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 ANOK
That is absolute nonsense.
First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.
I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who understands Newtons laws of motion. Want to prove me wrong, debate me on it.
I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who doesn't give up debating me on physics and start throwing personal insults. In fact your post here is a personal insult, with no evidence to support it's claim.
If you think trusses sagging from heat can put a pulling force on the much more massive columns they were attached to, then you are the one who has trouble understanding the physics involved in collapsing buildings.
If you think a building can naturally fall into it's own footprint, with all four outer walls landing on top of the rest of the demolished building, then you are probably physics challenged.
LOL an appeal to authority is an appeal to authority.
You can't go around claiming people do that when you do it yourself, and admit it.
As to what 'authority' is credible is down to opinion, this is why it's not a credible form of debate.
You appeal to authority because you can't make a credible argument yourself.
You can just say 'read this', or 'watch this', and think you've made a valid argument. I thought we were here to debate each other, not someone else's work by proxy.
Newtons laws of motion is a repeated because you all keep ignoring it, because if you truly apply the laws it makes your opinions and the NIST report nonsense.
If you truly understood the physics then you would also be using the laws of motion to explain your points. The laws of motion are the laws of motion, and are the most relevant physics to collapses, momentum and collision. Your obvious fear of the 'phrase' is very telling.
Tell me, what other laws of physics should we be applying to this problem?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.
We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.
We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.
They were given an event parameters and told to construc the in their opinion, most likely scenario on why we saw what we saw IF indeed only panes and fires were involved into exploding the buildings.
Originally posted by jrcris2011The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence.
Originally posted by grizzle2
Originally posted by jrcris2011The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence.
I don't see fires doing this:
Steel to Dust
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not to mention a near religious belief in these armies of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are planting fake evidence and false disinformation. How many people are involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, anyway?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. If you like I'll produce a series of quotes from posters in this forum who have no idea about physics but endorse the Truth Movement narrative. You can counter by quoting posters who do understand the physics involved, but yours will be a short list.
Bear in mind that my list will include people who use the word "sensiate". They're on your team.
I'm not sure you understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is.
And yet the vast majority of scientists and engineers remain unmoved by your strident claims. Either you're wrong, or you're very bad at communicating. One of the two.
My post is "personal"? Okay. Then to whom does it refer?
If your understanding of physics is as informed as your understanding of english then I can see why you're where you are.
So no pulling force can be exerted by sagging trusses? Is that what you're claiming?
That's not really a phrase, is it? Physics challenged?
But ignoring that, your insistence that a building falls into its own footprint is irrelevant. And probably wrong. I suspect you're basing it on an inconclusive photograph. Anyway, everyone knows that the WTC demo "flung debris 400 ft etc etc." Except in the WTC 7 demo. They did that differently. Quite why I imagine you might struggle to explain.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not to mention a near religious belief in these armies of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are planting fake evidence and false disinformation. How many people are involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, anyway?
Actually the people planting fake information can be measured on one hand, NIST, PM, NOVA, YOU....
BTW what is false disinformation?
Why did the collapses ignore equal opposite reaction and moment conservation laws? Why do you ignore known physics for illusionary new phenomena? All you ever do is make derogatory comments about 'twoofers'.
When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.
Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it.
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Cassius666
I think the assumption that all believers in the OS are blind sheep that thoughtlessly follow and support the government/MSM is not only daft, but offensive. I believe in the negatively connotative "OS," AND I just so happen to be an anti-government, capital-L Libertarian.
I do believe an apology is in order.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.
No, an appeal to authority is when you posit that someone with some kind of credential has expressed an opinion that agrees with your own therefore enforcing your position. Citing someone's work and then presenting their relative education, experience, licensing or certifications is not an appeal to only their authority.
Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it.
Yeah, it does. There are millions of scientist worldwide and as far as I know there is no master list wherein they have all signed off officially on say, Newton's laws of motion, so I guess that means they don't support them either?
You are equating Newtons laws of physic to a crude sketch?
You are saying silence is the reason Newtons laws of physics has been accepted in the scientific community. Thats not the case.
In 2001 deniers accused "conspiracy theorists" to be just "kids in their basement". Now all you can present is the "silent majority" . Thats something straight out of Monty Python
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Cassius666
I think the assumption that all believers in the OS are blind sheep that thoughtlessly follow and support the government/MSM is not only daft, but offensive. I believe in the negatively connotative "OS," AND I just so happen to be an anti-government, capital-L Libertarian.
I do believe an apology is in order.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
[quote.
No, silence is not the reason, whatever that means. Conspiracists have posited that because millions of scientist and engineers have not publically denied all the wild-eye fanatasies that they, in fact, support them.
Originally posted by hooper
No, an appeal to authority is when you posit that someone with some kind of credential has expressed an opinion that agrees with your own therefore enforcing your position. Citing someone's work and then presenting their relative education, experience, licensing or certifications is not an appeal to only their authority.
Yeah, it does. There are millions of scientist worldwide and as far as I know there is no master list wherein they have all signed off officially on say, Newton's laws of motion, so I guess that means they don't support them either?
LOL when you can't make an argument of your own and you say read this, or look at this, read the NIST report, or Bazants paper, without any input from own intellect is an appeal to authority.
It's you saying this must be true because an excepted authority says it is, when you don't know if it is or not, and can not explain why when challenged to do so.
Explain the laws of motion to me, and moment conservation? Then we can discuss them and see where we stand eh?
How can silence be considered support?
I did not say they didn't support the OS either.
Both claims are just as invalid but you fail to realise that, and assume silence as support.
You have a problem of believing everything you agree with to be true, simply because you agree with it.
This means you simply dismiss what you disagree with without having to think about it, not very open minded way of thinking is it
Originally posted by Cassius666
Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever. Science is the only truth. Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter. Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that maybe, just maybe all those scientist and professionals aren't lying and realize that the "distribution of steel" in the World Trade Center towers was wholly irrelevant to the observed events of September 11, 2001. Just maybe. Someday you should look into the strenght of steel.