been proven to be able to react under that kind of heat with the materials already present.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Care to explain how the molten metal disproves anything in the OS? I haven't seen it done yet. What's been disproven is the "pools" of molten metal, as if there was some kind of magma chamber created within the rubble of the trade centers. What has been proven is that underground rubble fires can get to temperatures high enough to melt steel over time. Thermite has also been proven to be able to react under that kind of heat with the materials already present.


Willing to accept the presence of thermite but unwilling to accept the existence of pools of molten steel?


Explain yourself, please. You cannot eat your cake and have it.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

I just have to say, anyone that believes two planes can destroy an entire complex of buildings is not worth arguing with.
I mean, how can you?



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Willing to accept the presence of thermite but unwilling to accept the existence of pools of molten steel?


Explain yourself, please. You cannot eat your cake and have it.


I have the link in my signature that explains how a lot of thermite could have been present in the towers. I don't think that the theory that it was all thermite reactions caused by molten aluminum is true, but the science based around how thermite reactions could take place are very real.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by micpsi
 

I just have to say, anyone that believes two planes can destroy an entire complex of buildings is not worth arguing with.
I mean, how can you?



How about, it wasn't just the planes. It was what the planes did to the inside of the building. After all, it did take an hour for the fire to make things fail.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by micpsi
 

I just have to say, anyone that believes two planes can destroy an entire complex of buildings is not worth arguing with.
I mean, how can you?

You can read the reports, read the eyewitness accounts, read books on engineering, and understand the process that caused it.

Even without doing that, the idea that planes are incapable of destroying buildings is pretty bizarre. These are huge flying bombs, travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. What exactly would stop them from destroying a whole complex?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Guys, guys, come on! The world is waking up, get a clue.
The O.S. is like the Holy Bible (or in this case, the Koran), you go ahead an preach your faith. Watch out for those Muslim devils you create in your head, they can mess with your brain.
I will stick with truth and integrity, while you applaud ignorance and deceit.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
Guys, guys, come on! The world is waking up, get a clue.

People say that about the moon landing. It still happened.


The O.S. is like the Holy Bible (or in this case, the Koran), you go ahead an preach your faith. Watch out for those Muslim devils you create in your head, they can mess with your brain.
I will stick with truth and integrity, while you applaud ignorance and deceit.

I'm an atheist, and I live in a heavily Muslim area. I don't really appreciate you making such silly accusations. Nothing I have said is based in ignorance or deceit, it was ignorant of you to say so.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

I have a video for you. Everything I say, I can back up.



Rational people the world over aren't buying what you are selling. Your fiction.

world911truth.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by Whyhi
 


You said I, and millions of others, are "nutjobs."



Some interesting news here, it is not millions anymore.

It is billions of ppl that question the official story.

en.wikipedia.org...

Less than half the ppl in the world buy the official story.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Are you here merely to insult me and then fail to acknowledge my post at all? I am not what you claim, and I am more than capable of defending my opinions on any topic.

ATS has a formal debate forum, if you are so confident that you can back up your beliefs, why don't you challenge me to a debate there?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

Hey wiseguy, you called ME out. If you can read, note that you replied to me, but I never even mentioned your name in the post that set you off.
But, if the shoe fits.....
No debate. I am not running for office, nor seeking stars (though I get my share, while it appears you are in somewhat of a minority here).
So, if that is a win for you, congratulations.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by micpsi
 

I just have to say, anyone that believes two planes can destroy an entire complex of buildings is not worth arguing with.
I mean, how can you?

You can read the reports, read the eyewitness accounts, read books on engineering, and understand the process that caused it.

Even without doing that, the idea that planes are incapable of destroying buildings is pretty bizarre. These are huge flying bombs, travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. What exactly would stop them from destroying a whole complex?


Let me think.. the answers just on my tongue... Oh yes - Physics!

But why listen to me or any other non-OS believer? Try listening to this firemen talk about the elevators exploding in the lobby 5 minutes after the aircraft hit! View between 0:16 - 0:50



(Google video title: 9/11 We Find A body In The Closet First Floor Somethuings Wrong Here)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by JohnJasper
pteridine - you need to get a grip on your fallacies! The idea is to test a theory to confirm it or prove it incorrect. You can confirm it til you're blue in the face but all it takes is one solid proof that it's incorrect and your theory's disproved.


No it doesn't, talk to any actual scientist. Of course, if they can repeat an experiment and it definitely contradicts the theory, then something is wrong with the theory. Not everything, just something. Sometimes theories are disproven entirely and restarted from scratch, but often it's as simple as accounting for a phenomena that was unexpected.


No argument! That's why I underlined the word "solid."




Of course, the 911 Commission didn't see their OS as a theory so didn't spend any time testing it's validity.

When people make comments like this it exposes their ignorance. Have you ever even read the commission report? What theory exactly didn't they test? It's a reference work, a compilation of the various other reports and investigations that were carried out.


I have not read the whole report but I have read the relevant bits pertaining to various points. You're right that they obviously spent some time but what I mean is that they published a story with huge holes in it as though they didn't think anyone would check up on it or just didn't care. That's why David Ray Griffin was able to have such a field day in Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical ...



No doubt you've seen this video or read the book and will have a counter-argument for all of the points made.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Yes they did. Where has any 9/11 truther proved with a solid piece of evidence that their conclusions were false?


Millions (no billions) have witnessed the solid proof provided by OS debunkers around the world and are now on board with the push to get an independent inquiry. However, my favourite is David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical ...




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Yes they did. Where has any 9/11 truther proved with a solid piece of evidence that their conclusions were false?


Millions (no billions) have witnessed the solid proof provided by OS debunkers around the world and are now on board with the push to get an independent inquiry. However, my favourite is David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical ...


Where is the "solid proof" that can be witnessed? David Griffin's talk about 'getting empirical' was cut off before any empirical things were discussed.
In the past, I have found him to be a lightweight when it comes to understanding technical details. He is a talking head and will gladly repeat what he has been told, often erroneously, by others. He does put a good face on the movement and seems far more reasonable and intellectual than Steven Jones or Richard Gage. Maybe that is why they keep him around.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join