911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Regardless of the fact that there are 20 different stories about the "truth" (which of course, is impossible, but no one will admit to this — everyone's take on the occurrences are the correct ones), there is something I noticed.

Unprecedented events unfolded during this tragedy, and somehow, people with no engineering backgrounds, nor explosive backgrounds, nor in fact, anything that really directly had to do with the event, were making matter-of-fact observations, as if they were not opinion, but fact.

How many times in the past has a jumbo jet full of fuel flying into one of the world's tallest buildings previously occurred? Never? Yet people who are NOT professionals in the field, are dead set that their uneducated versions have to be the correct ones.

How often has a jumbo jet flown into the side of a reinforced building? Do we even have anything to compare it to? When is the last time America has been the target of such a direct attack? But again, we somehow know EXACTLY how people would react? And I am talking professionals. Firemen, police, emergency response of all kind.

Unprecedented events will yield unprecedented results. Yet some of you act as if you are the experts of all things engineering, explosive, aeronautical, and emergency response. When the truth of the matter is that 95% of you are experts at Copy and Paste. Conspiracy site X said it must be true, so it has to.

What I find ironic and honestly, somewhat humorous, is how a body of experts can review something like this... and this could not have been easy, it's something they've never encountered before... but they do this, and then groups of people explain to them in all the ways they are just wrong. POSTAL WORKERS and COMPUTER GEEKS and GAS STATION ATTENDANTS.. telling engineers they are idiots about something engineering in nature. Irony at it's finest imo. Their conclusions don't mesh with your preconceived notions, so you will hammer them until they admit small mistakes, and then crow about how you discovered our government is evil and bad, and wants to kill us without remorse to further their nefarious ends.

reply to post by bsbray11


www.fema.gov...

Read this most of what you say is debunked in here.

Clearly it didn't fall into it's foot print, but clearly we will agree to disagree.
The reason why it went into free fall is because a third of the Vesey Street side of the building had been destroyed from the collapse of WTC1 and 2, but clearly we will agree to disagree.

Quotes from people who were acutally there.
I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street [south] side. (Deputy Chief Nick Visconti)
There was a huge gaping hole and it [the fire] was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. (Captain Chris Boyle)
We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. (Deputy Chief Peter Hayden)

I can do this all night, but I will agree with you why bother.

Originally posted by rhunter

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.

If your education doesn't qualify you to speak on the science of behaviorism, why did you bother mentioning you have an autistic nephew and are familiar with the thing? You insinuated insight. I made no strawman attack at all. You're just back peddling.

But no matter. You haven't even attempted to argue my point: not all scientists can do what all others can, or can even read what others can.

I could care less about your experience with accelerometers. What is it you want to say about the columbia data 'proving' explosives brought down the towers? Are you going to engage the data, or just act like you know about it?

All you've done is play smarty pants, and it's unconvincing.

If you had anything meaningful to say, you'd have said it by now, kiddo.

I think you're FOS, personally.

Originally posted by kneverr
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.

This is the best post in this thread. If you don't like reading someone's ignorance and denial over and over and over again, just turn them off with the ignore option. They don't deserve any of your reading time.

Either that or do not respond to them or acknowledge any more of their nonsense.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

are you kidding me?

this is not what I'm saying NOW - this is what I've been saying the entire time! it just took you till now to finally get it!

what do I have to prove the buildings collapsed under their own weight?

who said that's what I think? do you ever stop putting words in people's mouths? (you know - loaded question fallacy ?? )

have you ever just... acknowledged you don't know something, and let it stay that way, until you get quality information?

i have no theory at all at this juncture as to exactly how the building fell, and i think the entire effort at guessing is a complete and utter waste of time. all it does, is make us look foolish every time we make a stupid guess.

to repeat: It makes more sense to focus on the holes in the OS as relates to the human intel. side of things. I agree with Mike Ruppert: it's futile to try and win this thing on a forensic basis - the side with the most money tends to win those cases, and many a conviction has been won without ever knowing precisely how the crime went down.

but hey - it's no matter now. the thing is mucked up for at least the next 50 years after all the harm folks like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and kids like you have done.

doesn't matter.

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

Wouldn't informing me of that require you to post some kind of evidence to prove that there weren't any bombs/explosives? It seems to me like it would. But you haven't posted that evidence still.

You can get as emotional as you want. You can't seem to make up your mind whether you actually have evidence to support your opinions or not.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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

Wouldn't informing me of that require you to post some kind of evidence to prove that there weren't any bombs/explosives? It seems to me like it would. But you haven't posted that evidence still.

You can get as emotional as you want. You can't seem to make up your mind whether you actually have evidence to support your opinions or not.

Do you have any evidence to prove that space aliens didn't do the whole thing?

Can you definitively prove there were no ufo's involved, or that GW Bush isn't a lizard?

Same difference. But you won't get it either way.

I recommend you take at least one class in college about research proper - this is painful to watch.

reply to post by TrueTruth


The best compelling Evidence to me so far presented by anyone involved in finding out about the Real Truth and Motive behind the WTC bombings is the Documented behavior of one Mr. Dick Chaney during this event , and it's aftermath . I will leave it up to others here to investigate the reasons I happen to Believe that he was Directly Responsable for this , IMO , " False Flag " Operation , and the people who profited from his acts of Domestic Terrorism perpetrated on the American People .


One example here......


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by davec0021
www.fema.gov...

Read this most of what you say is debunked in here.

Again, there is nothing in there relevant to what I posted.

Seriously, you are awful at this. You aren't even addressing my posts, you're just blindly copying and pasting links like you're hoping something in there applies.

FEMA wasn't even able to conclude how WTC7 fell at all. I don't guess you were aware of that huh? Let alone explain the seismic events and explosions coming from it after both towers had fallen.

Clearly it didn't fall into it's foot print, but clearly we will agree to disagree.

Why not. And I will post the images again to show how exactly WTC7 fell:






Telling me that isn't straight into its own footprint, frankly, is the single most idiotic argument "debunkers" make on this forum bar none. It is literally excluding the very information your eyes are sending directly to your brain in favor of pure rhetoric, and probably the best example for any "fence sitters" of just how deluded you have to make yourself in order to keep chugging along unphased by this information. I am literally astounded by the number of people who will tell me the above photos, or even collapse videos, etc., do not show a building falling straight down.

The reason why it went into free fall is because a third of the Vesey Street side of the building had been destroyed from the collapse of WTC1 and 2, but clearly we will agree to disagree.

If that made any sense at all then it should have collapsed as soon as that damage was sustained. It obviously did not. But it makes no sense anyway because ANY STRUCTURE remaining underneath the roof of the building would have prevented a free-fall, period. I'm pretty good at guessing these things based on my track record here so far -- you've never had a physics class in your life, have you?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Do you have any evidence to prove that space aliens didn't do the whole thing?

Always it ends up coming to this. Since you can't prove your case, you resort to a bunch of rhetoric instead. Answering questions with more questions and playing dumb to whose burden it is to prove what. If you can't prove the towers came down from planes and impacts alone then you have no business telling me that's all you're seeing on the seismographs, especially coupled with the other fact that you haven't been able to actually rule out explosives or bombs, either.

I recommend you take at least one class in college about research proper - this is painful to watch.

Already have. I am actually an electronics engineering major and have had physics and other engineering classes. And I agree, it is VERY painful to watch. I had to actually prove the laws of physics in labs every week for physics, and if I turned in a paper saying "this law of physics is correct because this man says so," I would've gotten an "F," end of story. And similarly, all your appeals to authority and logical fallacies as they are starting to really pile on now as you dig deeper into your denial, are also complete failures of logic, reasoning, and science.

With all due respect to the OP, debunkers think that 911 truthers are out of their minds. And the ones who believe in the accounting as given that fateful day, have evidence and many were there live, where as the other side of the spectrum do not have evidence, only speculation and theory. But each side believes strongly that they are right. To get those who believe in what they saw and heard to think different it is going to take cold hard evidence.

edit to fix error

edit to add: I had friends and family there, one of which lost their life. They were on the phone with family until moments before their death. This was not a bomb per say. Yes the plane was used as a bomb, filled to the brim with fuel and shortly after impact explosions were felt.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by space cadet]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by space cadet]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Do you have any evidence to prove that space aliens didn't do the whole thing?

Always it ends up coming to this. Since you can't prove your case, you resort to a bunch of rhetoric instead. Answering questions with more questions and playing dumb to whose burden it is to prove what. If you can't prove the towers came down from planes and impacts alone then you have no business telling me that's all you're seeing on the seismographs, especially coupled with the other fact that you haven't been able to actually rule out explosives or bombs, either.

I recommend you take at least one class in college about research proper - this is painful to watch.

Already have. I am actually an electronics engineering major and have had physics and other engineering classes. And I agree, it is VERY painful to watch. I had to actually prove the laws of physics in labs every week for physics, and if I turned in a paper saying "this law of physics is correct because this man says so," I would've gotten an "F," end of story. And similarly, all your appeals to authority and logical fallacies as they are starting to really pile on now as you dig deeper into your denial, are also complete failures of logic, reasoning, and science.

So, you're a science major, and you don't understand the basic concept of the 'burden of proof'? Shameful.

What you are asking is the precise logical equivalent of me asking you to prove that space aliens, god, unicorns, etc, do not exist.

Letting a person qualified to interpret data interpret said data, is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Just isn't.

It's assinine to think that every hypothesis one can not definitely rule out has merit, or might even be true.

Reference again, the god/ufo/unicorn example.

It really shouldn't be so hard for you to grasp.

But hey - if you're content with feeling superior on message boards, then by all means, don't raise your game. You have no need to.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021

Again, there is nothing in there relevant to what I posted.

Seriously, you are awful at this. You aren't even addressing my posts, you're just blindly copying and pasting links like you're hoping something in there applies.

FEMA wasn't even able to conclude how WTC7 fell at all. I don't guess you were aware of that huh? Let alone explain the seismic events and explosions coming from it after both towers had fallen.

Telling me that isn't straight into its own footprint, frankly, is the single most idiotic argument "debunkers" make on this forum bar none. It is literally excluding the very information your eyes are sending directly to your brain in favor of pure rhetoric, and probably the best example for any "fence sitters" of just how deluded you have to make yourself in order to keep chugging along unphased by this information. I am literally astounded by the number of people who will tell me the above photos, or even collapse videos, etc., do not show a building falling straight down.

If that made any sense at all then it should have collapsed as soon as that damage was sustained. It obviously did not. But it makes no sense anyway because ANY STRUCTURE remaining underneath the roof of the building would have prevented a free-fall, period. I'm pretty good at guessing these things based on my track record here so far -- you've never had a physics class in your life, have you?

thanks for calling me an idiot. really I appreciate that.

your posts are inflamatory and just plain idiotic, so in that respect I am addressing them. from my observation, your seismic data is crap. clearly you have done some selective reading from the FEMA report a made earlier which clearly mentions seismic data.

later loser, well by your own admission if Fema couldn't do it I guess you can. so glad a clear headed guy like your self can be the voice of reason and truth.

hopefully you won't go nuts and kill anyone at the pentagon.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
So, you're a science major, and you don't understand the basic concept of the 'burden of proof'? Shameful.

No, I understand it. I'm not saying planes and fires alone brought down the towers. I'm not saying anything specifically did it because I don't know what specifically did it.

You made a specific claim that we have evidence of the impacts and fires alone bringing the towers down. Well, since you made the claim, guess who's burden it is? (Not mine, sorry. )

Have you never been exposed to this information before, or has it just been too long for you to remember?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Is it the best evidence? I don't know. Is it good? Absolutely.

THIS is the kind of tact that can take us places - not some prattle about beams, pods, or vanishing explosives.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by Phake
You truthers havent come up with 1 small tiny little evidence that it wasnt like the OS!

But I have an open mind.
Maybe it was the round green aliens from the planet nabaru X who shot a huge alien-beam into the building from their mac-ufo's like you all say.

But you have to proof it!
If you dont have evidence.

ITS BS!!

did you mean to sound exactly like what the OP warned of....

or is the timing just right?

Originally posted by davec0021
thanks for calling me an idiot. really I appreciate that.

I didn't call you an idiot, I said the argument that WTC7 didn't fall straight into its footprint is idiotic. Because it defies what the videos and photos actually show. If not into its own footprint, then where did it fall? Please tell me. Did it fall into one of the adjacent streets? Then what would you have to ignore within the footprint to reach such a conclusion? The majority of the debris. Hopefully you will now see how idiotic your argument is, but I have responded back and forth to enough people making this argument in the first place to know that this isn't likely to happen.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
So, you're a science major, and you don't understand the basic concept of the 'burden of proof'? Shameful.

No, I understand it. I'm not saying planes and fires alone brought down the towers. I'm not saying anything specifically did it because I don't know what specifically did it.

You made a specific claim that we have evidence of the impacts and fires alone bringing the towers down. Well, since you made the claim, guess who's burden it is? (Not mine, sorry.

)

Have you never been exposed to this information before, or has it just been too long for you to remember?

Can you please quote where I said that we have evidence of impacts and fires alone bringing down the planes? Good luck! - and prepare to feel silly.

I've read pretty much what there is to read about this issue. Trust me - you have put nothing at all new on the table. Not remotely.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Can you please quote where I said that we have evidence of impacts and fires alone bringing down the planes? Good luck! - and prepare to feel silly.

Trust me, if you are as unsure about such a claim as I am, I will not feel silly, I would really feel glad.

So is this you admitting that you are aware no such evidence actually exists, or are you just continuing the argument for the sake of argument itself?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021
thanks for calling me an idiot. really I appreciate that.

I didn't call you an idiot, I said the argument that WTC7 didn't fall straight into its footprint is idiotic. Because it defies what the videos and photos actually show. If not into its own footprint, then where did it fall? Please tell me. Did it fall into one of the adjacent streets? Then what would you have to ignore within the footprint to reach such a conclusion? The majority of the debris. Hopefully you will now see how idiotic your argument is, but I have responded back and forth to enough people making this argument in the first place to know that this isn't likely to happen.

in addition to being smug, you are a very dishonest person.

worst part is, davec was polite to you. yet, you still can't resist hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with you.

pretty disgusting, really.