It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by GhostLancer
I started out as a 'truther' . My first reaction upon hearing the live coverage of the events that day was that there was no way in hell that 19 individuals could have pulled this off against the most powerful nation on the planet .
I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .
Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .
With that in mind , please don't assume that I am just a blind follower of the 'OS' .
I have posted links time after time proving some of the theories to be questionable and even false in some cases .
But , you know what ? Truthers ignore what I post and very rarely do they even respond to the information I put forth . I think I may even have a link posted in this thread that hasn't received one single response .
Seems to me that if something is posted that can't be denied , then the best way that truthers can deal with it is to simply ignore it .
Engines WERE found at the Pentagon that matched AA77.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .
Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at WTC .
WTC7 WAS damaged and burning .
It WAS possible to fly the plane into the Pentagon , regardless of 'ground-effect' .
The angled cuts at WTC WERE made by cutting torches during clean-up .
All of the above has been proven , so why do truthers ignore it when I post sources to validate these ?
These are FACTS that cannot be disputed but , when I challenge the false theories being posted , I am totally ignored . Then the same false theories get posted again in another thread . Over and over and over .
I am not against a new investigation . I have no problem with that . I have a problem with lies and theories being perpetually posted while ignoring the truth that is already available .
When I present anyone with evidence that proves their claims to be false and , they methodically ignore the truth that I offer them , I can only have contempt for such an individual .
What really ticks me off about those who ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is shown to them is that they have the nerve to call themselves a Truther .
So , if you make a post saying that the sky is falling and I reply with a post proving to you that the sky is not falling , and then you continue to say that the sky is falling , then you fit the criteria of disinformation .
[edit on 21-8-2010 by okbmd]
Originally posted by Gorman91
A few pages back I showed what I am talking about. How quickly you all forget.
Simulations that anybody can run show that it can all happen on its own.
How many knives get made naturally? Quite a lot. Take a stroll down to a river in the western US. You'll find sharp rocks everywhere.
Originally posted by Gorman91
[edit on 19-8-2010 by Gorman91]
Originally posted by Gorman91
Jet fuel fires were at 750–800°C.
This is hot enough to extract surfer from gypsum.
www.ehow.com...
Heat the gypsum in a kiln to 600 to 900 degrees C in the presence of a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide to produce calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. Using hydrogen, for example, Read more: How to Extract Sulfur From Gypsum | eHow.com www.ehow.com...
Please refrain from posting lies without first looking up the truth.
Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .
Seems to me that if something is posted that can't be denied , then the best way that truthers can deal with it is to simply ignore it .
Engines WERE found at the Pentagon that matched AA77.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .
Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at WTC .
WTC7 WAS damaged and burning .
It WAS possible to fly the plane into the Pentagon , regardless of 'ground-effect' .
The angled cuts at WTC WERE made by cutting torches during clean-up .
What really ticks me off about those who ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is shown to them is that they have the nerve to call themselves a Truther .
Originally posted by okbmd
I started out as a 'truther' . My first reaction upon hearing the live coverage of the events that day was that there was no way in hell that 19 individuals could have pulled this off against the most powerful nation on the planet .
I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .
Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .
With that in mind , please don't assume that I am just a blind follower of the 'OS' .
But , you know what ? Truthers ignore what I post and very rarely do they even respond to the information I put forth . I think I may even have a link posted in this thread that hasn't received one single response .
Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
The question nobody answers(besides "truthers")and they keep dodging is,what pulverized the concrete?
Let's see the experiment for that!
We all know it wasn't the floors above because they exploded outward to dust,that means there was no pressure from the above floors so what pulverized the concrete?
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Simulations based on what parameters?
Originally posted by Gorman91
Simulations based on physics. What other parameters do you need? Physics don't change on Earth.
NIST used CPU government super computers nearly a decade ago.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by smurfy
I have said all along that neither side knows all the facts nor have all the answers .
Just because I dispute theories that haven't been proven while at the same time providing proof that parts of the 'OS' are indeed true and other parts can be shown to be credible does not mean that I believe everything I have read or heard .
You can only put a puzzle together one piece at a time . Trying to make pieces fit that are clearly not a part of the puzzle you are working on is futile and is nothing but a hindrance to everyone working on the puzzle .
If the pieces don't belong , why insist on making them fit anyway ?
And thanks for being civil in your reply to my post .
I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .
Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The thicknesses of the columns and beams change. Their strengths therefore change.
The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.
There were millions of pieces to that building and they were not all determined by laws of physics. They were determined by the engineers who designed them.
And never released the parameters for public scrutiny or peer-review.
This is known as junk science. All filler, no meat. Now you just showed me you don't even know what a simulation parameter is or why they would be important to know. Enough said.
Originally posted by Gorman91
Program the physics right. That's all you need. You're working off the description of a simulator a decade ago. Things have changes.
Also, the twin towers were a modernist glass box monstrosity. Like all modernist buildings, they share the same fact of life. They don't last.
Welcome to 2010. I invite you to replicate these simulators if you dare. Otherwise you're working off obsolete technology and obsolete methods of simulating.
Originally posted by Nutter
And again: Why are we talking about collapse initiation when the original OP was about the 2 pieces of steel found that were corroded?
Muddying the waters much?
Originally posted by Azp420
but I am curious as to what you thought/think of the very large accelerations undertaken by all three buildings which collapsed on 9/11. IMO this is the biggest proof of an inside job.
For WTC7 to collapse at near free fall, the structure has to provide virtually no resistance to the falling mass, almost to the equivalent of it not being there.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you don't even know what a simulation parameter is, and how it differs from the general word "physics," then you really don't need to be arguing with people about it in the first place sir. That is the nice way of saying it.
Originally posted by Gorman91
Program the physics right. That's all you need. You're working off the description of a simulator a decade ago. Things have changes.
Also, the twin towers were a modernist glass box monstrosity. Like all modernist buildings, they share the same fact of life. They don't last.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You still have to recreate the mess and show it to be able to happen on its own.
See the OP as an example of real investigation being done: "AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions"