911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh dear once again you pick an irrelevant point to focus on because you cannot go any further with your thermite argument.

So I am wrong about the towers population, so what? I don't think I am as not everyone shows up first thing in the morning.

I know you're happy I bought that up because it gives you something to argue you feel comfortable with.

How about going to back to our other discussion and finishing it up before you try to forget it with other irrelevant arguments?

Will you finally admit to the existence of thermite/thermate, nano or otherwise?

reply to post by triplescorpio


HUH?

Please tell me where my post on thermite is wrong? Or anything else I posted?

Your post was nothing but a BS attack with no substance, or evidence, of your claim. If you want to prove someone is wrong you do it with evidence to show your point, not just a rant exposing your uninformed personal opinion.

Show me where I am wrong and we can discus it like adults, not like children yelling 'you're an idiot, you're wrong', on the playground. Grow up.

reply to post by ANOK


There's no question it exists. Thermit/thermate. It's there, it's written about. It's listed on Wiki. I've read a lot of what both sides say, and I'm yet to be convinced that any of it could be put to the use alleged by the 'TM', that is, for building demolition purposes. That's why I asked why no legitimate demo companies use it. (Or, alternately, IF any do use it???)

AS TO 9/11 myths, I find this site to be one of the more credible:
(I've linked directly to their discussion on thermite).

www.debunking911.com...

>

And, my response re: How many people were or were not at work in the WTC Complex wasn't to call you out, to say "right" or "wrong", not at all.

It is what it is.

They selected those flights...choosing the two B-767s from Boston, because they were both historically low load factors, and they were trans-cons, and they both departed at about the same time...the whole thing was dependant on the simultaneity of the four flights, in regards to departure times, and also stage lengths, for maximum fuel onboard.

I think it's evident that they thought this out, planned it, for quite some time before going ahead with it. (I'm of course referring to the Arabs...)

The only 'lucky' occurence, for the rest of us, was United 93 and its delay taking off.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Same reason the Pentagon fallacy, about which side was selected for the strike. HOW would anyone know the construction schedule of what the 'TM' call the "Most Secure Building In America"?

Ummm, wouldn't a project manager and the foremen/crew chiefs of the PENREN project talk about the construction schedule on a WEEKLY basis? That's the way it worked when I was working in the construction industry, and the schedules were fairly "tight," actually.

www.whs.mil...

I'm not sure why Mr. 'TM" calls the Pentagon that, but I would think that these buildings/areas are actually "more secure" than the Pentagon (and I'm not sure what specific criteria would be used to even gauge "most secure" here):

en.wikipedia.org...:NORADNorth-Portal.jpg

en.wikipedia.org...:National_Security_Agency_headquarters,_Fort_Meade,_Maryland.jpg

Nevada Test Site

en.wikipedia.org...:CIA_New_HQ_Entrance.jpg

reply to post by rhunter


Well, I believe the 'TM' has used the phrase "most secure" quite often, in reference to American 77. Attempt to dismiss the possibility of an errant airliner getting anywhere near the Pentagon without being intercepted. (They were actively attempting to intercept...eventually, as confusion wore off).

Now...I can't recall (really) back to 2001, and how much info was out on the Internet, then. Was that dot.mil site you linked up back then?

I'll go search through it, see if I can find the answer, if you don't know already.

Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AS TO 9/11 myths, I find this site to be one of the more credible:
(I've linked directly to their discussion on thermite).

www.debunking911.com...

You call this credible? I click on the link and the first thing I see on my browser is the page title "Thermite and sulfer."

The website is run by a JREF armchair "debunker" that can't even spell "sulfur" correctly, and you say this is a credible website?

reply to post by bsbray11


I believe I have often looked beyond, and not commented on, ( well, not always ) typos made by many, many in the 'TM' here on ATS.

I make typos too. I try to catch them, but some slip through.

Merely 'poo-pooing' a site because the maker is from JREF, or because of typos, is, well.....'poo-poo'.

I sometimes have the impression that most (or many) who lean towards the 'TM' side (most, many, but of course not ALL) are younger generally, and more impressionable. Less experienced in real-world, and life. Dylan Avery is a prime example, not to single him out, just for example.

Also, my personal opinion has formed about this phenomenon. Movies have skewed, in some people's minds, what their expectations are, in these types of events.

I don't mean to cause this to go on a tangent, so I'll let that sink in, and y'all can think on it, rather than me sayin' it and wasting time on the boards. (could deserve its own thread...)

Finally, there are many historical instances of a construction engineering design that didn't always live up to expectations, or that could withstand certain unforeseen circumstances.

The OLD Tacoma Narrows Bridge, for example. Iconic.

reply to post by weedwhacker


That website has been around for years and I've been familiar with it for years. I've read it before. The guy is completely lost in his own nonsense, probably lives in his basement and has never had a girlfriend before. Not to mention he doesn't actually "debunk" anything, he just rants. It's like a personal blog arranged like a webpage.

The typo wouldn't be as embarrassing if "sulfer" were buried somewhere in the page, but no, it's the page's title. And if he really knew what in the hell he were saying about "sulfer" don't you think he would be able to spell it right by now? What message does it send you that he can't? None?

Like I said on the other thread, if what he says puts you at ease, just rephrase it yourself and use his arguments next time the relevant claim pops up here. It's not real critical thinking when you do that but it's better than just pasting the link like lazier members around here often do. Just posting just the link itself, as "evidence" or "debunking" anything, I don't take that website or anything the guy rants about on it seriously, and if someone doesn't even want to go through the effort to put it into their own words and their own sources (even if borrowed from that website), I'm not even going to go the effort to respond to his confused garbage.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by ANOK


o please your clearly set as am i however having stood there and watched the plane hit and the building fall not to mention the fact that your supposed request of proof can be met with a return question i ask again what proof do you have that holds water that there was some conspiracy above the government being extremely incompotent at there duty to keep us safe and provide warnings that they were aware of.
If you have proof by nature the word means to be able to provide undeniable facts then show them to the world call your senator congressman local police officer town mayor anyone and drop your bomshell on the world if not YOU DONT HAVE PROOF YOU HAVE AN OPINION!

reply to post by bsbray11

The typo wouldn't be as embarrassing if "sulfer" were buried somewhere in the page, but no, it's the page's title.

Odd.....when I click on it it says "Rethinking Thermite"

What am I doing wrong?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Odd.....when I click on it it says "Rethinking Thermite"

What am I doing wrong?

Not looking at the browser's title bar.

If you're familiar with html, it's the title you put into the coding. (I hope the forum coding doesn't wipe that out...) Like when you minimize the tab on your computer, the browser will still display this title of the page at the bottom of your screen.

Webster seems to think that "sulfur" comes from the Middle English "sulphur," and the Latin shows both ways.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Did you try reading the title bar of your web browser Weedy? Mine says "... sulfer" when I checked your "source" just now. I've seen that before too, and I find it to be quite "debunker" biased.

If anyone is interested, sulfur is in periodic group #16 (newer system on my calculator, and that's less confusing than the old IUPAC and CAS systems with Roman numerals all those A's & B's IMHO), has periodicity of 3, has an atomic mass of 32.06 amu, melts at 115.21 C, has density of 2.07 g/cc, and several numerically-"even" oxidation states, both positive and negative.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

okay heres another example the building was blown up you ever RUN into one of them

I decided to cut everything that was just you expressing your opinion to me.



Ok, not everything. I did keep the opening sentence simply because it was very confusing. Maybe you need a comma or something, I am not sure. Anyway, thanks for using me as a reason to simply say what you feel. I am fairly certain you can just do that without responding to me.

No offense but I am really kind of tired of people responding to me just to ramble on about feelings and thought they have. I am really only looking for facts. Maybe the whole secret is in that opening sentence but hopefully you can see why I do not understand it.

Thanks anyway. Cheers.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I believe I have often looked beyond, and not commented on, ( well, not always

) typos made by many, many in the 'TM' here on ATS.

I make typos too. I try to catch them, but some slip through.

A typo is when you accidentally hit the wrong key or fail to hit the proper key with sufficient pressure. Please look at your keyboard and then tell me honestly that you often hit "e" instead of "u." I promise I will believe your answer.

reply to post by rhunter

Did you try reading the title bar of your web browser Weedy?

Oh, up there? I call that the 'tab'....never really look at it, except to click the 'X' to close it.

Yeah....stupid, isn't he? What an ignoramus!!! "Sulfer"....ppfffft!!!

Last time I'll be reading anything else he has to offer!!!

Thanks, now I know he's completely discredited, because of that typo.

reply to post by weedwhacker

So what percentage would you estimate that your personal opinion is "inside" (agrees with) that particular website [that I referred to as "debunker"-biased above] and what percentage is "outside" it, Weed? I'm just looking for ballpark numbers here, much like bsbray's questions above.

Unfortunately, we don't have physical evidence (like photographs) to evaluate objectively, so you are the only person on the planet who can answer this particular, highly-subjective question.

Answer wisely, Weedy.

reply to post by ANOK


Please tell me how they 'ignited' the thermite in the buildings with no residue? It has been around for over 100 years. Simple question. Answer it....

[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Please tell me how they 'ignited' the thermite in the buildings with no residue? It has been around for over 100 years. Simple question. Answer it....

reply to post by esdad71


Did I say they used thermite or thermate?

Did I?

Were you following the discussion?

Were you?

It was about the existence of thermate etc., because Weedy was claiming it didn't exist until he had to finally admit it did, not whether it was used on the towers. I have NO idea what was used, no one does, because...

they didn't test for explosives!

Did they?

That is why no residue was found genius. You keep ignoring the point that we don't need to SEE or HEAR 'EXPLOSIVES' to conclude that SOMETHING had to have acted on the towers to remove the RESISTANCE that aircraft impact and fires could NOT have done. Can you try to remember this point when disusing this in the future to save us having to keep re-explaining everything? You are looking for evidence that we simply don't have, and ignoring, or waving away, that which we do have.

To sum up the 'no explosives heard, or seen, is irrelevant because we have visual evidence of the actual collapses that show complete global asymmetrical collapse of all three buildings, that appear to defy physics enough to warrant a new investigation. That is all, no super duper space beams or pods or no planes, or any other garbage.

Next irrelevant argument...

reply to post by ANOK

....because Weedy was claiming it didn't exist....

False.

Please stop writing falsehoods about me. You're tipping perilously close to the edge....

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Please tell me how they 'ignited' the thermite in the buildings with no residue? It has been around for over 100 years. Simple question. Answer it....

reply to post by esdad71

 

Did I say they used thermite or thermate?

Did I?

Were you following the discussion?

Were you?

It was about the existence of thermate etc., because Weedy was claiming it didn't exist until he had to finally admit it did, not whether it was used on the towers. I have NO idea what was used, no one does, because...

they didn't test for explosives!

Did they?

That is why no residue was found genius. You keep ignoring the point that we don't need to SEE or HEAR 'EXPLOSIVES' to conclude that SOMETHING had to have acted on the towers to remove the RESISTANCE that aircraft impact and fires could NOT have done. Can you try to remember this point when disusing this in the future to save us having to keep re-explaining everything? You are looking for evidence that we simply don't have, and ignoring, or waving away, that which we do have.

To sum up the 'no explosives heard, or seen, is irrelevant because we have visual evidence of the actual collapses that show complete global asymmetrical collapse of all three buildings, that appear to defy physics enough to warrant a new investigation. That is all, no super duper space beams or pods or no planes, or any other garbage.

Next irrelevant argument...

So, what you are saying is that you do not have an answer and all your rhetoric is garbage. It is not irrelevant but you shoo it away like a Democratic Senator. Nice.

Again, I ask, where is the proof? I can tell you there are cows on Mars because I think there are but that means dick in real life ANOK. to answer your questions, Thermate is generally referred to as a military application but thermitic reactions have been prevalent since the late 1800's. You can never simply answer a question. This is real simple. I did not ask who did it. I did not ask if they found it. I did not ask if you had a sample. I did not ask about your so called assymetrical collapse.

For someone of your character and intelligence as shown in these forums can assuredly answer a simple question.

Tell me how they ignited it?


It is a simple answer .......






[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]