911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

reply to post by ANOK


Okay im done with the freaking out however if any of what you stated was true why is it that there has never been WELP disclosure if there was proof then we wouldnt be having this discussion PROOF means very simply unreputable evidence.
what you have is an opinion wich has no science to back it where as the reality is the planes jet fuel caused the structure to weaken aloowing the upper floors to free fall onto the lower structure do you have any idea of the weight and interisia that creates cause the entire scientific community does.
Why would you possibly think the building was blown up watch a real demoiltion of a building it looks nothing like the towers falling other then the end result of the bilding hitting the ground.
there is no way to predict how a building will fall if not controlled hence the sheering and irradic twisting displayed and dude i was there you have no idea how far off center this conspiracy theory is the event were very clear and really super surreal.
no bombs no thermite no alien intervention or holigrams and what have you just evil deeds perpetrated by f d up people who killed thousands for there supposed god .

disgusting.


Be Well

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....

Is this another falsehood like pointing out that you claimed that the penthouse pulled building 7 down? Who are you to tell people they are treading anywhere for spreading falsehoods about others? If I remember correctly, you lied after calling me a liar for pointing out what you said.

I am still waiting for my apology. I suppose you might get your from Anok sometime after I get mine from you for the same thing here.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
Why would you possibly think the building was blown up watch a real demoiltion of a building it looks nothing like the towers falling other then the end result of the bilding hitting the ground

"demoiltion of a building it looks nothing like the towers falling"


How can you claim that?

Comparing the video evidence the towers falling looks exactly like a controlled demolition..

Originally posted by triplescorpio
Why would you possibly think the building was blown up watch a real demoiltion of a building it looks nothing like the towers falling other then the end result of the bilding hitting the ground

"demoiltion of a building it looks nothing like the towers falling"


How can you claim that?

Comparing the video evidence the towers falling looks exactly like a controlled demolition..

reply to post by Jezus


it only looks like it if you have no understanding do you really think it would be overlooked this isnt a shoplifting trial it was the most involved investigation of its kind ever there were many independent groups people and organizations all working independently and none of them found any thing the thermite is used in many applications if it was there at all in twenty years you know whats going to come of your what ifs nothing because thats all they are what ifs no proof no evidence.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
reply to post by Jezus

 

it only looks like it if you have no understanding do you really think it would be overlooked this isnt a shoplifting trial it

Sorry but I had to cut that run-on sentence short because I only had one question. Understanding of what, exactly? What does not look like a normal demo to you or what is it that we need to understand better?

So to re-examine the premise of the OP...Are the non-Truthers actually ''taking'' their beating here on ATS?They have earned it well.

I see an intellectual pummeling BEING GIVEN.I have even gotten my own warning for my part.Some are three times as warned,heh heh...BUT has there been any taking or acceptance or admitting,"I might be wrong"etc by those suspect agents provoceteur?

I don't think they have done this at all,just a bunch of rationalizing,making straw man arguments,ignorance,bluster,name calling,all manner of rhetoric,but no 'taking'as is done with good advice.For examplee to think before typing,etc.

reply to post by trueforger


Hah!

Same critical eye used when looking at actual 9/11 evidence as used when reading these boards, it would seem.

Here, this explains the delusions quite well: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by K J Gunderson


the penthouse did not pull it down but it was the first sign of the collapse which was multiple seconds prior to the collapse. It showed that it was falling into itself based of the structural integrity being damaged. Go look at the blue prints of the erector set that was known as WTC7.

So, in effect, he is correct.

I think this thread needs another look from some of you noobs on here. I think you will fit or understand if you read it.

Link



[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

the penthouse did not pull it down but it was the first sign of the collapse which was multiple seconds prior to the collapse. It showed that it was falling into itself based of the structural integrity being damaged. Go look at the blue prints of the erector set that was known as WTC7.

So, in effect, he is correct.

Actually, what K J pointed out is that WW said exactly that the penthouse did indeed pull the rest of the building down. Considering your opening sentence, how is he correct? I have seen the conversation and not only does WW claim the penthouse did indeed pull the rest of the building down, he then denied it vehemently just a few posts later. I have not been curious enough to engage him on this but I am not curious how you come to the conclusion that saying what you say is wrong in your first sentence makes him correct. Would you mind?

reply to post by Jezus


A drag queen LOOKS like a woman but you would be in for a surprise. It may resemble a demolition because it is a big building that fell but it ends there. There are MONTHS of prep of empty buildings to bring down a 40 story.

I would love to hear your theory on how it was done.

Originally posted by esdad71
It may resemble a demolition because it is a big building that fell but it ends there.

A building can fall in many ways without looking like a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by esdad71
There are MONTHS of prep of empty buildings to bring down a 40 story.

That might be true for the standard procedure of a demolition company...

Originally posted by esdad71
I would love to hear your theory on how it was done.

I don't have a theory on why the collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition...

Originally posted by triplescorpio
it only looks like it if you have no understanding

How would my understanding change the fact that the collapse looked like a controlled demolition?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

the penthouse did not pull it down but it was the first sign of the collapse which was multiple seconds prior to the collapse. It showed that it was falling into itself based of the structural integrity being damaged. Go look at the blue prints of the erector set that was known as WTC7.

So, in effect, he is correct.

I think this thread needs another look from some of you noobs on here. I think you will fit or understand if you read it.

Link



[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]

Just in case there was any confusion.

originally posted by weedwhacker
You can see WTC 7 penthouse level initiating the collapse, first....crashing down, pulling everything else with it, TOP DOWN.

Notice that not only did he claim that the penthouse level pulled everything else with it but also that WT7 was a top down collapse. Do you agree that 7 was a top down collapse? Do you see where he says the penthouse level pulled the building down up there in that quote? Good.

Then we get this little gem

reply to post by K J Gunderson

originally posted by K J Gunderson
...He claimed just a page back that the penthouse pulled the rest of the building down.

LIE!

See how you "spin"???

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Nice, thanks for playing.

The permananent record of posts will show how you lied.

OK, bye!!!!

Now if you could explain to me how he was right all over again, that would be really nice because I am so very confused here.

All that fun can be found here.

[edit on 3/10/10 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by esdad71
Tell me how they ignited it?

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

Wow dude what is your problem? Didn't I already go over this?

OK one more time for you OK...

I don't know

There do you understand now?

Now show me where I EVER SAID THERMITE WAS USED. Or wherever I've speculated on anything other than saying something was used.
You are the one that likes assumptions and speculations and pretending they are facts.

I don't have to show you how it was ignited because I never said it was used. The discussion was about the EXISTENCE of thermite/thermate, nano or otherwise, that OSers have tried to claim doesn't. All you and Weedy have done since is move the goal posts. You tried to set up a strawman and it isn't working cause I won't fall for your games, and your demands and large text shows your frustration that your little sad tired tactics ain't working no more.

You're like a little pack of dogs, Chihuahuas, nipping at the heels of those who question the reality presented to us by our overlords. But your teeth are waring down, and you're getting tired, while our ankles are growing stronger from the constant breakdown and healing of chewed flesh.

[edit on 3/10/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

The discussion was about the EXISTENCE of nano-thermate that Weedy claimed he couldn't find.

Still can't, at least not in Google. Can you?

Just checked....typed in "nano-thermate"

Only options come up are for "nano-thermite"

OK???

Now, my real problem with "nano-thermite" isn't whether or not it exists, your claims to the contrary.

I just want to see valid, incontrovertible proof that "nano-thermite" can be applied to a steel building member, in the manner suggested by the 'CC' ('conspiracy camp') so as to cause a planned, controlled demolition. How is it located, affixed, attached? How is the thermitic reaction initated? How much "nano-thermite" is needed to, say, cut through each centimeter, and at what rate does it cut? Specifics, please.

I'm willing to share as many specifics in my field of expertise (aviation) that I can, because I often see many misconceptions, I like to set the record stragiht with facts. So I'm asking for the same in return.

Oh, and this term "nano" keeps being used....do people know what it means? I mean, really know?


Speaking of planned CD....with so much collateral damage on the ground and to the surrounding buildings, looks like "controlled" in reference to WTC 1&2 is a bit of a stretch, n'est pas?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just checked....typed in "nano-thermate"

Only options come up are for "nano-thermite"

Nano-thermite and thermate are about the same thing (physically) anyway. "Thermate" is just what people call thermite in various forms with various additives intended to aid demolition. And there HAVE been thermate cutter charges designed and used, they've even been on TV on History or Discovery, I forget which, but screen shots are even out there.

"Nano-thermite" is just any thermite-like substance that consists of very fine particles that allow the reaction to take place more energetically because more total surface area between the particles touches than with coarser particles. "Thermate" may make use of smaller, nano-particles or it may not, it may just have other chemical additives.

There are a whole spectrum of possible particle sizes, chemical additives, and ratios between substances here to work with, that result in a wide variety of energy releases, ignition temperatures, reaction times, etc.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks.

So the moniker "nano" is not literally 'one-billionth' in size, compared to a 'normal' sized granule, but just an expressive term? Not meant to be precisely descriptive?

(Funny, how I get raked over the coals if I don't choose my terms with extreme care.....)

I comprehend the logic of the reaction being more energetic due to smaller particle size....that aspect of very fine particles has been well known for years. Ever heard of a corn silo explosion? Or, "MythBusters" episode where they explode coffee creamer powder? Makes big boom....


OK, now we know what it is; by any other name, will react the same......

I'm still waiting for the answers to my specific questions, up above.

Please.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So the moniker "nano" is not literally 'one-billionth' in size, compared to a 'normal' sized granule, but just an expressive term? Not meant to be precisely descriptive?

I think "nano" is in reference to the nano-meter. But no, it is not an indication of how big any given particle is going to be. They vary.

I comprehend the logic of the reaction being more energetic due to smaller particle size....that aspect of very fine particles has been well known for years.

That's good to hear because a lot of "debunkers" have gone on long sarcastic rants about how making the particles smaller isn't going to give them "magical" powers to make them more powerful and all this kind of nonsense. It really does have an effect, both in terms of energy and how easy it is for the particles to penetrate into the substances they are destroying, as FEMA noted in appendix C of their report that whatever caused the eutectic reaction (thermite is a type of eutectic reaction) and sulfidation of the steel they analyzed, had small enough sulfur particles to penetrate into the grain boundaries of the steel and split them open for the liquid eutectic (molten iron) to enter into.

OK, now we know what it is; by any other name, will react the same......

Yet two nano-thermites can react completely differently from one another, depending on what they are designed to do. That's where the different chemical additives, ratios and particle sizes come into play.

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes, it was in my post, it was I who mentioned what the prefix "nano" means!!!!

Why do I write, if it's not going to be read?

What I wanted to hear from you is if you think that the "nano-thermite" particles are actually nano-sized, or is it just a cute name they're using?


And, again, for the third time:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm still waiting for the answers to my specific questions, up above.

[edit on 10 March 2010 by weedwhacker]