Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia

 

take a no response on your employer, occupation, is a yes...

What is this? I don't even understand what you're saying in this fragment of a sentence.

reply to post by Varemia


...Your occupation?

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

and still does not explain reality...

Yes it does.

Your uninformed opinion means nothing.

Originally posted by ANOK

None of that has any relevance to the fact that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint.

What is significance if it did? provide facts and engineering answers and solutions. Failure to do so proves that this is unimportant and your wonder irrelevant.

No matter the amount of fire, or asymmetrical damage from flying debris, that is simply not possible.

Prove it

OSers want to believe that it was a simple collapse, but what happens in a natural collapse is the opposite of what happens in an implosion demolition.

Prove it

The rubble pile is centered around the axis of the building. 47 stories reduce to about 4. The rubble is mostly in the footprint.

What is significance if it did? provide facts and engineering answers and solutions. Failure to do so proves that this is unimportant and your wonder irrelevant.

If it was a natural collapse none of that would have happened.

Prove it

Find ONE natural collapse that has those features.

Prove that this is signicant

All implosion demolitions do.

Prove it

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ANOK
The whole NIST report hinges on a false premise, that sagging trusses can pull in columns

No. It doesn't say that..

Why should we give any of it any credence?

Maybe cuz you proved that you are ignorant of what it says and are constructing strawman arguments?

That would be enough for most people to want to examine the issue more closely....

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia

 

...Your occupation?

It's irrelevant, but my occupations are the dining crew at my university and archaeology lab assistant. Are you trying to ask if I'm working for the government or something? I'd like to. That's good money, but no, I'm not. I'm just a lowly student taking classes for a degree. Only reason I'm spending so much time here is out of pure boredom caused by excess time over summer.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


So will you start providing your own evidence or will you just keep on the namecalling and retarded remarks?

reply to post by Varemia


thank you for answering, I had asked it several times before is why I drew a presumptuous leading question and statement, think the mod may have deleted one that in a quoted cut and paste post...

So, you are a more credible source, than those who are suspected party to the crimes, as some Universities may be linked by association, however will not go into all that, as it is irrlevlant at this point and juncture...


Thermite or related evidence was not found or was found?
It is a simple question that an archeologist 100's of years from now may be able to prove beyond shadow of a doubt yes or no, however find it very significant and if that is just a hoax and you do not believe it was found, then you are suggested evidence found is not credible and the sources of conveying the information and presenting are not valid.

Please again forgive my preschool mentality or demeanor and grace...no offense meant...

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


so NIST report is facts and no mistakes in it, no assumptions, no lack of evidence, modelling errors, and other flaws?

Since. it is suggested by over 1500 engineers and architects and 100's and 100's of scientist and researchers and educators and people who were not paid to promote the official story with an explanation that fit by results...they are all wrong and ONLY NIST is correct?

Sounds like NIST and you, need to do some proving, not anyone else, as proof is in the pudding.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


so NIST report is facts and no mistakes in it, no assumptions, no lack of evidence, modelling errors, and other flaws?

Since. it is suggested by over 1500 engineers and architects and 100's and 100's of scientist and researchers and educators and people who were not paid to promote the official story with an explanation that fit by results...they are all wrong and ONLY NIST is correct?

Sounds like NIST and you, need to do some proving, not anyone else, as proof is in the pudding.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


over ruled as the NIST ireport has been reviewed by no conflict of interest experts and they have agreed it is not perfect and misleading and thus not credible as a source of reference unless it is for a cartoon show or fictional thriller...

Only ones buying or believing the NIST report n its entirety are those who drink the kool aid when told, no questions asked..

Originally posted by neformore
Civil discourse, and the sharing of opinions is key to ATS. As no one knows for sure what happened that day - as every 9/11 theory is just that, a theory - then any view point on it is welcome on ATS, or ATS Live.

I know. For real. Not to full details, but main technical ones, then the following cover-up and who did it and why. There is enough information to solve this puzzle. Just out there in internet, hidden amid informational noise.
I have a problem to consider other points of view as opinions.
It is like I solved an equation, e.g. (x - 1) + 2 = 4, then comes someone and says, that on his opinion, x is zero. But I double checked and I know that x is 3, I cannot be wrong.

Originally posted by Juanxlink

So will you start providing your own evidence or will you just keep on the namecalling and retarded remarks?

You've got things backwards..

the "OS" as you bunch like to call it, is the accepted explanation of things. This side has won the reality check.

So the burden of proof fallls on 9/11 terrorist apologists to provide evidence that will convince the general populace that your view has some validity - namely. that all those trusted engineers that contributed to the NIST report are lying.

GET THIS STRAIGHT - if I do NOTHING to back what I say, I still win, cuz this side - the side of reason and rationality - has already won.

SO get cracking.... make more youtube videos..... that should do it.

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

so NIST report is facts

yes

and no mistakes in it,

none that are important. spelling mistakes and typos are irrelevant

no assumptions,

plenty of assumptions made. for instance, there is no visual record of what the plane strikes did to the core columns. they therefore ran some models, using info that they have on the building, planes and their velocity, known properties of steel, etc... and assumed that they are as close as they can get to reality. You have nothing better.

no lack of evidence,

nothing that matters

modelling errors

none that I know of, nor anyone of consequence has pointed out.

and other flaws?

show something important

Since. it is suggested by over 1500 engineers and architects

you are sadly mistaken....

and 100's and 100's of scientist and researchers and educator

what technical paper has any of these produced that convinced you? i bet that merely their opinions are enough, cuz that's what you want to hear, right?

and people who were not paid to promote the official story

your paranoia and bias are showing...

.they are all wrong and ONLY NIST is correct?

yes. none have produced any kind of technical paper, statement, or any literature of any kind that has even so much as raised an eyebrow in the engineering community.

SO then you are left with a few choices:
1- engineers are ignorant of what "you" call the flaws of the "OS"
2- they are in on it. all of them. everywhere. in every country around the world.
3- only the gatekeepers are in on it - editors, news people, etc. all of them. around the world. everywhere.
4- they are correct and truthers are wrong

whats it gonna be?

Sounds like NIST and you, need to do some proving, not anyone else, as proof is in the pudding.

It case you didn't notice, the "OS" is the generally accepted explanation of things. I do not need to convince "you" of anything. "YOU" have already lost the argument. In order to turn that around you must do something of consequence that convinces engineers to raise eyebrows. Go ahead and do it then. Whatcha waiting fopr?

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

over ruled as the NIST ireport has been reviewed by no conflict of interest experts and they have agreed it is not perfect and misleading and thus not credible as a source of reference unless it is for a cartoon show or fictional thriller...

Overruled as that ruling has been examined by better experts and judged to be the delusional ramblings of morons.and fit for nothing more than something to laugh at.

See how easy that is?

Just handwave your pronouncement away and I have won. try again..

Only ones buying or believing the NIST report n its entirety are those who drink the kool aid when told, no questions asked..

The only ones NOT buying or believing the NIST report are those who drink the kool aid when told, and have done shallow research and have gotten their info off sites where delusions and falsehoods and lies are pushed, and they swallow it when told, no questions asked...

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


It's not up to me to prove anything to anyone.

NIST is making the extraordinary claim that fires bought down the towers, they are the ones required to prove their hypothesis.

All I am doing is pointing out facts that contradict their claims. If you can't see those contradictions that's not my problem, and I have no desire to prove anything to you.

If you want to believe fires can cause a 47 story building to collapse into its own footprint go right ahead mate. I will keep posting facts, and hope those smart enough can see the truth.

Can you prove fire can cause a building to collapse into its footprint? If you can you better go apply for a job with Controlled Demolition Inc. For some odd reason they seem to think it takes planning, and carefully placed and timed explosives for that to happen.

Just a reminder, because like all OSers you don't read and comprehend, or even comment on points raised...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it...

...Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

WTC 7...





See the outer walls? They have fallen inwards. That is not possible from a natural collapse, as collapsing columns and floors would push the walls outwards. This is not rocket science, surely you can figure out why eh? If you can't you need to develop some critical thinking skills mate.

earthinhabitant wanted me to let you all know he hasn't abandoned his thread, but is temporarily unable to post, and will hopefully be back soon.

Do not adjust your set, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Originally posted by ANOK
NIST is making the extraordinary claim that fires bought down the towers, they are the ones required to prove their hypothesis.

So... you say NIST's "claim" is extraordinary. A claim they made AFTER they did the research and explained what the evidence suggested in a non-commanding fashion. It was a scientific paper where they make a best guess based off the evidence. Then, their CONCLUSION (not claim) was that fires brought down the towers after the various impacts damaged them.

You say it's extraordinary and requires proving... which they did already. Then, you turn around and try to push that it must have been bombs. A bomb theory completely ignores all damage to the building, all internal stuff happening within the building, all the fire heating up the materials inside the building. Bombs are like a fallback that is just simpler than trying to think about what actually happened to the towers. Let's see... what would prove bombs:

1. Visible explosion/squib BEFORE the collapse initiates.

2. Audible explosion BEFORE the collapse initiates.

3. Visible blown up columns.

4. Demolition wiring in the debris.

5. Pieces of explosives.

6. Records of suspicious activity within the building.

7. Records of transactions by some unnamed entity buying explosives.

...

Now, how many of these do you have? None. The only one you sometimes claim is audible explosions, but for some strange reason, not a single damn camera could pick it up. Wouldn't an explosion strong enough to cut a column make a sound? It sure makes noise in EVERY SINGLE DEMOLITION VIDEO.

reply to post by Varemia


Steel framed buildings collapsing completely from fire is extraordinary, period.

Explosives is a more logical explanation.

That is my opinion based on the evidence.