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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 22
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

You need to stop the BS and lay out EVIDENCE and PROOF that my conclusions about the truth movement are wrong?

Do you have an example of something unjustly debunked.

Your just another conspiracists in sheeps clothing...

You are just another conspiracist playing games to ignore the real issues. Very sad and disingenuous.

If I am wrong, actually addressing the issues would be a good place to start....

"Do you have examples of NIST pseudoscience or not?

Do you have examples of falsehoods from the testimony and engineering documents submitted for the Aegis VS WTC 7 Owners lawsuit that support the NIST conclusions. Or not?

Do you have a logical argument to discredit outside vertical column inward bowing and collapse at the towers from contracting floor trusses.

Can you discredit the numerous papers by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proves a large jet hit the pentagon, and debunks missiles and bombs at the pentagon.

Do you disagree with Scientists for 9/11 truth that pentagon large jet deniers are hurting the truth movement?

Do you have a logical argument to discredit NIST peer reviewed research and journal published findings?

Can you discredit why I should not listen to first responders and civilian eyewitnesses over individuals here at ATS?

Can you cite where any demolitions shrapnel was recovered from the injured, human remains, cars, nearby buildings, the street, ruble at the WTC?

Can you create a credible argument for....
Thermite ceiling tiles at the WTC
Spray on Thermite at the WTC
Nukes in WTC 7 diesel tanks
Self destructing buildings
C-4 coated rebar
Fire extinguisher bombs
Fizzle no flash bombs
Missiles and holograms
Lasers and holograms
Drones
Dustification

Can you prove there were pictures of cut columns at the WTC by thermite and they were not cut by thermal lance during WTC cleanup. Or just another example of an internet hoax?

Like to continue to ignore the lies perpetrated by the truth movement that the WTC steel was not inspected? The lie WTC welds were not inspected? The lie WTC floor connections were not inspected? The lie there was no effort to recover evidence at the WTC?

The misinterpretation of one camera angle trying to say it is proof of an antenna falling into a WTC tower when all other camera footage/angles proves it was just leaning?"




posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

If you don't have PROOF something has incorrectly been debunked, then it's FACT. If it's fact, then conspiracists are pushing LIES. If you are not able to debate actual facts, here to ignore the inability of the truth movement to police itself, and choose to ignore the lies of the truth movement, you are part of the road block to credibility and truth.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

So yes. It does have lots to do with false claims of NIST pseudoscience.

Ignoring the peer reviewed research and published journal articles by NIST. With no valid arguments to discredit the findings.

Ignoring the technical testimony from the Aegis VS WTC 7 lawsuit.

Not understanding a nuclear bomb would have caused radiation sickness and left fission products.

The history of the truth movement trying to stay relevant with spray on thermite, thermite ceiling tiles, fizzle no flash bombs....

The truth movement completely ignoring legal action and not filling freedom of information requests.

Botched WTC dust experiments.


Does your stated motivation, include other aspects?
Do you hold other beliefs, that make you feel obliged to speak-out?
Do you feel like you have undeniable Truth, or some kind of Absolute Truth on your side?


I answered that already...

"I think I was quite clear when I stated from my conspiracy research I was outraged, with examples, by a "truth movement" that hides facts, perpetuates misconceptions, uses photos/quotes out of context, falls prey to internet hoaxes, the inability to police itself, and is biased in its research.

The false authority that the "truth movement" is more trustworthy than individual's accounts on 9/11.
"

What do you not understand



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Want to do this the hard way?

Let's start with Dr Wood and " Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11?"

Is this conspiracy legitimate? Wood does throw other conspiracies under the bus?

On the energy required for dustification? Let's use this for a stating point?

blogs.scientificamerican.com...


The human body is a bit more complicated than a glass of water, but it still vaporizes like one. And thanks to our spies spread across scientific organizations, we now have the energy required to turn a human into an atomic soup, to break all the atomic bonds in a body. According to the captured study, it takes around three gigajoules of death-ray to entirely vaporize a person—enough to completely melt 5,000 pounds of steel or simulate a lightning bolt. ZAP!



One tower was about 500,000 tons? Think of the energy to vaporize one tower?

Wood and dustification are debunked while Wood throws other conspiracies under the bus. All just to exploit 9/11 for book sales?

edit on 31-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




What does false allegations of NIST pseudoscience have to do with secrecy?
Did Ketcham say what NIST was keeping secret?


Ask NIST in case of doubt.
Withholding data is a clear sign for pseudoscience in action, wouldn't you agree?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Got examples of what is false in the published NIST reports?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What would you like to see released? Where is AE 9/11 Truth with freedom of information requests if there is anything for NIST to release?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Hey NF. Sad that you have gone back to personal insults.

Personally do not interpret this thread as being about the details of some 9/11 CTs, nor even about the validity, or non-validity of the NIST report, nor any aspects of any so-called "truth movement".
So am not interested in discussing them here.
There are many other 9/11 threads, where they can be discussed.

It is good to see that you stick to your motivations. Thanks for that.

Those motivations continue to inform the questions from the OP, and the associated behavior, and continued participation, are further affirming the objective reader's conclusions.

This thread has been very informative indeed.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you for that wonderful link.


It's a shame it will be ignored, as just demonstrated.

How can anyone have a debate with someone who doesnt read the given material.

It's like talking to a brick wall.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? It's really amazing. As soon anything is posted there's always a response saying it's faked data or faked photoshopped image. It's just weird. And then there are whole sites devoted to 9/11 debunking. You have to admit having a conspiracy theory is one thing. But being passionate about other peoples passion is just weird.


I agree.


This thread has been very informative and it has well demonstrated the motives of few 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.

The fact is, the OP is not about debunking 911, it is about the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.
edit on 31-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

If you don't have PROOF something has incorrectly been debunked, then it's FACT.


Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot?

Seems like a very convoluted, and frankly: confusing way to arrive at "facts".

Here is a link to help us all with our rational thinking, and logical deductions:
Clear-Thinking"



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




And that official conspiracy theory cannot be validated, it cannot be proved.

No it has been proven.
You refuse to accept the conclusions.
You would rather latch on to some faith based theory.


Your standards for proof appear to be much lower than my standards for proof. If anybody is practicing faith-based conclusions, it is the person who still believes the nonsensical and impossible official conspiracy theory.

I cannot accept any theory that is contradicted by the facts. Call me anal, but I just cannot buy into the official story, it is an impossible story for too many reasons.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? It's really amazing. As soon anything is posted there's always a response saying it's faked data or faked photoshopped image. It's just weird. And then there are whole sites devoted to 9/11 debunking. You have to admit having a conspiracy theory is one thing. But being passionate about other peoples passion is just weird.


I agree.


This thread has been very informative and it has well demonstrated the motives of few 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.

The fact is, the OP is not about debunking 911, it is about the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.


Yes: The predicted arrival, the continued participation, and the behavior of the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, has shown why some folks seem to be passionate about other people's passions.

We owe thanks to the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, for their voluntary participation in this thread.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Nope. You have been shown proof on many occasions and you wave your hand every time.


Really? What proof have you offered here? Please refresh my memory as to what you have proved.

Keep in mind that mere repetition of certain talking points is not proof of anything at all, except possibly the inherent weakness of the argument.

The NIST report is a case in example. It fails in so many ways, yet NIST and its apologists claim it to be true and accurate. It's not. It is pseudo-science if there ever was.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Not reading your propaganda. Can you state an actual conclusion and support it like an adult with facts and a constructed arguments?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

And here is the list you need to come to terms with.

And the inability of the truth movement to police its self.

a reply to: Nothin

You need to stop the BS and lay out EVIDENCE and PROOF that my conclusions about the truth movement are wrong?

Do you have an example of something unjustly debunked.

Your just another conspiracists in sheeps clothing...

You are just another conspiracist playing games to ignore the real issues. Very sad and disingenuous.

If I am wrong, actually addressing the issues would be a good place to start....

"Do you have examples of NIST pseudoscience or not?

Do you have examples of falsehoods from the testimony and engineering documents submitted for the Aegis VS WTC 7 Owners lawsuit that support the NIST conclusions. Or not?

Do you have a logical argument to discredit outside vertical column inward bowing and collapse at the towers from contracting floor trusses.

Can you discredit the numerous papers by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proves a large jet hit the pentagon, and debunks missiles and bombs at the pentagon.

Do you disagree with Scientists for 9/11 truth that pentagon large jet deniers are hurting the truth movement?

Do you have a logical argument to discredit NIST peer reviewed research and journal published findings?

Can you discredit why I should not listen to first responders and civilian eyewitnesses over individuals here at ATS?

Can you cite where any demolitions shrapnel was recovered from the injured, human remains, cars, nearby buildings, the street, ruble at the WTC?

Can you create a credible argument for....
Thermite ceiling tiles at the WTC
Spray on Thermite at the WTC
Nukes in WTC 7 diesel tanks
Self destructing buildings
C-4 coated rebar
Fire extinguisher bombs
Fizzle no flash bombs
Missiles and holograms
Lasers and holograms
Drones
Dustification

Can you prove there were pictures of cut columns at the WTC by thermite and they were not cut by thermal lance during WTC cleanup. Or just another example of an internet hoax?

Like to continue to ignore the lies perpetrated by the truth movement that the WTC steel was not inspected? The lie WTC welds were not inspected? The lie WTC floor connections were not inspected? The lie there was no effort to recover evidence at the WTC?

The misinterpretation of one camera angle trying to say it is proof of an antenna falling into a WTC tower when all other camera footage/angles proves it was just leaning?"



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Start again. What theory has been unjustly debunked?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You are completely off topic.

The fact is, the OP is not about debunking 911, it is about the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.

Stop derailing the given topic.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

What theory has been unjustly debunked?

Fizzle no flash bombs?
Dustification?
Thermite ceiling tiles?
Spray on thermite?
The false theory of WCT thermite initiated core collapse by using misinterpreted camera footage.
Nuke bombs?
Fire extinguisher bombs?
Self destructing buildings?
Missiles and Holograms?
Laser and Holograms?


You will seem more credible and genuine when you start calling out the lies of the truth movement. Not being obviously desperate to embrace any "smoking gun" presented on YouTube.

edit on 31-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fix d this and that



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

Want to do this the hard way?

Let's start with Dr Wood and " Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11?"

Is this conspiracy legitimate? Wood does throw other conspiracies under the bus?

On the energy required for dustification? Let's use this for a stating point?

blogs.scientificamerican.com...


The human body is a bit more complicated than a glass of water, but it still vaporizes like one. And thanks to our spies spread across scientific organizations, we now have the energy required to turn a human into an atomic soup, to break all the atomic bonds in a body. According to the captured study, it takes around three gigajoules of death-ray to entirely vaporize a person—enough to completely melt 5,000 pounds of steel or simulate a lightning bolt. ZAP!



One tower was about 500,000 tons? Think of the energy to vaporize one tower?

Wood and dustification are debunked while Wood throws other conspiracies under the bus. All just to exploit 9/11 for book sales?


This was offered as a starting point to facilitate a common idea for debate. And it was completely ignored.

You that pretend to be here for debate are here to push a narrative and practice intellectual dishonesty. While completely ignoring the lies and exploitation of 9/11 by the truth movement. Pitiful that you have no desire to police or hold your movement to credibility.
edit on 31-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that




top topics



 
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join