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: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
Did I or did I not answer why I chose to be a debunker and why the truth movement needs watch dogs?
Still like to here your views on Wood debunking WTC collapse theories? Was it justified for her to promote her theory while debunking others?
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
Did I or did I not answer why I chose to be a debunker and why the truth movement needs watch dogs?
Still like to here your views on Wood debunking WTC collapse theories? Was it justified for her to promote her theory while debunking others?
Good. Your first sentence is on topic, and appreciated. Thanks. (4/101)
That whole self-appointed watch-dog thing, is another thing in itself.
Oops: then you went off-topic again.
Perhaps a reminder is in order: this thread is about 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, and not their talking-points.
Please try to make that distinction, as most other posters here have been able to do.
If you need help staying on topic: please ask, and will help you.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
Did I or did I not answer why I chose to be a debunker and why the truth movement needs watch dogs?
Still like to here your views on Wood debunking WTC collapse theories? Was it justified for her to promote her theory while debunking others?
Good. Your first sentence is on topic, and appreciated. Thanks. (4/101)
That whole self-appointed watch-dog thing, is another thing in itself.
Oops: then you went off-topic again. (4/102)
Perhaps a reminder is in order: this thread is about 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, and not their talking-points.
Please try to make that distinction, as most other posters here have been able to do.
If you need help staying on topic: please ask, and will help you.
Here is the whole quote. Thanks for engaging in intellectual dishonesty and practicing false authority!
" a reply to: Nothin
And I told you why I pursue debunking. Because the weakness of conspiracists is chasing after that one magic smoking gun with not bases in rationality.
And you still ignore the debunking of Wood and Scientists for 9/11 truth.
What are their motives?
Are they justified?
Are they credible?
How do you feel about them calling out other theories and truth groups.
How do you feel about Scientists for 9/11 stating large jet strike deniers at the pentagon hurt the truth movement?
How do you feel about Scientists for 9/11 Truth stating Pilots for 9/11 Truth are spreading misinformation? "
In the area of 9/11 conspiracies it's the so-called 'debunkers' that keep the theories within the realm of reality.
Rather oddly, the conspiracy sites often contain some of the best debunking work available. Debunkers like to go there, as there are usually some easy pickings, but most of the debunking comes from the conspiracy theorists themselves. The more serious conspiracy theorists are wary of their topic being cast in a bad light by being associated with the more fringe topics. So if they see something that is obviously bunk (like, the WTC being destroyed by a directed energy weapon from space), then they are quite quick to debunk it. Since there's a wide range of participants on those forums, there is often a quite lively and extended discussion, where the salient points and real evidence will bubble to the surface. The true believers will remain convinced, but your strange bedfellow debunker will often do all the necessary work for you. Its also funny to be able to link to ATS as supporting evidence. Of course, the hard-core are convinced that ATS is COINTELPRO. Can't win 'em all.
Not much gets by the BS filter here at ATS.
You asked me a question, what do I call BS.
originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee
Which of those theories do you agree with?
I am not here to help you derail the OP.
You asked me a question, what do I call BS.
Show me where I have done that in the 911 forum.
We go after you when you claim your "opinions" are the facts.
originally posted by: Pilgrum
Just my POV:
To stabilise a system or process, negative feedback is applied to prevent the run-away effect that can occur with no feedback and definitely occurs with positive feedback. In the area of 9/11 conspiracies it's the so-called 'debunkers' that keep the theories within the realm of reality.
I'm not denying there are some valid conspiracy suggestions surrounding the event but, for me, they're not about the physical aspects like impacts, collapses. It's about the planning, financing and evident inaction/under-estimation that made it at all possible for me but that's just me and I'm sure to get some negative feedback to keep me in check .
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: D8Tee
Lol , thanks that was good. I think I'm an authority. Listen to you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Why in the name of god would I care about your off topic meme. i just want to hear some honest answers that relate to the op