Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

For you youngsters: Plane Hits Empire State Building (Video)

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


911 Myths .com, has been proven to be a disinformation website along with many others.
I would not want to put my name to anything the author says and frankly it is mostly opinionated and lacks little to no scientific evidence.
But what do I know, let the casual ATS readers decide for themselves.


[color=gold]Debunking 9/11 Myths - WTC Controlled Demolition (911myths.com...)

letsrollforums.com...




posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


It is clear to me that you are just trolling for a fight . I will not be baited into this little game of yours .

Happy hunting .



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
A little advice about linking to the 911Myths website. They were one of the first "debunking"sites that came around when we 911 researchers started out, a lot of their claims have been squashed completely by more knowledgeable researchers.

Usually "debunkers" who just got their training wheels and feel like debating someone go to them as the default source.

Bad move.

I debunked your video post....I see you tried to recant and asked for it to be removed before I did.

I also have demonstrated within ALL UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING of the word "collapse" that the Madrid Windsor did not collapse....it's self evident by photos YOU provided.

So your original post on this thread is entirely wrong.

Got anything else?



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

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


It is clear to me that you are just trolling for a fight . I will not be baited into this little game of yours .

Happy hunting .


You couldn't answer the way you wanted to huh?

So now you call me a troll for calling you out and asking you to observe your own mistakes?

This didn't bode well for you did it?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Hello impressme , long time no see ,

Are you saying the photo of the Windsor is not authentic ? I Have another one , taken by a private citizen from spain , with his phone number , if you would like for me to dig it up ?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


How do you consider that you "called me out" when I had already posted a retraction before you showed up ?

I won't participate in this little pee-contest you are attempting to initiate so , if you want to debate let's keep it clean . Otherwise I will simply ignore you .



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


How do you consider that you "called me out" when I had already posted a retraction before you showed up ?

I won't participate in this little pee-contest you are attempting to initiate so , if you want to debate let's keep it clean . Otherwise I will simply ignore you .


Okay, so you called YOURSELF out on your video...I didn't see your retraction and debunked it further.

Then you insisted disingenuously that the Madrid Windsor 'collapsed' (or would have)....thus debunking yourself again WITH YOUR OWN PHOTO!!!

Then you call me a troll for doing so?

You do know that this entire exchange between us is public right?

I've kept it civil...I kept it factual.

So far you got nothing but claims I'm 'trolling' and looking for a fight. This site is about 'denying ignorance' is it not.
If you consider that 'fighting' then maybe this isn't the place for you.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


It is obvious to me that you are more interested in debating me instead of debating the material .

I stand by my statements concerning the Windsor .

Welcome to ignore .



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



I debunk your 'debunking'...you call me a troll and say I'm picking a fight...then you tell me to debate the material....then you ignore me?

What planet am I on?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Are you saying the photo of the Windsor is not authentic ?


I never made that claim, you did.


911 Myths .com, has been proven to be a disinformation website along with many others.
I would not want to put my name to anything the author says and frankly it is mostly opinionated and lacks little to no scientific evidence.
But what do I know, let the casual ATS readers decide for themselves.


[color=gold]Debunking 9/11 Myths - WTC Controlled Demolition (911myths.com...)

letsrollforums.com...


Where in my post I made that claim?

You put your credibility on a proven disinformation website, what more is there to say?


edit on 26-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I posted an image of the Windsor , that I got from that site . You then made a statement that the site was not credible . Therefore , I asked you if you were saying the photo was not authentic . That should be fairly easy to understand why I asked you that , after you made the statement about the site not being credible .

This isn't the only site that has that image posted , just because that's the one I linked to , doesn't make the photo any less authentic , does it ?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I posted an image of the Windsor , that I got from that site . You then made a statement that the site was not credible . Therefore , I asked you if you were saying the photo was not authentic . That should be fairly easy to understand why I asked you that , after you made the statement about the site not being credible .




Apparently you didn’t read my post. You put your “credibility” on a proven disinformation website and that is what I was pointing out. I never brought up any statement concerning “Windsor.” If so please show me.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Okay , I suppose you are going to have to explain to me how I "put my credibility" on a "disinformation" site by posting an authentic photo that was obtained from that site . This makes no sense to me .

And , you probably don't want me to remind you of how YOU put your credibility on a proven lie in another thread . I'd rather we didn't have to go there again , plus I'm thinking this whole thing is steering towards "off topic" .

The easiest thing to do would be for you to prove that the photo is not credible simply because of where I obtained it .

I will post other links to the photo , if that would make you feel better , but , I'm sure you would try to discredit anything I post so , why bother ?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


However since you brought up about the Windsor and that it burned all night from top to bottom and never collapsed, how are you comparing the WTC top floors burning less than one hour and the whole building just pulverizes in mid air? Or are you going to deny all the Media footage of that morning.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Okay , I suppose you are going to have to explain to me how I "put my credibility" on a "disinformation" site by posting an authentic photo that was obtained from that site . This makes no sense to me .


The photo in question maybe real, but do you have a paper that truly authenticates the actual photo or are we to take your word for it?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



And , you probably don't want me to remind you of how YOU put your credibility on a proven lie in another thread . I'd rather we didn't have to go there again , plus I'm thinking this whole thing is steering towards "off topic" .


No I NEVER put my credibility on a proven lie in another thread, you and other debunker or OS defenders took my quote completely out of contexts and turned it into something completely off topic and that is something you debunkers do when your evidence or claims cannot stand up to scrutiny. Every time I have confronted you on your OS wild conspiracies you always bring up this old thread where you same bunch that had derailed that thread and have tried your best to discredit me. Everyone reading this knows what many of you OS defenders are doing, you all are not fooling anyone.




edit on 26-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here are some excellent photos of the Windsor . From a different site .

Please note that the steel section collapsed due to fire . The section that didn't collapse was the reinforced concrete section .

And , please don't play ignorant of the fact that truthers have tried to compare the collapse of WTC to the "non-collapse" of the Windsor . You are very well aware of what I am talking about .

The bottom line is , the structural steel in the Windsor COLLAPSED due to fire . The only reason there wasn't a total collapse of the building was due to the fact of there being concrete reinforced technical floors and a concrete reinforced core , plus the fact that the fire was being actively fought .

As for documented papers to prove the authenticity of these photos , that is a fallacious argument and you know it . If this is the game you are going to play , I will leave you to play it with someone else . I'm sick and tired of these grade-school antics some of you guys rely on .

Look at those photos and tell me two things .

1) Tell me how the WTC can be compared to the Windsor , as they are clearly two different types of constructs .

2) Look at those photos and tell me that structural steel will not collapse due to fire .

If you come back with any more of the immature discourse about papers and such , I will be obliged to ignore you also .

www.elmundo.es...

edit on 26-9-2010 by okbmd because: ETA



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Yea, I'm not an expert on 911 conspiracies, and I usually don't buy into or try to debunk them enough to research these types of things but I am somewhat familiar with some basics and if you can explain to me why these don't matter I'll be happy:

1. wasn't the plain that hit the empire state building both much smaller and carrying much less fuel then the plains that hit the WTC?
2. isn't it likely that while the WTCs didn't contain asbestos (a far better flame retardant then what they did contain) its likely that the empire state building did contain asbestos- the superior flame retardant?
3. also while the terrorists strategically hit the WTC low enough to cause the weight above the impact to collapse the beams below them and cause a chain reaction, isnt' it likely that this pilot hit somewhere near the very top of the Empire State building?

Couldn't an unplanned collision with smaller aircraft/less fuel and better flame retardent explain why one 2 buildings collapsed and one didn't?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



If this is the game you are going to play , I will leave you to play it with someone else . I'm sick and tired of these grade-school antics some of you guys rely on .


You mean like this game that you just played on me?


And , you probably don't want me to remind you of how YOU put your credibility on a proven lie in another thread . I'd rather we didn't have to go there again , plus I'm thinking this whole thing is steering towards "off topic" .



The bottom line is , the structural steel in the Windsor COLLAPSED due to fire


Wrong, it did not collapsed and stood all night. This is your opinion nothing more.


The only reason there wasn't a total collapse of the building was due to the fact of there being concrete reinforced technical floors and a concrete reinforced core , plus the fact that the fire was being actively fought .


Again this is your opinion, not all facts do you OS defenders believe giving your opinions are credible facts? We can go back and forth all day on opinions but as you know very well it doesn’t mean a thing.


As for documented papers to prove the authenticity of these photos , that is a fallacious argument and you know it . If this is the game you are going to play , I will leave you to play it with someone else . I'm sick and tired of these grade-school antics some of you guys rely on .


The Truth doesn’t need “games” or “grade-school antics” to support itself, it stands on its own merit. Hey you don’t like my opinions you know where the ignore tab is.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Wrong, it did not collapsed and stood all night. This is your opinion nothing more.


So , even after viewing those photos , you are still going to tell me that the structural steel section did not collapse due to fire ? You are still going to deny that ?

I provided you with a link that clearly shows steel collapsed due to fire , and you are telling me that is nothing more than my opinion ?

Don't you see how ludicrous that position is ?

The bottom line is , I have proven to you that structural steel can and will collapse due to fires . There is no logical argument to refute that ., no matter what you say or how you try to say it .

Structural steel collapsed in the Windsor , due to fire . Therefore , it is not unreasonable to say that structural steel in WTC collapsed due to fire .

Those are the facts , like it or not .





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join