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.

 

Free Coffee and Free Donuts and a USA Today

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Seems that many conspiracy theories stem from an argument from incredulity. If all you have is a logical fallacy then maybe you should think again


Are you suggesting it behooves one to ask no questions about the statements of known liars?


Nobody is suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that "I can't believe it therefore it didn't!" is no argument at all as AM has noted:


Incredulity isn't an argument as to what you feel is or is not possible.


and yet SFT is still going:


Those buildings did not come down from fire due to jet fuel and office furnishings. It just does not compute, do you get that?


In general, I agree with your point, but elaboration is necessary.

Opinions and beliefs can be informed or uninformed. An analysis immediately after an event, with no knowledge but what your eyes see, is an uninformed belief.

Rather the opposite, a belief/opinion informed by close examination of facts and evidence, is very different.

Regarding the events of 911 which we discuss here, we have the luxury of 15 years of hindsight and historical events and facts learned since it happened.

So incredulity formed by knowledge and study is valid.

Your statement is accurate, but restricted to certain conditions. So too, credulity based on nothing but the claims of authority figures proves nothing. It shows one to be credulous and gullible.


Just the first page of this thread is riddled with personal incredulity:


but one thing I never expected to happen, happened, not once or twice, but 3 times, buildings that were supposed to be designed to withstand impacts of planes (TWINS) and one that was supposed to be a command center in the event of disasters, collapsed, symmetrically,in what is described as near free fall.



but there is no way, other than IN HELL, that this was possible



Hijackers with box cutters? NO. Buildings falling down due to fires? NO. Passengers rushing the cockpit and bringing the plane down in PA? NO. The Pentagon hit by a plane? NO.



that the buildings COULDN'T have come down like that



I walked away from the TV the moment the roof fell into it's own foot print, pissed at was I was hearing, and knowing I had just watched a demolition.



As story worth repeating, especially if what we witnessed was so ridiculous to think how it happened is the way they claim it did, which sane people know is not the truth.


And that's pretty much what most conspiracy theories boil down to. "I can't believe it therefore it didn't"




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: tequilawolfpack
a reply to: searcherfortruth
if you watch the YouTube video taken from a condo a few blocks away and then the one with the fireman sitting on the sidewalk saying they are going to "bring it down" you can draw no other conclusion then....thermite.



Thermite is nothing but a big joke.

In fact, it's such a big joke that even AE/911 Truth has DROPPED any reference to it in their 2017 manifesto of facts that are evidence of a controlled demolition.

Mark Basile was given $5000 about 5 years ago to replicate the original "study" that showed thermite. To this day, he has produced NOTHING. He's taken the money and run away with it. It should of taken him a month tops to produced the results that demolition believers wanted.

But there's nothing from him, because at this point, I think it's safe to say that thermite is, and always WAS, a ruse...



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

People who examine the facts can't believe the story because it is impossible, that's why. Those are the curious people who are honest with themselves. The story defies the laws of physics and common sense. It's rather like the "fake news" controversy going on right now. How could there possibly be a United Airlines airliner in Shanksville when nobody there could see it? Same for the Pentagon.

Common sense demands that one have a certain amount of skepticism when reading the statements of known liars such as the media and the government. Just as then Senator Mark Dayton called out NORAD for all the conflicting information it offered to the 911 Commission, ordinary citizens do the same. How can a story be true when it cannot be proved?

How can so much cover-up suggest that known liars are suddenly telling the truth? How can bogus flight data recorder information be anything even close to the truth?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

People who examine the facts can't believe the story because it is impossible, that's why. Those are the curious people who are honest with themselves. The story defies the laws of physics and common sense.

A few people who examine the facts can't believe the story because they think it is impossible, that's why. Those are the curious people who are honest with themselves but don't understand the technical side of things. The story defies what they believe to be the laws of physics and their inexperienced common sense.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Most people who examine the story, assuming they are curious and honest with themselves, have trouble with the story.

Back when the 911 Commission released its report, something like 85% of respondents thought the report was a cover-up of some sort. Essentially the same thing happened with the Warren Commission back in 1967.

More people than you think understands the government deceives and covers up and suppresses the truth.

Never before in modern history has a modern steel and concrete high rise collapsed from fires, yet the government and presstitute media want me to believe that 3 of them in the same day collapsed at free fall rate? Nonsense! It does not pass the smell test, the common sense test.

The entire story is nonsense. That's why Bush & Cheney testified behind closed doors and not under oath. The Commission was set up to fail, and most of the members stated that in public. Most people understand its purpose was to protect the guilty parties and mislead the public, just like the Warren Commission did.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Most people who examine the story, assuming they are curious and honest with themselves, have trouble with the story.

Back when the 911 Commission released its report, something like 85% of respondents thought the report was a cover-up of some sort. Essentially the same thing happened with the Warren Commission back in 1967.

More people than you think understands the government deceives and covers up and suppresses the truth.

Never before in modern history has a modern steel and concrete high rise collapsed from fires, yet the government and presstitute media want me to believe that 3 of them in the same day collapsed at free fall rate? Nonsense! It does not pass the smell test, the common sense test.

The entire story is nonsense. That's why Bush & Cheney testified behind closed doors and not under oath. The Commission was set up to fail, and most of the members stated that in public. Most people understand its purpose was to protect the guilty parties and mislead the public, just like the Warren Commission did.


1. Buildings were steel.
2. They did not collapse at free fall rate.
3. The Government was in the CYA mode because Bush Administration appointees were screw-ups.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

People who examine the facts can't believe the story because it is impossible, that's why.


Because they can't believe it was possible. That's why.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Never before in modern history has a modern steel and concrete high rise collapsed from fires, yet the government and presstitute media want me to believe that 3 of them in the same day collapsed at free fall rate? Nonsense! It does not pass the smell test, the common sense test.




Argument from incredulity AGAIN.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
a reply to: neutronflux

There is massive amounts of evidence that "Controlled Demolition" occurred on all 3 buildings in question along with various statements from firefighters, police officers and video that show this evidence.
.


Going to state an actual argument and evidence, or just use quotes out of context and rant?

One, where is the 140 db sound waves and proof of an over pressure events indicative of explosives powerful enough to cut steel at WTC?

Two, how was a sophisticated system of explosives and ignition systems able to survive and actuate after jet impacts and fires which cut emergency services such as the fire water header throughout the towers?

Three, the "explosive" sounds were the elevators crashing after the jet impacts cut the elevator cables at the initiation of the events. The other "explosive" sounds were co2 fire extinguishers, ac compressors, electrical transformers bursting from being internally over pressurized as a result of the heat from the fires.

Sorry, there is no proof of CD........

edit on 19-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Switch to over pressurized



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Thought this was of interest

TOWER CRUMBLES Seventeen storey building collapses in Iranian capital Tehran leaving at least 75 dead including 45 firefighters

www.thesun.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

From Story in SUN



The steel skeleton of the building could be seen bending down to the ground as around 100 fire engines and dozens of ambulances surrounded the area.


That's impossible - no steel frame building has collapsed from fire....!!!



The 17-story tower was built in the early 1960s by Iranian Jewish businessman Habib Elghanian and named after his plastics manufacturing company.


Must have been Mossad /s


edit on 19-1-2017 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

ATS is slacking. Metabunk and Skeptics International already have well developed threads going.

High rise building destroyed by fire!
www.thesun.co.uk... ri

I guess conspiracists cannot post without their leaders telling them what the talking points are until they get their marching orders from vague and sensational YouTube videos?

Be vague, rely on people's misconceptions of explosives and physics perpetuated by Hollywood, use items out of context, and only rely on innuendo....... the truth movement mantra!
edit on 19-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Added link in



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Word must not have filtered down to Mommy's basement yet...



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: neutronflux

Word must not have filtered down to Mommy's basement yet...


The "truthers" are unable to argue with anyone who actually understands materials, construction, and fire. I'm guessing that the response will be "well, it didn't look like the towers and doesn't count because it didn't defy physics and common sense." If anyone challenges that statement, there will be a quick change of topic to "free fall," thermitic materials, quiet explosives, and other such things to support personal fantasies. In the past, when things got sticky about the towers, the geography would shift to Shanksville and the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I guess AE911TRUTH have stopped using the term thermite? Not sure if it's true?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pteridine

I guess AE911TRUTH have stopped using the term thermite? Not sure if it's true?


I heard that also. I'd guess that they finally figured out that Jones, et al. are frauds.

Worried that their "no steel framed building has ever collapsed..." arguments are now gone because of the Teheran Plasco building collapse due to fire, they are saying that they heard explosions and want the Irani's to investigate. www.prnewswire.com... 4148.html

They are also asking for cash to offset the cost of their press release: "Issuing this press release across the U.S., the U.K., and the Middle East — including in Iran — is costing AE911Truth $1,850. We encourage you to chip in toward covering this unanticipated expense, if you are so inclined. Thank you as always for your support."



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I find it hard to believe people are so easily confused by the sound of breaking steel vs a 140 db sound event from an explosive pressure wave? Amazing how video of detonating bombs captures the progressive pressure wave witch is missing at Plasco.

Not to mention if it was really explosives cutting steel, I would think the firefighters on the bucket ladders would have been shredded by shrapnel?

I also find it hard people don't understand falling floors and material displaces air. The displaced air pushes and fans any open flames or burning material.

The Tehran event is sad. But amazing to hear the steel snap. Drives home how quite the initiation of collapse for the WTC buildings were.

Then to watch the Plasco wall bow inward. Then the initiation of the floor collapse. The building fall in on itself. Then to watch vertical columns remain standing then slowly finish falling.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yours is an argument from credulousness. What's the difference?

I'm skeptical and you're gullible. Who is right?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yours is an argument from credulousness. What's the difference?

I'm skeptical and you're gullible. Who is right?



If you were skeptical, you would follow the evidence and not let your desire for a conspiracy cloud your reasoning. Mr Thumpy is likely a skeptic and you swallow the A&E line.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I am skeptical, and I make of habit of being extremely skeptical of the statements of known liars, such as government spokespersons.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join