911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
where do you think that FEMA graph came from, genius?

We've already been over this. I'm not into chasing my own tail like a dog.

You said the seismic charts prove there were no explosives or bombs. Well I'm still waiting to see the evidence on that one, but have no hope left that it will ever be forthcoming (I know it really does not exist). You're just like all these other geniuses arguing with us. You apparently don't realize appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Good for you?

Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by TrueTruth
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.

Well, as bsbray already pointed out, you don't have the slightest clue of the particulars of my education and experience.

Why don't you give me a break man? In this instance, your argument is akin to claiming that a Ford mechanic is incapable of working on a Dodge pickup. I for one never claimed to be a medical doctor, but dollars to donuts I can bid, design, wire, operate, and analyze data from various data acquisition systems better than a vast majority of the M.D.'s that you are likely to meet.

For that matter, I was asked to program/setup some scientific equipment (a gas spectrometer among other things) for the bioengineering department at a local university because no one in the bioscience departments had been able to figure it out for several years, including some of the M.D./Ph.D professors.

As far as autism goes though, my nephew has a syndrome that has many austistic behaviors, so I have decades of experience with that type of thing too, sport.

Methinks you doth assume (and appeal to authority) too much...

The car example....almost too silly to ponder. But, indeed, not all mechanics can work well on all cars.

So, you can make medical equipment.... and that makes you on par with a doctor?

Having an autistic nephew qualifies you in applied behavioral analysis?

And you're right - I don't know anything about your background, other than what you said - and so far, I've heard nothing to convince me you are qualified to interpret seismological data, and neither have you tried.

You can poo poo my examples all you like, but they're true. Like I said - even in medicine, not all doctors can do what all other doctors can do, or interpret the same test results with equal skill.

Why do the hardcore truthers think it makes sense to use the data from the columbia lab, but then crap on its findings - which originated from - you guessed it - misquoted commentary from the very same scientists who when given a longer listen, were clear on that the evidence does not support exposive use?

And why are no other seismologists saying anything at all? Why has ST911 said noting at all about it?

Is it even conceivable that this is just.... a dead end?

nah. truthers are never wrong. never once have I heard one say, "I was wrong about that". Not....once.

ya, very reasonable.

Originally posted by davec0021
Sorry I'm not buying your account. This isn't personal, please don't be upset because I disagree with you.

www.skepticwiki.org...

This is not a response to anything I have posted.

Maybe you would like to actually read my posts and rephrase your "skepticwiki" copy and paste into something that is actually relevant to anything I have posted. I was first talking about the "further collapse" spikes shown in FEMA's report without explanation, then later I posted a link to a paper by ME Gorden Ross and Craig Furlong. Your copy and paste had nothing to do with either.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
where do you think that FEMA graph came from, genius?

We've already been over this. I'm not into chasing my own tail like a dog.

You said the seismic charts prove there were no explosives or bombs. Well I'm still waiting to see the evidence on that one, but have no hope left that it will ever be forthcoming (I know it really does not exist). You're just like all these other geniuses arguing with us. You apparently don't realize appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Good for you?

you don't have to chase your own tail. you already told me yourself in the early stages of this crap fest - from the lab in the pallisades (columbia U).

and now, you are lying. not once did I say the charts prove no explosives were used - what I DID say, is that there is no data in the charts to support such a theory. and I ALSO said that seismographs barely registered the blast in '03 .... which was FAR stronger than what any cutter charge would need to be.

and, um... when you post a link to an ST911 article.... how's that not an 'appeal to authority'. the other option, is you interpreting the data yourself. which you can't.

and so it's up to the data and those qualified to read it - this is absolutely NOT an appeal to authority - it's all rooted in the data. You really shouldn't talk about rules of logic any more - you don't understand them very well. That, or science.

A simple solution for everyone. The solution I've been promoting for a few years whether you are a truther, debunker or not sure.

How about those who would insist that Bush and Cheney told the truth, accept a government sponsored investigation. No blue ribbon committee needed. No one needs any litmus test and it's even an investigation, by the government, that the truthers would accept.

For truthers and fence sitters a government body you could actually believe was impartial: New York City Firefighters.

It's a new idea, I know, but hear me out. Let us have buildings that were on fire, and collapsed, and there was loss of life, investigated by the fire investigators and marshals. Can anyone out there tell me that they wouldn't trust the NYFD to investigate this? Not much evidence remains, but as everyone agrees that it was murder, and there's no time limit, the evidence that remains can be looked over by those we can all agree on are professionals with no axe to grind, except against the truly guilty. (I would imagine those axes will be quite sharp for that.)

Also, does anyone have any compelling reason why they were shut out in the first place? I've never heard of a case besides the Three Towers where the fire pros were kept out of the crime scene of a CIVILIAN tragedy.

Originally posted by TrueTruth

nah. truthers are never wrong. never once have I heard one say, "I was wrong about that". Not....once.

ya, very reasonable.

Your blanketing 'truthers' here, a little less emotion and more reasoning might help this debate your having. I've seen plenty of 'I was wrong' typed here. Bsbray11 included.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and now, you are lying. not once did I say the charts prove no explosives were used - what I DID say, is that there is no data in the charts to support such a theory.

I appreciate the glimmer of candidness, but here is an example statement from you earlier:

Originally posted by TrueTruth

what got caught on the graphs, was the plane impacts, and later, the collapse of the buildings.

So I suppose you are qualifying this as a personal opinion since you admit there is nothing to prove such a statement, given you can't prove you don't have explosives and bombs also on the seismic records. And in fact, the very features on the graph I originally posted, the "further collapse" spikes, are still completely unexplained by evidence.

and, um... when you post a link to an ST911 article.... how's that not an 'appeal to authority'. the other option, is you interpreting the data yourself. which you can't.

Umm, I asked you if you had read it before. Which you apparently have not since your attempted response to it was irrelevant. I made no appeal to it as proof of anything. But if I had to, notice that I could, since they give the actual technical data that supports what they are showing and give the sources for all of that data. Unlike yourself on the claim that the idea of bombs/explosives being on the seismographs has been "debunked", ie you have posted NO technical data to demonstrate that claim.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

Sorry but you are avoiding your post.

From all videos and accounts it's evident that WTC7 is falling down a full 8 seconds before it's collapse debunking your assumption of defying the laws of gravity. watch the video again, read the accounts again.

www.youtube.com...

Where is your evidence of a demolition?

reply to post by davec0021


This video lasts 9 seconds and the last 3 is people saying 'it's gone man'.


Not the greatest evidence to make your claim of 8 seconds of collapsing before the main part starts to move.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by TrueTruth

nah. truthers are never wrong. never once have I heard one say, "I was wrong about that". Not....once.

ya, very reasonable.

Your blanketing 'truthers' here, a little less emotion and more reasoning might help this debate your having. I've seen plenty of 'I was wrong' typed here. Brysbay included.

well, lucky you then. that's a rare bird I've never seen but in accounts of witnesses.

of course, never mind that these jokers assume I'm some kind of OS apologist, which is as far from the truth as you can get. i've just kept an open mind. i've spent literally thousands of hours over the past several years going over this stuff, and at one time, I sounded a lot like they do right now. But I never settled on any idea. I was never satisfied with the evidence. And eventually, I read enough of the counter-arguments to see the holes in all the conspiracy theories. It's amazing how many of the 'truther' arguments are debunkable in minutes, if one just look. And even if not debunked entirely, debunked enough as to render them purely speculative.

and what annoys me the most? i also think the gov't is covering stuff up here. i would love an independent investigation. but for as long as kids like Bry insist on berating anyone with doubts on even so much as a single theory, this movement does nowhere. and the harm done by lazy work like Loose Change is irreparable.

those of us who care include many who are ashamed to be associated with the likes of an alex jones, dylan avery, or the army of droids they're spawned online. it makes me literally sick to my stomach when I type about it, like now.

nobody can just, ask questions, and make the other side answer them, which is what we should do. no. instead, everyone has to pretend to have an answer... pods. bombs. energy beams. jews. remote control planes. voice morphing..... you think this doesn't have a negative effect? from where i sit, it's irresponsible of them, and it harms any chance of a real investigation.

it really suck, man. i care about this more than you might think. but like always, the fanatical members of a group end up being the face of it.

and that means, we remain a joke in the public eye.

Originally posted by davec0021
Sorry but you are avoiding your post.

From all videos and accounts it's evident that WTC7 is falling down a full 8 seconds before it's collapse debunking your assumption of defying the laws of gravity. watch the video again, read the accounts again.

Do you honestly think this is the first time I have been exposed to what you are posting?

The building globally accelerated at free-fall. Even NIST has now admitted as much, though it pained them to do so, and they denied it for months and their director even claimed it would be impossible for a building to do such a thing while collapsing under its own weight.

Your statement "WTC7 is falling down a full 8 seconds before it's [sic] collapse" is interesting, is it not? Even you are making the obvious distinctions between the different phases in this obvious demolition. And demolitions DO occur in stages or phases, when the structure is prepared for the final blow-out in which the remaining structure goes symmetrically and all at once to allow for a free-fall drop into its own footprint. And don't give me "it fell into such and such street" bull, because it fell into ALL FOUR adjacent streets but its center of gravity was still obviously within its own footprint.


Here is WTC7 before collapse, look how narrow the streets are compared to the massive height of the building, should it have leaned over at all:




Here it is after collapse:




Now only a blind fool would feel the need to argue with me when I say it fell straight down into itself at the rate of gravity. But, not surprisingly, many a blind fool HAS tried to argue just that.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Being on neither particular side of the fence, all I'm going to say is the tactics pointed out in the OP aren't even remotely close to being localized to the debunker/believer side. There's plenty of hogwash and dirty tricks coming from both sides and by no means are truthers "innocent" of these same crimes. It would be nothing less than pathetic for one to believe so.


Cheers,
Strype

It seems that there are only a very small handful of trolls or people who have a predetermined agenda to intimated anyone from asking questions or theories But there is a vast majority of people who are simply interested in truth, no matter where it may lead them.

These few trolls have one tremendous weakness, an Achilles’ heel; and that is the fact that they need to be acknowledged to thrive.

Simply remove any type of acknowledgment and you render them powerless to achieve their agenda.

If the vast majority simply clicked the "ignore" button on these known trolls, they would no longer be a factor.

For all those interested in an intelligent debate, who are not afraid of questions, who are willing to truly listen, investigate, research in hopes that it may lead to a better understanding, knowledge or even a possible undiscovered bit of evidence.... click the "ignore" button right now on those that have proven themselves to be against/opposed to the above.

Leave them in the dark, silently ranting for acknowledgment that will never come... frustration galore.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and now, you are lying. not once did I say the charts prove no explosives were used - what I DID say, is that there is no data in the charts to support such a theory.

I appreciate the glimmer of candidness, but here is an example statement from you earlier:

Originally posted by TrueTruth

what got caught on the graphs, was the plane impacts, and later, the collapse of the buildings.

So I suppose you are qualifying this as a personal opinion since you admit there is nothing to prove such a statement, given you can't prove you don't have explosives and bombs also on the seismic records. And in fact, the very features on the graph I originally posted, the "further collapse" spikes, are still completely unexplained by evidence.

and, um... when you post a link to an ST911 article.... how's that not an 'appeal to authority'. the other option, is you interpreting the data yourself. which you can't.

Umm, I asked you if you had read it before. Which you apparently have not since your attempted response to it was irrelevant. I made no appeal to it as proof of anything. But if I had to, notice that I could, since they give the actual technical data that supports what they are showing and give the sources for all of that data. Unlike yourself on the claim that the idea of bombs/explosives being on the seismographs has been "debunked", ie you have posted NO technical data to demonstrate that claim.

Uh huh. And when I say we got evidence of impacts and collapses, that's exactly what I meant to say. NOT evidence of explosives. And this is NOT the same as saying it PROVES no explosives were used. IT means what I said it means - that in this test, we find no supporting evidence. This is not a proof of any kind. I know you hate examples, but again - if you fail to find a tumor on an x ray, it does NOT rule out a cancer; other tests might find one.

But forget it man. You clearly just don't get it.

Sorry I spoke to you. It was a huge mistake.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and what annoys me the most? i also think the gov't is covering stuff up here. i would love an independent investigation. but for as long as kids like Bry insist on berating anyone with doubts on even so much as a single theory, this movement does nowhere.

I am not berating you for having doubts. You can doubt all you want. You also insinuated there was no evidence for bombs or explosives in the seismic evidence, for which I asked for evidence, and still have received none. If you don't think bombs or explosives were used in any of those buildings then fine, that's your call. But I am not attacking you for having an opinion. I am attacking you for saying your opinion has evidence supporting it when in reality all you had was a man making a statement, also without supporting evidence. Aka appeal to authority.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
So, you can make medical equipment.... and that makes you on par with a doctor?

Having an autistic nephew qualifies you in applied behavioral analysis?

And you're right - I don't know anything about your background, other than what you said - and so far, I've heard nothing to convince me you are qualified to interpret seismological data, and neither have you tried.

Strawman much? I don't remember saying those things- perhaps that is why you didn't quote me.

Also I did more than "make" medical equipment- I was flown around the US and to Europe to assist other engineers who "made" the medical equipment and were having design and production issues. I also worked for a project funded by the National Science Foundation (taking and analyzing mountains of data) for several years at/after university.

As far as seismology proper, let's look at some definitions.

Main Entry: earth·quake Pronunciation: \ˈərth-ˌkwāk\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : a shaking or trembling of the earth that is volcanic or tectonic in origin

www.merriam-webster.com...

Main Entry: 1shake Pronunciation: \ˈshāk\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): shook \ˈshu̇k\; shak·en \ˈshā-kən\; shak·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sceacan; akin to Old Norse skaka to shake Date: before 12th century intransitive verb 1 : to move irregularly to and fro
2 : to vibrate especially as the result of a blow or shock

www.merriam-webster.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

Now go back a page and read what I posted about vibration and accelerometers. It might help if you actually knew anything about accelerometers, how and what they measure, what unit systems they use...

IMHO you are a hopeless case, "Truth"- buh bye.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


yes, i know exactly what you mean, noone is "looking" for the truth but rather to be told what it is, and with most the first thing they hear that goes against (say govenrment) they'll hop on it like a bad religion. Personally I dont rule out anything. I dont believe in judging someone because they have diffrent ways of thinking than you, whats the point of it.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Uh huh. And when I say we got evidence of impacts and collapses, that's exactly what I meant to say. NOT evidence of explosives. And this is NOT the same as saying it PROVES no explosives were used. IT means what I said it means - that in this test, we find no supporting evidence. This is not a proof of any kind.

If this is what you want to say now, then I have a different question for you.

Where is the proof that any of the buildings collapsed under their own weight?

Same standard of evidence. Not appeals to authority, but the actual objective, technical science itself that proves this. That is all I ask for.

Now watch as the exact same type of "discussion" ensues. I am only asking for the specific determining evidence.

reply to post by TrueTruth


I have seen your posts and agree that speculation is thrown about in these threads by the 'truthers' and 'trusters' like fact.

This is so big that if/when the house of cards begins to fall scapegoats will be used to keep people in line. It will be the 'truthers' that take the fall. So emotion is a big part of 'the chase' of the elusive evidence.



[edit on 3/7/2010 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and what annoys me the most? i also think the gov't is covering stuff up here. i would love an independent investigation. but for as long as kids like Bry insist on berating anyone with doubts on even so much as a single theory, this movement does nowhere.

I am not berating you for having doubts. You can doubt all you want. You also insinuated there was no evidence for bombs or explosives in the seismic evidence, for which I asked for evidence, and still have received none. If you don't think bombs or explosives were used in any of those buildings then fine, that's your call. But I am not attacking you for having an opinion. I am attacking you for saying your opinion has evidence supporting it when in reality all you had was a man making a statement, also without supporting evidence. Aka appeal to authority.

HOLY FRICKIN CRAP!

how hard is this to understand?!?!?!

not all tests are appropriate for all things. the stupid seismographs are NOT the appropriate test! they can't prove OR disprove that a bomb went off! and that's all I'm saying.

I'm informing you that YOUR 'evidence' doesn't say what you think it says. HUUUGE difference.

how is the x-ray / cancer analogy hard to understand? some tests can't determine if a thing happened OR didn't happen, because they aren't the right tool for the job. ie, you could have a clean xray, but still have cancer. just as you can have no evidence of a bomb on the seismograph, but there could still be a bomb.

if you can't grasp this basic point, then you are beyond my ability to help you. you must find your own way out of the woods.

but please....can you stop making the rest of us look ridiculous?