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 jprophet420
The bottom line to all of 911 is this:
BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.
Originally posted by Myendica
at this rate ill settle for a sincere apology by bush. i think his reaction that day is part of the reason why people cant believe "official story" because he acted like such a putts.
Originally posted by mmiichael
The controlled demolition theory is Kiddie Konspiracy used as a deflection from the real issues.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
The controlled demolition theory is Kiddie Konspiracy used as a deflection from the real issues.
Is this what you call debating someone with facts/evidence/logic?
I'm going to keep looking out for where the facts or evidence are in your posts, that support the enormous number of opinions you espouse. So maybe you can help me out by making them easier to find? (By actually adding some to your posts?)
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by jprophet420
The bottom line to all of 911 is this:
BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.
That is not how science works in a case like this.
For starters no one will ever have 100% of the facts. Millions of tons of debris, the largest structures ever built collapsing, hundreds offices and contents destroyed, thousands killed. This was by far the most massive forensic study ever done. There will always be some unexplained anomalies with the sheer magnitude of elements.
But the vast majority of relevant questions have been addressed and thousands of experts worldwide have concured on the conclusions.
Truthers will continue to try to cast doubt which is a reasonable position.
But after 8 years we still have just endless claims of evidence but no one wants to put together a credible all-encompassing alternative scenario.
The accusation is the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong. So prove it.
The Truther Movement seems to have a lot of loose notes. Amateur websites, videos, messages on forums. But where is their paperwork? The solid documentation, assembled material evidence, validated testimony, credible citations, published papers in professional peer review journals? These would form the minimal basis for convincing an official body to open a new formal review.
They’re not there and it looks they never will be at this rate.
M
Originally posted by mmiichael
Check the archives with the Search function. My small contributions, mostly links
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
I just took pteridine off of ignore so you can stop making that stupid excuse that has absolutely nothing to do with YOU.
Seriously, why else would you post here but to feed your ego when you don't even bother to contribute actual information/data/evidence? Ok stop. Breathe. Re-read and think. You admit yourself you are not interested in scientific debates. Why do you post here?!?!
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
Now that you 'have your answer', you're not going to explain to us why you linger behind to constantly mock and deride professional scientists? Explain to us what grim satisfaction you get out of it?
Btw, I notice you never applied a skeptical thought to NIST or FEMA. Is that because you don't understand their reports? Is that also why you never want to talk about their "science"?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Check the archives with the Search function. My small contributions, mostly links, are ther and the I massive ones of others are all there to read. 95% of the time dismissed as disinfo or some minor detail -or just ignored. Your favourite method of avoiding what conflicts with your chosen conclusions.
I don't retype a few thousnad words every time someone says "show me your evidence."
Show me your unambiguous hard evidence evidence there was a controlled demolition. Right now.
Mike
Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon.
Do not drink and type.
Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. (Show me) right now. I just hate a sentence fragment.
www.historycommons.org...
Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't mock and deride professional scientists. I have worked with many and am in regular communication with dozens, I just despise the tiny handful of opportunists like Jones, Harrit, Gage, various nameless lab mangers, trying to make a quick buck off those in conspiracy thrall. They may have gotten their various degrees somewhere but are not acting in a professional manner.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't understand the NIST report. They did NOT determine everything to within a minutia of a margin of error. Not even close. They carried on the hypothesis that had already existed since 2001 and tried to give it legs to stand on. This is something we can actually talk about, that I would LOVE to talk about with you, if you are up for LEARNING about the issues I am talking about for yourself.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I read about 50,000 words a day depending on work I'm doing. I read over the NIST and FEMA material when they became available focusing on the questions I had. I have no reason to keep referring to them, but have 5 or 6 people I know who will give me their professional opinion on matters they know or care about.
Why don't you list the issues you have. If it's about the famous Eutectic reaction, I think the contributor Genradek provided as clear an understanding as anyone. Different steel beams were subjected to a variety of extreme temperatures and chemical contacts.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
Show me your unambiguous hard evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon.
You just joined yesterday. Before signing up, did you spend a few months perusing all of the data, links, pictures, discussions, etc here on ATS??
Your request has been supplied here, countless times.