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.

 

Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

page: 20
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WetBlanky
... And yes, he also placed the plane on the NoC flight path...and yes, this means he couldn't have and didn't see the plane impact the pentagon...


Ah yes, the "secret government agent" excuse again. Why an I not surprised?


Huh? I didn't say anything about a "secret government agent". I merely pointed out that he placed the plane NoC and therefore could not have seen an impact. You accept that right?

I assume you are using a non sequitur as a crutch here?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


Stay in la la land if you choose to do so. CIT is a joke.


Riiiight. It appears my comment hit a nerve and apparently still stands since you will not substantiate your claim.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


lol..I've ridden this merry go round too many times on here for that. It doesnt matter what I say, or what I show, you will hand wave it. Suffice to say, there are MANY Pentagon workers that saw Flight 77 from the parking lot that were never interviewed by the CIT.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


I was replying to Anok. Ranke is not an active member and is a public figure, or tries to be. I am told he shows up occasionally and promotes his theory but never uses his old account. He has been drummed out of the mainstream truther community and has to sit in the corner with the hologram no planers, nuclear demolition guy, and Judy Wood. His arguments consist of claiming everything is faked and staged unless some aspect conforms to his theory. The claim that the plotters used video editing on the security tape so as not to show a NOC path is an example. Video edits can be detected; it's easier to destroy the tape. A flight path is easy to misinterpret by witnesses but an impact is not. Guess which old Craig keeps and which he ignores? He can't explain the fireball, estimated to be several thousand gallons of jet fuel igniting. He can't explain the sudden appearance of aircraft parts, the impacts on light poles and missing tree tops. That might be physical evidence of the flight path but of course it is all faked and planted. He can't provide any reason why such a tortuous plan would even be considered by the purported planners of his conspiracy. His theory went through a few iterations but it was a non-starter from the beginning.
He is basically a publicity hound and wants to be in the limelight. He can't get there on skill so he has to get there on the backs of outrageous statements and controversy.
Of course another possbility is that he is a paid disinformation agent sent to stir the pot and get the masses talking about anything but the failures of the incompetent appointees heading the agencies responsible for preventing such attacks and the coverup of their derelictions by the Bush administration. How much is Cheney paying him?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Norwegian radio link was provided by Turbofan in that thread. I only read it and commented at the time. Jones did say he was writing another paper correcting the shortcomings of the first.


I have seen no evidence to your claim and you cannot produce this evidence you are only spewing second hand hearsay information and you want the ATS readers to believe your “opinions” are the facts.


As to your refutations of my energy calculations; I haven't been able to find such. Perhaps you can provide a link to the thread where you think you addressed them.


Again it’s not my problem that you ignored my calculation, I am not going to waste my time again. You and I have debated this several times, I am not going to play your game of circular logic and you moving goal posts.
The fact is if you had shown your science instead of your “opinions” we wouldn’t be here having this conversation.

Jones and Harriet peer reviewed Journal stands very credible; you may have a fantasy that you think you have debunked his science like the bunch of opinionated wannabe experts on JR website, however giving your “opinions” to real science is not debunking Jones Journal, especially since you cannot produce any real science to back your “opinions.”
I see a few on this thread accept hearsay information as “blind faith” and have accepted it as their truth no matter what the evidence is or what government authorities want people to believe.


edit on 22-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Jones and Harriet peer reviewed Journal stands very credible;


"peer reviewed" is a laughable exaggeration.

But, if you are referring to the claims of "thermite"? Man, that train left the station years ago. You have a few people claiming "demolition" based on what they deem are "explosive" bombs to demolish the structure.....yet, this clinging to the "story" of "thermite"? Which does not explode??

Someone needs a dose of reality.........


edit on Tue 22 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Dave,

If all of what you say about the attack on the Pentagon is true then why did the Bush Administration do everything in itsr power to not have a 9/11 Commission at all?

Or am I asking you to prove a negative in this case?

If the official story of 9/11 is true then why did the Bush Administration select the war criminal Henry Kissinger to head the Commission?

If the official story of 9/11 is true then why did the war criminal Henry Kissinger resign as head of the Commission?



If the official story of 9/11 is true then why did the Bush Administration select the war Iran / Contra White-wash artist Lee Hamilton to head the Commission?

Dave, as far as you know is the assertion made in the video correct with regard to the fact that $100 million was spent investigating Clinton and only $14 million was spent on the 9/11 Commission?

Dave, in your opinion was too much spent on the Clinton investigation and too little spent on the crime of the century? Or is the ratio about right.

Dave, if the official story of 9/11 is true then were all of the other "lies" of the Bush Adminisration also true?

Was the Bush Adminisration claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as valid as the official 9/11 story?

Was the Bush Adminisration claim about yellow cake from Niger as valid as the official 9/11 story?

Was the Bush Adminisration sand-bagging of Valerie Plame and her entire CIA brass plate covert operation as valid as the official 9/11 story?

Was the Bush Adminisration Hollywood fable concerning Jessica Lynch as valid as the official 9/11 story?

Pure 100% fraud

There are 50 more of these.

I don't know, Dave, you might like being lied to. Maybe you think all of the things I mentioned are not lies. Maybe you trust every official story.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WetBlanky
... And yes, he also placed the plane on the NoC flight path...and yes, this means he couldn't have and didn't see the plane impact the pentagon...


Ah yes, the "secret government agent" excuse again. Why an I not surprised?

edit on 22-11-2011 by BRAVO949 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


So you are saying that sometime in the past you posted stuff that purportedly showed my calculations to be incorrect but that you can't find it now. Is this an example of that heresay evidence you talk about or is it just your opinion? Could you redo the calculations if I showed you how to do them?
Of course, we both know that you are desperate to save Jones' tarnished reputation but you have never refuted my thermodynamic calculations. Face it, Jones botched the paper. His analytical protocols are poor and his scientific methodology and reasoning is lacking. As a physicist, he is a bad chemist.
The entire thermite theory falls on its face when one questions what a layer of thermite would do to a building. Nothing much. Then, when we ask why so much 'thermite' was unburned if it was so active, we don't get an answer. Of course, this 'thermite' was cleverly disguised to look like the red paint covering the structure.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 

For your questions regarding the Bush administration, ask George and Dick. Questions as to how much money was spent on investigations should be directed to the funding agency. Here is a list that may be of interest on this thread:
If there is any evidence of demolitions in the WTC or Pentagon that will stand in a court of law, why hasn't it been brought forward?
Why do the truthers support Richard Gage when it is known that his knowledge of structural engineering is poor?
Why is Steven Jones lauded when his paper has been shown to be self inconsistent and generally incorrect? Why is Craig Ranke's strange theory of a flyover considered to be a possibility when his arguments consist entirely of saying everything he disagrees with is faked and the witnesses he doesn't like are lying?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Well - with regard to "stand in a court of law" - we all know that George Bush and his entire Administration lied to get us into two wars that have killed at least 5,000 Americans. He should have been in prison years ago.

Obama should also have already gone to court and have been convisted for that matter.

Why one person goes to court and is convicted and millions of others go free like the heads of virtually every financial corporation in the country is not a new thread but a new website.

************************

If the only inexplicable events during the Bush Administration were the events of Sepetember 11, 2001 then you would be right about everything.

If the only lies we were told by the Bush Administration were about the events of Sepetember 11, 2001 then you would be right about everything.

If Iran / Contra had not been proven a huge conspiracy proved beyond any doubt then we could skip this discussion.

If Pat Tillman had not been shot in the head three times, if Jessica Lynch was a hero, if the Gulf of Tonkin incident had not been a total lie that led to the death or 58,000 Americans then anyone questioning how an aluminum plane that weighed a fraction of what one WTC tower weighed but could take it down and two planes could destroy three buildings while one plane hardly damaged another - would be a trivial question.

If our government had never lied to us before then I could not argue against any official story. Considering the track record of the government we can not trust anything they say about anything.


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by BRAVO949
 

For your questions regarding the Bush administration, ask George and Dick. Questions as to how much money was spent on investigations should be directed to the funding agency. Here is a list that may be of interest on this thread:
If there is any evidence of demolitions in the WTC or Pentagon that will stand in a court of law, why hasn't it been brought forward?
Why do the truthers support Richard Gage when it is known that his knowledge of structural engineering is poor?
Why is Steven Jones lauded when his paper has been shown to be self inconsistent and generally incorrect? Why is Craig Ranke's strange theory of a flyover considered to be a possibility when his arguments consist entirely of saying everything he disagrees with is faked and the witnesses he doesn't like are lying?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So you are saying that sometime in the past you posted stuff that purportedly showed my calculations to be incorrect but that you can't find it now.


You see how you make up baloney I NEVER made the claim that I couldn’t find my calculations.


Is this an example of that heresay evidence you talk about or is it just your opinion? Could you redo the calculations if I showed you how to do them?


Been there, done that, not going there with you again.


Of course, we both know that you are desperate to save Jones' tarnished reputation


I don’t need to defend Jones, TRUTH always wins and your truths are your opinions.


but you have never refuted my thermodynamic calculations.


I have several times and you were defeated because you wouldn’t present any real science to back your opinion.


Face it, Jones botched the paper.


Face it, that’s your “opinion” and not a proven fact.


His analytical protocols are poor and his scientific methodology and reasoning is lacking. As a physicist, he is a bad chemist.


All your opinion, and not a fact.
Please provid your bio / CV. Please list links to all of your published articles pertaining to any relevent to Jones experiments. I dont believe you have any scientific background. If I am wrong, here is your opportunity to prove yourself.


The entire thermite theory falls on its face when one questions what a layer of thermite would do to a building. Nothing much.


Jones didn’t have to prove how thermite was used to bring down the WTC and you know that
As for thermite being a theory in Jones Journal, you are desperately mistaken Jones was able to prove with science and he showed his experiments and the different heat testing and flash burns that proved that he had discovered a supper Nano- thermite.


Then, when we ask why so much 'thermite' was unburned if it was so active, we don't get an answer.


That is not true and you know that! Jones discussed this in his journal stating that the un-burn thermite had a heat sink effect against the different steel in the WTC. I believe you are desperately trying to fool the ATS readers who may not understand this kind science.


Then, when we ask why so much 'thermite' was unburned if it was so active, we don't get an answer.


That is not true, Jones discussed all these issues in his Journal, why are you always contradicting yourself? First you say Jones never found thermite then you admit Jones found unburned thermite…
edit on 22-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


The delusion that only 14 million dollars was spent to investigate 9/11, is pure unadulterated BS. The FBI alone spent in excess of 30 million, then there was the CIA, NSA, and a host of other local, state and federal agencies.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


An attack on the Maddox DD731 happened in the Gulf of Tonkin on Aug 2, 1964. Maddox was hit once, an F-8 Crusader had a wing damaged and the three torpedo boats were damaged but salvageable. A second event, two days later, claiming a second attack was likely due to false radar returns and the DesDiv2 commander said as much in his report.
How this event effects questioning the 911 attacks is a bit of a stretch.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


"Jones discussed this in his journal stating that the un-burn thermite had a heat sink effect against the different steel in the WTC. I believe you are desperately trying to fool the ATS readers who may not understand this kind science. "

This is another point where Jones shows his abject ignorance. If the thin layers wouldn't burn because they were painted on metal, what was the purpose of painting them on metal? It is Jones who is trying to fool people but isn't clever enough to do so.
The paint-on thermite theory was silly to begin with and all of Jones' tap dancing when he was challenged on it provided much entertainment for the analytcal chemists of the world.

SO far you have not been able to refute my thermodynamic calculations other than to say I didn't have 'sciences' on my side because I didn't write a peer reviewed paper. Neither did Jones, but I used the data directly from his paper to do my calculations. If Jones didn't do the analyses correctly, then my calculations are not correct. If he did do them correctly, then my calculations are correct and Jones' conclusions are wrong. Which is it?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Again, you have proven your absolute lack of knowledge in the area of Jones’s experiments with “Nano thermite” as published. Obviously, you do not have the ability to comprehend, scientifically, what Jones’ findings.
Now, back to your qualifications…
Why are you so reluctant to provide us with your Bio? Clearly, you constantly imply that you have a professional level of expertise as a chemist / physicist. From which school(s) did you receive your degree(s) and in what field(s)

I would certainly hope that you have not forgotten any of this information pertaining to your education and work experience.
Jones still wins hands down. You have proven nothing but your lack of knowledge.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Is it possible you have fallen into a trap?

Are you the sort that thinks, whatever the reason, made up out of nothing or based on the fact that the US military had no business in being anywhere near the Gulf of Tonkin let alone right at the edge of Vietnam's territorial waters that the invasion and occupation of Vietnam was justified.

Are you in an ideological box the walls of which are made a thin fabric printed with the words, "my country right or wrong?"

The people that decide to send troops to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to fight for their gain and their ideology do not care about you and use you like a puppet by pulling strings you think have to do with patriotism.

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were pure lies and if you can not see that then your opinion on the events of 9/11 are basically worthless because you are arguing mainly to preserve your worldview which is an illusion.


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


An attack on the Maddox DD731 happened in the Gulf of Tonkin on Aug 2, 1964. Maddox was hit once, an F-8 Crusader had a wing damaged and the three torpedo boats were damaged but salvageable. A second event, two days later, claiming a second attack was likely due to false radar returns and the DesDiv2 commander said as much in his report.
How this event effects questioning the 911 attacks is a bit of a stretch.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
So, as part of the $30 million the FBI spent did they put the pictures of the man the official story calls Mohamed Atta side by side and notice that they represent at least two if not three different men?

Did the FBI recommend that General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be charged with pergury?

Did they spend a few bucks and a few hours deciding who was lying the FAA or the Air Force with regard to timelines on 9/11?

Did the FBI nail down who short airline and insurance company stocks? Or has that been debunked?

There are several witnesses who are on record describing the conversation and demeanor of the official story's hijackers in a restauant shortly before September 11, 2001. The server at the restaurant as well as the owner are on video repeating what the hijackers were talking about.

Has the FBI's $30 million dollar investigation given us any reason to explain why four men who according to the official story are arguing about what appears to the witnesses to me their main preoccupation in public but in English instead of Arabic?

How many donuts can an agency by with $30 million?


Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


The delusion that only 14 million dollars was spent to investigate 9/11, is pure unadulterated BS. The FBI alone spent in excess of 30 million, then there was the CIA, NSA, and a host of other local, state and federal agencies.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WetBlanky
But let's not forget the north of Citgo flight path proves a flyover because the plane on that path cannot cause any of the physical damage. From the 5 light poles(most importantly pole 1) to the generator trailer, to first floor external and internal damage leading to the c ring hole.


Can you ask Ranke and his large associate how the aircraft witnessed by Terry Morin, if as he claimed would have hit the Air Force Memorial that is there now, could have gone NORTH of the service station, and STILL, as Roosevelt Roberts claimed, ended up in South parking, above Lane 1, at fifty feet or less than a hundred feet (think about that for a moment...a 190,000 lb, 155 foot long by 124 foot wide airliner at 50 to 100 feet above a parking lot outside a building that holds 25,000 people - and *nobody else saw it*), headed - again, quoted from the "CIT" interview - "southwest" (I'll ask you to draw a big red arrow on your image from Lane 1 in South parking (note: I worked in the building and have parked in lane 1 of south parking) in the direction of Southwest, please).

To make a bit a bit easier, get a copy of your image, get a big red magic marker, begin drawing a line from the southern edge of the Navy Annex, through the Air Force memorial, to a north of Citgo flight path, and over to lane 1 of South Parking, exiting southwest. You'll end up with a spaghetti noodle, all in a space of less than a half square mile.

If you could further indulge us, what would the aerodynamics be for an aircraft to make that turn - from the AF Memorial, doing a pylon turn around the Citgo to end up over lane 1 in south parking heading southwest? Speed and angle of bank will suffice - Feel free to bring Captain Bob in on this, too, if you need.

All this is an example of how CIT and PFT ignore...literally and utterly and totally ignore and hand-wave away - significant contradictory and disproving elements to their fanciful and delusional made-up story.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


My world view and yours do not affect the 911 events. Look to the evidence.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Again, you have proven your absolute lack of knowledge in the area of Jones’s experiments with “Nano thermite” as published. Obviously, you do not have the ability to comprehend, scientifically, what Jones’ findings.
Now, back to your qualifications…
Why are you so reluctant to provide us with your Bio? Clearly, you constantly imply that you have a professional level of expertise as a chemist / physicist. From which school(s) did you receive your degree(s) and in what field(s)

I would certainly hope that you have not forgotten any of this information pertaining to your education and work experience.
Jones still wins hands down. You have proven nothing but your lack of knowledge.


No personal information, Imp. If you have any education or work experience, you can post it if you want.

How did my statements in this thread show an "absolute lack of knowledge in the area of Jones’s experiments with “Nano thermite” as published?" Then you say "Obviously, you do not have the ability to comprehend, scientifically, what Jones’ findings."

Show off your extensive skillsets. Explain how the DSC in air shows thermite. Detail why the thermodynamic data show combustion. Explain how the paint-on material is so powerful that it is quenched by the steel it is painted on [a real gem]. This last seems counterproductive, doesn't it? "Lets paint the steel structure with beam-warming material that doesn't work when it's painted on steel." Only a mind like Steve Jones' could come up with such a concept. I wonder who would buy into it?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join