Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 36
172
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have to assume you're just being dishonest at this point. One of the reasons why I don't engage with the Truther community is that I find that they behave like ideologues. They are guided by their beliefs, not their logic or common sense.

Here's an example:

You said the floors were "ejected".

They were not.

A lot of rubble fell in many different directions, as we all saw, but to leap the conclusion that entire "floors were ejected" is complete nonsense and not based on ANY evidence.

So, when we say that's not true, it's because there's no evidence of it.

You take that very specific poitn and turn it into:

- We disagree with FEMA
- We think all the rubble fell in the foot print of the building (which doesn't even happen in Demos, btw)

And on and on.

That's so frustratingly dishonest and childish and makes it impossible to have a sane discussion with you.

I could go through most truther threads and find thousands of contradictory truther claims, in fact there's many in this very thread. I could then use that info to mock all truther beliefs. In fact many do this exact thing.

BUT

That's not a discussion and it benefits no one.

If you want to have a discussion, act like an adult, otherwise I won't waste my time.



you're lying straight through your keyboard, you always engage the truther community....i haven't seen one thread where you haven't engaged the truthers.....




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence.
Refer to the OP.


The "iron spheres" were identified only in samples that no one else has access to. There's no control group to determine if iron spheres may have other sources if they do exist. Debunked again.
Denying reality is not debunking, debunking would be accurately proving something false. You just gave an opinion that the iron spheres were invalid, that is not debunking.

I'll debunk them for you: The iron spheres were formed during the construction of the Twin Towers when torches were used for welding.


Nothing is missing except an understanding of the physical world. This again falls into a "default debunk" because there is no evidence that would support it as a fact.
Refer to the OP.


Gravity works in a straight line here on Earth. Always has.
Through the path of greatest resistance?


Your use of the word "flawed" does not constitute a fact that requires explanation.
This is explained in the OP. Read the f****** OP dude, all of your "debunking" revolves around a presumed lack of evidence when in reality there is evidence supporting all of these things in the OP.


Plenty of heat and chemical reactions within the rubble to cause reactions.
Refer to the OP again dude.


A) Estimated
Nope, factual.


B) Limited duration.
You're right.


Opinion of a group of unqualified and bias group with one off samples that no one else has access to. Default Debunk.
Actually other groups have tested those same chips. I have to head to class but I'll find you the links when I get back.


First some evidence has to be given in their support.
Refer to the OP
:shk:

edit on 2-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
 


This is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that truthers pass off as science and logic.

As I explained (and as anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge understands immediately) the buildings got progressively less rigid and able to sustain the downward pressure as the collapse bit destroyed more and more of the outer shell. I'm not sure if you guys are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the towers or if you actually just don't understand what a large role the shell had in keeping them upright...?

On top of that, if you watch those french demo vids, which are done WITHOUT explosives, you can see that a much smaller number of floors CAN and DOES destroy a larger number of floors. And it doesn't take much to make it happen.

Other issues with your beliefs:

- Welded/bolted steel is only as strong as the welds and bolts. The debris didn't have to go straight down through steel, but simply wreck the welds and bolts enough to make the structure, (not the beams them self) collapse.

- You're belief is predicated on a mystery technology. That's extremely silly. Those French vids show EXACTLY the same behaviour as the WTC, with no mystery tech.

- As the OP said, the collapse accelerated up to free-fall. In a demo, even one using your exciting new mystery tech, the collapse is essentially immediately at free-fall. In other words, there's no gradual acceleration. So unless the bogeymen in your fantasy have used their mystery tech in a way which gradually speeds up the collapse, your theory is false.

- There's no evidence of any of this exciting new mystery tech in any of the videos.



---

Again, one of the big problems with the whole truther world view is the circular nature of the logic. When you start pulling calling out the little bits of nonsense (mystery technology, unexplained demo techniques, dismissing other rational explanations, the buildings "looking like demos," etc etc) the whole thing falls apart.

The truther house isn't strong except for a few bricks; it's a house of cards. Each silly belief is just as silly as each other silly belief. None of it is backed up by evidence or common sense.

For the record, Bush and Cheney should be in jail, the neo-cons should be hunted down and ... a best locked up for ever... but... none of that changes ANY of the evidence.

Evidence:

No witnesses saw/heard the hundreds of TIMED explosions necessary to bring down a building. None of the these hundreds of explosions are visible on ANY video.

There is however lots of examples of buildings collapsing straight down, without explosives. Those collapses are started by removing ONE floor from buildings.

What's more likely?

- Accelerating collapse with NO evidence of how it's been accomplished, based on a belief in some mystery technology.

- Accelerating collapse caused by the removal of a floor of the buildings, exactly as the French do, which looks exactly like the French demos.

In the CT version all of the missing explosions and top down acceleration is accounted for with a bunch of "mystery tech," supposition and guesses.

In the real world, all of that mystery is removed by simply looking at the video and listening to the witnesses.





the outer shell had nowhere near the role that the 47 steel vertical collumns had in keeping them upright.....not even close.....you're debunked sir.. have a seat......



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper
 





The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence

Refer to the OP..

I did, that's why I said what I said. The OP does not provided anything but unscientific wild-eyed conspiracy speculation.


The "iron spheres" were identified only in samples that no one else has access to. There's no control group to determine if iron spheres may have other sources if they do exist. Debunked again

Denying reality is not debunking, debunking would be accurately proving something false. You just gave an opinion that the iron spheres were invalid, that is not debunking..

Scientific process - invalid. No control group.

I'll debunk them for you: The iron spheres were formed during the construction of the Twin Towers when torches were used for welding.

Can't even prove they exist and no control group - no science, no facts.

Etc., etc. etc. SSDD. Challenging the world to debunk your opinions.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   


Statements: NIST speculated that the molten metal seen dripping from the tower before the collapse was some type of an aluminum mix, but provided no experimental confirmation of their theory



spec·u·late verb ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt

spec·u·lat·edspec·u·lat·ing

Definition of SPECULATE
intransitive verb
1a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations
transitive verb
1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize
2: to be curious or doubtful about : wonder
— spec·u·la·tor -ˌlā-tər noun
See speculate defined for English-language learners »
See speculate defined for kids »
Examples of SPECULATE
She could only speculate about her friend's motives.
He speculated as to whether she would come.
We don't know what happened—we can only speculate.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Your post went on forever over speculation...................

I wonder if the wind that high up acted like a foundary and blew in fresh oxygen to the flames..........


Notice the smoke. It is blowing horizontally. Not vertically. I tried to look up the weather forecast but there is so much BS abd I do not have the time.

In this photo you can tell the wind is kicking pretty good. I would say there was a fair amount of oxygen getting to the flames.



All a fire needs is fuel and oxygen......What is there not to understand. The fuel consisted of jet fuel, and debris. Notice it is directly in the impact zone, your picture that is.

Come on you went on a whole tyrade about aluminum and all it was, was a bunch of people speculating on what it the molten material was.................In a foundary oxygen is added to the heat to cause more heat.....It looked to be pretty windy. I would imagine that the holes in the floors could have acted like a blow torch and focused the heat in the building.

I have to run to the store. LJ01 will back later.
edit on 2-9-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



I did, that's why I said what I said. The OP does not provided anything but unscientific wild-eyed conspiracy speculation.

The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence.
From the OP:
Notice the date on this one, October 21:
Here's another:


Here are dozens of witnesses to the molten metal. This paper explains in incredible detail how the official account has not explain the molten metal and has tons of evidence backing up it's existence. Eyewitness testimonies from workers at Ground Zero, precise analysis of dozens of thermal images taken from multiple sources, and so on.


Can't even prove they exist and no control group - no science, no facts.
Here ya go:
I know hooper, no control group, anti-American mormom agenda to sell books, yadda yadda yadda. Where was NISTs control group during their top-notch investigation?
edit on 2-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I know hooper, no control group, anti-American mormom agenda to sell books, yadda yadda yadda. Where was NISTs control group during their top-notch investigation?


You know taking an image and writing "molten" on it means nothing. If it did then I would take little pieces of paper and write $100 on them.

As for NIST's control groups - NIST wasn't making wild claims and examimg secret samples.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Don't forget that the OPs video was repeatedly debunked and that if there was anything like definitive proof these conversations would have stopped years ago. ALSO don't forget that Steven Jones was busted forging evidence. Hardly the behaviour of a trustworthy individual.


I have always been very up to date on 9/11 to (say the least) starting out as a firm believer of the offical story since the event itself up until now.I have always been interested in the sceptic views as the other and nothing has changed.


If you ,for only one second.Think that you can make me believe the claim that you just made ,then you are living in lalaland.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
You said the floors were "ejected".

They were not.

A lot of rubble fell in many different directions, as we all saw, but to leap the conclusion that entire "floors were ejected" is complete nonsense and not based on ANY evidence.


Is it the word 'ejected' you have a problem with, I don't get it?

Yes rubble fell in many direction all around the base of the towers, outside of the footprints.

There is plenty of evidence that the floors were not in the footprint post collapse. So where did they go if they were not 'ejected' out of the footprint during the collapse?


So, when we say that's not true, it's because there's no evidence of it.


How can you say there is no evidence of it? Where is your evidence 110 concrete floors are still in the footprints post collapse?


- We disagree with FEMA
- We think all the rubble fell in the foot print of the building (which doesn't even happen in Demos, btw)


If you think all the rubble was still in the footprint post collapse, you are blind. You also disagree with FEMA because FEMA created an image showing the 360d arc of the rubble...



Do you disagree with that image?


If you want to have a discussion, act like an adult, otherwise I won't waste my time.


Quit whining and address my points. Nowhere have I not acted like an adult, you just don't like losing an argument.

You just don't like the fact that I am right, and for your silly pancake hypothesis to be true there would have to be floors stacked up the footprint, because there is no way on Gods Earth that ALL the floors could crush themselves to less than the height of the lobbies from gravity. It's also impossible for the rubble to stay in the footprint as impacts would cause the broken up floors to move horizontally, and that would be BOTH impacted AND impacting floors. You can't argue the point away, if there are no floors in the footprints post collapse (see WTC 7 for an example of floors still in the footprint if you don't understand), then there is only one thing that could have happened, they moved out of the footprint during the collapse, thus losing mass needed to collapse more floors.

Now you have to prove me wrong with evidence and science, just telling me I'm wrong and you're right is not science.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The concrete floors were only 6" thick. Even if you stacked them perfectly neatly one on top of the other it would only be 55' high. The empty space between the floors was "ejected" during the collapse.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper




The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence.









Molten steel reported onsite and offsite during and after by:

Fireman
Rescue workers
Construction company's ceo
Construction workers
Fire dep's. Chief

And a whole slew more but the most obvious i have written down here for you but you get the point.So dont take it from me ,a photo with "molten" written on it or anyone else.


Take it from the people that where actually there risking their lives as they confirm it on video for you




Debunk that !





edit on 2-9-2011 by Rafe_ because: corrected quoting the wrong post
edit on 2-9-2011 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 


The concrete floors were only 6" thick. Even if you stacked them perfectly neatly one on top of the other it would only be 55' high. The empty space between the floors was "ejected" during the collapse.


Actually the concrete was 8" thick from what I've seen, making that 88' high, plus the steel and the trusses that would be between each floor. There was no 88' stack of floors in the footprints of the towers was there?

But regardless IF the dropping floors caused the trusses to fail on the floors they fell on, then the floors themselves would have also been destroyed, because it would take more force to cause the trusses to fail than to destroy and eject the concrete.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Actually the concrete was 8" thick from what I've seen, making that 88' high, plus the steel and the trusses that would be between each floor. There was no 88' stack of floors in the footprints of the towers was there?

I think it was 6, but be that as it may, no there was no neat stack of floors at Ground Zero!

But regardless IF the dropping floors caused the trusses to fail on the floors they fell on,

They did, there is no "if" about it.

then the floors themselves would have also been destroyed, because it would take more force to cause the trusses to fail than to destroy and eject the concrete.

Wrong again! The trusses didn't have to fail, just the truss support connections and it takes a lot less force to shear a couple of bolts then to break up the concrete so the remaining energy from the falling sections was used up breaking the concrete floor sections. As for dispursement. Don't forget about the arc of descent.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


im still waiting for you to debunk those testimonies.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I would like to point out ot the members of this website that hooper's posting has been limited to the 9/11 conspiracies forum, and he passionately defends the official story despite being pounded with evidence.

The same goes for GoodOlDave, another strong supported of the official story, both of them have been restricted to 9/11 threads in which they bash the truth movement. See for yourself, look at their posts in their profile, and scroll down the list of the most recent 800 posts. They are all related to 9/11.

I'll just come right out and say it: Hooper, I think you are a dis-info agent who comes here to muddy the waters of the truth movement. Same goes for GoodOlDave.


TrickOfTheShade is another strong official story believer, and just like GoodOlDave and hooper, his posts are restricted to the 9/11 thread.

I think we've found some dis-info agents people.


I would like too add another "spoor"



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 


They did, there is no "if" about it.


...And your evidence is?



Wrong again! The trusses didn't have to fail, just the truss support connections and it takes a lot less force to shear a couple of bolts then to break up the concrete so the remaining energy from the falling sections was used up breaking the concrete floor sections. As for dispursement. Don't forget about the arc of descent.


What I meant was the whole construction that had to fail, not just the trusses obvioulsy.

You are not making sense. If there was enough energy to break all the bolts then the energy would be enough to break up the concrete and shift the mass horizontally out of the footprint.

I don't know why you are still arguing this, proof is in the fact there were no stack of floors in the footprint. There should be the remains of the roof and hat truss, and antenna at least, because being at the top of the structure there was nothing to crush them.

The arc of descent? What? If your floors are falling vertically as you claim, there is no arc in their decent.

I am still waiting for you to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, in context with your hypotheses. I am also still waiting for you to address the core structure of 47 massive box columns, that got progressively smaller and lighter as they went up, and what caused it to fall vertically through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

Until you do that you have not explained a single thing worth listening to.

edit on 9/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If there was enough energy to break all the bolts then the energy would be enough to break up the concrete and shift the mass horizontally out of the footprint.


I love Truther physics.



Originally posted by ANOK
There should be the remains of the roof and hat truss, and antenna at least, because being at the top of the structure there was nothing to crush them.


The remains of the antenna can be seen here:

Antenna


Originally posted by ANOK
I am still waiting for you to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws,bla bla bla... an increasing path of most resistance.



Is there such a thing as Truther Quantum Mechanics ?
How do sub atomic particles react in Truther World ?
What is the mass of a Truther Photon ?
At what speed does a Truther Photon Travel ?
Have the Truther Physicist worked out a Truther Unified Field Theory yet ?

edit on 4-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



What I meant was the whole construction that had to fail, not just the trusses obvioulsy.

Nope, just the points where its held together.

You are not making sense.

That's because you don't understand stuff like physics and construction and stress and loadings and engineering.

If there was enough energy to break all the bolts then the energy would be enough to break up the concrete and shift the mass horizontally out of the footprint.

How so? What takes more energy to break 400 or 500 bolts or an acre of concrete?

I don't know why you are still arguing this, proof is in the fact there were no stack of floors in the footprint.

Proof of what?

There should be the remains of the roof and hat truss, and antenna at least, because being at the top of the structure there was nothing to crush them.

And you know there wasn't because you did a Google search and couldn't find any photos with a nice neat caption and arrows pointing to the pieces. Give me a break.

The arc of descent? What? If your floors are falling vertically as you claim, there is no arc in their decent.

Look it up.

I am still waiting for you to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, in context with your hypotheses.

Pretty simple actually, you see equal does not mean the same. Think about it.

I am also still waiting for you to address the core structure of 47 massive box columns, that got progressively smaller and lighter as they went up, and what caused it to fall vertically through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

Things fall in a straight line. Resistance only matters when it exceeds the ability of the mass to move in a straight line. There is no "path of least resistance" charateristics, this isn't a meandering stream we are talking about.

Until you do that you have not explained a single thing worth listening to.

I am well aware that you will resist all attempts to hear any reasonable explanation and not miss an oppurtunity to use the words "conservation of momentum".



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



I see you still failed to debunk the molten steel testimonies video.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


i'm sure he's just having a rest from doing the basic research that you should be doing for yourself.

so here it is - how molten steel got into the WTC wreckage - you could have found this for yourself if you were REALLY interested in what happens in a pile of wreckage, and not just leaping to conclusions on flimsy evidence


And here's a typical truther explaination that fails to consider anything other than the a priori conclusion already reached.





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join