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.

 

Someone please debunk or explain this, II

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How does it not follow to say terrorists were planning attacks similar to 9-11 so therefore it is likely they committed the attacks on 9-11?


There was no "likely." And too much is unusual about 9/11 to just chalk it up to another day in the life of a couple dozen terrorist Muslims, no further questions asked.


How about instead of dancing around the issue and attempting to dismiss what TJW is presented by attacking his method of argument, you actually attempt to answer the questions he asked?


Questions? He asks one question without trying to weasel his way out of supporting his own assertion: he asks what is wrong with the info he posted. But nothing is wrong with it. He's just not making a valid argument out of it.

You're helplessly dense if you think you're going to prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job just by pointing out that Islamic terrorism exists.

And knowing how likely you are to respond by trying just that, welcome back to ignore. (Just though I'd respond to you once on this thread btw.)




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The only reason I'm giving you hell for this is because you aren't posting anything but links, and I can have no idea what specific pieces of information you're referencing, or what backs them up, or if you even know what the hell you're talking about.

Dude, it's real simple.
Read the f'in links, and explain why you don't believe it. Period.


I don't see anything wrong with the info. Your argument is what's wrong. Non-sequitur isn't a logical argument, which has been explained to you a few times by now. The info you cite isn't proof that Islamo fascists carried out 9/11 by themselves.

1. What part of I'm not making an argument is that difficult to understand?
2. I'm not making an argument so all that non-sequitur crap is just nonsense and your excuse of dodging my questions.
3. My links follow the hijackers who carried out the attacks. Do you have any proof at all that the government did it?


There was no "likely." And too much is unusual about 9/11 to just chalk it up to another day in the life of a couple dozen terrorist Muslims, no further questions asked.

Is any terrorist attack "ususal?"
Is any attack that's been planned for years so it'll be the most spectacular attack ever going to be "usual?"



Questions? He asks one question without trying to weasel his way out of supporting his own assertion: he asks what is wrong with the info he posted. But nothing is wrong with it. He's just not making a valid argument out of it.

I'm not making an argument at ALL as I have stated many times. And if nothing is wrong with it, why don't you believe it?


You're helplessly dense if you think you're going to prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job just by pointing out that Islamic terrorism exists.

lol
There you go again. Proof you haven't read a thing I wrote.

Also, you're hopelessly dense if you think you're going to prove 9/11 was an inside job just by...well....saying it. Why should I take your word for it?
Show (with credible info) that Mohammed, all the hijackers, ect. were all government agents, or paid by the government or whatever you believe.


And knowing how likely you are to respond by trying just that, welcome back to ignore. (Just though I'd respond to you once on this thread btw.)

Typical of people who don't have a valid argument...ignore

Not unexpected from you at all


Anyone else who understands simple requests want to take a crack at it?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Alright, if you're making absolutely no argument at all, then here. I'll post this again:


Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't see anything wrong with the info.


And yet I still see nothing in your links to change my opinion that it was an inside job.

Since you're not using the information you posted to make any arguments, it should be fine to leave it at that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
bsbray11

Can we have some sources please? All I'm seeing right now is your personal take on what was originally posted but backed by nothing solid.

I think what was originally posted in the opening topic was a logical argument open to peer review, so review all of it and then put up sources to agree/deny it.

ThatsJustWeird

I know you've thought about this since posting the topic but the heading really needs to be changed. I'm also thinking that most people don't bother reading the actual links, which is taking away a lot from the information they're being given.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
I think what was originally posted in the opening topic was a logical argument open to peer review, so review all of it and then put up sources to agree/deny it.


But didn't you read what ThatsJustWeird posted?

He said he isn't making any arguments. Just posting information and asking what's wrong with it. What's wrong with agreeing with the information?


BPI

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
All the information posted by ThatsJustweird leads me to ask a question. With all that knowledge of all terrorists planning attacks, why did we hear these responses:


"THE PRESIDENT: No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse. Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never. But never did I dream we would have been under attack this way." -White House (09/16/01)


and let's not forget:


"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)


TJW, since you have proven these were lies, wouldnt that lead you to believe there was a reason for the lies. To me, it shows an attempt to cover something up.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BPI
TJW, since you have proven these were lies, wouldnt that lead you to believe there was a reason for the lies. To me, it shows an attempt to cover something up.

lol, that's not covering up anything, that's playing politics. All politicians do that to either cover themselves, shift blame, make things worse than they are, etc.



Anyway, still waiting for someone to explain the first couple of posts....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join