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.

 

Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



What you call the OS is a series of reports which are not consistent on all points.This was noted by Shade and you ignored it. No one can possibly accept all of every report because of these inconsistencies.


Who cares if there not “consistent” with all the point? The fact is the 911 Commission Report and the NIST report are the OS. I didn’t ignore anything, it is you and Trick that enjoys ignoring the obvious facts and you just demonstrated it.

The fact is you and Trick venomously defend most parts of the OS and you both never tell anyone what you really believe. So how would one know if you didn’t believe in parts of the OS, the fact is both of you have never told anyone.

edit on 21-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Do you have to know a person's belief system in order to have a meaningful debate with them about the facts of a day?

Personal details and beliefs are not important nor influential to these topics, and the constant reference to them by many users (not just you) is just silly. I mean, I can kind of understand it. You want to know what their side of the story is, and think if they don't say then you can start assuming things (such as being paid government operatives or something, as I see in countless threads).

Honestly though, it's off-topic to focus on the person and would make more sense to debate the points they make in their posts rather than the content of their character or the desire they have to debate you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



What you call the OS is a series of reports which are not consistent on all points.This was noted by Shade and you ignored it. No one can possibly accept all of every report because of these inconsistencies.


Who cares if there not “consistent” with all the point? The fact is the 911 Commission Report and the NIST report are the OS. I didn’t ignore anything, it is you and Trick that enjoys ignoring the obvious facts and you just demonstrated it.


Many call out the "OS" as though it is a single, internally consistent document. It is not. That is why I ask what the "OS" is when people refer to it. Are you are saying that the 911 comission report and the NIST documents are all there is to the "OS?"



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If there is more, please tell me where to find it. Should I listen to Fox news or politicians? What else is there?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Do you have to know a person's belief system in order to have a meaningful debate with them about the facts of a day?

Personal details and beliefs are not important nor influential to these topics, and the constant reference to them by many users (not just you) is just silly.


Yes, we all want to know each others belief system, before engaging into most discussions.


So you believe that you can have the same discussion with the same outcome whether you are dealing with Adolph Hitler or the Dalai Lama. I think your argument is ludicrous. If one wants to enter into a significant discussion, understanding the mind set and “belief system” of all parties is critical.

Six million plus Jews and millions of others lost their lives because of the huge number of Germans who chose to ignore Hitler’s true beliefs and motives and happily supported and even joined him in committing the Holocaust.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The OS definition is up to you. Others have claimed the MSM is part of the plot and include various news reports. It is difficult to get some to define it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The OS definition is up to you. Others have claimed the MSM is part of the plot and include various news reports. It is difficult to get some to define it.


Yes, it is. Even those who support it and ask others to define it won't even define it themselves.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




Many call out the "OS" as though it is a single, internally consistent document. It is not. That is why I ask what the "OS" is when people refer to it. Are you are saying that the 911 comission report and the NIST documents are all there is to the "OS?"




President George W. Bush Discusses the September 11 Attacks

www.oprah.com...

How much more official does the “OS” need to be?





edit on 21-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The OS definition is up to you. Others have claimed the MSM is part of the plot and include various news reports. It is difficult to get some to define it.


Yes, it is. Even those who support it and ask others to define it won't even define it themselves.


I can't tell you if I support it until it is defined. I support the basic concepts of impact, fires, and collapse simply because there is no evidence for anything else. I hadn't heard the term "OS" until it was brought up on these boards. It appears to be used by those whose arguments are imprecise or who need room to maneuver by redefining it on the fly. I ask some to define it, occasionally, but have not had a comprehensible response. Yours is an example.
Some posters have skipped using the term and call out the pertinent report or document to make their points, which is a better way of doing it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


This is simple; all you need do is to list all the documents, reports, and other such that you consider to be the "OS." If you can't define it, referring to it is pointless.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




This is simple; all you need do is to list all the documents, reports, and other such that you consider to be the "OS." If you can't define it, referring to it is pointless.


Around and around we go pteridine, you been shown all three 911 OS reports on ATS,

Your argument is pointless, again I will repeat myself again the OS is the:

911 Commission Report
FEMA Report
NIST Report

Mainstream media only supports these reports, and nothing else outside that scope.
Most government officials support the above three reports and nothing outside that scope.
There is nothing more to the OS than these three reports.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Good work. Now as soon as Budaruskie sees this, he can comment on his definition.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Pteridine,
the OS is clearly defined in your posts. The sum total, the entire paragraph that would result from a synopsis of all of your posts?
That is the OS.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


My posts define the "OS?" That is news to me. I thought that the "OS" was defined by a series of reports sponsored by the Federal Government.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


hey guess what = youve been identified as a zog cia agent. stooge...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Unionoffreehumans
 


Dear Stooge [I assume that was your signature],
The topic is the statement by Harrit that he has no doubt that CD caused the collapse of the WTC. He also has no clue about analytical chemistry, which is why it was so easy to rebut his and Jones' silly paper. ZOG is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and not related to Harrit's statement about his certainty. Of course, you may have meant Zog I of Albania, which would then clearly explain your reference.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


He also has no clue about analytical chemistry, which is why it was so easy to rebut his and Jones' silly paper.


Rebut by whom?
Certainly not by you, you haven’t shown any evidence or science to back your silly claims. Do you really think your “opinions” are above real science?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ElBraapo
 


Watch the videos of the buildings coming down, bring a stopwatch, do some research.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElBraapo
I'm not trying to be insulting, but this 911 stuff drives me a little bit crazy. You don't have to be a wizard to know what brought down the buildings.. Dude, it was a couple of huge jets, loaded to the gills with jet fuel. Sometimes, there is no conspiracy. The truth is right there, like it or not. Some crazed extremists carried out their very well thought out plot and destruction ensued. IMO.
edit on 8-3-2011 by ElBraapo because: content

And you explain the nano-thermite, the microspheres of atomized steel and the presence of molten steel...how?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I used Jones data to rebut his paper. If Jones paper was science, I used science.




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join