Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

page: 18
100
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

I believe there are some posters who would like the discussion to come to an end.



my thoughts exactly, thats why i posted earlier that the trolls and shills win.....that's ok, i'll turn my site into a 9/11 information forum where debunkers and shills won't be allowed, just honest people trying to share information that is conducive to gaining more info on 9/11 discussions....i've read that skepticoverlord has said that it is the truthers that have been causing the trouble, but i've been watching these threads and i'm seeing an immense amount of OSers resorting to personal attacks when they can't change someone's mind or they can't debunk someone's post I have been victim of this many times...in fact, so many of us have actually posted, saying that if these guys don't believe it, then why are they even bothering coming to these threads to cause trouble and just call us a bunch of crazy nutters?




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 
Why are people labeled "truthers" and "debunkers"? I'm trying to learn the truth. If a flawed conclusion is debunked along the way, that's a step closer to the truth.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Greenblaz
 


I hate to say it but I see a bias here against the "truthers".


You hit it on the nail;
there is a small group who has done absolutely nothing to contribute to the 911 forums. The minute a Truther presents a good thread containing credible sources this group of players who support the OS of 911 play their tag team, smear campaign against the messengers and if you notice they mostly never post any sources, and if they do I see many of them using “911 Myths” as their sources, a website that strictly supports the lies of the OS of 911. It is either a game with this lot, or I have to believe some of these long time members who have a reputation of derailing only the 911 threads are paid to do so in my opinion.
edit on 3-9-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by patternfinder
 
Why are people labeled "truthers" and "debunkers"? I'm trying to learn the truth. If a flawed conclusion is debunked along the way, that's a step closer to the truth.


I don't know, i haven't heard anyone call anyone a debunker.....i just know that when i see something posted about aliens or ufos or whatever, even if i don't believe in it, i don't just go to the threads and try to derail them or call them nuts....i leave them alone because i have no reasons to mess with them and their beliefs are not hurting me.....and i'm not saying that debunking is bad, it's when an OSer comes into the thread and starts quoting the official story, which none of us truthers believe, and pass them as facts, none of us truthers see any progress in that...that is usually what starts the heated arguments.....when you present a case that has factual evidence and formulas and all the bells and whistles and an OSer comes on and just posts "that's wrong" or "you're a looney tune, physics doesn't work that way" it becomes monotonous to say the least...that isn't debunking, that is just plain ole attacking........



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
a Truther presents a good thread containing credible sources this group of players who support the OS of 911 play their tag team, smear campaign against the messengers
I'm not a Truther. I just have questions. However, I have noticed people becoming hostile toward me and others who are asking questions. I've also noticed people telling me and others that there is no use asking questions as if they want us to stop. This activity has made me suspicious.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
i'll turn my site into a 9/11 information forum where debunkers and shills won't be allowed


Originally posted by patternfinder
i haven't heard anyone call anyone a debunker.

If you were referring to anyone besides yourself, perhaps it's only you who has been using that term in the forum. I haven't checked.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by impressme
a Truther presents a good thread containing credible sources this group of players who support the OS of 911 play their tag team, smear campaign against the messengers
I'm not a Truther. I just have questions. However, I have noticed people becoming hostile toward me and others who are asking questions. I've also noticed people telling me and others that there is no use asking questions as if they want us to stop. This activity has made me suspicious.



i think everyone is on different levels in their journey to find truth, and some just aren't even on the journey any longer and it makes it hard to communicate with each other...there are so many facets to this 9/11 story and it's hard to keep up....i don't think that asking questions is bad, but if it is a question that is intended to derail a topic to keep a incongruent conversation about the topic, then that's not good......



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 

I completely agree with you I have encounter this problem every time I post in a 911 threads. There is a group of people who have been long time members who only post in the 911 threads; attacking is what they do, it’s a job for them. I would like to know what kind of person would sell their country out to stop the truth from being discussed.
edit on 3-9-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
if it is a question that is intended to derail a topic to keep a incongruent conversation about the topic, then that's not good......
Those aren't the questions I'm referring to.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by gentledissident
 

I completely agree with you I have encounter this problem every time I post in a 911 threads. There is a group of people who have been long time members who only post in the 911 threads; attacking is what they do, it’s a job for them. I would like to know what kind of person would sell their country out to stop the truth from being discussed.
edit on 3-9-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



they might not be from your country...this is an international forum....people of all walks of life are on here...



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
oops a typo, usually i refer to them as OSers......

Typographical Error

A typographical error (often shortened to typo) is a mistake made in, originally, the manual type-setting (typography) of printed material, or more recently, the typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger,[1] but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors.

Read more at the link.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I have a question.

What are you called if you think the official story has been edited(or used for political reasons) but it still happened along the same lines? Maybe even "let" "it" slip by the cracks for political gain.

I see alot of people bringing in the NIST report and other reports with speculative data and then running on a rampage saying they are lying. There is something wrong with that.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
The minute a Truther presents a good thread containing credible sources


Except that does not happen - their "sources" are just 9/11 conspiracy sites, where they post the same non scientific claims, ignoring the actual facts. And when it is pointed out to them that they have ignored the facts, they post that the person pointing that out is a shill, or government agent. They then wait a while then repeat the same false claim.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
When I first came to ATS I spent all my time in the 9/11 forums, all my posts and threads where put in there. Once I went through that process, and had beat every issue to death, I formed my opinion and branched out into other areas of ATS. Why deny new people a similar process, they investigate 9/11, participate, form an opinion and move on within ATS. 9/11 is a very important gateway for ATS to gain new members
edit on 3-9-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by felonius
Does this mean we cant blame the govt?

One of the most stupid questions in this thread. Are you being purposefully obtuse and disruptive?


Excuse me?

I know your the Uber mod and all but that remark is just damn rude. I've never been anything but respectful to you.

Having a bad day? Pissed at all of us? Get over it or find another job.

What i posted.


Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Does this mean we cant blame the govt?

If there is a new perp learned of, they will be attacked with theory and hypothesis (regardless of being a truther or not, thats really all we have).

What constitutes "attacks" and what level?

This sounds good. Get rid of the trolls and disinfo. Heated debates are fun!

Ad hominem attacks are the last bastion of a weak argument.


I want to know what all the parameters are. PERIOD. Some mods are so damned twitchy its hard to say. This is on ANY subject.

The only "attacks" that should be allowed are with (as I said) theory and hypothesis. Its all we have! Anything else is just pointless. How the hell can ANYONE get to the truth with attacks on each other personally?

Clarify WHAT an attack would be? Would either of my "weapons" be considered as such?


With respect,
edit on 3/9/11 by felonius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



Except that does not happen - their "sources" are just 9/11 conspiracy sites, where they post the same non scientific claims, ignoring the actual facts. And when it is pointed out to them that they have ignored the facts, they post that the person pointing that out is a shill, or government agent. They then wait a while then repeat the same false claim.


Wrong, I have to disagree with your statement, because I stand by my many sources when I use science to back my claims and show the sources most debunkers have to walk away or attack the messenger because they cannot debunk the science. Fact is there are plenty of credible websites that really do stick to the facts and science that debunk the OS of 911. Honest Truthers do not ignore the facts, so you are sadly mistaken and don’t lump all Truthers in one boat as if everyone who dares speak out or ask questions screams government shills.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ok so ,

Why smart people defend bad ideas

By Scott Berkun, April 2005


Simply because they cannot be proven wrong, does not make them right.





the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider.

The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring.





If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas.





People worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time and apply their intelligence in ways that doesn’t serve the greater good of whatever they’re trying to achieve. Some call this difference in skill wisdom, in that the wise know what to be thinking about, where as the merely intelligent only know how to think





The reason for this is simple. Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears, use their speed in thought to overpower others. They’ll jump between assumptions quickly, throwing out jargon, bits of logic, or rules of thumb at a rate of fire fast enough to cause most people to become rattled, and give in. When that doesn’t work, the arrogant or the pompous will throw in some belittlement and use whatever snide or manipulative tactics they have at their disposal to further discourage you from dissecting their ideas.





Smart people can follow stupid leaders (seeking praise or promotion)
Smart people may follow their anger into stupid places
They may be trained or educated into stupidity
Smart people can inherit bad ideas from their parents under the guise of tradition
They may simply want something to be true, that can never be
www.scottberkun.com...


They may simply want something to be true, that can never be


because we have various opinions and insights does not make is all the various names that are thrown about on a forum,

Try to understand why a dissenting opinion makes you feel threatened,
edit on 033030p://bSaturday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by patternfinder
 
Why are people labeled "truthers" and "debunkers"? I'm trying to learn the truth. If a flawed conclusion is debunked along the way, that's a step closer to the truth.


Absolutely.

Scientific method. If it doesn't pan out, dump it and find another angle.

As far as truther/debunker, I could be either because of the above. If it sounds like BS, I say "BS". If its a good concept, I'm all on board.

Truth is the ONLY point.

There are only two directions for 911.

1. The gov is so incompetent that they refuse/refute any information handed them (John O'Neil) and do nothing.

Scary thought.

2. They are complicit in some way.

Scarier still.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
I want to know what all the parameters are.

The parameters have been made crystal clear. If you don't understand it, then one of the following is happening:
(1) your reading comprehension is lacking
(2) you refuse what you read
(3) you're trying to stir the pot for your own entertainment

There's no other explanation.





top topics
 
100
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join