911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?

So, you're admitting I never made that claim, or you're too chicken to go look?

Come on man. Humor me.

This is just too good !!!!

Originally posted by TrueTruth
in addition to being smug, you are a very dishonest person.

I was waiting for an elaboration to this, but didn't get one.

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.

I said his argument was idiotic. I made no attack on him personally. Even though he himself called me a loser, said he hoped I shot up some people at the Pentagon, etc., but that's okay, you can overlook that.

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Originally posted by bsbray11
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?

So, you're admitting I never made that claim, or you're too chicken to go look?

Come on man. Humor me.

This is just too good !!!!

I'm glad you're having a good time here too.

I am now asking you whether or not you actually believe there is evidence that planes and fires alone brought down the towers. Since the person making the claim has the burden of proof, you have now backed away from making such a claim explicitly. I take this to mean that you are not actually prepared to defend that assertion with evidence, very much like myself.

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?

reply to post by bsbray11


I am no engineer but, it makes perfect sense to me that the building is surrounded by other buildings, where else is it going to fall?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
in addition to being smug, you are a very dishonest person.

I was waiting for an elaboration to this, but didn't get one.

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.

I said his argument was idiotic. I made no attack on him personally. Even though he himself called me a loser, said he hoped I shot up some people at the Pentagon, etc., but that's okay, you can overlook that.

are you that clueless that you don't know calling his argument idiotic is an insult? i guess so. although, i more deeply suspect you're just a liar.

and once you insulted him, the gloves were off. rules changed. and you changed them.

be a man. own your behavior.

and quote me! i'm SO eager for you to do it!

Originally posted by space cadet
I am no engineer but, it makes perfect sense to me that the building is surrounded by other buildings, where else is it going to fall?

So since it's surrounded by other buildings, it's going to fall straight down.... why?

Are you saying it fell into the side of one of these buildings and that's what kept it so straight the whole time?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Originally posted by bsbray11
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?

So, you're admitting I never made that claim, or you're too chicken to go look?

Come on man. Humor me.

This is just too good !!!!

I'm glad you're having a good time here too.

I am now asking you whether or not you actually believe there is evidence that planes and fires alone brought down the towers. Since the person making the claim has the burden of proof, you have now backed away from making such a claim explicitly. I take this to mean that you are not actually prepared to defend that assertion with evidence, very much like myself.

oh now, this is really pathetic.

you just tried to say i made a claim about the cause....and now, since you just got punked and realized I never made such a claim, you're trying to PRETEND I did, or make me behave as if I did.

this is just precious.

go ahead - find where I made ANY claim as to the cause of the collapse?

come on , CHICKEN!

Originally posted by TrueTruth
are you that clueless that you don't know calling his argument idiotic is an insult? i guess so. although, i more deeply suspect you're just a liar.

Sticks and stones brother.

I 100% stand by my one and only statement about idiocy, that saying WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, is extremely idiotic, consider that IS where it fell, more than anywhere else, by far. Photos posted above. I love it when people argue with those images. You "debunkers" really know what's up.

and quote me! i'm SO eager for you to do it!

Fine, then you also don't believe there is evidence that fires and planes alone brought down the towers.

You really showed me.

Good thing you didn't make that claim, or else you'd have had to have proven it!




[edit on 8-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
in addition to being smug, you are a very dishonest person.

I was waiting for an elaboration to this, but didn't get one.

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.

I said his argument was idiotic. I made no attack on him personally. Even though he himself called me a loser, said he hoped I shot up some people at the Pentagon, etc., but that's okay, you can overlook that.

you're correct I called you a loser but I didn't say I hoped you would shoot up the pentagon. I said I hoped you wouldn't and only after you lobbed insults my way first. You seem to exhibit personality traits of some one who won't even acknowledge other peoples arguments, you are convinced it's your way or the highway. ya know obstinate.

anyway good luck with your theories. please re-read the fema report with regards to your seismic claims and quit changing the subject every time some one repsonds to you.

please back your acceleration theory with a math proof, that is of course if you have ever attended a university?

reply to post by bsbray11


You are hateful man. I am making an observation. Yes, it had a hole underneath it, and it pancaked onto itself. Straight down. Not onto another building

reply to post by bsbray11


awww. you're no fun.

i knew you were a punk, but this is just embarrassing.

well, at least you tipped your king rather than being outright defeated.

maybe you're just too young to appreciate the wisdom of uncertainty. and maybe you have a rude awakening in store for you in the world of science. who knows.

but son, you have a lot to learn about a lot.

(ice the lumps 20 mintues, every hour. helps the swelling go down)






[edit on 8-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by space cadet

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?

reply to post by bsbray11

 

I am no engineer but, it makes perfect sense to me that the building is surrounded by other buildings, where else is it going to fall?

This is a curious thing to say and star. Why would be surrounded by other buildings cause it to fall straight down? I am not attacking you but honestly asking what the logic is to this claim.

Originally posted by davec0021
you're correct I called you a loser but I didn't say I hoped you would shoot up the pentagon. I said I hoped you wouldn't and only after you lobbed insults my way first.

Oh, ok. Well again I said your argument was idiotic, not that you were idiotic. Even smart people can say stupid things. WTC7 clearly fell into its own footprint. I have asked you to explain where else it fell if not into its own footprint but so far you have neglected to explain where exactly WTC7 went when it fell. Not like the images above don't already show exactly where it went, but that was the point.

You seem to exhibit personality traits of some one who won't even acknowledge other peoples arguments, you are convinced it's your way or the highway. ya know obstinate.

What personality traits are you exhibiting?

anyway good luck with your theories. please re-read the fema report with regards to your seismic claims and quit changing the subject every time some one repsonds to you.

Each one of your responses to me was irrelevant to what I was posting in the first place. Maybe this is why you are confused by me not responding to your links to the FEMA report (which again did not conclude how WTC7 fell anyway, it even said collapse due to fire alone was unlikely -- would love to post the quote for you) and "skepticwiki".

please back your acceleration theory with a math proof

As it was undeniable, in November 2008 the NIST Final Report officially admitted that WTC-7 accelerated at freefall speed for 2.25 seconds.

Note that the freefall is documented in the first video below at about 9m:05s, displaying the Final Report, NIST NCSTAR 1A, figure 3-15, showing acceleration at free fall speed for a little over 2 seconds on the NIST graph used in its final report. Most of the first video concerns the NIST press conference of 2008 about the NIST Draft Report and physics teacher David Chandler's question to Shyam Sunder of NIST. The second video shows the alleged collapse initiation frame by frame, and for almost the first two seconds there is no detectable movement.

www.the-peoples-forum.com...


So basically what you can find there is NIST's own proof that WTC7 free-fell, after they denied it for years, trying to go by an arbitrarily-defined "collapse time" that included the penthouse and all time in between instead, though in their better judgment they abandoned this approach to measure its acceleration so that is irrelevant now. However as the website notes they did manage to include more dead time in their calculations to try to minimize the issue of free-fall collapse, and only took measure of a small portion of the collapse anyway.

Here is another, independent measurement of WTC7's collapse acceleration, all the work laid out in perfect detail, by a former ATS member: www.studyof911.com...

reply to post by evil incarnate


his question was if it didn't fall into itself where else did it fall. It could not fall anywhere else, ecept into another building.

Explain this: if an explosion took out w7, why didn't it take out the buildings around it ? Ever been on a demolition job? It would not have gone unoticed, it would have taken days to set up, several trucks and lots of equipment. No hiding it.

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

Originally posted by space cadet
You are hateful man. I am making an observation. Yes, it had a hole underneath it, and it pancaked onto itself. Straight down. Not onto another building

You said it had buildings around it, I asked how that makes any difference to it collapsing straight down. I am still waiting for an answer. Photos still posted above. If I am hateful then you have extremely thin skin.

reply to post by TrueTruth


If you do the research , you will find out alot more about the " Seeds of this Conspiracy " and the Theories of man who possiblly was behind it's inception .





www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by bsbray11

 

You are hateful man. I am making an observation. Yes, it had a hole underneath it, and it pancaked onto itself. Straight down. Not onto another building

No offense intended but this confuses me even more. What does the hole underneath it have to do with surrounding buildings or the way it collapsed?

Pancaked? Can you qualify this statement? According to NIST there was no pancake, according to the video there is no pancake. Where did you get this from?

Not onto another building? Is this because the surrounding buildings kept pushing it back into the middle like a mosh pit?

Just trying to understand.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by space cadet

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?

reply to post by bsbray11

 

I am no engineer but, it makes perfect sense to me that the building is surrounded by other buildings, where else is it going to fall?

This is a curious thing to say and star. Why would be surrounded by other buildings cause it to fall straight down? I am not attacking you but honestly asking what the logic is to this claim.

Please read this
www.fema.gov...

The building did implode and had much smaller collapse foot print than WTC1 and 2, but it did not fall in its own foot print like a controlled demolition like bsbray11 reports or implies.

There was also a power station under WTC7.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by davec0021]

reply to post by bsbray11


she's right. you ARE a hateful person. you insult every single person who disagrees with you - in this thread, and in others.

you're incapable of any other manner of communication.

she didn't boo hoo - she just pointed out the obvious.

ever noticed a pattern to how people react to you?

maybe you should.

reply to post by bsbray11


No, actually I got tired of trying to explain in the post that outer columns are NOT the freaking exterior walls. It amazes me how some of you play armchair architect and just post for stars. Sad really. Instead of playing the game, getting upset and calling you all buttpits which is what you want. A reaction. The same posts. The same links. The same tired bs stories. There was a guy earlier in this thread who listed 20 or so things and the first one, the first one was wrong. Marvin Bush was not in charge of security. It was on a board of directors and that firm had stopped as the security that was put in place after the 93 bombing. MISINFORMED people here and it is sad....

Have you ever taken the time to look at the history of where this came from like I posted or again have you tossed it aside because since you believe it them it must be true.

I want you to pick a topic and debate me. Please. Anything or do you not have the balls? I have called out a few of you and you run. I have contacted mods to try to set it up and nary a response. If the OP thinks we are taking a beating than I challenge him too. Maybe you guys will learn a thing or two....