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.

 

Dangerous Truthers

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
The evidence I present isn't even from Alex Jones, it's from David Chandler (link to berkeley.edu), another one of those dangerous Truthers. David Chandler is currently Bruce Mahan Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.


Oh, good grief, Igig, wake up. David Chandler is playing literally the exact same conspiracy mongoring stunts I'm trying to show you these damned fool conspiracy web sites are playing. Chandler's video SPECIFICALLY ignores the fact that the penthouse of WTC 7 collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 some ten seconds before the rest of the building collapsed, and you can see from your own video that he's SPECIFICALLY clipping off the video footage of the Penthouse collapse. It's right there at 1:32- we both know the camera didn't just happen to turn on at that very moment. He then spends the rest of the video showing how witnesses "heard explosions just before WTC 7 collapsed", as if the penthouse collapse either never happened, or it happened quietly in violation of all laws of physics. Are you genuinely telling me that you don't see how unrepentently dishonest this is?

The fact of the matter is, the penthouse collapsed some ten seconds before the rest of WTC 7 did, and anyone who tries to cover this up in order to reveal "witnesses heard explosions" is lying through their teeth, regardless of how pretty their internet video is otherwise.


Really? You're really going to sit there and tell me that "there is zero physical evidence of any controlled demolitions as well as zero capability for controlled demolitions" when you've had this proof staring at you in my avatar and in this peer-reviewed and accepted scientific analysis of multiple dust samples taken from several locations at the site of 9/11. All the samples (by the way) had "super"-thermite in them.


Jones never said he found thermite. He said he found "thermitic material" which in his made up vocabulary means bits of aluminum along with bits of rust, all to get you to think he found thermite without coming out and saying it. Yes, I know "thermitic" in this context also means it burned but everyone already knew aluminum burns violently before Jones ever came along- it's the primary ingredient in M-80s. WTC was built out of huge amounts of aluminum and steel and it was indisputably the largest originating source of said aluminum and steel in the wreckage, so statistics shows right there that the material he found almost certainly came from the structure itself.

This whole "thermite" drivel is nothing but a red herring anyway, as many, many photographs of the columns were taken at ground zero as well as samples of steel are being stored at a hanger at JFK even now. Not one piece showed any exidence of sabotage- it was all either torn like paper or broken like twigs, and I will show you all the evidence thereof as you'd like. There were hundreds of people working at ground zero clearing out the wreckage and not ONE person encountered any evidence of sabotage either. Either all the photogrtaphs are doctored and all the people at ground zero are all secret agents, or you conspiracy mongors are simply just making stuff up. I think you already know which scenario I subscribe to.


[You are suggesting that; you have repeated suggested that as if it was scripture that has flown from MY mouth. That's a train-of-thought that you alone are waiting to come in. I'm presenting David Chandler as another analyst in the proof that explosions happened at WTC 7!


No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm coming out and explicitely saying it- you've mindlessly swallowed all this drivel from Alex Jones, David Chandler, etc on those damned fool web sites and you've become so seduced by the idea there's some sinister secret conspiracy runnng amok from it that you want to believe it's true. Chandler has been caught red handed at concealing that the "explosions" were caused by the Penhouse collapsing into WTC 7 and Jones has been caught red handed at claiming aluminum and rust found in a structure built out of aluminum and steel is somehow suspicious...and yet you STILL can't understand how you've been suckered by these con artists.

In case it hasn't occurred to you...and apparently it hasn't...all you've managed to do is PROVE everything I've been saying from day one about the conspiracy movement being based on outright fabricated evidence.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous. Below is a list of people...

www.globalresearch.ca...
edit on 11-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


You are using the exact same propaganda methodology as the Nazi's.

Tactics like that don't even deserve the required second line of text.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I asked you to provide a list of these alleged experts? Where is it?


Reread my post and you'll see a link to a report from Thomas Eagar, a materials engineer at MIT. If you're going to put your head in the sand and pretend you didn't see it then it will be pointless for me to present any other material I have.


You asked me why am I here? I am here because ATS is for anyone and everyone who wishes to read learn and discuss many topics, I am a supporter of “Truth” I question everything. When debunkers come into a heated debate making claims, people in the Truth movement want to see evidence, like credible sources, as proof in debunking 911 OS. Opinions are not the facts, so please don’t be so livid when Truthers call you out on your opinions and ask for credible sources.


I would hardly call your past posts indicative of being "a supporter of truth". You are on record as saying eyewitnesses are liars, physical evidence had been planted, video footage and photographs are faked, and other accussations based entirely upon your desire that these conspiracy stories of yours are real. Any time when someone shows you evidence, your first instinct is to look for an excuse for why you shouldn't have to believe it, up to and including bickering over the identity of the photographer who took the photo to begin with.

Keep in mind I'm not here to insult you or to ake you feel bad. I'm here to point out how you've been suckered by these demned fool conspiracy web sites and suckered badly. I dare say you really don't even see just how badly you've been suckered.


That is completely untrue, care to post any thread to where I made such a ridiculous claim?


I am not going to go through your 30,000 past claims looking for the one where you made this, so let's settle this issue in the bud right now- tell me, what evidence WILL you accept that will finally convince you that your conspiracy stories are drivel? Up until now, MIT and NIST research reports aren't enough, photographs aren't enough, eyewitness accounts aren't enough, and you've even had the gall to accuse a firefighter deputy chief who was physically there at WTC 7 of lying and repeating OS fabrications.

Just what the heck is left? Al the supposed earmarks of credibility you claim you have, you've repeatedly shown that you won't uphold it.


I am not here to support someone’s theories; most people who are researching the truth are looking for facts, again supported by real evidence, credible sources, and science. Thomas Eager MIT materials are his “opinions” and lacks little to no real science furthermore; I do not see the scientific community backing his article.


Eagar lists a bibliography where all his statements are coming from, and he even backs his claims up with the math. On the other hand, I notice the scientific community likewise does NOT back Jones' study of thermite found at the WTC site, and in fact several editors of the publication that ran the story resigned in disgust becuase they didn't want to have anythign to do with his drivel...and yet you accept his report when hi own publishers won't.

Why the double standard?


IThat is untrue and you know that.


This is an idiotic statement. I've personally talked to someone who worked at the WTC and even she saw the F-15s that had been scrambled from Otis flying over NYC shortly after the impacts so I will not address this drivel of yours any further.


The fact is, Cheney was in charge, Donald Rumsfeld changed [color=gold]Directive CJCSI 3610.01A of NORAD procedures and took the orders away from NORAD officials in dispatching interceptors when planes fly off their given course and placed those orders on Vice president Dick Cheney.


You can twist and distort the events as much as you'd like, but at the end of the day it's still a documented fact that it was USAF major general Ralph E. Eberhart who was in charge of NORAD on 9/11, and it was Canadian captain Mike Jellinek who was the officer in charge of the NORAD operations center when the attack began. If you attempt to claim anything else, then you will be lying.


That is untrue and you know that. These officials may not tell the rest of the world what they do know, because it might destroy their professional careers. These men are from our military and again, they know what protocols that were not followed on 911. Why would these professionals speak out against the OS?


Why would the number 2 man at the FBI take on the nickname Deep Throat and reveal damaging information to the press about the Watergate break in and bring down the Nixon administration?

You really have no credibility, Impressme.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Thomas Eager

Maybe someone has time to contact him and ask him for more details?

since any non OS expert is bogus, lets see how expert he is

plus, dave, I read that link... all of his links to her sources dont bring you to anything having to do with research.. you would think if he was so good at it, he'd be able to source it better.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Reread my post and you'll see a link to a report from Thomas Eagar, a materials engineer at MIT. If you're going to put your head in the sand and pretend you didn't see it then it will be pointless for me to present any other material I have.


I asked you to post all these “experts”?


Why don’t you give us a list of these alleged experts making a complete fool out of themselves in supporting the OS? Boy, oh boy, the excuses you debunkers can cook up.


If anyone enjoys demonstrated ignorance, one only needs to read some of your many pointless rants against all Truthers in most of your posts.

If there was any truth to Thomas Eagar, materials why isn’t every scientist in the scientific community cheerleading Thomas works?


I would hardly call your past posts indicative of being "a supporter of truth". You are on record as saying eyewitnesses are liars,


If I made that claim on a particular topic you better believe I back it up with a credible source, Now since you brought this up instead of sticking with the treads topic why don’t you back up your claims against me by showing your sources since you claim there is a record of it?

For the recorded I never made the claims that all eyewitness are liars, never.


physical evidence had been planted


I have made this claim and stand by it.


video footage and photographs are faked


If I made this claim, then I also gave credible sources to back my claims, however if you are insisting that I said “all” videos footage and photographs are all fakes that is completely untrue.


and other accussations based entirely upon your desire that these conspiracy stories of yours are real.


That nonsense is untrue.


Any time when someone shows you evidence, your first instinct is to look for an excuse for why you shouldn't have to believe it, up to and including bickering over the identity of the photographer who took the photo to begin with.


There is no bickering, when you have been confronted as to whom, when, how, when, and where the photos were taken and what chain of evidence with sworn proclamation, in supporting photos as being factual evidences. Do you have a problem with people asking you for verifiable evidence?


Keep in mind I'm not here to insult you


I believe you are, the proof is all your posts demonstrated it very clearly. However I expect it from debunkers when their backs are against the wall.


Keep in mind I'm not here to insult you or to ake you feel bad. I'm here to point out how you've been suckered by these demned fool conspiracy web sites and suckered badly. I dare say you really don't even see just how badly you've been suckered.


Dave, you have yet to disprove anything that I believe in, or support. Just because Truthers including me are not gullible and not suckered into believing in the OS lies. If anyone has been “suckered,” it is the ignorant people who support the OS “proven lies,” right Dave?


Any time when someone shows you evidence, your first instinct is to look for an excuse for why you shouldn't have to believe it,


Your assumptions are completely false. You do not know to what I “think.”
Dave, I do not accept everything that I am told by our government and media. In looking for real evidence one must be skeptical and open minded, and subject to change ones’ mind as new credible evidence surfaces.
It is my opinion that a few debunkers on ATS who continue to defend the OS proven lies of 911, display narrow mindedness, and tunnel vision, and most of all have demonstrated their lack of logical thinking. For one to research the truth, of 911, one cannot be all the above, right Dave?


I am not going to go through your 30,000 past claims looking for the one where you made this, so let's settle this issue in the bud right now- tell me, what evidence WILL you accept that will finally convince you that your conspiracy stories are drivel?


For you to prove them all wrong by presenting credible sources backed by scientific research where most scientist in the scientific community support the given science.
Credible evidence some with proven chain of evidence to verify given sources.
Assumptions and opinions are not evidence, don’t you agree Dave.

All people lie Dave, everyone has told a lies one time or another, including you and me and that also means people in our government lie for whatever reason there is, don’t you agree Dave.

Are you implying that people in the Bush administration never lied to the American people about anything regarding 911?

Many of our “conspiracies drivels” have been proven truth by science, or are you going to deny that to?


Up until now, MIT and NIST research reports aren't enough, photographs aren't enough, eyewitness accounts aren't enough, and you've even had the gall to accuse a firefighter deputy chief who was physically there at WTC 7 of lying and repeating OS fabrications.


If I did, I am sure I posted a source to back my claim to why I thought he was lying. I am sure if you look hard enough you will find it.


Just what the heck is left? Al the supposed earmarks of credibility you claim you have, you've repeatedly shown that you won't uphold it.


That’s completely untrue Dave, and you know that.


Eagar lists a bibliography where all his statements are coming from, and he even backs his claims up with the math. On the other hand, I notice the scientific community likewise does NOT back Jones' study of thermite found at the WTC site, and in fact several editors of the publication that ran the story resigned in disgust becuase they didn't want to have anythign to do with his drivel...and yet you accept his report when hi own publishers won't.

Why the double standard?


There is no double standards Dave, only what you want to make it.

Eagar report is “not” supported by the scientific community period, and my opinion is no real scientist will risk destroying their careers in defending his nonsense.

As far as Jones Peer reviewed scientific Journal it is be supported by the scientific community, you obviously have done very little research on the subject.
www.ae911truth.org...

As for the Editor resigning from the publication in disgust? No one knows why they left the publication, you are making stuff up again. Fact is, most of these people never said to why they left, and as far as anyone is concern they probably had nothing to do with Jones Peer reviewed report.


IThat is untrue and you know that.

This is an idiotic statement. I've personally talked to someone who worked at the WTC and even she saw the F-15s that had been scrambled from Otis flying over NYC shortly after the impacts so I will not address this drivel of yours any further.


Dave I personally talk to people that worked at the WTC and were visiting NYC on 911 and all of them made it very clear there were no F-15, F-16, F-18, nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada, shortly after impacts and they told me if there were, tourists would have capture them on their cameras, including the media. So, your source is sadly mistaken.


The fact is, Cheney was in charge, Donald Rumsfeld changed [color=gold]Directive CJCSI 3610.01A of NORAD procedures and took the orders away from NORAD officials in dispatching interceptors when planes fly off their given course and placed those orders on Vice president Dick Cheney.

You can twist and distort the events as much as you'd like, but at the end of the day it's still a documented fact that it was USAF major general Ralph E. Eberhart who was in charge of NORAD on 9/11, and it was Canadian captain Mike Jellinek who was the officer in charge of the NORAD operations center when the attack began. If you attempt to claim anything else, then you will be lying.


No one needs to twist or distort the events as much as you’d like, go back and read the document. The new changes that Rumsfeld made to Directive CJCSI 3610.01A, were orders given to “only” Dick Cheney, not NORAD, where in this government document does it state that the new changes to NORAD decisions to scramble jets were given to general Ralph E. Eberhart? It doesn’t.

Perhaps, Captain Mike Jellinek may have been in charge however, he “did not” have the legal authority to give the orders for NORAD to scramble jets, now did he?
So now, who is twisting and assuming nonsense, you didn’t bother reading the document I gave you, you completely ignored it, and assume something different happened. These assumptions are typical coming from debunkers who are defending a proven lie.


Why would the number 2 man at the FBI take on the nickname Deep Throat and reveal damaging information to the press about the Watergate break in and bring down the Nixon administration?


To bad there are not any more like him, that is what is lacking in America today.
True patriotism is blowing the whistle on a corrupt government, it’s just a shame that there are none left, and now the ”Truth” has become the enemy of the United States government.


You really have no credibility, Impressme.


Perhaps, in your eyes, you’re the only one complaining out of the thousands of posters on ATS.
Truthers have no credibility’s in most OS debunkers eyes, don’t you agree?
So, are you telling me that you are satisfied with all the answers the government gave for the OS?
edit on 16-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

If there was any truth to Thomas Eagar, materials why isn’t every scientist in the scientific community cheerleading Thomas works?


You already know why- most scientists in the scientific community give these conspiracy claims little credibility so they're not going to waste their time on this utter foolshness either way. It's the same reason why NASA doesn't waste their time debating the "moon landing was a hoax" crackpots.

You walked into that one, Impressme.


If I made that claim on a particular topic you better believe I back it up with a credible source, Now since you brought this up instead of sticking with the treads topic why don’t you back up your claims against me by showing your sources since you claim there is a record of it?


I know full well you posted that there isn't anything that can convince you that it wasn't a conspiracy and I will stand by my accusation...but I am not going to go through your 30,000 posts looking for it either. I'm not here to convince others of your duplicity. I'm here to show how these damned fool conspriacy web sites are pushing paranoid drivel to sucker unsuspecting people into swallowing these absurd conspiracy stories. Your fellow conspiracy proponents here I.E. Bonez already know you have no credibility, and in fact he's the one who told ME to ignore you, "no plane hit the Pentagon" hoaxers.

Sheesh, Julian Assange has the largest collection of inside job information outslde of the CIA, and even he says your 9/11 conspiracy claims are drivel and a waste of everyone's time.


For the recorded I never made the claims that all eyewitness are liars, never.


Yes you did. I was quoting NYFD deputy chied Peter Hayden's eyewitness testimony on how the fires in WTC 7 were causing large scale bulging in the structure and you said it was "OS fabrications". I do not know whether you realized I was quoting someone else when you made the statement, but nonetheless the end result is still the same- you called deputy chief Hayden a liar. Would you like me to dig that up for you? That's only a month ago.



physical evidence had been planted


I have made this claim and stand by it.


Ah, so you're admitting you're making up excuses off the top of your head for why you don't have to believe anything that disproves your conspiracy claims. Now we're getting somewhere.


There is no bickering, when you have been confronted as to whom, when, how, when, and where the photos were taken and what chain of evidence with sworn proclamation, in supporting photos as being factual evidences. Do you have a problem with people asking you for verifiable evidence?


Coming from you, yes. Every time I did post the names of the people who took the photos..specifically, of the aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn and of the condition of the structural columns at ground zero...you run away like three card monty players do when the cops show up. We both know you're not asking to document the chain of custody. You're asking because you're looking for excuses for why you shouldn't accept it, and occasionally this stunt blows up in your face when you don't realize we did know who took the photos.


I believe you are, the proof is all your posts demonstrated it very clearly. However I expect it from debunkers when their backs are against the wall.


If my posts contain insultive material then this is my own human failings, as I specifically despise people with agendas who resort to outright lying to get me to believe what they want me to believe. This is what Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, et al, are doing, not you. YOU are simply one of their victims. OTOH it is not insultive to point out when you're trying to pass off a lie when you really are passing off a lie.

I will comment no more on this becuase the moderators will interpret this as a personal attack, which is not my intention. Getting back to the OP, tell me one thing- with all these crackpot accusations of lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, no planes, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, etc, can you at least agree that there is such a sheer amount of outright BAD information the truther movement is putting out and it is detrimental to serious research? Even you have to concur there are some pretty gulluble people swallowing this paranoid nonsense for it to be circulated the way it is.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


If my posts contain [color=gold]insultive material then this is my own human failings, as I specifically despise people with agendas who resort to outright lying to get me to believe what they want me to believe.


So anyone who does not agree with your nonsense has an “agenda”?
Let me get this right, you are saying all people including every website that speaks out against the OS are liars, am I correct?


BTW, no one can make you believe in anything, you give Truthers a lot of power.



I will comment no more on this becuase the moderators will interpret this as a personal attack, which is not my intention. Getting back to the OP, tell me one thing- with all these crackpot accusations of lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, no planes, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, etc, can you at least agree that there is such a sheer amount of outright BAD information the truther movement is putting out and it is detrimental to serious research? Even you have to concur there are some pretty gulluble people swallowing this paranoid nonsense for it to be circulated the way it is.


Can you and I agree that the OS of 911 is full of proven lies and “outright BAD information” and there are plenty of people pushing these lies?
Can you agree that there are people on ATS that are defending the OS lies by creating more lies in order to defend the OS many lies?
“Even you have to agree there are plenty of people swallowing this paranoid nonsense for it to be circulated the way it is.” You couldn’t have said it any better.



Originally posted by Cassius666
Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous. Below is a list of people...
www.globalresearch.ca...


Dave, when you make such fraudulent accusations against me and people who seek out the truth and people who speak out against the OS, you only show how ignorant you really are.
Here is how I feel about defending the Truth of 911, it really disturbs me to see how far some people will go to defend a “proven fairytale,” especially when they have been a long time member on ATS and have seen the real evidence exposing the lies in the OS of 911, then to just “insult” real patriotic Americans, even in our own government who have spoken out against the OS, only exposes their true ignorance of the topic. The one thing it “does prove” to me, is some people do have an agenda and apparently the truth is not one of them.

As I said in my earlier post, exposing 911 Truth, has become unpatriotic and now an enemy of the United States. I stand by my convictions.
edit on 17-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Truthers are DANGEROUS!

Physics is not about BELIEVING!

Skyscraper MUST hold themselves up. Designers MUST figure out how to make them do that and withstand the wind.

So if lots of people understand how that MUST affect the physics of any supposed collapse then they have to start wondering how EXPERTS let this drag on for NINE YEARS. This is a phenomenal Global Cognitive Dissonance problem. Thousands of psychologists and psychiatrists can't understand grade school physics.

Life on the INSANE planet.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

So anyone who does not agree with your nonsense has an “agenda”?
Let me get this right, you are saying all people including every website that speaks out against the OS are liars, am I correct?


Nope. Most people in the 9/11 truther community are simply repeating what other people told them in good faith because they don't know it's incorrect. Such people are simply mistaken and there's no shame in that. It's the people who are consciously repeating said incorrect information after it has been repeatedly been pointed out to them that what they're posting is incorrect who are lying.

Case in point- you put on a veneer of objectivity when you say you want to believe the eyewitness accounts, but when it's been repeatedly been shown to you that eyewitnesses likewise state that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon you consistently run away from it the same way vampires run away from sunlight all so you can insist, "no plane hit the Pentagon". Heck, getting a straight answer out of you on the simple question of what evidence you WILL accept that will convince you these conspiracy stories are hogwash is akin to nailing jam to the wall. This has to be the twentieth time I asked you that and you STILL run away from it.

This gets back to the original OP- it's patently clear there IS no evidence you will accept that will finally convince you these conspiracy stories are hogwash, it's just that you don't want to come out and state it (except for that one rare instance where you actually did). Such faith based logic being masked under the camoflage of claiming to be doing honest research IS dangerous as hell. You're not here to assist in the research. You're here to usurp other people's honest research and convert them into believing what you want them to believe.


Can you and I agree that the OS of 911 is full of proven lies and “outright BAD information” and there are plenty of people pushing these lies?


That is as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. Please answer the question, and don't answer the question by turning around and asking me a question- do YOU agree that the truther movement is putting out a lot of bad information? I know you subscribe to some pretty far our things but I think even you have to draw the line at lunatic claims like "nukes in the basement" and "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists".

The reason as to why I'm seeing dangerous activity in the truther movement will depend on how you answer the question,


Can you agree that there are people on ATS that are defending the OS lies by creating more lies in order to defend the OS many lies?


Ummm...what?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I will comment no more on this becuase the moderators will interpret this as a personal attack, which is not my intention.


Didn’t you just say you were done commenting on this thread?


So anyone who does not agree with your nonsense has an “agenda”?
Let me get this right, you are saying all people including every website that speaks out against the OS are liars, am I correct?


Nope. Most people in the 9/11 truther community are simply repeating what other people told them in good faith because they don't know it's incorrect.


Like the many debunkers believing in the OS that was told to them in good faith.


It's the people who are consciously repeating said incorrect information after it has been repeatedly been pointed out to them that what they're posting is incorrect who are lying.


I agree, fact is, I have posted credible evidence and scientific findings that many debunkers continue to ignore and lie.


Case in point- you put on a veneer of objectivity when you say you want to believe the eyewitness accounts, but when it's been repeatedly been shown to you that eyewitnesses likewise state that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon you consistently run away from it the same way vampires run away from sunlight all so you can insist, "no plane hit the Pentagon". Heck, getting a straight answer out of you on the simple question of what evidence you WILL accept that will convince you these conspiracy stories are hogwash is akin to nailing jam to the wall. This has to be the twentieth time I asked you that and you STILL run away from it.


For every eyewitness you present to support you OS fantasy I can bring “credible” eyewitness who says different.
Fact: As for straight answers you were given them repeatedly that is nonsens. BTW, you haven’t asked me anything for the “twentieth time,” so in your desperation of trying to discrediting me, I would appreciate you would stop making up fallacies.


This gets back to the original OP- it's patently clear there IS no evidence you will accept that will finally convince you these conspiracy stories are hogwash


Which stories are you talking about and which one’s have you proved were hogwash with credible sources and not your opinions?


Such faith based logic being masked under the camoflage of claiming to be doing honest research IS dangerous as hell.


I agree, just like the same faith based logic being masked under the camouflage in supporting the OS.


You're not here to assist in the research. You're here to usurp other people's honest research and convert them into believing what you want them to believe.


Your assumptions are wrong and untrue Dave, and you know that.

Dave, who have I converted?
So presenting credible sources and scientific findings proving parts of the OS are lies, is usurp other people's honest research?


Can you and I agree that the OS of 911 is full of proven lies and “outright BAD information” and there are plenty of people pushing these lies?

That is as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. Please answer the question, and don't answer the question by turning around and asking me a question- do YOU agree that the truther movement is putting out a lot of bad information? I know you subscribe to some pretty far our things but I think even you have to draw the line at lunatic claims like "nukes in the basement" and "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists".


I didn’t think you would answer the question because admitted the truth to my question will prove you are wrong in claiming there are no conspiracies into 911 as some of you debunkers always claimed.

If anyone subscribes to pretty far things, are people who believe in the far out unscientific, improbabilities, supporting pseudo science, half bake, and opinionated fallacies that many ignorant debunkers presents without ever researching given topics.

Many debunkers are in disbelief that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to our government staging a false flag by killing American citizens in NYC and was just considered collateral damaged to the few insiders in the Bush administration who are being accused of this treasonous crime.

Some people just can’t handle the shocking Truth as we see demonstrated in this thread.
You should read and understand my signature, because that is what many OS supporters are doing.

Making false claims against “all” Truthers or just people who don’t believe in the lies of the OS, such as claims you just made that we all believe in "nukes in the basement" and "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists,” that is completely hogwash and you know it. If you really believe in the nonsense you just posted, then you have just demonstrated that you cannot think critically and logical.


The reason as to why I'm seeing dangerous activity in the truther movement will depend on how you answer the question,


Dave, can you show this “dangerous activity” in the Truth movement?

Yes, Truthers are a threat to 911 because, they disappoint debunkers by digging, researching, asking questions, demanding answers, filing for FOIA, and exposing the mountains of lies, told by many people in our government and mainstream media and internet blogs.

What side of the coin are you on Dave, the snake oil snow job the government did in covering up 911, or the scientific evidence that proves we were lied to?


Can you agree that there are people on ATS that are defending the OS lies by creating more lies in order to defend the OS many lies?

Ummm...what?


So you can’t agree that there are people telling lies, in supporting the OS fallacies, how interesting?





edit on 19-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by igigi

I assume you're talking about WTC7... if so then WTC7 would be the FIRST and ONLY building in the history of making steel-reinforced buildings to have collapsed (control demolition style) do to a simple "office fire."


What was 7WTC reinforced with?




Originally posted by igigi

Not to mention the media snafu of reporting on WTC7 being collapsed ~30 minutes prior to it actually collapsing.. The narrative was written, disseminated through the MSM and reported on as fact; when in fact the building was still standing, structurally sound then -> BOOM BOOM BOOM ...


No, it was not structurally sound. Not at all. In fact, a large bulge in the side was noticed earlier in the day. This is not a sign of a structurally sound building. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a telltale sign of a building in jeopardy of collapse.
www.firerescue1.com...


Originally posted by igigi
the tower collapses on it's own footprint.


Does the footprint of a building include other buildings?



Originally posted by igigi

You believe your fairy-tale.. I'll believe the TRUTH.


Irony. (Case in point, see "footprint".)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

0:11 Low freq boom
0:12 Penthouse Kink
0:13-0:20 Roof Collapse, left to right
0:20+ Free-fall on it's own footprint.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-911-footage-reveals-wtc-7-explosions.html

"But wait!" you say, "There was no series of booms!"


This whole video is amazing, but the real good stuff is at around 2:00, BOOM BOOM BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM is what you hear.


For comparison. "Building Implosion - Honolulu 1994 - 7 Views!!"

9/11 was an inside job.


edit on 11-1-2011 by igigi because: .


How does an explosion that goes off 3 hours before the actual collapse work?

PS. Explosions =/= explosive. Many things go boom in a fire. Can you rule those things out? (hint: No, you cannot)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


How does a collapse from fire cause a building to collapse into it's own footprint, exactly like it was imploded a by controlled method?

In this pic you can see the outer walls sitting on top of the demolished building, how can that happen?



It can't unless the collapse is controlled...


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

The outer wall sitting on top of the debris pile can only happen by controlled implosion demolition. It is the very definition of 'in it's own footprint'. If the collapse was not controlled the outer walls would have fallen outwards, not inwards after the buildings interior had collapsed.

If you know how to do that from fire alone you should go apply for a job at Demolition Inc. You could save them a lot of time and money.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Truthers are DANGEROUS!

Physics is not about BELIEVING!

Skyscraper MUST hold themselves up. Designers MUST figure out how to make them do that and withstand the wind.

So if lots of people understand how that MUST affect the physics of any supposed collapse then they have to start wondering how EXPERTS let this drag on for NINE YEARS. This is a phenomenal Global Cognitive Dissonance problem. Thousands of psychologists and psychiatrists can't understand grade school physics.

Life on the INSANE planet.

www.youtube.com...

psik


Grade school physics?

Amazing.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 


How does a collapse from fire cause a building to collapse into it's own footprint, exactly like it was imploded a by controlled method?

In this pic you can see the outer walls sitting on top of the demolished building, how can that happen?



It can't unless the collapse is controlled...


How does a building collapsing into it's own "footprint" hit 3 other buildings, one on it's roof?

BTW, the interior collapsed first, and progressed to the outer shell of the building. Explains it quite easily.




Originally posted by ANOK

The outer wall sitting on top of the debris pile can only happen by controlled implosion demolition. It is the very definition of 'in it's own footprint'. If the collapse was not controlled the outer walls would have fallen outwards, not inwards after the buildings interior had collapsed.


No, it's not. A "foorprint" in architectual terms is the area that the base of the building occupies. Does "footprint" in your definition, include 3 other buildings?



Originally posted by ANOK

If you know how to do that from fire alone you should go apply for a job at Demolition Inc. You could save them a lot of time and money.


Yeah, I COULD, if I could accurately predict every single variable that comes with fire.

Wind direction
Ventilation
Wind speed
Heat transfer
Fire progression
Convection and cooling.


There are all variables that have an effect on fire.

Here's the variables that affect explosives.

Placement
Timing.

Easy to control when you know how to set it up perfectly.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 







How does a building collapsing into it's own "footprint" hit 3 other buildings, one on it's roof?

BTW, the interior collapsed first, and progressed to the outer shell of the building. Explains it quite easily.




Originally posted by ANOK

The outer wall sitting on top of the debris pile can only happen by controlled implosion demolition. It is the very definition of 'in it's own footprint'. If the collapse was not controlled the outer walls would have fallen outwards, not inwards after the buildings interior had collapsed.


Agreed. Amazing picture that shows the controlled demolition of WTC 7.

And FDNY343. Welcome new user. I see you are new to the site and more than likely new to this whole 911 thing. Dont let your inability to get a moot point across deter you from trying to squelch truthers.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
How does a building collapsing into it's own "footprint" hit 3 other buildings, one on it's roof?


You obviously have very little experience in demolitions. No demolition is perfect. WTC 7 would be the tallest building to ever be implosion demolished. In a real world situation surrounding buildings would have been covered to protect them.


BTW, the interior collapsed first, and progressed to the outer shell of the building. Explains it quite easily.


No it doesn't. In a natural collapse the walls are not going to wait for the interior to collapse before they themselves collapse. The walls would fall to the path of least resistance, down and out. They would not be on top of the rest of the collapsed building.


No, it's not. A "foorprint" [sic] in architectual [sic] terms is the area that the base of the building occupies. Does "footprint" in your definition, include 3 other buildings?


We're not talking 'architectural' terms we're talking demolition terms.

Again no demo is perfect and 'in it's own footprint' is not literal, as in nothing will fall outside the footprint.
The idea is to get the MAJORITY if the the buildings mass to fall within its footprint.


Yeah, I COULD, if I could accurately predict every single variable that comes with fire.

Wind direction
Ventilation
Wind speed
Heat transfer
Fire progression
Convection and cooling.


There are all variables that have an effect on fire.

Here's the variables that affect explosives.

Placement
Timing.

Easy to control when you know how to set it up perfectly.


Huh, so the fire in WTC 7 were 'set up properly'?

You really think you could implode a 48 story building by setting up the fires correctly?

Really?

I'm starting to think you're not a fireman at all but another 'debunker' like PSB (whatever their name was) who claimed to be an engineer.
edit on 1/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Agreed. Amazing picture that shows the controlled demolition of WTC 7.


Maybe you can explain Fitterman Hall?


Originally posted by Shadow Herder
And FDNY343. Welcome new user. I see you are new to the site and more than likely new to this whole 911 thing.


Nope, not at all.


Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Dont let your inability to get a moot point across deter you from trying to squelch truthers.


I have no problem with people having opinions. None whatsoever. You are free to express your opinions all you want. Even if they are wrong, or slanderous, or insulting, I still support your right to free speach.

Thanks for the welcome either way.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You obviously have very little experience in demolitions. No demolition is perfect. WTC 7 would be the tallest building to ever be implosion demolished. In a real world situation surrounding buildings would have been covered to protect them.


Covered with what? Canvas? This would do nothing to prevent a multi-ton piece of another building from harming it.
And you're right, I am not a demolitions expert.


Originally posted by ANOK
No it doesn't. In a natural collapse the walls are not going to wait for the interior to collapse before they themselves collapse. The walls would fall to the path of least resistance, down and out. They would not be on top of the rest of the collapsed building.


Argument from personal incredulity noted.

Here's a little physics question for you?

What causes the columns to move "out" in your scenario? What force is acting on it that cuases the "out" that you speak of?



Originally posted by ANOK
We're not talking 'architectural' terms we're talking demolition terms.


Maybe you can cite a source that defines a "demolition footprint"?


Originally posted by ANOK
Again no demo is perfect and 'in it's own footprint' is not literal, as in nothing will fall outside the footprint.
The idea is to get the MAJORITY if the the buildings mass to fall within its footprint.


Correct. You know, minues the billions of dollars of damage to the 3 surrounding buildings.


Originally posted by ANOK
Huh, so the fire in WTC 7 were 'set up properly'?

You really think you could implode a 48 story building by setting up the fires correctly?

Really?


No. Please follow along. I could IF I could account for every one of these variables over a long period of time. Which, in case you didn't catch on, is next to IMPOSSIBLE.


Originally posted by ANOK
I'm starting to think you're not a fireman at all but another 'debunker' like PSB (whatever their name was) who claimed to be an engineer.
edit on 1/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I guess you could call me a debunker if you wanted to.

I really don't care what you believe or don't believe. In fact, I couldn't care less.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join