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: 26
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

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.




posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You don't think one WTC conspiracy collapse theory is total BS. And you cannot state why. So every WTC conspiracy collapse theory is credible.

You cannot state which WTC conspiracy collapse theory is the most credible and why. The least credible. See, everyone practices debunking. To deny so is to lie. Why this thread is BS.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

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.


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? "

edit on 31-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes I think I can see what's wrong. It's you derailing this thread again. Sorry I'm not here to play your games. I just want to hear your opinion in regards to the op



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Thenail

No one of you can debunk a simple flat earth meme...

edit on 31-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

An examination of the website of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth reveals something else that is very interesting—a Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) broadcast promoting the theory. They seem proud that Moscow is signaling approval of their efforts.

This is not new. Like Al Jazeera, Russia Today television has seized on the 9/11 “truth” movement in the past, even running a series by one of its own “reporters” about the attacks being an “inside job” by certain unnamed officials.

The Kremlin and Arab propagandists must be laughing out loud at the thought that some Americans actually believe the U.S. government engineered an attack on itself on 9/11. They understand that the controversy distracts from the need to identify and defeat America’s real enemies…

Along with Gage cozying up to The Nation of Islam, all the more reasons to debunk easily debunked theories.
edit on 31-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
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
.
edit on 31/5/2017 by Pilgrum because: typo



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

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? "


Oops: you've accidentally gone back to insults, and drifting off-topic again!!

Can anything be done to help you stay on topic?
Can we help you to distinguish, between what may be on-topic, vs. what is generally considered as drift?
Would you like someone to help you, to understand what the basic level of the OP is, as opposed to what going beyond the scope of the OP, (into details), feels like?

If you need help: please just ask.

edit on 31-5-2017 by Nothin because: sp



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
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



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum


In the area of 9/11 conspiracies it's the so-called 'debunkers' that keep the theories within the realm of reality.


Absolutely true.


I only see the 911 conspiracy debunkers, keeping the false narrative alive by ridiculing it daily.

It is to reaffirm every day, all day long, as much as possible. It is a psychological, condescending form of ridicule to throw in anyone face that doesnt support the OS narratives, as we see well demonstrated in this thread.

I am sure the ATS casual readers see this.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Not much gets by the BS filter here at ATS.

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.


edit on 31-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Not much gets by the BS filter here at ATS.


Yep, that depends what you call BS.

How many conspiracy theories in the last month, or even in a year made a thread claiming space beams brought down the WTC? None!

It is not debunking, it is a technique used to silence the opposition, in a form of ridiculing. Most conspiracy theories do not believe in the garbage that few throw out daily in these 911 threads, to make it an important reminder that all conspiracy theorist cannot be trusted.






edit on 31-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No, but I've seen claims of:

9/11 was a US government false flag operation
No plane hit the Pentagon
Remote controlled planes and controlled demolition at WTC
Osama Bin Laden a fabrication of US intelligence
No film footage of the Pentagon explosion exists
Eyewitness testimonies of the Pentagon crash are suspicious
Photos offer no evidence of the debris typical of an airplane crash
A missile hit the pentagon
A Russian missile hit the pentagon
Black smoke indicates a died down fire
Falling into own footprint
The tops of the towers should have toppled over
Everything has to fail simultaneously
The core should have been left standing
Design loads, the towers should have been able to support the weight
Voice simulation used to fake the phone calls
The low passenger count on each flight is suspicious
Thermite
Nano Thermite
Men in Orange Jail Jumpsuits
Mini Nukes
Holographic Planes
Fake flight recorder data
Hijackers not able to fly
Planes couldn't handle the forces, wings would have fallen off
Faked lamp post damage
Pyroclastic clouds that combusted vehicles
Vanishing engine blocks
Disappearing door handles


Which of those theories do you agree with?



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



Which of those theories do you agree with?


I am not here to help you derail the OP.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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.

I answered you.

Can you not have the same decency and answer me back the exact same question?
Is it too much to ask of you to play by the same rules you set for others?

What do you call BS out of the list I presented.
edit on 31-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


You asked me a question, what do I call BS.


Yes, some have made some of the comment that you claim, including me. However most of those claims that you enjoy taking out of context are only my "opinions." as many other ATS member that you disagree with, also have said, it was their "opinion".

You give your "opinions" on here every day to what you believe about 911, or conspiracy theorist, But do we go after you for having an "opinion"? No

We go after you when you claim your "opinions" are the facts.

edit on 1-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




We go after you when you claim your "opinions" are the facts.

Show me where I have done that in the 911 forum.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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
.


Well hello there Pilgrum! (Sorry, couldn't resist saying it).

Would it correct to interpret that as: (the 9/11 conspiracy debate), many things in this reality, can be viewed in energy terms, and most types of energy we can understand, tend towards the median, whereas more distinctly positive or negative energies, will always attract their opposite?
As in an inherent to Nature, control-loop?
But perhaps not to return them to what is necessarily reality, but more towards what is the median of what seems to be standard current normalcy?

Then: You state that while some possibilities of conspiracy exist in the events of 9/11; that you think the meat-and-potatoes of it lies in the possible organization of it, and the perceived slow reaction to it. Correct?

Thanks for bringing a distinctly different flavor to the table.

So while folks stay focused on small details, they lose focus of the bigger picture, and other medium details in other branches of the larger picture?

What does that say: about the 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, and their insistent efforts to get this thread into small details?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   

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


Can't debunk a flat earth meme.

Noted.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You suffered the consequences of debunking.
What do you think?

How does it feel to be shown that Steve Jone's peer reviewed paper was fraudulent?
When was the last time you cited Steven Jones thermite paper as evidence of CD?

How did it feel when it was driven home
NIST's research was peer reviewed and journal published.
When was the last time you used the false claim NIST's WTC conclusions were not based on peer reviewed research?

How did it feel that people/engineers gave testimony from both sides of the Aegis VS WTC 7 Owners lawsuit that uphold NIST's conclusions?

See! If it wasn't for debunking, you would still be using false talking points. Are you not a much happier person knowing the truth, and people keep you lot in check.

How is that 15 years of desperate and irrational searching for the magic smoking gun working for you all?


edit on 1-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added the old lawsuit

edit on 1-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Removed a a



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join