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
One of the greatest fallacies I see here on ATS 911 forums is that the OLD model of collapse was pancake collapse and the final NIST paper cites global structural failure.
A lot of people still refer to this as having "debunked" many things. Whenever you get into a debate with someone it's a good idea to do your homework on people. For example; If someone used to cite popular mechanics pancake theory but stopped citing it after NIST final and start citing that instead....
The NIST report stops asking questions at the moment of global collapse.
This does not mean there was NO CD whatsoever. It means they didn't find any, and they directly state that they didn't look.
Don't ask "how did the collapse initiate on 911?", ask "what brought 3 skyscrapers down on that day?"
Don't ask "what happened to the passengers on flight 77 if there was a conspiracy?", ask "where is evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon?"
Don't ask any questions about "no planes" on towers 1 and 2, ask about no planes on WTC7. We KNOW there were no planes there.
Don't ask "why the flight 77 video was doctored before release?", ask "why we cant see the other videos that clearly depict flight 77 hitting the pentagon?"
It's perfectly rational to start with one hypothesis and end up with a different conclusion. That's how science works.
FALSE - A classic 9/11 Denial Movement Red Herring. NIST was quite clear in their stated mission to determine the cause(s) of the global collapses of ALL three WTC buildings. It is quite clear they established those causes which, as you well know, jprophet420, no one has refuted. It is quite clear that once the causes were established and the physics and structural engineering established beyond doubt that it would be impossible for the structures to survive, that the causes of the global collapses have been established.
It means no CD was necessary. Apart from the fact that none of the independent studies done of the dust to determine their chemical compositions so as to ascertain to what workers at Ground Zero were being exposed ever found any chemical traces of explosives. Why do you think Steven Jones had to propose the silly Thermite/Thermate theory since those studies conclusively show NO sign of any explosives?
A few hundred investigators in the necessary disciplines, the majority of whom were independent, non-government specialists in the fields of structural engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, and forensic science, gave you the collected evidence from hundreds of independent sources, the methodology of their investigations, and their conclusions. Anyone can step up to the plate and attempt to refute the conclusions and the methodology, including you. Anyone can object on a factual basis. And anyone can affirm their methodology and conclusions.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Rather obvious you're not interested in facts at this point. You're interested in defaming 7. Again NO questions about actual evidence.
How on earth can you say I'm tryign to defame you when all I'm doing is repeating the very things your conspiracy theorist compatriots are posting here?
Originally posted by jprophet420
Rather easily as you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist.
Originally posted by jprophet420
You know exactly what I'm saying good sir. I am saying that one should look at facts and not conspiracy theories. It is very easy to debunk conspiracy theories but very hard to look at the facts in an unbiased light. The facts that one can obtain from the videos, pictures, testimonies, and hard evidence do not match the story presented by the US government.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Thats blatantly false. The facts will show the conspiracy. Thats how investigation works
They certainly presented one on my television post 911.
Thats not my inference, and I have never stated that.
True, that is how investigation works, but that's not how the conspiracy is being investigated.
Originally posted by jprophet420
True, that is how investigation works, but that's not how the conspiracy is being investigated.
Which is why we need an unbiased new investigation good sir. Sometimes making the right statements is good too.
Originally posted by jprophet420
FALSE - A classic 9/11 Denial Movement Red Herring. NIST was quite clear in their stated mission to determine the cause(s) of the global collapses of ALL three WTC buildings. It is quite clear they established those causes which, as you well know, jprophet420, no one has refuted. It is quite clear that once the causes were established and the physics and structural engineering established beyond doubt that it would be impossible for the structures to survive, that the causes of the global collapses have been established.
Now show the math or go home. If you don't show your work in college you FAIL. If you don't show your evidence in court you LOSE. Show me NIST's calculations that have PROVEN this.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Maybe in your fantasy world of 9/11 "Truth", but not on Planet Earth. I don't have to show you anything. You know that.
Correct. You don't have to at all. However if you cannot then you shouldn't be trying to debate it.
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
We get into this quite often and you have failed to prove me wrong yet, you have lost every single time. I have not made any claim I cannot back up and I challenge you directly to present anything to the contrary.
"The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet."
Originally posted by jthomas
"The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet."
You can't even tell us why.
I'm waiting.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
We get into this quite often and you have failed to prove me wrong yet, you have lost every single time. I have not made any claim I cannot back up and I challenge you directly to present anything to the contrary.
Amongst other claims you have made without supporting, you still haven't supported this claim you made in this thread:
"The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet."
You can't even tell us why.
I'm waiting.
Onus Probandi is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."