Need help convincing my family, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:37 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So we have an Intellectual Imperialism problem and ultimately that is more important than any conspiracy.

psik

Yep. It's the "intellectual imperialists" who are wrong for trying to stuff their Ideas down free peoples throats, not the armchair physicists with paper models.

So where are the PhD physicists without armchairs who have built a physical model of any material they choose that will completely collapse due to the fall of the top 15% or less by height and weight?

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about college degrees. They work the same way for grade school kids. So if the PhDs won't explain grade school physics then we have an intellectual imperialism problem. Anyone that wants to can duplicate my model. Even the PhDs. I can't force anyone to watch a video.

Of course if I am correct then the PhDs have spent TEN YEARS creating a problem for themselves. They have to convince other people to believe themselves stupid.

DUH! What's the Square-Cube Law?

Of course the PhD economists have a bigger problem. What have they said about the planned obsolescence of automobiles since the Moon landing? What have they said about how much have Americans have lost on the depreciation of that junk since 1969. PhD economists can't do algebra?

www.spectacle.org...

Intellectual Imperialism seems to be a cultural characteristic.

psik

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:44 AM by jburg6

My parents are in their mid-60's, and they will believe anything- and I mean anything- the mainstream media tells them. If your parents are older, I recommend you simply respect them by not trying to quibble with them and let them have their own viewpoints in life, as they do have much more wisdom than you in some areas. Besides, ignorance really is bliss so let them have their bliss, and continue to love them as they are.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:44 AM by abeverage

You cannot convince anyone of anything. You can only show them the evidence and they will make their own decisions based on this. Which may or may not correlate with your own.

This is how everything from Religion, to Science, to Conspiracies works…

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:48 AM by samkent

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Of course if I am correct then the PhDs have spent TEN YEARS creating a problem for themselves.

Which is more likely all the PhDs in the world have screwed up or you (non PhD) are wrong?

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 10:11 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

Of course if I am correct then the PhDs have spent TEN YEARS creating a problem for themselves.

Which is more likely all the PhDs in the world have screwed up or you (non PhD) are wrong?

What is the probability of the PhDs building a physical model that can completely collapse? Not all physics works on probability. This is about psychology and politics in our universities.

Why all this talk? Just do it and let's see. But then those PhDs didn't point out that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total for the concrete. Those PhDs haven't said anything about the Center-of-Mass for the top 29 stories of the south tower.

As far as I can tell the majority of PhDs are saying NOTHING about a lot of things.

psik

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 10:31 AM by samkent

reply to post by psikeyhackr

As far as I can tell the majority of PhDs are saying NOTHING about a lot of things.

Likely because there is no doubt in their 'experienced' minds.

Your mind seems to be stuck in a loop over the "distribution of steel and concrete'. Perhaps if you obtained a degree in the related field your doubts would subside.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 10:36 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

As far as I can tell the majority of PhDs are saying NOTHING about a lot of things.

Likely because there is no doubt in their 'experienced' minds.

Your mind seems to be stuck in a loop over the "distribution of steel and concrete'. Perhaps if you obtained a degree in the related field your doubts would subside.

And we have SO MUCH EXPERIENCE with airliners crashing into 1360 foot skyscrapers!

ROFLMAO

But there are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall and yet we can't find the distributions of steel and concrete in any of them.

psik

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 10:42 AM by GenRadek

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by samkent

You are attacking the source of the information and launching personal attacks instead of addressing the information itself. Classic distraction tactic.

It is not a personal attack to point out the flaws and errors of a post that is passing off erroneous informaion that is deceptive. Why do you take critisism of your sources as a personal attack? Has your religion been offended?
Also, he did address the information. Hardly any firefighters actually signed the "Firefighters for 9/11Truth" site. Is it wrong to point that point?

• So what if people signed a petition that were not present in NY on 9/11. They present video and written testimony of people who were actually there. This is not a valid argument. Were you there during the Holocaust, or conquests of Alexander the Great, or during the crash that lead to the Great Depression, or were you there when the Mount Rushmore was built? No? Then what is your point?

The petitions are signed by people that were fed BS by the "Truthers" and were not given the whole story. Only hearing one side of a story hardly makes you capable of not being biased. Video and testimony of the day are personal experiences being told by people that were there and how they processed the information. Eyewitness accounts give an idea of what happened, but they will differ greatly when compared to the actual events. People saying they heard explosions, when a plane just slammed into a 110 story building, and have 10+ floors burning, is not rock solid evidence of anything sinister or inside job, or planted bombs. To come to that conclusion, one must do actual investigations, physical observations of the evidence and remains and search if in fact explosives were used. Just by going on what people said they heard is not conclusive of anything. There has to be PHYSICAL evidence.

• Who cares how many members are part of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth as compared to the general population. This is also not a valid argument. How many famous celebrities are there compared to the general population? How many leaders and politicians are there compared to the general population? Does this mean celebrities and politicians are delusional and fringe? If yes, then why do you believe the Original Story of 9/11 as told by these "delusional" and "fringe" minority we call politicians?

A website that claims to be "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth" and has NO firefighters actually in it (save for your statistical amount of loonies present in society) should be a red flag to people looking for "truth". I'm willing to bet that of all the people that were in NYC on 9/11, a small fraction would say space aliens were responsible for it all. And some would say that they swore they saw Elvis piloting one of the planes. Does that mean we should take that into serious consideration too? Just because they are firefighters does not make them any more special, because statistically speaking, there are nutters in EVERY profession.

Also, politicians didnt tell me what to believe about 9/11. I came to my conclusions after being a "Truther" first, and discovering how much I got lied to by the Truthers. Yes I watched Loose Change, and Sept Clues and I believed them! But then once I started doing my own research into their claims, and such, I realized how badly I got suckered by these slick snakeoil salesmen. I only went onto debunking sites later, and saw how my conclusions were the same. I got suckered by lies of the "Truth: Movement.

Attack the source of the information and launch personal attacks, but do not address the actual information itself. I see what you're doing.

Peace

edit on 4/26/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

Would you be so kind to show us where exactly he launched a personal atack?

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 10:58 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Hello TrickoftheShade.

I don't need to present any thesis because many have already done so. Many conspiracists present valid evidences and rationalizations. Many times their proofs are ignored, and the arguments solely revolve around personal attacks and the conspiracist's own hypothesized "whos" and "whys". I do not want to fall into such a trap with 'whos' and 'whys' that are pure speculation on my behalf.

• WTC #7: Some debris fell onto Tower #7 and a fire started. Hours later the entire building collapsed at near free-fall speed in an apparent controlled-demolition which resulted in a perfect implosion into its own footprint. I am not satisfied that some debris and a fire can cause such a take down of a building.

• Pentagon: What happened to the wings of the plane? The damage to the outside facade of the Pentagon and the inner corridor damage shows absolutely no room for wings. Only a small puncture hole. Looks like a missile hit. They say the plane kinda did a skid on the lawn which ripped off the wings. Then why was there no such damage to the lawn? This is why they hurried to cover the pristine lawn with rocks and gravel shortly after.

I'll save all the speculation to whoever. I'm just asking questions about observations.

Peace.

edit on 4/26/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

But you're in danger of doing the thing that you criticised the poster above for. The explanation for what occurred at Building Seven is available and it answers the issues that you're having problems with. If you don't engage with that data then you're ignoring the argument in favour of a sidehow, which is pretty much what you accused him of.

Furthermore it's just a pointless position. Announcing that something does not "look right" to you is not a brave and principled stance. Especially when your concerns, when you go on to describe them, have been adequately addressed.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:15 AM by Sahabi

reply to post by GenRadek

Hardly a wave of change is it. More like the normal sprinkeling nuts in the world. Interesting how it's about the same number of "pilots for truth". Once again there's always that certain percentage .0000001% of people way out on the fringe of society.

Sounds like personal attacks to me.

'FireFighters for 9/11 Truth' is not a source that I rely upon. Simply, the person I was replying to told me to do a net search and Wikipedia search, and that is one of the top sites that popped up regarding the search terms: [Tower 7 + Controlled Demolition]. However, we are once again arguing the source instead of the information they present.

Has your religion been offended?

A personal attack by you now? I adhere to no religion, and I do not adhere to any "Truther" movement or any conspiracy theorists. I am one guy that is observing oddities in the 9/11 events and discussing them.

Peace

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:22 AM by Sahabi

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Once again, the points I made are ignored in favor of steering the conversation:

• WTC #7: Some debris fell onto Tower #7 and a fire started. Hours later the entire building collapsed at near free-fall speed in an apparent controlled-demolition which resulted in a perfect implosion into its own footprint. I am not satisfied that some debris and a fire can cause such a take down of a building.

• Pentagon: What happened to the wings of the plane? The damage to the outside facade of the Pentagon and the inner corridor damage shows absolutely no room for wings. Only a small puncture hole. Looks like a missile hit. They say the plane kinda did a skid on the lawn which ripped off the wings. Then why was there no such damage to the lawn? This is why they hurried to cover the pristine lawn with rocks and gravel shortly after.

Has any modern building ever collapsed at near free-fall speeds into its own footprint due to some debris and a fire? If yes, I would love to know about it, as it may help to alleviate my ignorance.

Has Thermite ever "magically" showed up in a demolished building? If yes, I would love to know about it, as it may help to alleviate my ignorance.

Has a plane ever crashed into a building and had its wings vanish without a trace of their impact? If yes, I would love to know about it, as it may help to alleviate my ignorance.

Peace

edit on 4/26/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:26 AM by thedman

reply to post by Sahabi

.WTC #7: Some debris fell onto Tower #7 and a fire started. Hours later the entire building collapsed at near free-fall speed in an apparent controlled-demolition which resulted in a perfect implosion into its own footprint. I am not satisfied that some debris and a fire can cause such a take down of a building.

• Pentagon: What happened to the wings of the plane? The damage to the outside facade of the Pentagon and the inner corridor damage shows absolutely no room for wings. Only a small puncture hole. Looks like a missile hit. They say the plane kinda did a skid on the lawn which ripped off the wings. Then why was there no such damage to the lawn? This is why they hurried to cover the pristine lawn with rocks and gravel shortly after.

A gouge some 18 floors in height in the south face is not result of just "some debris" . Analyis showed that
1/4 of the south side of building was scooped out in the area of debris impact

Elevator cars being ejected from their shafts

After WTC 1 collapsed:

Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
SW Corner Damage -- floors 8 to 18
South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
South Face Damage
middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
large debris hole near center around 14th floor
1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
8th/9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

13 floors on fire,,,? That is not "a fire"

As for Pentagon

The "small hole" was some 96 feet wide

The wings - what do you expect? A nice cookie cutter hole like Wiley Coyote in a Roadrunner cartoon

The farther out from the fuselage the thinner the wings are... The heaviest section is between the engine
pylons and fuselage and contains the stiffening ribs and spars, fuel tanks and jet engines which is the greatest
mass

Damage assessment

911research.wtc7.net...

911review.com...

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:26 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Once again, the points I made are ignored in favor of steering the conversation:

What are you talking about? It's not up to me to satisfy your curiosity. The "points" you make have been answered elsewhere. If you can't engage with that analysis then it's you who is steering the conversation away from a sensible discourse.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:32 AM by samkent

reply to post by Sahabi

Has Thermite ever "magically" showed up in a demolished building? If yes, I would love to know about it, as it may help to alleviate my ignorance.

That thermite thing has been shown to be false with a second (2 months ago) round of testing.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:35 AM by Sahabi

reply to post by thedman

This can cause an implosion of a building into its own footprint at near free-fall speed? I don't believe it.

edit on 4/26/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:35 AM by samkent

reply to post by psikeyhackr

And we have SO MUCH EXPERIENCE with airliners crashing into 1360 foot skyscrapers!

ROFLMAO

And your experience with building construction and demolition?

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:39 AM by Sahabi

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Sahabi

Has Thermite ever "magically" showed up in a demolished building? If yes, I would love to know about it, as it may help to alleviate my ignorance.

That thermite thing has been shown to be false with a second (2 months ago) round of testing.

It's been a long time since I put down my 9/11 research. This is a new development if true. Thanks for the info in this regard.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:41 AM by GenRadek

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by GenRadek

Hardly a wave of change is it. More like the normal sprinkeling nuts in the world. Interesting how it's about the same number of "pilots for truth". Once again there's always that certain percentage .0000001% of people way out on the fringe of society.

Sounds like personal attacks to me.

Really?

Was it agianst you? I do not see your name, nor do I see any names of ATS members in that post. So how can it be a personal attack? A personal attack is when someone says something agianst YOU directly, like FOR EXAMPLE: You are stupid to believe reptilians did 9/11. That would be considered a PERSONAL ATTACK. However, pointing out a fact, moreover a statistical fact to explain certain anomilies, is not a personal attack. Have your feelings been hurt by what he said? Has he degraded you? No. If you believe that he made a personal attack, well, then go and complain to the ATS head chief. I'm pretty sure he will tell you the same thing.

'FireFighters for 9/11 Truth' is not a source that I rely upon. Simply, the person I was replying to told me to do a net search and Wikipedia search, and that is one of the top sites that popped up regarding the search terms: [Tower 7 + Controlled Demolition]. However, we are once again arguing the source instead of the information they present.

Just because someone created a website that has included the words "firefighter", "9/11 Truth", or any of these "******* for 9/11 truth" sites, does not make it legit, or anything. I can just as easily create a website that says, "Reptillians for 9/11 truth", or "Former NWO Members for 9/11 Truth."

Also, their "information" has been thorugholy debunked countless times here and other places. Regurgitating the same garbage over and over and presenting it as fact or "new" is not credible info. And 99% of the "******* for 9/11 Truth" websites are carbon copy clones that say the same crap (it is what is it) over and over. If one sites claims have been addressed and debunked, then the rest are also debunked.

Has your religion been offended?

A personal attack by you now? I adhere to no religion, and I do not adhere to any "Truther" movement or any conspiracy theorists. I am one guy that is observing oddities in the 9/11 events and discussing them.

Peace

I just figured I ask because you got upset and claimed it was a personal attack. Since I didnt see it directed toward anyone here, my only logical conclusion was that it was offensive to you and you took it as a personal attack. Nothing sinister behind the action, I am just trying to figure out why people are taking criticism of the information presented as a personal attack.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:42 AM by Sahabi

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Hello.

I have researched the original story, alternate theories, as well as many "out there" theories. You do not have to answer anything for my sake. I was asking rhetorically about the points I mention because the original story does not make sense in those regards.

Peace.

reply posted on 26-4-2012 @ 11:46 AM by jessemole

reply to post by Sahabi

As I mention to the OP, Its the waste of Grey matter... when truth is not seen!

As I feel, the truth is not heard.

Know this.. there are many fools that want to argrue the obvious for what they want you to believe..

When in fact it's obvious.

Op relax.. can't convince those that can't see.

It's like going into the Court of Law, However in this Case.. only the defence is heard..

Not the truth.. you know it, I know it.

Prime time deceit it's called.

What is just as worse.. It continues...and guess who is winning?

Jesse

Jesse..

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^