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.

 

This is how normal people discuss 9/11

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
No I cannot agree to that. I can agree to disagree with you though.


You are allowed to disagree of course, but the premises simply do not support any of those conclusions. So there is no logical reasoning behind it, which makes it an irrational belief.


How can they prove NIST wrong without knowing what NIST did? I'm concerned about NIST because they were the ones trusted and funded to investigate this thing.

Other people have done very good work independently which imply that NIST made mistakes, but without knowing the details of what NIST did no one can really prove that they are wrong. We can theorize about it though.


NIST modeled the WTC collapse (initiation) sequence. That is what they did.


I know analogies are often crap, but what the hell. When I say that the square root of 2 is equal to 1.7, do you need to know my calculations to show me that I am wrong?


I'm confused.... You just linked to people that you said proved them wrong. But now you're saying nobody has been able to show that they are wrong, and that's good enough for you?


Their general conclusions still stands, which is that fire did it. That experiment rather confirmed their general conclusion, independently. The disagreement was mainly about the effect of fireproofing. The experiment by that team showed that fireproofing didn't need to be dislodged at all in order to reach a situation where collapse could initiate, which contradicts the findings of NIST. Of course this is not helping any CD theory.
edit on 21-8-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You are allowed to disagree of course, but the premises simply do not support any of those conclusions. So there is no logical reasoning behind it, which makes it an irrational belief.


There's a lot of logical reasoning in it from my point of view. I think it is logical to believe that NIST did not explain their methods and are covering something up. Because they classified the method I care about and said it's for public safety. I haven't found any reasonable public safety risk in releasing the information about buildings that do not exist anymore which were destroyed by people known to everybody.



NIST modeled the WTC collapse (initiation) sequence. That is what they did.


NIST said that their model revealed something that otherwise impossible to see on all footage and photos. If it wasn't for that model they would not know what happened to the structure below and caused a free fall portion of the collapse. I believe this is something that can either prove the NIST theory or prove that NIST don't actually know what caused that part of the collapse. In all the history of buildings collapsing there is no other example of this happening.



I know analogies are often crap, but what the hell. When I say that the square root of 2 is equal to 1.7, do you need to know my calculations to show me that I am wrong?


Yeah, you're right, this one is crap..

You need to assume that I already know what's the square root of 2 is, or I can look it up somewhere. In case of NIST, it is illogical to assume that I know how they created their model, and I have nowhere to look it up because it's a secret.




The experiment by that team showed that fireproofing didn't need to be dislodged at all in order to reach a situation where collapse could initiate, which contradicts the findings of NIST. Of course this is not helping any CD theory.


Something had to happen for the building to free fall for a period of time. The only way to determine the cause you need to use some kind of model, because there is no video showing what took place. Fire is not the mystery here, you know what I'm saying?



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by geobro
 


No i did debunk it, remember, you couldn't provide any evidence that anyone other that you (and we only had your word for it) that the attacks were being reported in the morning, then i showed you a video of how the news was broke in the UK and finally explained to you how many huge problems there were with your claims.

yeah i debunked it, not that it needed debunked and anyone could tell you that you were mistaken.
but as i said how many people did you ask you never answered that question it is not bbc world news that is shown here we saw the first plane hit on the news and that is impossible as it was only caught by one person i believe the vid you posted had the news breaking with two planes having hit ?? as i said i have talked to people all over the uk about that day and am here comes up a lot but all of us must be nuts
i remember that day well and still have the itemised bill for the phone call i made when i arrived home and the ticket from easy jet but that must be a figment of my amagination too



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


once again, you saying "I asked a bunch of people and they agree with me" is not evidence

you are claiming that on 9/11 the events were being reported in hours before anything happened in the UK press, now that is really quite a claim and if you want to have anyone believe you, you must provide some evidence to prove that you are correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence that say's your talking rubbish and just have GMT and EST mixed up.

Again like i have said to you before a good place to probably start with this is to go away and author a thread on your views on this, then lets see how many people agree with you.

because so far all i have ever seen form you on 9/11 threads is spouting off these unfounded claims time after time with out any evidence to back up what your saying.
edit on 22-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Look up "Man on wire". If that guy could secretly haul all that gear up to the top of the towers, all of which was done in broad daylight by a circus clown (no joke). And then he even did his high wire act..... Then hmmmm lets see....you don't think the see eye ahh (we're talking elite trained black opps who are experts at getting in and getting out unnoticed) could perhaps get in there at night and plant some controlled demo??? And what about building 7? Clearly controlled demo

LIKE COME ON PEOPLE WAKE UP!



edit on 22-8-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
Look up "Man on wire". If that guy could secretly haul all that gear up to the top of the towers, all of which was done in broad daylight by a circus clown (no joke). And then he even did his high wire act..... Then hmmmm lets see....you don't think the see eye ahh (we're talking elite trained black opps who are experts at getting in and getting out unnoticed) could perhaps get in there at night and plant some controlled demo???

LIKE COME ON PEOPLE WAKE UP!




Are you suggesting that the CIA walked the tight rope with explosives to plant bombs in the buildings that then turned out the be untraceable and some how dogged the plane hitting any of them as well as not a single person spotting the CIA doing this and none of the CIA agents themselves speaking out about this. They then somehow (seriously how?) managed to fly 2 planes into these towers but while they were at it also flew planes into the pentagon and smashed one into a field then they detonated their explosives (still working after the planes hit of course!) and managed to destroy the buildings with out anyone having ever found them out other than a bunch of keyboard warriors of truth.

really?


edit on 22-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
We still don't even know if there was any planes. Or if there were, if the planes were the same ones that took off. Most people said they didn't look like commerical jets.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

once again how many people did you ask 0 or 100 the bbc have lost the tapes for that day and i am 1000% sure of what i am saying . i do not believe every youtube video but i do believe my eyes and all the people that i have talked to over the years



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 




We still don't even know if there was any planes. Or if there were, if the planes were the same ones that took off. Most people said they didn't look like commerical jets.

This is such an old argument.
Name a few reputible people who say there were no planes.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by spartacus699
 




We still don't even know if there was any planes. Or if there were, if the planes were the same ones that took off. Most people said they didn't look like commerical jets.

This is such an old argument.
Name a few reputible people who say there were no planes.



Would you believe it even if a few reputable people say there were no planes? Do you not trust your own eyes and need somebody else to make up your mind for you?
edit on 22-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

and what about people in this thread 9-11 MY PERSONAL STORY 10 YEARS ON you do remember the spanish woman who kidded on she was there when she was in spain getting a diploma at midday ???? and spain is 1 hour ahead of the u.k .

if you look on that thread you will see somebody else from spain say they heard about it at 1pm .

sphota p6.
tigermountain p7 [.why would he say it was early to start drinking if it was the afternoon ???????????
nexusferox p8 .
faccino p9.
flying spagettimonster p9 .


now i have a wats score of 10 i plan to do a thread on it



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which experts are you talking about? I know of just a handful, but they are heavily invested in this conspiracy theory, and they haven't published anything serious. Those are not the kind of experts you should listen to.

As for people claiming things are covered up, which people, and what is their evidence? I am of course talking about people who were part of this cover-up and spoke out. Huge cover-ups imply the involvement of many people. Or else you should define what a "huge cover-up" means and how it was done with very few. And show evidence of course.

Thing is, without any further explanation, this whole idea of a huge cover up is a "nut job" idea.


try and dismiss it...there are too many people with engineering degrees and building backrounds that say the "official story" is a bunch of crap.....they are not nut jobs. even though the first attack on the WTC was done with explosive devices, the fact that the commission wouldn't even discuss it during the 9/11 investigation is the only red flag I need....



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
Yeah, you're right, this one is crap..

You need to assume that I already know what's the square root of 2 is, or I can look it up somewhere. In case of NIST, it is illogical to assume that I know how they created their model, and I have nowhere to look it up because it's a secret.


In this case the analogy isn't that crap, you just missed the point. The outcome in my analogy is 1.7. You do not need to know "my model" (which is analog to NIST's model), to verify if my outcome is correct.


Something had to happen for the building to free fall for a period of time. The only way to determine the cause you need to use some kind of model, because there is no video showing what took place. Fire is not the mystery here, you know what I'm saying?


I don't really get this fixation with free fall. I have never seen evidence that demolition charges cause free fall. It seems more like one of those 911 truth memes.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




In this case the analogy isn't that crap, you just missed the point. The outcome in my analogy is 1.7. You do not need to know "my model" (which is analog to NIST's model), to verify if my outcome is correct.


Yeah, that's because you can find instructions how to calculate square root of 2 in about five seconds. Not so much with the NIST situation we're talking about.



I don't really get this fixation with free fall. I have never seen evidence that demolition charges cause free fall. It seems more like one of those 911 truth memes.


There's nothing I can do about that.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret


Yeah, that's because you can find instructions how to calculate square root of 2 in about five seconds. Not so much with the NIST situation we're talking about.


And that's why we need experts to do it as they do know how to model it. They won't be relying on NIST. And we are back to the fact that NIST not releasing their model is a non-argument. Laymen don't have the skills to verify it, experts can create a model themselves if they want to verify NIST's conclusions.

Now ask yourself, why are the people at ea911truth not working on a model to prove NIST wrong, but instead, by your admission, rely fully on NIST to show NIST is wrong?



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




And that's why we need experts to do it as they do know how to model it. They won't be relying on NIST. And we are back to the fact that NIST not releasing their model is a non-argument. Laymen don't have the skills to verify it, experts can create a model themselves if they want to verify NIST's conclusions.


Experts that had no access to all evidence that NIST had cannot prove them wrong without making up their own facts. The only real way to prove that NIST got it wrong is by reviewing what exactly they did. Of course NIST must let people review what they did if they want to prove that they are right. At least That's how I see it.



Now ask yourself, why are the people at ea911truth not working on a model to prove NIST wrong, but instead, by your admission, rely fully on NIST to show NIST is wrong?


I honestly have no idea how I can make it any clearer what my opinion is than I already did numerous times in this thread.

You need to focus on proving NIST if you want me to agree with you that NIST actually got to the bottom of this thing. Every single person on earth may have their own theories and every single one of them may be wrong, But unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to prove that NIST is right. The only people that can actually prove it, are the people responsible for the NIST WTC 7 final report.

We have been doing this for many pages already. It's not that hard to understand my point of view.

I think you should ask yourself why you feel the need to respond to my comments with a question or statement about people that have absolutely nothing to do with the comment you are replying to. I find it a little strange, to be honest.
edit on 23-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 





You need to focus on proving NIST if you want me to agree with you that NIST actually got to the bottom of this thing.

That's like you saying we need to prove to you that the Earth rotates around the Sun.
NIST proved what we all have come to understand.

Since you don't believe NIST you need to prove to us that they are seriously wrong enough that we should not accept their report.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




That's like you saying we need to prove to you that the Earth rotates around the Sun.


I don't see it being even close to anything like that.



NIST proved what we all have come to understand


Just curious, when you say "we all" who are you referring to and how many of "you" are in "we all"?



Since you don't believe NIST you need to prove to us that they are seriously wrong enough that we should not accept their report.


You are right, I would probably have to prove it to you if that made any deference for me. You see, I'm the type that would not believe that there were no planes even if a few reputable people would say so, because I saw planes.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
Experts that had no access to all evidence that NIST had cannot prove them wrong without making up their own facts. The only real way to prove that NIST got it wrong is by reviewing what exactly they did. Of course NIST must let people review what they did if they want to prove that they are right. At least That's how I see it.


What evidence are you talking about specifically that prevents those expert from making their models? And how is it possible that this group of researchers I linked to succeeded then?


You need to focus on proving NIST if you want me to agree with you that NIST actually got to the bottom of this thing. Every single person on earth may have their own theories and every single one of them may be wrong, But unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to prove that NIST is right. The only people that can actually prove it, are the people responsible for the NIST WTC 7 final report.


Its impossible to prove someone right and its not how science works. People who disagree with NIST should prove them wrong, like the group of researchers I linked to. That is how it works.

Whenever NIST released their models, we all know what will happen. Some truther "experts" will find something in it which they claim make the model invalid. I predict there will be not one truther "expert" saying "ah yes that looks pretty good, now I understand, I now believe fire did it" as their mind is already made up. I am also confident that a lot of truthers who are laymen on the subject will believe these "experts" without much critical thinking. It would be a completely useless exercise.


I think you should ask yourself why you feel the need to respond to my comments with a question or statement about people that have absolutely nothing to do with the comment you are replying to. I find it a little strange, to be honest.


You may find it strange but most people I know find it pretty normal when the subject it broaden. It is how you can make discussions evolve and come to new insights. Since it is still very related to the reason people call you nut job, it is also very on topic. My question demonstrates that your reasoning is irrational. You do use the experts as an authority to support your position, but you do not mind that they have never produced anything relevant.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   


That is not consistent with the way our legal system works. Prosecutors love piling up additional charges. And adding another 3000 murder charges would only make their case stronger for the rest of the world. I cannot find any logical explonation for not doing so.


That is a good point that is somewhat hard to defend. The assertion is that he will be captured and brought before an American legal bureaucracy that would empanel a grand jury to add additional indictments once he is brought into the system.

The only possible explanation I can come up with is somewhat rhetorical in that he would never be taken alive so none of this would matter.

That answer doesn't stir the soup either so I guess you win this round since I don't know why other charges were not added to the indictment.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join