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.

 

Debunking the Truthers.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Well I think the most compelling piece of evidence is that Dylan Avery first wrote his documentary as a fictional movie


This is the most compelling piece of evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

Do you know what logic or reason are?




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Lizzie, with all due respect, how would YOU know what was out of proportion and what wasn't? You seem to get all your information from reading CT and debunking sites?

How can you even comment on conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy when you've barely even heard of Able Danger. Maybe you should do some real, independent research before passing judgement on others.

And by independent research, I mean from initial sources, not from web sites that cite other sources.

(snip)


I "completely agree" and "you say it much better than I can". Lizzie, I see your 9/11 posts in a lot of threads and they all have the same kind of staunch tone about your thoughts on 9/11. More and more you seem to be close-minded about complicity and prefer to point out how 9/11 debunker's portray the truther's when the in fact the truther's aren't any better at the mud slinging and name calling.

You stated you wouldn't even look at Jack Tripper's video basically because they didn't interview people who had other observations, I guess you stick to the "Screw" 9/11 films with the statements that don't contradict the official story, don't ya? Not as pretentious as CameronFox but you're getting there. I'll stop here since nick's post is kinda long and pretty much sums up what I would've said. This had to be stated before you became too much a nuisance ending up on a lot of ignore lists, so I'll happy take a reprimand for helping point these things out to you.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by BrokenVisage]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by BrokenVisage]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by lizziex3
Well I think the most compelling piece of evidence is that Dylan Avery first wrote his documentary as a fictional movie


This is the most compelling piece of evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

Do you know what logic or reason are?


I already responded to this and I am now going to delete that post because that is not what I ment.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I watched about a minute in a half of Jack Trippers ridiculous video. I stopped watching because it was ridiculous. As I stated in my original post I did not make this so i could get flamed. I made it so people who wanted to resources could have them. I have done just as much if not more so research on this topic as the Truthers have. But unlike them I look at BOTH sides of the story. and theories created by some college student that have absolutely no proof just don't make sense to me. If that makes me closed minded then I guess i'm closed minded. I am now going to stop debating and just leave the links in my first post for people that want them.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by lizziex3]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
I already responded to this and I am now going to delete that post because that is not what I ment.


But do you at least understand that the truth behind what happened on 9/11 is not dependent on what ANYONE says it is? That it can be defined objectively?

That means no matter what Dylan Avery or anyone else says happened, SOMETHING happened irregardless, and that 'something' is not necessarily what the federal government says even if Avery talks out of his ass all day. If you look just as critically at the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST or FEMA reports you'll see the same bullcrap, just dressed more nicely.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I do understand that. Which is why I try to look at the evidence. I have not read all of the 911 commision and I am sure it does have tons of BS in it. I do not fully believe the official story either, just the basic facts that can be proven. things like missles and bombs just can't be proven.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
I have done just as much if not more so research on this topic as the Truthers have.


How do you know what research other people have done?

I asked you to comment on Able Danger, and you replied:

"I have not read much into Able Danger, but I have heard things about it. I will try to find a link that talks about the Able Danger subject. At the moment I cannot find anything but I will keep looking as I know i've seen something somewhere."

Try to find a link that talks about Able Danger? This is exactly what I was referring to. You're critical of "Truthers" and yet the extent of your research on anything is looking up links and parroting what somebody else thinks?

Here... this took about .2 seconds to find on google:




This will get you started. Then you might want to research Curt Weldon, the congressman who was trying to expose Able Danger, and who funded the candidate that beat Weldon in the last election. This will tie in nicely with the cover-up of the Flight 800 investigation.



If that makes me closed minded then I guess i'm closed minded. I am now going to stop debating and just leave the links in my first post for people that want them.


I think it's more hypocritical and lazy than close minded to post blanket criticisms of other people, complete with the perfunctory "don't flame me" disclaimer, while you yourself don't seem to bring much to the table in the way of research or insights.

Just my 2 cents... hope you don't take this as flaming you.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Well here's the thing. You may not be able to prove there were bombs in the WTC, for example, but you can prove that there was additional energy in the system, whereas "the system" is all of the physical interactions that are taking place as the buildings collapse, and the energy we're assuming to have already been there is the potential energy of the upper block of floors being converted to kinetic energy as it begins to move.

And the above has been proven: there was energy above and beyond the mechanisms defined by any investigation thus far (though not many mechanisms were defined in detail, if any at all
). There was not enough potential energy to account for all of the destruction observed in the falling mass itself, including frictional forces from steel smashing into itself, concrete being pulverized, huge sections of steel being ejected laterally, the immense heat that was immediately present at Ground Zero, etc. Estimations of all the energy that would be needed exceed what would have been available even when you only consider the frictional forces; it's not very close. Some people have offered inaccurate mathematical models, and these have been addressed, and can be addressed here; it comes down to really basic stuff that we can all agree upon in the end.


Here's an example of the kind of figures you can come up with:


energy, KWH source or sink
+ 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
- 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
ignoring water vaporization
- 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
- 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
- 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
- 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
- 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)


911research.wtc7.net...

The link above explains where each of those figures came from. They're estimations only, of course (you cannot reasonably expect exact calculations, and all engineers know this -- thus the concept of significant digits or "sig figs" -- what equates to small decimal places are practically negligible in all fields of engineering) but they're not THAT off, as you can see for yourself how large the difference is, and visit the page to see what assumptions were made.


Where the energy came from is up in the air, of course. But then you start looking at things like how WTC1 began falling straight down as if all the columns failed simultaneously. I'm not going to tell you how that's accomplished but I'm sure you realize the implication there.


I have looked at the other side, plenty. I encourage you to look at the NIST report, or at least some summary of their conclusions. I also encourage you to look at FEMA and all other technical reports that you can find. Then try to reconcile the two. You'll quickly realize how much is missing from the official reports.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
I do not believe the government is telling us the whole truth. [...] I believe it was done by Al-queda/OBL. with or without our own governments OK I am not sure. [...] oh, and i do believe that the US hasn't cought Bin Laden because they don't need him right now.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by lizziex3]


That sounds quite reasonable, but not a good position to debunk "truthers" from. In fact it sounds like a truther position. We don't have the truth, the gov't may have okayed it, surely you can see who benefitted most, no need to catch the perp when he's out there justifying interventions.

We're only a few degrees off from one another, if that. Your skepticism is a much handier tool in the search for truth than all of the IPS/LC "smoking guns" combined. And good work helping sink Loose Change. There are a few good points in it, some of their claims aren't as sure if you listen closely, but it's FAR from fair, balanced, accurate, or reasonable, and the Truth movement thanks you.

I think most here agree. I also nod to Talisman's hint to check out Jim Hoffman - 911 research.wtc7.net and other good sources. Personally I'm less sure of NY demolitions than hoffman, but at least he makes a more solid case and makes a point of rejecting bad evidence. He did a good point-by-point on Loose Change here: 911research.wtc7.net...

Some get on here debunking truthers for their own psychological reasons - they need to be comforted by the fact that they've got the truth and can slay the wierdos with the troubling questions. I was thinking maybe you're one of those, and I was just gonna say "consider me de-bunked if it helps you feel better." But you seem to require no such patronizing - your mind is not set in stone one way or the other. That's a good sign that we may pull through this insanity okay.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Well I see this question was already answered in your thread, and it seems to me that you're not going to believe any other explaination than the one you already believe.

Your story does the same thing. You nitpick until theres one tiny thing that doesn't quite make sense, and then blow it out of porportion.


The question wasn't about the planes impact causing the tilt, it obviously didn't as the impact was an hour before the tilt happened. No, the question is how did the rotation and tilt stop and become a vertical collapse? That act defied 2 laws of physics, as covered in my thread.

If you can give me an 'explaination' (sic) that explains the physics problem then I'll shut up about it, but so far no one has come up with anything.

So no the question was NOT answered. I have yet to see an official explanation as to how the South Tower defied physics.

It's not one tiny thing, in fact it's a huge thing. Do you not wonder why it isn't mentioned in the official documentation? Because there is no answer that will fit the official story, so it's ignored. It's not nit-picking, you guys just get frustrated because you know you can't give an answer within the confines of the official story. Anything that puts it into question is ignored.

Again this PROVES that you official story believers have NO CLUE unless it is in the NIST report or some other official government source. If you guys were really looking for the truth, why are you ignoring such an important question? Because you don't care about the truth do you?
If you were really doing your own independent research, you would be questioning it too.

WHITEWASH!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Here is a few more items of interest to add to the CT side:

* In the very first reports, made on live TV at the time, were references to "explosions" around the WTC, minutes before the collapses. Hours after the attacks, and any mention of explosions is suppressed.

* Archived footage of said explosions recorded from multiple angles

* Larry Silverstein is on record as saying that they decided to "pulkl" the building. Together with the way it collapsed and expert testimony from demolition experts saying it was a demolition, and highlighting effects of demo works, very strongly suggest a demolition. Without rebuilding the building verbatim and demolishing it again, you can't get any closer to proof than that.

* Seismic records of two very large explosions of Magnitudes 2.1 and 2.3 (WTC2 and WTC1 respectively), that occurred AT the time of the collapses in both instances. Based upon the experiences of the lab in question that took the recordings, the size of the explosions was very large. Large enough to be a demo in the basement?

* Everyone saw two aircraft hit the WTC. It was in plain sight and couldn't be hidden easily, so this part is straight-forward.

* Not many people hang around government offices, and especially offices like the Pentagon for various reasons. Interesting then that the only bits of real evidence (i.e. multi-angle CCTV shots of whatever hit the Pentagon) are all confiscated by the FBI just *minutes* later, and staff threatened if they told anyone about what they saw. The only footage released was by the Pentagon, and was 5 frames of useless footage. The only frame with anything in it is conveniently obliterated by a concrete post. What little you can see is insufficient evidence of anything. What few eye-witnesses there were, were all contradicting each other.

* A part from an engine supposedly found in the wreckage at the Pentagon is too small to be from a 757, as verified by a Rolls-Royce engineer.

* Flight 93 crashed in the countryside. The least number of witnesses were available of any of the crashes. The most conflicting reports also come from this crash. What little evidence there is, makes no sense, and is inconsistent with past accidents of similar nature. Suggestions of a shoot down yet no witnesses to explosions or seeing fighter jets. The only photograph taken from the ground has been well and truely debunked as a fake, despite FBI testimony that it is a legit photo (evidence in itself of a cover-up). Other photos of the crash site show little, except lots of inconsistencies. They generally raise far more questions than they answer.

* WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were the only buildings of their type to ever collapse due to fire (based on the cause in the official report). They all collapsed on the same day, under the same political circumstances. Coincidence?

* The debris from the WTCs were removed just hours after the collapse, and is the first time evidence has been removed from a crime scene in full view of the world with no prosecutions being sought by anyone.

Have I missed any other salient points? The whole report of what happened on 9/11 (and indeed, after it) is dubious, and the official report doesn't add up.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
But of course there are all kinds of us out here. To debunk us all would take at least a dozen different approaches. Some people on both sides, unfortunatley, just can't be reached...



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
I've heard this argument over and over, and it strikes me as totally disingenuous. How can anybody show *proof* like you suggest if the government confiscated all the evidence??

Which argument? The "Show me one iota of tangible evidence". That is not an argument. It is a rational response to a proposal. Sorry, but grandiose claims require grandiose evidence. The onus is upon you to provide it.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I would recomend that you CT'st (the CT'st for the Government) be a little better prepared. Seems Nick here is making you look a bit foolish and grasping at straws.

Good work Nick.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Which argument? The "Show me one iota of tangible evidence". That is not an argument. It is a rational response to a proposal. Sorry, but grandiose claims require grandiose evidence. The onus is upon you to provide it.



Grandiose claims require grandiose evidence.... ok... I'll give it a try...

An islamic mad-man named Osama bin Laden, having nothing to gain except feeding his ego, talked 19 young arab men into moving to the United States and coordinating the similtaneous hijacking of 4 separate commercial airliners.

This plan included flying two of the airliners through Washington D.C. air space without having to worry about being taken out by any of the dozens of fighters based around the Washington area...

Hmmm... give me a sec.... I'm sure I'll be able to find some grandiose evidence for this grandiose claim....

Ooops! Sorry! My bad! That was the "official" grandiose claim!


Ok, try to understand this.

The government confiscated and has kept from the public almost all of the crucial evidence that would explain what happened on 9/11. In fact, the 9/11 Commission wasn't even allowed to talk directly to the FBI agents who claimed the perp was bin Laden. FEMA and the NIST were prevented from examing the steel from WTCs. The FBI is still holding videos from the Pentagon.

In my opinion, it's bordering on idiotic to even suggest that anybody who has concluded that the official story is bogus provide evidence when the government controls all the evidence. Even the voice recording of the last 30 minutes of Flight 93 hasn't been made public. Why?

Let's put it another way...

The government has control of ALL of the evidence, yet they haven't been able to put on a convinving case about much of what happened on 9/11.


Oh yeah... and if want evidence that at least part of the official story is a fraud, check out the thread on the Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume that allegedly came from the Flight 93 crash. McClatchey's photo shows a 2300 foot wide smoke plume that nobody else described or captured on film. And yes, the FBI backed McClatchey by saying her photo was legit. It's not.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
So this, in a nutshell, is our whole argument Nick:

Nick: 911 was an inside job
Reality: Prove it.
Nick: I can't. The government has all of the evidence.
Reality: So you can't prove it?
Nick: You're a borderline idiot to ask me for proof.

So, in reality, all you can provide is an opinion, not evidence or proof...because the government has it. Any anyone who questions you is "bordering on idiotic"?

Am I correct?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by nick7261
I've heard this argument over and over, and it strikes me as totally disingenuous. How can anybody show *proof* like you suggest if the government confiscated all the evidence??

Which argument? The "Show me one iota of tangible evidence". That is not an argument. It is a rational response to a proposal. Sorry, but grandiose claims require grandiose evidence. The onus is upon you to provide it.


Grandiose evidence: Just think back to September 2000. Remember anything grandiose happening in the American public mind? any sort of changes that might... have been perceived as, welll , useful.... the certain people? Sinking popularity - stolen election - arroggant attitude - Enron. No war. No foreign policy. A divided nation. Pink Floyd: "kicking around on a piece of ground in your hometown, waiting for someone or something to show you the way."
Then 9/11. By sheer chance, this al Qaeda attack, planned by people who ask for gov't loans to fund their project and leave Korans and receipts for anthrax medicine lying around in carry -on luggage next to their unpaid speeding tickets and crack pipes. Undetected they slip onto planes amid a slew of incidental air-based war games and first-day rookies at all relevant registers, all the planes get confused, fighters get sent the wrong way, never get told anything, no auth. to fire, radar gaps, communications breakdown confusion and chaos. There are even questions, serious ones, about the laws of physics and architecture being stood-down, but even without that, that's a hell of a lot of oddities all at once and then...
United We Stand. My Fellow Amercans, Let's Roll. 90% approval. And it keeps rolling. A runaway train. all the way up to Iraq. Just remember what a U-turn this was. Detentions. remember the arab round-ups? guantanamo, PATRIOT ACT> I don't mean to be an alrmist-type, but these are llegitimate worries and much of it was written up before 9/11.
Now ith circumstantial evidence like this - MOTIVE - MEANS - OPPORTUNITY - I mean think aout it. We're debunked because some psyops A-holes kicked some gullible kids along into putting out Loose Change?
And we're to think "oh it's some pissed off Muslims with incredible reach, timing, and continued elusiveness, that's all. They thought they could get us when we were all divided and in a funk and glutted with bureaucracy. Now we just crank up the Tobykeith, put on our brightest non-running colors and keep them terrorist snakes on the slither. And you guys are just delusional."

Reality does indeed hurt, and I don't blame anyone for trying to avoid it. But there's better places for that. You can't come in here and expect a free ride. But thank you for coming, come again!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I plead to all, get proof. All you are doing is conjecturing.

Do you believe our esteemed fellow poster Nick that ALL of the evidence is locked away in some Raiders of the Lost Ark type secret warehouse? Not one shred exists? Are you sure of that?


***What about participants? Hmm? Surely people remotely controlled those planes. Talked to their spouses about it, their buddies in the service…

***Speaking of planes, they don’t just materialize from space. They’re built. And building them costs money. Someplace there must be order forms from Boeing.

***Someone fired that cruise missile…..from a launching platform of some kind. Real flesh and blood people. People that aren’t in some box in a warehouse.

***Somewhere there are requisition forms for Tomahawks, and item and inventory logs. Losing a tomahawk leaves a paper trail, and its all public record.

***I don’t know how to rig a building the size of the WTC for demolition, do you? The list of people who can collapse not one building that size, but 2, into their own footprint cannot be that long. There may be 20 people in the world who can successfully do it. Who are they? Where were they? Did they travel? Will they provide credit card bill summaries to prove that they were elsewhere on the week leading up to 911?

***Who were the pilots who shot down flight 93? Where are they? Do they drink in excess?

***If they didn’t shoot it down, where are the passengers? Locked away? They need care, that takes people to do it. And food and water, which leave a paper trail. Were they killed? By whom? Who are the killers and can they lead you to the bodies?


I could go on and on and on. But I won’t continue to do your job for you. Go. Find evidence. Find proof. It is out there, you’re just not looking.

My opinion? (A general opinion and not necessarily indicative of anyone in particular) Its soooooo easy to say “OMG Bush killed those people for oil!!!” over the internet, and not actually DO anything, or provide anything. Conspiracy theorists are getting lazy, all they want to do is type, not actually prove anything. Its all about the E-ego, not the actual fact.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Reality does indeed hurt

It does hurt, hence the name. To sooth your anguish, read my post above, it'll lighten that painful burden of reality and show you the light, that you too can actually get up, get out, and start proving something instead of merely slinging opinions around on the internet.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
So this, in a nutshell, is our whole argument Nick:

Nick: 911 was an inside job
Reality: Prove it.
Nick: I can't. The government has all of the evidence.
Reality: So you can't prove it?
Nick: You're a borderline idiot to ask me for proof.

So, in reality, all you can provide is an opinion, not evidence or proof...because the government has it. Any anyone who questions you is "bordering on idiotic"?

Am I correct?



That's pretty close to correct. Not exactly, but close.

First, I didn't say it was an inside job.

Second, I didn't say that anybody that questions me is "bordering on idiotic."


Let me clarify...


The government declared that it was *NOT* in any way an inside job, outside job, or any other job, except one pulled of by bin Laden, without presenting any solid evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the government refuses to release evidence that could factually prove, or disprove, their claims.

And yes, it is idiotic to ask me to provide the aforementioned evidence because I don't have it.

Oh... what would be really cool to have is the all the data from the Able Danger operation that the DoD ordered destroyed, but I guess nobody will ever see that. Well at least I can read the 9/11 Commission Report where they interviewed the guys from Able Danger. What? They didn't interview them? My bad...

Then I'd love to see what docs Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks or his pants or wherever he stashed them, but since they were cut up with scissors I guess I can't see those either.

I know! Just get me the steel beams from WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to examine. That would be useful evidence to put to rest once and for all the whole debate about CD. Oops.... too late. They were cut up into little pieces just like the papers Berger stole.

Or maybe we could interview the guy at the FAA who ordered the ATC tower in Pittsburgh evacuated, then called the military and told them that the controllers lost track of Flight 93 over Pittsburgh.

I know! How about if we had the flight data recorders from the 4 planes! That would tell us something. What? They couldn't find them all?



Oh well... I guess we'll just have to take Uncle Sam's word for it about what happened on 9/11, and who did it, even if they don't have "grandiose evidence" to back up their claims.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join