Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Please no ranting.

Please prove the sky is blue?

Please prove how is air invisible?

Please prove what grade of steel was used in the WTC?

Please proved who tested it?

Please prove Peer Reviewed science proving your claims?

Please prove how office fire temperatures weaken steel in less than an hour to bring down 110 story building?

Please no ranting.

One, this is a 9/11 thread. Not why the sky is blue thread.

Two, please prove by peer review the only why steel is shaped and fails is due to melting point.

Three, please explain the obvious inward bowing of the vertical columns of WTC 2 and the almost instantaneous initiation of collapse.

a reply to: pteridine

Who recovered those airplane parts and body parts?

Answer: those who stand to benefit from the official story, those who command the bully pulpit.

I might have been born at night sir, but it wasn't last night. By all means place all your eggs in the basket of known liars--I will pass thanks very much. Coroner Miller became a team player at the FBI's request, but I will pass.

No airplanes, wrong airplanes, doctored and impossible flight data recorders--no thanks, I'll pass.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Who recovered those airplane parts and body parts?

Answer: those who stand to benefit from the official story, those who command the bully pulpit.

I might have been born at night sir, but it wasn't last night. By all means place all your eggs in the basket of known liars--I will pass thanks very much. Coroner Miller became a team player at the FBI's request, but I will pass.

No airplanes, wrong airplanes, doctored and impossible flight data recorders--no thanks, I'll pass.

What happened to the passengers?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

It is apparent that you are unable to respond until you get your talking points from A&E memorized.

False!

It is apparent that some are unable to respond until they get their talking points memorized from fake properganda media, who sold us a fairytale. Now that they have abandoned the pseudoscience of the NIST Report they, too, are hard pressed to come up with anything. See how that works.

Salander is also avoiding any definitive statements because A&E has fallen on hard times.

Attention MODS!

It is against ATS TC to be attacking ATS members or talk bad about them.

This is not how to debate.

Please define "fake properganda media."

I have not memorized or abandoned anything. I follow evidence; you should try that sometime. It will save you the anguish of being proved wrong again and again.
As to Sal, saying that he is avoiding definitive statements is merely the truth. I offer to go through things point by point with either of you but you continue to shift the subject when you get into a corner. When I showed you the melting points of steel, you said it was wrong because Wikipedia can't be trusted and stuck with the 2500F test claim. Melting points of steels are readily available and testing steel at 2500F is patently ridiculous. Consider checking the claims of your heroes so you won't appear to be uninformed. Now you know the truth about melting points of steel. You also may check on the strength of steels with temperature and discover even more about metallurgy and eventually come to understand that no demolitions were necessary to bring the building down.

a reply to: pteridine

Please define "fake properganda media."

I have not memorized or abandoned anything. I follow evidence; you should try that sometime. It will save you the anguish of being proved wrong again and again.
As to Sal, saying that he is avoiding definitive statements is merely the truth. I offer to go through things point by point with either of you but you continue to shift the subject when you get into a corner. When I showed you the melting points of steel, you said it was wrong because Wikipedia can't be trusted and stuck with the 2500F test claim. Melting points of steels are readily available and testing steel at 2500F is patently ridiculous. Consider checking the claims of your heroes so you won't appear to be uninformed. Now you know the truth about melting points of steel. You also may check on the strength of steels with temperature and discover even more about metallurgy and eventually come to understand that no demolitions were necessary to bring the building down.

: This OP is not about my charator, or me! I have already explained my mistake about the 2500F, yet YOU want "blood".

Apparently, you keep demonstrating on here to remind members of their mistakes and rub it in their faces repeatedly, how juvenile is that?

As of my claims against Wikipedia, I stand by my claim, it cannot be trusted.

Consider checking the claims of your heroes

My heroes??

Lets leave out the "insults" if you cannot debate civilly, then take some time out, or move on to a Topic more of your liking.

So far, after 15 years the OS narratives has not been proven by real science.

One can create all the "excuses" and "opinions" to why the OS is true, however those are not facts.

a reply to: Informer1958

Informer, would you know real science if you saw it? You backed Jones and now even the fraudsters at A&E have dropped his foolishness. Where is any evidence suggesting demolition?
How is calling those whose opinions you admire "your heroes" any sort of an insult?

a reply to: pteridine

You backed Jones and now even the fraudsters at A&E have dropped his foolishness.

Yet you can not debunk any of the real science of A&E, how ironic is that? Ridiculing A&E is not debunking.

However while you take stabs at me personally, you have demonstrated that you support NIST pseudoscience, how foolish is that?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You backed Jones and now even the fraudsters at A&E have dropped his foolishness.

Yet you can not debunk any of the real science of A&E, how ironic is that? Ridiculing A&E is not debunking.

However while you take stabs at me personally, you have demonstrated that you support NIST pseudoscience, how foolish is that?

Can you point out any 'real science' of A&E?

a reply to: pteridine

Can you point out any 'real science' of A&E?

Can you point out any real science of the NIST Report? See how that works.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Can you point out any 'real science' of A&E?

Can you point out any real science of the NIST Report? See how that works.

Once again you are deflecting when you have no answers. I read the A&E website and didn't see anything that approached science or engineering. I thought that maybe you had read the A&E website and found some fact based material. You either didn't read it or couldn't find any.
We can discuss the NIST report in detail and then ask A&E to comment. Where would you like to start?

a reply to: pteridine

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM

3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED

4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL

5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES

6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS

7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS ALL THREE BUILDINGS

8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL

9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION

11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED

12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS

13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE

14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
THE TWIN TOWERS

15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED

16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED

17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL

18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY

19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE

20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE

21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES

22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED

23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS

24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS

25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED

www1.ae911truth.org...

So what parts are these questions are false? If they are false please prove they are false using your credibal science with credibal sources?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM

3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED

4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL

5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES

6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS

7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS ALL THREE BUILDINGS

8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL

9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION

11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED

12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS

13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE

14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
THE TWIN TOWERS

15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED

16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED

17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL

18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY

19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE

20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE

21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES

22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED

23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS

24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS

25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED

www1.ae911truth.org...

So what parts are these questions are false? If they are false please prove they are false using your credibal science with credibal sources?

This looks like a mix of 1,2, and 7. Let us discuss these one point at a time. Where you want to start?

a reply to: pteridine

This looks like a mix of 1,2, and 7. Let us discuss these one point at a time. Where you want to start?

What was my question? Read it again?

Prove 1, 2 , 7 are wrong, where is your science? If you have no science then you have no claim.

Discussing is for "opinions." We need science?

Now if you will take the time and go on A&E and read the technol papers, you will discover where NIST failed to address many of these important concerns.

I am not interested in circular arguments, and someone "opinions" who want to call them facts. Get straight to the point and bring your credibal science to substantiate your claim. It's that simple.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This looks like a mix of 1,2, and 7. Let us discuss these one point at a time. Where you want to start?

What was my question? Read it again?

Prove 1, 2 , 7 are wrong, where is your science? If you have no science then you have no claim.

Discussing is for "opinions." We need science?

Now if you will take the time and go on A&E and read the technol papers, you will discover where NIST failed to address many of these important concerns.

I am not interested in circular arguments, and someone "opinions" who want to call them facts. Get straight to the point and bring your credibal science to substantiate your claim. It's that simple.

I can see that you are still confused. When you make an extraordinary claim, you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. If you wish to claim demolition, you have to show evidence of demolition. A&E has failed to support their claims of demolition and has made other claims, some of which are just wrong, i.e., the WTC 7 free fall collapse claim.

All A&E has are opinions.

a reply to: pteridine

I can see that you are still confused. When you make an extraordinary claim, you have to provide the evidence to support the claim.

How amusing, now I am confused?

On this pg where did I even make the claim of demolition? I see you have avoid answering any of my questions.

You are claiming Question # 1, 2, and 7 are false, yet you cannot show me any evidence of credibal science to substantiate your claim.

All you can do is call me confuse?

You have a nice night, I am done trying to have a civil conversation with someone who refuses to show the same courtesy.

a reply to: Informer1958


Sorry, your whole argument and credibility concerning the towers hinges on you ability on explaining in your own words the inward bowing of vertical columns, then the buckling of the vertical columns, then the almost instantaneous initiation of collapse.

Again, what does the sky being blue have to do with this thread?

Are you saying there was no inward bowing of vertical columns?

If you cannot give an explanation of the inward bowing, then you have no proof of anything. Just your obvious faith in the con truth movement.


How many time have the persons fighting the fraud of the truth movement answered your questions? And all you provide is rants, out of context items, misunderstanding of recovered evidence, total misrepresentation of failure analysis, and they lied with no proof.

If you are so embracing on the spirt of truth, you could at lest fight the obvious hoaxers on the claims of lasers, thermite, missiles, drone jets, holograms, nuke bombs, and dustification.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, but I am ready for either you or Neutron to prove any element of the story, but I've known for a number of years now that NIST can't prove, and nobody else can either, for the simple reason NIST is a political document full of fantasy. So is the Commission Report a political document.

That you guys actually believe those political documents, and in so doing completely avoid the many facts that contradict it is consistent with men taught to believe at an early age in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Cannot prove what?

Still waiting on what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2?

a reply to: Salander

Concerning flight 93....

So it was beneficial for local cops, fire fighters, local EMS, local news paper, local coroner, the national safety board, state investigators, FBI, the FAA, in air pilots that positively verified flight 93's position, the persons that tracked flight 93's positions by radar, the persons that gave testimony there is no after crash ACARS proof of flight 93, and the local shanksville eyewitness to lie how?

Love conspiracists? Strange shape in Antarctica ice proves a government UFO cover up.

Conspiracists lack of understanding of a crash site, and evidence backed by eyewitness accounts equates government cover up of no jet?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This looks like a mix of 1,2, and 7. Let us discuss these one point at a time. Where you want to start?

What was my question? Read it again?

Prove 1, 2 , 7 are wrong, where is your science? If you have no science then you have no claim.

Discussing is for "opinions." We need science?

Now if you will take the time and go on A&E and read the technol papers, you will discover where NIST failed to address many of these important concerns.

I am not interested in circular arguments, and someone "opinions" who want to call them facts. Get straight to the point and bring your credibal science to substantiate your claim. It's that simple.

I will clarify; "This list looks like a mix of gripes about WTC 1,2, and 7."

#3 is wrong; WTC 7 did not collapse at "freefall" speed. This claim was always a red herring because no matter what caused the collapse, the speed would always be less than freefall. For A&E to state otherwise shows their ignorance. "Engineers" should be removed from their name.

#5 is also the result of A&E ignorance. Testing for explosive residues follows finding some evidence of explosive demolitions. One cannot swab every square centimeter of every piece of rubble on the off chance that such explosive residue will be found. This protocol is called "following the evidence" something that A&E seems not to understand.

There is also a great deal of A&E opinion, such as pre-collapse steel temperatures and stripping of fireproofing being exaggerated. This is another attempt by A&E to imply demolition by trying to show the buildings were structurally sound. They were not. The NYFD had a transit on #7 and it started to move hours before the collapse.

Why don't you pick the point on this list that you think is most important and we will go through it, carefully.

a reply to: Informer1958

Did you see that guy from NIST who recently publically commented about what a fraud the NIST report was, and he expressed embarrassment for having only recently discovered it. Peter Ketcham?