Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

page: 12
53
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
 


Bro, don't even bother with debating with GoodOlDave aka G.O.D.

If you personally knew someone who was on the alleged demolition team who brought down the towers he would still deny everything and stick to the official story. It's just how some people are, unfortunately he found his way to this forum and continues to not take anyone else's views into consideration. The NIST even admits they modeled out the initial collapse but didn't bother to calculate the entire collapse because it explains itself on tape. (what a joke)


This is typical of the closed minded attitude of the incorrectly names "truther" movement. The constant problem they encounter is that they can't produce even a microbe of evidence to back up their claims, so if, as this person says, someone who was on the alleged demolition team who brought down the towers came forward to spill the beans, that WOULD be concrete evidence to back up their tales and that WOULD be enough to convince many people skeptical of their claims, including me. Rather, the entire lack of credibility is in fact because noone actually is coming forward to spill the beans, like the way every OTHER conspiracy and scandal was outed- Iran Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Fast and Furious, and so on.

So is it a problem where I really don't take anyone else's views into consideration, or is it really a problem that, for some people, the level of proof they need to be convinced of something is "none whatsoever"?




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Refresh my memory then, since apparently I missed that- exacty what level were these explosions documented to have occurred? This is 100% news to me.


The lobby where the firemen who said that there were three "definitely secondary explosions". Do I need to show you that video again?



She told me in no uncertain terms that it would utterly impossible for demolitions to have been planted in the building, and the people who propose such things are utterly ignorant of how the security in the building was handled. She knew how the security worked and even personally knew John O'Neill.

I did. I also asked you who was physically there that still believes these were controlled demolitions and all I can get out of you is "anonymous people who are too afraid to tell anyone what they know, not even you". I really don't need to explain just how worthless that is, do I?



Who is she Dave? What's her name? Can she back up what you're saying?




The "full of crap" you're referring to is based entirely upon ONE photograph which contained NO detailed close ups of the damage, so you'll forgive me when I say this is entirely speculative on your part, but this is neither here nor there.


No that it matters but here are TWO photographs.






posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by totallackey
Dave, review what I said. You will find I have also stated no such thing. I have stated eyewitness testimony is unreliable. You are twisting my words and I do not appreciate it.


Nice attempt at feigning indignation, but we both know at the end of the day, you're really NOT claiming "eyewitness testimony is unreliable". You're claiming the eyewitness testimony AT THE PENTAGON is unreliable. I posted a lengthly list of eyewitnesses who were there (the Pentagon Is in the middle of an industrial park surrounded by highways, after all), and they all specifically say they saw the same thing- a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. By the sheer number of eyewitness reports that confirm the same thing, it DOES make their testimony reliable, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

So in the end what's the difference between your saying they're lying and your saying their testimony is "unreliable" because you don't want to believe what they're saying is true, exactly? If 100 people all similarly stated they saw a man running down main street naked, you wouldn't be contesting their accounts with anywhere near the same blind zealotry. You know that and so do I.


Dave, if you are going to state the eyewitness testimony at the towers is unreliable because of a lack of video showing red and orange flashes to go along with the sound of explosions, then I can claim the eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon is unreliable because of a lack of video.

Eyewitnesses at the towers reported seeing red and orange flashes to go along with the sound of explosions. You say that testimony is disreputable because of a lack of video. Eyewitnesses at the Pentagon say they saw an aircraft. I say that testimony is unreliable because of a lack of video. That is all I am saying.

You can think you know what I am saying. You do not know what I am saying.

You find that sperm whale yet?

Maybe you can pull that sperm whale out, along with your acknowledgment that Gage presented THE FULL COLLAPSE SEQUENCE OF WTC 7 in his documentary. I noticed YOU CONVENIENTLY ARE AVOIDING THIS TRUTH!!! Dave, please quit being so disingenuous. It does not befit such a staunch defender of...well I would call you a member of something, but it seems there is no OS...
edit on 20-9-2012 by totallackey because: Further content



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb
 


Bro, don't even bother with debating with GoodOlDave aka G.O.D.

If you personally knew someone who was on the alleged demolition team who brought down the towers he would still deny everything and stick to the official story. It's just how some people are, unfortunately he found his way to this forum and continues to not take anyone else's views into consideration. The NIST even admits they modeled out the initial collapse but didn't bother to calculate the entire collapse because it explains itself on tape. (what a joke)


This is typical of the closed minded attitude of the incorrectly names "truther" movement. The constant problem they encounter is that they can't produce even a microbe of evidence to back up their claims, so if, as this person says, someone who was on the alleged demolition team who brought down the towers came forward to spill the beans, that WOULD be concrete evidence to back up their tales and that WOULD be enough to convince many people skeptical of their claims, including me. Rather, the entire lack of credibility is in fact because noone actually is coming forward to spill the beans, like the way every OTHER conspiracy and scandal was outed- Iran Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Fast and Furious, and so on.

So is it a problem where I really don't take anyone else's views into consideration, or is it really a problem that, for some people, the level of proof they need to be convinced of something is "none whatsoever"?





Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall -12/25/01-



The exact scope of an expanded inquiry has not been defined. But the central desire is to learn any lessons that might be hidden in the rubble and to pinpoint the exact sequence and cause of the collapse, regardless of whether it was inevitable from the moment the planes struck, members of the investigative team and others said.

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.
www.nytimes.com...


Well Dave within the 4 months after it all happened professionals were complaining that the rubble was being removed way too quickly which hampered any investigation which is the reason for a lack of any evidence put down in an official document, so the only evidence we really have is what is on film. Where is your concrete evidence that it wasn't a controlled demolition? I don't know the exact truth but just like you I am allowed to speculate.




www.nist.gov...

(2012) NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


In other words, the people sent to investigate why BOTH buildings ENTIRELY collapsed DID NOT create a model depicting how this could have happened. Only from the time of impact to the beginning of the collapse. What does that mean? The rest of the collapse is not worth modelling? Do they not know? I'm sorry, I'm no engineer, but it really raises questions in my mind as to why they can't offer a complete explanation as to how the towers went from standing at one time, to complete rubble. And I'm not saying they have to be 100% right either, just show us what you, the NIST, think occurred from impact to rubble. I equate this to police recreating a crime scene, and just stopping 75% of the way through.
edit on 21-9-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
In other words, the people sent to investigate why BOTH buildings ENTIRELY collapsed DID NOT create a model depicting how this could have happened. Only from the time of impact to the beginning of the collapse. What does that mean? The rest of the collapse is not worth modelling? Do they not know? I'm sorry, I'm no engineer, but it really raises questions in my mind as to why they can't offer a complete explanation as to how the towers went from standing at one time, to complete rubble. And I'm not saying they have to be 100% right either, just show us what you, the NIST, think occurred from impact to rubble. I equate this to police recreating a crime scene, and just stopping 75% of the way through.


The NCSTAR1 report mentions in 3 places that they need the distribution of weight to analyse the buildings motion due to the impact but then they don't get or provide the information.

The mass distribution is going to affect the conservation of momentum in a collapse where the top supposedly crushes everything below. Discussion without that data i nonsense. The Potential Energy of the building cannot even be accurately computed. The engineers are jiving us. They all know that data is necessary.

www.youtube.com...

psik





new topics

top topics
 
53
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join