It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by spav5
I want some honesty from the Truthers.
I know too many people who believe this crap for no reason and it's detrimental to such much.
False. Please provide some evidence that all the videos were classified.
Though many different camera angles were on the pentagon all video was classified the exception of 3 frames showing absolutly nothing- true
False - the claim is made by a duo of amateurs who are actively selling their "evidence" of mass-murder.
The taxi driver that originally claimed he saw a plane hit the pentagon and one of the poles struck his vehicle admited he lied- true
Irrelevant. No one said the steel melted.
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel let alone one that's made to resist high temperatures- true
No documented building on fire has ever collapsed in demolition style before or after this event- true
How about the undocumented buildings? This is silly, poorly worded and irrelevant. There is also no documented evidence that I ever died, ergo I never will die.
Building 7 didn't even receive significant damage to collapse- true
Even yesterday on all the news chaneles as they replayed footage from those reporting on scene you still heard people talking about explosions heard at the base before the collapse- truth
False - you mean when they told you other things you didn't want to know?
And we all know how well our government has gave us the "thruth" in the past- true
Finally, the fact that you have presented no evidence to back up any of your statements other than to insight an arguement- true
Well, for you thats true.
I could continue but its not worth the headache to argue with someone that quite obviously has not looked at any of the evidence you claim to support.
In other words, you will never listen to an answer.
Originally posted by KnightFire
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
Just one question. Where is your proof that you are right and they are wrong?
Originally posted by spav5
And what is it that you wish to accomplish?
Originally posted by nfflhome
Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
prove that 1/10 of something, can obliterate 9/10 of its remaining self. If you can do that, I will start a thread claiming you are the smartest, most vigilant member ever.
The Titanic? maybe
But nonetheless a true argument, that is if you replace building with skyscraper.
1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:
So there's not anything you're forgetting here? Nothing?
- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way
2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:
We both know that's a lie:
- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions
What you're failing to understand about this demolition technique is how exactly the building is destroyed. The equal and opposite law is used here, the top section destroys the bottom section, and the bottom section destroys the top section. Try setting off the explosives at the top 15% of the building rather than at the halfway point and lets see how smoothly this gravity-driven collapse works.
- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.
Uh...what's your source for this information, NIST? Because, not suprisingly, it's false:
3. Top down demolition with no visible or audible explosions , in which the timing of the collapse gradually increases to the speed of free fall is a rational explanation. - NOT TRUE.
Top down demo has never been used for skyscrapers, for pretty obvious reason.
That depends on your definition of "a few", and it would have been nice if you elaborated instead of rage-typing your opinion in ALL CAPS.
4. Building 7 only had a few fires - NOT TRUE
I agree with you here.
5. No one saw a plane at the Pentagon - NOT TRUE
What percentage of those engineers do you think have researched the subject as much as or greater than the members of AE911Truth?
6. 1/10th or 1% of active engineers in America is a meaningful amount. - NOT TRUE
- In most polls you see, the margin of error is between 1-3%, the Truthers can't even get a 10th of that number of ACTIVE AMERICAN ENGINEERS on their side. If you include retired Engineers (a significant number of their signees are retired) the number drops to something like 1/100 of 1%, add Architects and it's like 1/1000%. Make that a worldwide number (they do btw) and it's like 1/10000 of 1%. So, 1 in 100,000 of all Architects and Engineers worldwide have signed this thing. Not so impressive. In fact, I'd rather trust the 99,999/1000,000 who haven't.
Oh, so I guess this isn't a paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal that confirms the existence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust using a variety of methods: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
7. A reputable journal of science tested something and found nano-thermite - NOT TRUE
Can you elaborate? What evidence has he falsified? And also, can you explain to us the difference between unknowingly being incorrect and intentionally misleading people?
8. Richard Gage is an honest guy - NOT TRUE
- Richard Gage has been busted falsifying evidence. And he's repeatedly lied and exaggerated to convert people to his belief. He's not some super honest guy.
I don't know about this subject, but dude you really have got to provide some evidence to back up your claims. People reading some angry guy typing things in ALL CAPS with no evidence isn't too convincing.
9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE