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.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Part of being in a society is getting lumped into categories like everyone else. It makes things easier. It's part of life. [/quotes]
It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group. I highly suspect the word "truther" is a neoconservative creation. Do you have a problem with me grouping you with neocons and calling you that, because you enjoy using their insulting words to make your life easier? Bigots definitely rely on hardset pre-conceived notions.
That's the purpose of a CRIMINAL investigation. I can conduct an investigation in to why my hot water heater isn't working and find that it's because a heating element burned out. It was an investigation, but it wasn't criminal in nature. The nature of this investigation was to determine if there WAS need for a criminal investigation into the actions and/or lack of communications between our agencies.
If you have had your fill of red herrings, what do you think took place on 9/11? I call it criminal activity. What do you call it?
Emotional outburst? You cannot defy the laws of physics. My chemistry instructor in high-school used to laugh when someone would ask him "Is this supposed to happen?!" His response was "Well, it's happening, isn't it? Your job as a scientist is to figure out why."
I have not attempted to defy the laws physics with anything I present for points of argument. Unforturnately, the "official" version does nothing but defy the laws of physics throughout the report.
What "emotional outburst"? What, to you, constitutes an emotional outburst?
In short - we cannot let our preconceptions interfere with our ability to evaluate what is going on. "This shouldn't be happening" is not a valid response.
Anytime someone decides to investigate, it normally means that person has no preconceptions, or would not be investigating anything. If something appears to be drastically illogical/invalid, why shouldn't someone investigate it?
I think that concept applies very well to your whole statement.
Exactly what concept would that be?
Originally posted by OrionStars
My point was fire, particularly kerosene fires, do not cause steel and concrete high rises to collapse into their own footprints. Nor does a 767 hit, in a building specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707, drop into its own footprint. Nor will a combination of the two particularly in only 56 minutes for one building (hit second), and 1 hour and 42 minutes for the other (hit first).
For any building to implode into itself, the center supports have to be released in a balanced manner. Should that not happen, a building will topple and end up in pancake effect. That is simply part of the laws physics.
Originally posted by OrionStars
It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group.
If you have had your fill of red herrings, what do you think took place on 9/11? I call it criminal activity. What do you call it?
I have not attempted to defy the laws physics with anything I present for points of argument. Unforturnately, the "official" version does nothing but defy the laws of physics throughout the report.
What "emotional outburst"? What, to you, constitutes an emotional outburst?
Anytime someone decides to investigate, it normally means that person has no preconceptions, or would not be investigating anything. If something appears to be drastically illogical/invalid, why shouldn't someone investigate it?
Exactly what concept would that be?
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Originally posted by OrionStars
My point was fire, particularly kerosene fires, do not cause steel and concrete high rises to collapse into their own footprints. Nor does a 767 hit, in a building specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707, drop into its own footprint. Nor will a combination of the two particularly in only 56 minutes for one building (hit second), and 1 hour and 42 minutes for the other (hit first).
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
How can you be so sure? Was this not an UNPRECEDENTED event?
Yes, planes slamming into the WTC was indeed unprecedented, but raging fire for at least three hours on 6 floors, at the lower level in WTC 1, was not. The 1975 fire caused no structural damage to WTC 1, not even in the core where it spread from the 11th floor where it started, down to the 9th and up to the 14th floors. Firemen there described the fire as a blowtorch type fire. That is a hotter fire than any kerosene fire. If kerosene has never collapsed any other steel and concrete structures, why would kerosene suddenly collapse the first ever in the history of steel and concrete buildings, the WTC buildings? Fires are certainly not unprecedented in steel and concrete buildings, not even kerosene fires.
911research.wtc7.net...
Fires collapsing steel buildings is unprecedented. If you have validation to the contrary, please present it.
Besides the Madrid tower DID have structural failure in the steel only portion of that building.. you can see it here:
Where was there a statement there was no structural failure on the building in Madrid? I stated it did not collapse due to fire. I did not state the building was not damaged.
Structural failure does not automatically mean total collapse is inevitable for any building. The Madrid building never collapsed from fire.
whatreallyhappened.com...
This is an easy physics experiment to try at home. Put some heavy padding on the floor. Keep the lower half of your body upright, and lean the top half in any direction you choose. Mark a place where both knees should land as a single footprint no longer or wider than both your knees together. Drop straight down on your into the boundaries of the single pre-marked footprint. Will you land upright in a top half lean position without toppling over? Or will you attempt not to loose balance, any way possible, to keep from toppling over? Will any part of the body naturally not be able to land in the single pre-marked footprint? If the top half of the body broke from the bottom half, where would the top half land?
Then keep the entire body totally erect and try it again.
What would be the difference effects occurring between experiments and why?
The only difference between you trying those experiments, and of same type circumstances occurring to a building, is that buildings don't know how to catch their balance or upright themselves, when any parts of the buildings are thrown off balance.
Incorrect physics..though.
Exactly what is incorrect? Whatever it is, please use physics to explain why.
[quoteI posted this picture on another thread..What it does, is show how the WTC towers were NOT dense, fort-like, or build as solid as a mining truck...afterall who wants to have their corporate office in a frigging bulwark?
These were some big-assed planes going at a very high rate of speed... to think they didn't damage the buildings is ..well, a bit unbelievable. The aircraft's impact was quite explosive as anyone could see. The resulting fires *caused* by the jet fuel were widespread over several floors.
Now, when you have dehabilitated or very damaged support members in a structure the load has to be shifted to another means of support for the structure to remain standing, yes?...If the remaining supports are weakened by uncontrolled fire *Plus* bearing that additional load from the original damage...it would make a hellovalot more sense for that to be the cause of collapse than a legion of supa-sekrit goons planting bombs all over the busiest area of the busiest city in the world..no? it might be a good plot for a Die Hard movie..but c'mon.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Originally posted by OrionStars
It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group.
See, you just lumped me into the category of "biggot" "neocon". Whoopdeedoo. Am I supposed to be insulted and take you off of my buddy list, now? You see a group of kids walking down the street with pants hanging around their ankles... what is your thought? "silly ganster wannabees" - most likely. What do you think when you see a girl with pale skin, hair as black as night, and wearing black, dark, or leather clothing? - you likely place them in the 'goth' category.
We do similar things online - we group people into a general category so we can keep things on an operational level. Much like you have a file for "pictures" on your computer. You can put all of those pictures that folder, directly, and search through all of them, individually - or, you can begin to lump them into general categories as the folder (or subfolder) population requires.
You simply don't get it. Your brother gets murdered in your house. Do you start launching a criminal investigation on your own family, or do you start launching an investigation into your own security systems (if present) and see where/how they failed to prevent this from ever occurring? And do you first start looking at potential suspects outside of your home, or inside?
Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, I asked you if I should consider you a bigot based on your own words. That is not the same as calling you a bigot. The following is what I did write in full context:
I have no idea what relevance grouping pictures together on the Internet has to do with baselessly grouping actual people, and acting the bigot toward them.
And the above has exactly what relevance to the criminal activity of 9/11?
I cut the rest of your post for additional lack of relevance to 9/11. Can you please stay on topic and keep it relevant?
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Can you imagine how bad our federal government would skrew-up an operation like this? Or even our military? Like they would just up and kill you.. sheeze.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Can you imagine how bad our federal government would skrew-up an operation like this? Or even our military? Like they would just up and kill you.. sheeze.
Ok your arguments were valid until you 'said' that. Then it became totally absurd. The logic:
Our 'gubment' consists of hundreds of thousands of people in bureaucracies, therefore if criminal contral-freak elements within said 'gubment' then that means the feasibility of proposed operation would be subject to the ineffecienices and clumbsiness of said institutions.
What kind of fallacy did you commit in that example?
Originally posted by Conundrum04
I got my first strike today, just wondering if you protested the warn and won, or if they took it off because you've been good little boy for a couple of days.
Originally posted by tezzajw
A red flag warn lasts for three days. After that it will disappear. I've had a couple of them myself. Try and play by the rules, as it's much easier.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by jthomas
You forgot the 9/11 Commission's mandate:
Au contraire, I did not forget about the 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps you have your chronology out of order. The 9/11 Commission Report was done because people disagreed with the US bureaucratic "official" version. The 9/11 Commission Report resulted from hearings, resolved nothing, and presented far more questions, regarding the "official" report.
What is interesting is that you would deny any evidence exists! If, for instance, you are unaware of the massive evidence collected by the NIST investigation, one that was made up of a majority of independent experts in various fields, then you ought to take time to read the reports.
Where did I deny the 9/11 Commission Report exists? In fact, in one of my post I mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report and called it bogus.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by amfirst
The truthers answer to the Pentagon debris, was that men in black suits brought the debris in after the fact, and planted it. Of course nobody noticed this at the time, or they were paid to keep quiet about it.
Originally posted by amfirst
The thing is 911 truthseekers come up with the dumbest theories that it totally discredit everything else they try to prove. It's like listsening to a crazy person, it makes no sense. And when they are proven wrong, they make an excuse and jump to something else. It's like talking to a childish brat. Try sticking to the same story a maybe more people would listen. And most of all, try providing proof. Not a stupid video that was made by amatures that tries to twist every word someone says to prove their point.
Originally posted by jthomas
Let me quote you:
"I didn't believe what would become the "official" version from the moment WTC 1 received a gaping hole in an external wall. There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version."
So, it's clear, in your mind, that you wrapped up the scientific investigations done by NIST into the 9/11 Commission Report as the "official" version.