911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Now, who but an authority can interpret the data correctly? You? Dylan Avery?

Here's a news flash for you sport- many engineers and scientists use equipment that is functionally extremely similar to seismographs.

I for example been analyzing accelerometer and vibration data in my professional work since the 1990's. Most noise plots don't look a whole lot different than the seismo data that bsbray already posted above. A basic understanding of energy and data analysis is certainly prerequisite (but I have what I consider a better than "basic" understanding- I majored in one of the "pure" sciences). One of my good friends was a Vibration Analyst who got sent all over the US to find and fix various problems with heavy industrial equipment, and we compared notes about our work quite often- one might even say we consulted/collaborated with each other.

Originally posted by esdad71
Since this thread, like so many others, has been derailed, let me ask the question that NO truther can answer.

Where is the evidence of explosives used on the WTC 1, 2 or 7 on 9/11?

Start with WTC7 accelerating at free-fall into itself. There are a thousand points to go to beyond that, but not as if you don't think you have a good excuse for all of them. You have no problem making up excuses that have absolutely zero evidence to support them as quickly as you learn new information. That's what denial is all about.

You started a thread about NIST's WTC7 modeling and you had trouble even admitting that the models looked absolutely nothing like WTC7's actual collapse, even though it is beyond stupidly obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that the two did not match at all. Really, really basic stuff. I even posted one of those "spot the differences" games like from a newspaper, remember? And you accused me of insulting your intelligence. That is the level of denial you will go to simply because you are forced to, without changing your beliefs, which you will avoid at all costs. Is there evidence of demolition? Hell yes there is. Does that mean you're going to accept it? No, it does not. That's NOT my problem. We can go over these points all day, and you can play stupid all day. It's sad but that's how it is.

WTC7 accelerating into itself at free-fall alone is what instantly convinced me, as a rational person, that it was demolished. If you have to ask "why?" then you are ignorant of physics, period. There is no excuse you can come up with for a building to accelerate into itself as if nothing is beneath it, when in reality an entire building is beneath it. The ONLY way to accomplish that is to destroy the entire structure as it is falling with something other than the building's own energy. Because the building using its own energy means "resistance" which means KE is USED and therefore it CANNOT accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. There are formulas that dictate all of this in black and white. Again, if you can't understand it or want to deny it all day, you can deny it until the day you die man. You will be no different than all the people who denied Copernicus until the day he died. Ignorance happens. It's up to the responsible individual to piece it together himself or herself, and fortunately for myself I was aware of free-fall physics before seeing WTC7 fall and learning of its rate, so it really was not a difficult decision. Did it make me angry? Why do you think I'm wasting my time here on you right now? Because yes, very much so it makes me angry. And it makes me even angrier how stupid people will make themselves in order to deny the obvious.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by bsbray11

 

So you acknowledge these holes exist, and that you just simply paint them another color.

No, i don't acknowledge that they exist. I never once said that, so please refrain from paraphrasing, you are not very good at it.

I said you call it a hole, i call it a scapegoat.

You take shaky hard to explain occurrences in the natural world, and explain them in a manner that lesser intelligent people can understand, and they buy YOUR version of the story.

But at the same time, on the other hand, we have actual scientists saying "well, actually, here's the truth" and you say "HE IS A LIAR"

then, "my team" politics kicks in and you all rally against "the man" because "its the thing to do"

Everyone is so eager to belong to something that they're willing to stand for anything so long as it gets them a name.

As the wonderful user above me points out:

Truthers are making millions off of this
Anyone spreading the official story isn't making jack.

Who has the hidden agenda here?

[edit on 7-3-2010 by Snarf]

You stated "Truthers are making millions off of this". Do you have evidence to back this up? It is important that the truth movement is transparent. I'd be interested in knowing about any members who are 'making millions off of this'.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine

An massive goverment conspiracy that would have taken 100's if not thousands of men to pull off.

This quote is a prime example of 'well if it wasn't 19 arabs then it has to be this huge "government" conspiracy'. Please stop using this argument on the 'debunker' side.

And please don't label me a "Truther", I've battle against some of the unprovable theories here for years.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
dude - the graph you posted is THEIRS.

Dude, the graph itself is not evidence that negates the possibility of explosions and bombs. If it is can you please explain how it is?

Your reasoning:

These people showed us this graph, and told us what it meant. Since they showed it to us, what they told us about it must be correct.

You really think that's logic? Because if you do, I really don't feel inclined to even respond to you anymore, it would be such a waste of my time.

Maybe they didn't teach the principles of science where you went to school, but I've already made clear that I am looking for the actual science itself that proves beyond any doubt that these signals are NOT from explosives or bombs. Reminding me who the graph comes from --- NOT evidence of this. Giving me simple quotes from people from a lab, where they do not explain their own reasoning or deduction in the least --- NOT evidence.


Now save me the ranting, which I am not even going to read. The trash is a total waste of my time. If you know what evidence or proof really are, stop playing stupid and post it. If you don't, like I said, you're not worth the effort anyway. So far you have NOT shown me that you understand what a scientific burden of proof or evidence actually is. You can't even tell the difference between claiming there were explosions and claiming they were caused by any given source. Grow up yourself. Stop with the emotional rants already and put up or SHUT UP.

Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Now, who but an authority can interpret the data correctly? You? Dylan Avery?

Here's a news flash for you sport- many engineers and scientists use equipment that is functionally extremely similar to seismographs.

I for example been analyzing accelerometer and vibration data in my professional work since the 1990's. Most noise plots don't look a whole lot different than the seismo data that bsbray already posted above. A basic understanding of energy and data analysis is certainly prerequisite (but I have what I consider a better than "basic" understanding- I majored in one of the "pure" sciences). One of my good friends was a Vibration Analyst who got sent all over the US to find and fix various problems with heavy industrial equipment, and we compared notes about our work quite often- one might even say we consulted/collaborated with each other.

And yet, can't find a single comment on the data from ST911, or anywhere else, from a scientist. And no matter how similar your equipment, I'm still going with the seismologists who recorded the data at Columbia over the guy who qualifies himself as their equal in their field.

I'm fully aware that an education in one science can sometimes give you a leg up in understanding another - but gimmie a break man. Are you, as a scientist, qualified to interpret medical tests? Or maybe to put together a behavioral plan to reduce self injuries behavior seen in a child with autism?

Of course not. All scientists are not interchangable or equally expert.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

I've been saying the same thing as the OP since Sept '09. It has little to do with disagreeing with oposing opinions. 90% of everything posted on ATS is conjecture, opinion and hypothesis.

The difference between the bs spewed by the nuevo debunkers and a hypothesis is a hypothesis is based on related facts, personal knowledge or credible assumtions.

The tenor of the debate has changed considerably since last fall. Single sentence pronouncements, personal attacks and theories meant minimize the debate have derailed many legitimate threads.

What I find intriguing from a linguistics perspective, is how quickly people begin to question themselves at the first remark from a blowhard. Its similar to the crowd dispersal when the cop says "Ok, there's nothing more to see here. Now go home."

If there really was a 911 conspiracy, think of the billions of dollars at stake. It stands to reason that bloggers would start getting a piece of the action that has traditionally gone to shills like Daniel Pipes.

The money that dude and many others were paid by AIPAC leading up to the IRAQ war considerable. What's a $100 per post to 15 bloggers posting under thre or four names cost?

I saw it first hand working on O'Reilly and Matthews shows. The paid "experts" hired by college kid assistant producers were not vetted in the least bit. Senior producers would hand them a rolodex full of names and they would book them.

At first I wanted to jump on set and call a bold faced lie when I heard it. There are no referees on cable news.

We have to be the referees on ATS and have the balls to call a spade a spade. If you use the friend and foe keys properly, you will be less intimidated or influenced by people you feel are being insincere. It feels much better than the ignore key.

After a couple months, let's trade notes.

Originally posted by TrueTruth

exactly right, TD.

they even attack people inclined to agree with them, but who simply have higher standards of evidence, and a disinclination towards adopting a position of certainty that is simply unsupported by a specious body of evidence.

that IS sad. however, "higher standards" is an objective phrase, much like many of the "facts" which are spewed by the anti-truther movement.
like, for example, "traditional drummer" has emphatically stated that freefall is unimportant in the analysis of the descent of wtc7. he is emphatic that people should not pay attention to things "too complex". the actual truth is, there are accepted physical laws. not theorems, but laws. meaning, the principal has been tested so many times without fail, that it has been effectively proven to be true.
it's why everyone's car starts in the morning, and planes don't randomly fall out of the sky.
now, something called an energy sink describes the total amount of energy available to do work. now, if two types of work are being done from the same energy sink, these two tasks must share the power available from the sink. and, if one task uses ALL of the energy, then the other task has no energy available. it's like having five gallons of gas, and two cars. you fuel one up with five gallons, and the other doesn't move.
now, in the case of freefall, the only energy available is from gravity. since the building falls at the acceleration of freefall in earth's gravity, there is no energy available to do the work of moving debris out of the way of the descent.
this is in no way irrelevant.
it is the crux of the thing.

they shoot themselves in their own feet by allowing such fanatics to speak for the 'movement' - although from what i've seen over the years online, this is sadly more the rule than the exception.

fanatics like john gross.



or this shining example of fair mindedness, temperance and humanity?



or, buddy, here?



and, of course....

like other cults, they rally around charismatic leaders (ie, a.jones), and believe they have become 'awake' to THE truth, and all those who do not see their way, are 'sheep'.

you perfectly describe the "NISTian" and the "bush-ite".


[edit on 7-3-2010 by billybob]

reply to post by TrueTruth


Have you ever read this?

www.studyof911.com...

I know I'm really asking a lot from you, but pay attention to the specific facts they point out and the sources for these facts. They are piecing together information that all stems back to various government authorities or LDEO.

If all you're looking for is the man in the lab coat who says what you want to hear, then go bahh bahhh somewhere else. You talk a lot about logic and reasoning for someone who can't demonstrate your own claim that the seismic signals themselves somehow disprove the idea that they were caused by bombs or explosives. I guess it doesn't matter how many times I can explain EVERYONE NEEDS TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS, scientist or not, you will just keep bahhh'ing with your favorite man in a lab coat anyway just because his words are the prettiest to you. You know damned well what actual objective forensic proof is. And you know damned well you haven't posted it. How long will you make bad excuses here and play pretend that you are sure of something you really are not? Do you REALLY think you are fooling anybody?

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
dude - the graph you posted is THEIRS.

Dude, the graph itself is not evidence that negates the possibility of explosions and bombs. If it is can you please explain how it is?

Your reasoning:

These people showed us this graph, and told us what it meant. Since they showed it to us, what they told us about it must be correct.

You really think that's logic? Because if you do, I really don't feel inclined to even respond to you anymore, it would be such a waste of my time.

Maybe they didn't teach the principles of science where you went to school, but I've already made clear that I am looking for the actual science itself that proves beyond any doubt that these signals are NOT from explosives or bombs. Reminding me who the graph comes from --- NOT evidence of this. Giving me simple quotes from people from a lab, where they do not explain their own reasoning or deduction in the least --- NOT evidence.


Now save me the ranting, which I am not even going to read. The trash is a total waste of my time. If you know what evidence or proof really are, stop playing stupid and post it. If you don't, like I said, you're not worth the effort anyway. So far you have NOT shown me that you understand what a scientific burden of proof or evidence actually is. You can't even tell the difference between claiming there were explosions and claiming they were caused by any given source. Grow up yourself. Stop with the emotional rants already and put up or SHUT UP.

I'll try one last example for you.

I take an xray of your arm. I see no tumor. Does this prove you have no cancer?

No.

Similarly, the seismic data, while showing zero evidence of an explosive, can not be used to rule out an explosion. As the folks from Columbia pointed out, the truck bomb in the WTC in '93 barely registered at all - and yet, we all know there was very much an explosion that day. Did the lack of seismic data 'prove' no bomb went off? Of course not.

It just demonstrates that you should never have tried to use that test to prove this point - it doesn't work that way.

But if you think you have a superior interpretation or a better batch of experts to better interpret the graphs, by all means, trot them out.

reply to post by Shadow Herder[/i

Awsome post,good job.