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.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 23
20
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You haven't watched the video of the "collapse" of the spire?

Sure, but occam's razor tell me that this is just a couple of buckles forming and it descending downwards. The alternative would be that some event that modern physics says is practically impossible occurred (a steel beam was 'disintegrated')


I don't discuss it because I can't explain it. You end up arguing with people telling you that you don't see what you do see. So I just stick with simple physics that grade school kids should understand and adults have to explain how they can pretend it is "junk physics". Not having steel data on skyscrapers which held themselves up for 28 years. Ridiculous!

Engineering schools that can't build collapse models. lol:

Oh I remember you psikey! "tons of steel and tons of concrete" wasn't it? Did you ever use Gregory Urichs data to build a more accurate model or are you still waiting for NIST to tabulate it?




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You haven't watched the video of the "collapse" of the spire?

Sure, but occam's razor tell me that this is just a couple of buckles forming and it descending downwards. The alternative would be that some event that modern physics says is practically impossible occurred (a steel beam was 'disintegrated')


It is a matter of one's interpretation of Occam's Razor.

Most people seem to interpret it as meaning whatever is EASIER for them to believe is most likely true.

I interpret it as the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the facts is most likely true. But I don't throw out what I SEE just because I can't explain it. If I can't explain it then maybe something is going on that I don't know about. But since I don't know it I don't try to explain it but I do not deny it.

That spire coming down does not look like folding to me.

psik



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is a matter of one's interpretation of Occam's Razor.

Most people seem to interpret it as meaning whatever is EASIER for them to believe is most likely true.

I interpret it as the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the facts is most likely true.

It's actually 'the explanation that makes the least assumptions'. Sorry to be picky but I think it matters here. If your explanation has to assume that a mechanism to turn steel into dust exists, despite the fact that it would violate our existing understanding of physics, then that is a big assumption to make.


But I don't throw out what I SEE just because I can't explain it. If I can't explain it then maybe something is going on that I don't know about. But since I don't know it I don't try to explain it but I do not deny it.

I tend to think that when I am seeing something impossible, I am making a mistake. Like when I see a magic trick. To my eyes the woman is indeed sawn in half, but because I know this is impossible I don't assume the magician has a portal gun. The least assumptions I can make is that it's a magic trick.

The same goes for the spire. It may look very much like it is turning into dust, but as soon as you believe that you're already conditioning yourself to see it. Soon you won't be able to see it any other way. For me though it looks quite a lot like the bottom is folding in on itself so the top doesn't move much, and it is falling almost straight down. The dust hangs in the air like dust will, and it creates an illusion.

That's my two pence anyhow. How do you resolve the physical impossibility with what you see? Surely you can't believe in some sort of 'dustification weapon'? I thought you were a student of Physics man



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


A lot of impossible things happened that day, for example, no steel framed building had ever collapased due to fire alone, but NIST in their report claim that WTC7 came down due to fire alone (Page 39).

I could write a long list of impossible things that happened that day, like 19 Arab hijackers managing to sneak 19 sets of knives past airport security, 4 sets of locked cockpits being breached, impossible flight maneuvers, planes re-appearing on radar after they had supposedly crashed, this is just a few of the numerous impossible things that happened that day.

So as you can see, on 9/1, the impossible was possible.
edit on 26-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is a matter of one's interpretation of Occam's Razor.

Most people seem to interpret it as meaning whatever is EASIER for them to believe is most likely true.

I interpret it as the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the facts is most likely true.

It's actually 'the explanation that makes the least assumptions'.


I don't have a problem with "least assumptions". But that does not mean DENIAL OF DATA.

The least assumptions that explains the data. If the data is not explained then Occam's Razor does not apply. That is grasping at straws.


I tend to think that when I am seeing something impossible, I am making a mistake.


How do you know it's impossible rather than you just don't know what the explanation is? People watched the Aurora Borealis for thousands of years and did not have a clue what it was. We only got an explanation in the last 100 years or so. Charged particles from the Sun spiraled into the atmosphere by the Earth's magenetic field creating phosphorescent effects in the atmosphere.

What would Occam's Razor have made of that 200 years ago.

psik
edit on 26-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Yeah, alright. All 25 massive steel internal columns just buckled... From fire no greater than 1000 degrees and weight of the floors crumbling... around them

Exponent, it was a figure of speech.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
All I'm saying is that if all the floor connections broke, what weight was on the internal columns? There wasn't 20 stories falling on top of them as with the towers, so what's the excuse?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Where are the internal columns in NIST's sim?



Crumbled to dust?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Here's NIST's attempt at explaining away a couple of the columns...




So they claim the columns buckled at the bottom ~15 stories... Sure, I could buy that so far... But what happened when the top of the buckle hit the ground? the top 30 stories of column buckled again? And again? Like an accordion?

Tell you what, if someone can find the resources to drop a steel column 20 stories and have it buckle, I might just be convinced. Otherwise, they should have given some kind of resistance which would be evident at the top of the building during the collapse. There was none. It just kept falling. There is no evidence of buckling columns breaching the outer walls or windows. They supposedly just kept buckling. If you can explain that, you should start a demolition business, and you wouldn't even need an explosives license.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
That's the point. What caused it?
Or do you think that guy is a truther and made it up ?

I think he must have been confused. If someone tells me something happened but that something is either impossible or nobody's ever heard of any way to make it happen, then I tend to think they're confused.


You have just described exactly how I feel about about EVERY defender of the official version of events. They must all be confused.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is a matter of one's interpretation of Occam's Razor.

Most people seem to interpret it as meaning whatever is EASIER for them to believe is most likely true.

I interpret it as the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the facts is most likely true.

It's actually 'the explanation that makes the least assumptions'. Sorry to be picky but I think it matters here. If your explanation has to assume that a mechanism to turn steel into dust exists, despite the fact that it would violate our existing understanding of physics, then that is a big assumption to make.


But I don't throw out what I SEE just because I can't explain it. If I can't explain it then maybe something is going on that I don't know about. But since I don't know it I don't try to explain it but I do not deny it.

I tend to think that when I am seeing something impossible, I am making a mistake. Like when I see a magic trick. To my eyes the woman is indeed sawn in half, but because I know this is impossible I don't assume the magician has a portal gun. The least assumptions I can make is that it's a magic trick.

The same goes for the spire. It may look very much like it is turning into dust, but as soon as you believe that you're already conditioning yourself to see it. Soon you won't be able to see it any other way. For me though it looks quite a lot like the bottom is folding in on itself so the top doesn't move much, and it is falling almost straight down. The dust hangs in the air like dust will, and it creates an illusion.

That's my two pence anyhow. How do you resolve the physical impossibility with what you see? Surely you can't believe in some sort of 'dustification weapon'? I thought you were a student of Physics man


You have been going on and on and on about this dust thing. He exaggerated to make the point that the buildings fell with no resistance. The concrete was reduced to dust, but the columns were cut neatly at an angle in sequence using a powerful chemical explosive, most likely nanothermite. See here:

www.metacafe.com...

You are trying to discredit his whole argument by using this one quote. Sounds like the strawman argument to me:

en.wikipedia.org...

Sound about right?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by scully222
but the columns were cut neatly at an angle in sequence using a powerful chemical explosive, most likely nanothermite. See here:

www.metacafe.com...


Why do truthers keep posting these already debunked silly stories? if you had bothered to do just a little bit of research here or anywhere but silly truther conspiracy theory sites you would know those columns were cut during the cleanup... so why did you post such a obvious lie?




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Although that does not mean your explanation is the only explanation. What about the rest of my post about Larry Silverstein mentioning to 'pull' the building, and the article I posted. That would have backed up the reasoning behind the bombs...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Why cut them afterwards, and more specifically, why cut them like THAT. Why not just cut them perfectly horizontal, to compress them for cleanup and carry. What would be the purpose of cutting them diagonally....Doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense in Judge Judy's eyes, it's not true.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Why cut them afterwards, and more specifically, why cut them like THAT.


because that is the way vertical columns are cut...


Why not just cut them perfectly horizontal,


You are showing your ignorance of demolition and oxy cutting...just how do you expect them to cut them horizontally?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

Your buddys, who believe that the government is perfectly capable to aid the terrorists in obtaining control of the plane which would be used to kill regular innocent people, but no way they would aid them in anything else. and you, are the people who make things up. And you need to specifically tell me what is it that you thing I’m lying about. Partial and complete collapse of a 47 story skyscraper are two very different things. Damage to the south side of WTC 7 does not explain the complete collapse and the firefighter who said that a collapse was going to happen know what I’m talking about. And so do you! Stop pretending already!


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're either exhausted or were in a rush, and didn't double check what you posted. Otherwise, I wil need to ask you who the heck are "my buddies who believe the gov't is perfectly capable of aiding the terrorists take control of the plane".? If you don't believe anything else I say, then at least believe this- my buddies in the real world think you truthers are [censored] in the head (their words, not mine). You should be thankful that I'm trying to convince others that you're really not [censored] in the head, but instead you're simply swallowing the paranoid drivel coming fromn those damned fool conspiracy websites.



These drills..
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm]NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Yo've got to be kidding me. You're seriously telling me that Bush, a C average party boy who never grew up, was an expert on every gov't and military report long before he was ever even elected? Are you suffering selective amnesia and conspicuously forgetting how the entire world thought he was a complete idiot?



The point is that they lied and lied and lied and lied.. but they would never lie about anything else, right? We should believe what they told us about 9/11 because they would never do anything like that?

Except for lying about WMD's, the Gulf of Tonkin, Monica Lewinsky, giving people syphilis, selling weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, Iran contra, Watergate, etc, etc.


...and yet we found out about every single one of them, either from outsiders coming forward to spill the beans, inquisitive journalists, or the government's own incompetence...and yet despite all those other fiascos being exposed, the sinister secret agents were able to keep THIS mega conspiracy of yours secret, despite being more complex and convoluted than all of those others put together times 100. Thank you for mentioning this, as you've just proved my point and disproved yours.

Wait a minute- are you seriously comparing Clinton getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky with secret plots to take over the world?



I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.


All right, since you have a fetish for hypothetical scenarios, here's one for you- Barbara Olson tried calling out on her cell phone but she couldn't reach anyone. She then used the airphone, called out to the AT&T operator, told her the plane was being hijacked and asked the operator to patch her through to her husband's office. The operator called the office and reached Ted Olson's secretary. The secretary accepted the call and patched her through to Ted, where she told him the same story Renee May told her own parents with her own call. The "used a different phone" is my own speculation but everything else from "couldn't reach anyone" to "talking to the operator" to "told Tel Olson what Renee May was saying" is established fact.

How many times do I have to say this- there are numeous logical reasons for what we saw happening. It's just that you're intentionally ignoring them all and have a pressing need to go straight to the illogical ones. You people certainly aren't stupid, ypou're just listening to a lot of paranoid crackpots who aren't allowing you to think for yourselves.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by spoor
 


Why cut them afterwards, and more specifically, why cut them like THAT. Why not just cut them perfectly horizontal, to compress them for cleanup and carry. What would be the purpose of cutting them diagonally....Doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense in Judge Judy's eyes, it's not true.


Because

a) despite what Alex Jones says, the wreckage didn't fall in a neat organized pile. They fell distorted, twisted, and buried under other distorted and twisted wreckage. Demolitions specialists needed to sut the steel in managable pieces for removal, and there are too many photos of steel worlers with acetylene torches cutting up the steel to dispute this

b) They cut them at an angle to make them fall in the direction they want the wreckage to fall. I do the exact same thing when I cut down trees.

c) I know he exact photo you're referring to- it's the one with the diagonally cut core columns with a dozen people millign around it. Do you really and genuinely think all those firemen, steel workers, construction workers, and other personnel are going to be wandering around all this supposedly blatant evidence of sabotage without noticing it and it's only being discovered for the first time by you truthers?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
Where are the internal columns in NIST's sim?

Crumbled to dust?


Their simulations does not look like what we see in the videos of the building collapse.

The only way for the roof line to remain level as it fell is for supports all of the way across the building to give SIMULTANEOUSLY.

THAT IS OBVIOUS! THAT IS HOW GRAVITY WORKS!

All of this hemming and hawing about fire or debris being able to cause that is complete nonsense.

psik



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Varemia
 


Although that does not mean your explanation is the only explanation. What about the rest of my post about Larry Silverstein mentioning to 'pull' the building, and the article I posted. That would have backed up the reasoning behind the bombs...


That has already been discussed in another thread. The whole "pull it is lingo for demolitions" is an internet meme invented by Alex Jones. "Pull it" in non-conspiracy world actually refers to pulling down unstable structures with the use of cables.

Besides, Silverstein specifically said "they" pulled it, as in the New York Fire Deparetment. Either the NYFD blew up the WTC 7, or, everythign he said about wanting to pull the firefighters out of the area to prevent any further loss of life is true.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

a) despite what Alex Jones says, the wreckage didn't fall in a neat organized pile. They fell distorted, twisted, and buried under other distorted and twisted wreckage. Demolitions specialists needed to sut the steel in managable pieces for removal, and there are too many photos of steel worlers with acetylene torches cutting up the steel to dispute this

b) They cut them at an angle to make them fall in the direction they want the wreckage to fall. I do the exact same thing when I cut down trees.

c) I know he exact photo you're referring to- it's the one with the diagonally cut core columns with a dozen people millign around it. Do you really and genuinely think all those firemen, steel workers, construction workers, and other personnel are going to be wandering around all this supposedly blatant evidence of sabotage without noticing it and it's only being discovered for the first time by you truthers?



Hi, this video explains how many floors were compressed into a small space, which is unusual, and not typical.

You can also see they have cut the beams almost flat, and some have a very slight angle, but no severe 45 degree angles like in the classic photo where you can see one steel column that has strange residue on it (possible some kind of incendiary).

In that same classic photo, the columns arent lined up like they are in the video, it's isoloated on it's own and hasn't been touched yet. The guys doing the cutting were as you say using acetylene torches, and you can see in the video using those torches leaves no residue.

If you see my post about explosions and Barry Jennings in the 'WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up' thread, then it's very reasonable to believe that the classic picture of the 45 degree degree steel column with grey residue is most likely some kind of incendiary/accelerant to assist with weakening the steel prior to collapse.

I dont know why but NIST etc missed a whole lot of important data, they certainly could have been way more thorough, they did a pretty shoddy job.

Seems strange people had to get a lawsuit out on NIST to get most of the videos, pictures & data (because they did not respond to a FOIA request initially) , and even then they were reluctant & took a long time releasing everything. Even when they did release the evidence they based their reports on, they only released bits at a time, and a lot was edited. Seems like they were buying time for some reason, and it's strange they did not comply easily?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join