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.

 

To all Believers of the Official Story:

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I think he means the conspiracy you are referring to. The fact that the government is covering up "something". This would make them complicit.


I never stated the government is covering up anything.

We do not have the reports and evidnece we should have, they have not been released. Also FOIA request have been denied that does not mean cover up right away.

The only thing about the government is that i believe they had enough warnings and did nothing to stop it.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Of course you are implying the government is covering something up. Why else would you be here if you didn't think that were the case.
Every time someone tries to explain the "official version" you jump all over them.
You've discussed holograms, controlled demolition, etc...
Obviously if you believed the official story for the most part, you wouldn't be arguing against it so much.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





If you would hold the official story to the same standards, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. Were's your proof that the official story is correct?


Again, the burden of proof reversal.

This is one of the basic, mandatory tactics of truthers. Make a claim, demand that I prove it's not true, offer no evidence it is and in one fell swoop ignore the absolutely massive amounts of evidence (all publicly all available for your review).

No, I don't think I am a lawyer, nor is this a court of law and further, you have no obligation to do or say anything anyone asks you to do.

It is not up to me to prove the thousands of man hours that have gone into the investigations are true. It is up to you to prove they are not. "You" being the royal you.




f 911 was a non-inside job, and there were no loose ends, why would we, and millions of others, be talking on the internet everyday about this? Why are you here right now? Ever think about that


Personally, I was drawn to ATS because of my belief in UFO's, secret things going on at Area 51 (possibly a new base now) and those kinds of things. As a matter of fact it was Mr. Lear mentioning ATS on a Coast to Coast program that started the whole thing, quite a while ago.

I am here, in the 9-11 forum, because I am under the studied belief that the "Truth" movement is, in fact, the biggest conspiracy of all time. The "movement" has brought together disparate, radical, fringe political groups who use the tragedies of that day as "evidence" of their (IMO) paranoid political thinking.

Also, much to the chagrin of some of our members, find the psychological observations utterly fascinating.

If the "Truth Movement" was actually interested in truth, I would be on board. What many on the other side don't seem to get is I am after the truth. I think the truth movement is corrosive at it's nature and founded in political bias. Disinformation must be countered. That is why I post and explain my opinion.

The bottom line (IMO): the "Truth Movement" is not interested in what the massive amount of evidence indicates happened, nor are they really that interested in 9-11. They are interested in using 9-11 as a rally cry to support radical, political agendas.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Pease allow me to say I appreciate your views and I think your a stand-up kind of guy for sticking to your guns and responding to everyone. My issue is with the ideas we are discussing, not with you.




When you can prove the "official" reports carry truth

I think the massive amount of work that went into the official reports, by thousands of professionals doing their very best to provide answers is, in fact, the truth. My "proof" are the very reports you are dismissing. It's a good tactic, but not a legitimate one. It is an argumentative fallacy to off handidly assume the reports are false, then dismiss them, thereby removing them from the discussion and then demand I provide "proof". It's an attempt to put us on equal footing. The problem is, we aren't. Instead of arguing the vacuums in the story, can't you argue what's presented in the offical reports - tiny section by tiny section and then build a work for peer review? Of course you (the royal you) can.

I know this is a broken record but it's also true: you again used the burden of proof reversal. Instead of demanding that I prove the offical reports are true, why don't you make a case that they are not? IMO, you don't because you can't. You rely on vacuums, ignore the massive amount of collected data, reports, etc and point to those vacuums as your "evidence".




the acid test of being tried in an unbiased, honest court of law, that is when you can gloat and say, "We have the truth and you don't. The court ruled as such." Until then, you have no entitlement to tell anyone else you have the truth, and they have none.


I see your logic and appreciate your view point. However, I think the court of law idea is a smoke screen. What you are really doing is protecting your view from critique by setting up a goal that will never be reached and therefore your opinions remain validated (to you). Your asking for peer review, essentially. It's already happened for six years.




You only have the truth if the laws of nature, in the case of 9/11/2001, tell you that you have the truth. First of all, you have to know what they are and how they work. That includes understanding the practical application study of the laws and theories of quantum mechanics. You have not projected you understand any of it.


Do you?

I am not making the claims you are. I have never positioned myself as someone "in the know". That is, a originating subject matter expert. I rely, like you, on the works of others. The difference here is you are trying to elevate yourself above my questions by deflecting the focus back to me. You have made a series of claims in this thread, and by my count, not explained even one of them.

Again, the burden of proof reversal.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I'm not reversing the burden of proof. I simply apply the standards you use to judge the CT's, to the official story.
All I'm saying is that, IMO, the official story has just as many, or more inconsistancies than the good CT's(not all of them), you just believe the official story because, well, it's the official story.
Have you ever thought about that, if 911 truly was an inside job, all those man hours of investigation, by the government, aren't to be trusted, by default?

Also if 911 wasn't an inside job, why leave any doubt? Why can't the gov. prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is true, if it really happened?

Your logic is twisted. You focus on me, having to prove the official story wrong, when noone can even prove it is true. Doesn't that ring alarm bells to you?

Why for instance, don't they release the Pentagon footage, if it shows a plane hitting. 1000's of cameras there, wouldn't that be quite easy, and forever disprove the no plane theory? Why don't they do that?

Also, did you see the footage I posted about the mayor of Shanksville saying there was no plane?
Could you respond to that to please? Is the old mayor reversing the burden of proof?

Also, if the truth movement is a big conspiracy, what would be the goal behind that? Ask yourself who would have more to lose if their story isn't true:

-the people behind the alleged conspiracy behind the truth movement.

-the people behind the official story.

Follow the money flow, who profited from 911?

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I thought this video wasn’t showed earlier in this thread, so I have a question for those who has excepted the Official Story.
Would you take the time to look at it, and give your opinion about it.

www.youtube.com:80...

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Thank you.

Trust me or not. No effort was made in writing those "official" reports. Or discovery of highly major inconsistencies, by expert peers and highly versed laypersons in the experts' fields, would not have been so easy to locate and easily refute.

That is what happens when people forget the laws of nature supercede any thought processing by nature's by-products - humans in this case. The balance of the animal kingdom generally knows better to than to lie about Mother Nature, or would not survive as well as they do, without human interference driving them into extinction.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Then you do not understand how debate works. Both sides have to validly substantiate or one side is going to lose for lack of valid substantiation. That is a given in any debate, including trial court points of argument (debate).

I, personally, have presented sound physics and quantum mechanics evidence, as to why two, over 1300' massive buildings, could not have fallen the way they did, into a condensed pile of rubble no more than 3% of their original height. That never happens with pancake effect - ever.

What have you done to use science to prove they did? I can tell you. You have given nothing but rehash hearsay of what others have written, or resorted to "Prove it!", plus, other logical fallacies of debate, both formal and informal.

If you cannot understand what others have stated, which it so often blatantly appears you do not, what have or can you possibly validly prove to refute your opponents?

I am not the only one versed, in both classes of the laws of nature, consistently pointing out, in detail, your lack of valid points of argument presented. When we do point it out, your side resorts to "Prove it!" and other logical fallacies of debate.

Well, if the plural you, of your sides points of argument, comprehended the sciences as well as you project you do, and at the same time falsely accuse your opponents of being science neophytes, you would not have to resort to "Prove it!", when it concerns both classes of nature's laws.

The plural you, on your side, would be able to take those "official" reports, and use science to correctly explain how they do not suspend normality, between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am, and only resume normality at 10:03:01 am only on 9/11/2001. The plural you have consistently failed to do that, and instead consistently fall back into logical fallacies that would do Karl Rove proud.

When people are not on equal footing with topics, the effort to debate becomes a worthless waste of time no different than this. Attempting to engage in a rentless battle of wits with unarmed person(s). Both become mere ego trips, for the party or parties, engaging in wasted time effort tactics. That is not legitimate debate. That is an blatant invitation to an intentional flame war. I loathe flame wars.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Every time someone tries to explain the "official version" you jump all over them.


Because there is no real evidence to support the official story.

I do research and post what i find, sorry if it does not go along wth what you believe.





[edit on 9-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 





Then you do not understand how debate works. Both sides have to validly substantiate or one side is going to lose for lack of valid substantiation. That is a given in any debate, including trial court points of argument (debate).

I do understand how debates work. You have made assertions that are, IMO, widely outside the realm of reality and asked for proof. You still haven't provided one shred of proof beyond eluding to knowledge you think you are in command of.

Before we can debate your points, it is entirely reasonable to expect some sort of evidence that what you are saying is even plausible. It's also entire reasonable to inquire how you have come to your conclusions. You continue to evade even the most simple of qualifiers.



I, personally, have presented sound physics and quantum mechanics evidence, as to why two, over 1300' massive buildings, could not have fallen the way they did, into a condensed pile of rubble no more than 3% of their original height. That never happens with pancake effect - ever.
.
Says who, besides you? Here we are again. This is almost mental at this point. This was your original assertion almost three pages ago, basically said the same way. Please, please, please provide some evidence for any of the claims you just made.

Additionally, what are your credentials to make such assertions? What's your educational background? Have you served time as a structural performance analyst? Perhaps you have worked on some major construction projects as a engineer? No? Maybe you are involved in the academic world? Have you had any papers on the subject published? If so, what publication and when? Has any of your work been peer reviewed? No? What work are you citing? Where can I review their work?




What have you done to use science to prove they did? I can tell you. You have given nothing but rehash hearsay of what others have written, or resorted to "Prove it!", plus, other logical fallacies of debate, both formal and informal.

The hearsay you refer to is the work of thousands of man hours by experts in their chosen fields. You claim these reports are all bogus. Okay, I get that. How are they bogus to you? What parts are wrong? How? Says who?

About "prove it": yeah, that's me. Make amazing assertions, I am going to require some amazing proof.

About the logical fallacies; nice try at turn-about. The only problem with that is everything we have said is documented history available for anyone who wants to read it. I know in the CT world just saying it is good enough. Unfortunately, there is no vacuum here - the evidence is available for anyone to read.

Please provide your opinion on my "fallacies both formal and informal". What are you talking about? What are "formal fallacies" and "informal fallacies"? Educate me on what you mean and we can talk about it some more.




If you cannot understand what others have stated, which it so often blatantly appears you do not, what have or can you possibly validly prove to refute your opponents?

Sorry about this: don't try to claim I just don't get it, or I don't understand. I understand very well. If you keep making wild assertions on nothing more than your thoughts presented as facts, then, yep, I am going to keep pointing that out to you. The fact that you have taken the time to address me each and every time you get the chance lets me know that I am saying something close enough to the mark you feel you must refute it. If my observations weren't making you a tad bit raw, you would ignore them.




I am not the only one versed, in both classes of the laws of nature, consistently pointing out, in detail, your lack of valid points of argument presented. When we do point it out, your side resorts to "Prove it!" and other logical fallacies of debate.

This is so far from what has actually happened I am not sure how to respond to you. Your take on what has transpired in this thread is, IMO, so far removed from any resemblance of reality I don't know what to say. I am not trying to schmarmy or condescending. I am absolutely serious.



Well, if the plural you, of your sides points of argument, comprehended the sciences as well as you project you do, and at the same time falsely accuse your opponents of being science neophytes, you would not have to resort to "Prove it!", when it concerns both classes of nature's laws.


Actually, that's a key difference. I admit I don't have all the answers. I admit I refer to third party works. I don't present myself as having the answers to the "laws of nature" whatever the heck that is. I am not trying to prove you as having very limited knowledge in science; you are doing that by yourself.

Ah yes, that pesky "prove it" mentality. Yup, I stick by that. As said many, many, many times before - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have made assertions, not me, that the "official story" is false. As before, I have asked you to show me how and to back up your claims. When you say something like (not an exact quote by any means) "There is no way buildings could have collapsed that way, none" why am I being overly demanding by asking for some evidence that it might be true? Why do you think it is up to me to prove you wrong when you are the one making the assertions? Thinkers connect the dots and present the findings for peer review. You are making claims and then demanding I prove the dots aren't connected, after never have connected them yourself in the first place. Can you see that?



.....consistently fall back into logical fallacies that would do Karl Rove proud.

The only one interjecting politics into this is the truth movement. One assertion I have, in fact, made repetitively is the truth movement is a political one at it's heart and 9-11 has virtually nothing to do with the real issue for truthers. The real issue, as it is for you, is a pure, unadulterated hatred of President Bush and a kind of "their out to get me" psychology.



I loathe flame wars.

As do I. I think your ideas are unfounded, not you or your absolute right to articulate them. If your merely looking for validation, I am not your guy.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Every time someone tries to explain the "official version" you jump all over them.

Because there is no real evidence to support the official story.

I do research and post what i find, sorry if it does not go along wth what you believe.


Completely fair.

Obviously, I don't agree but that's an honest position. We can still be friends, even if we don't agree. I hope so at least.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Completely fair.

Obviously, I don't agree but that's an honest position. We can still be friends, even if we don't agree. I hope so at least.


Well do you have any real evidence to support your theory or the official story ?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've not made any assertions. I've asked for proof that Orion knows what he is talking about. I have offered my opinion and have clearly labeled them so.

Keep in mind, it is others who have made assertions. When I have asked for evidence, outside documentation, third party works, etc, I am asked to prove the original claims wrong.

If I start a thread, or participate in a thread where I say something like "It is an absolute fact that 9-11 happened exactly the way it has been reported" it would be entirely reasonable for you (royal you) to ask me for some evidence to back up my claims. Which, BTW, would be volumes full of information you would discount immediately.

If your asking me on what do I base my belief, I tend to agree with the vast volume of work presented by the 9-11 commission. Before anyone takes my head off about that statement, please understand the 9-11 commission didn't investigate anything. They drew conclusions from the works of thousands of professionals who presented reports and were bound together with other reports to form the 9-11 comissions findings.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Hi, thanks for responding to me. Let me ask for your forgiveness at the outset: if I come across as personally going after you, please understand I am not trying to.

I tend to address people directly and some can take this as a personal attack, which isn't my intention.

I have to unplug for a bit, but I will get back to you and honestly answer your questions.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I and others have given an abundance of validation legitimately refuting the "official" reports. We did it with science. You and your side continuously reject scientific information, which cannot refuted by anyone, including scientists working with perpetually testing the interaction of physical matter and quantum mechanics their entire careers or lives.

Because if you could have made the "official" reports work according to science, you would have done it over the last 6 years 3 months. I have not seen you, or any other clinger to the "official" reports, able to do that, in the short time I have been a member on this forum, over 6 years later.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Totally my opinion, nothing more (raw thoughts as watching):


  1. Obviously differnt camera angles
  2. Need to know the exact point where camera two shot it's film and the relation between it's angle to the incoming plane and the billowing smoke from the first tower
  3. Actually, cameras on helicopters can absolutely be gyro-stabilized and provide perfectly "still" images, even if the platform is moving (with limits)
  4. This is getting interesting.......
  5. In some shots, the upper roof evidence looks very compelling. In others, not so much. Overall, I find this part very compelling
  6. The background stuff I find to not resonate with me. Also, some of the length-wise shots (as they go back and forth) seem to show more of an angle than I first thought. Meaning, to my eyes I see one picture taken from a significantly lower height and at a different distance.
  7. The rest is subject to how the materials are presented: i.e. is the authors version of events at all accurate (the all important fine details)? I have no idea.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Not dissing you - I am unplugging for a bit but I will get back to you too.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



I think the massive amount of work that went into the official reports, by thousands of professionals doing their very best to provide answers is, in fact, the truth. My "proof" are the very reports you are dismissing. It's a good tactic, but not a legitimate one.


I guess the other UNLIKELY alternative is that those same thousands of people were in on the worlds most intricate and horrible conspiracy and have all kept absolutely quiet about it. Not one of them is a blabber mouth. Not one had a conscience either before or after. Not one of them accidentally slipped up and left solid evidence.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Every time someone tries to explain the "official version" you jump all over them.


Because there is no real evidence to support the official story.

I do research and post what i find, sorry if it does not go along wth what you believe.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]


You mean the conspiracy you believe in?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I can name at least one person complicit in the 9/11 conspriacy, which actually took place - Thomas Eagar. He certainly was not working for Al Qaida, and the article is self-evident of that. Unless he was a double agent, and has been highly successful at keeping that secret all those years.

Eagar's educational background and profession (professor in the engineering department of MIT) states he should have known better, than to write the first "official" report, and have it first published in a non-peer reviewed magazine for laypersons, primarily interested in automotives.

Now either he is the most inept professor in his profession, or he was complicit in the largest hoax and one of the most heinous mass murders in the documented history of the US.

No reputable academic engages in sloppy, illogical, lying presentation of their work in some non-peer reviewed laypersons' magazine, such as "Popular Mechanics". And then have it used as the Bush administration's one and only "official" report above all others.

Unless people are academics. or quite familiar with the ethics demanded of academics, they may not be aware of just how complicit Thomas Eagar was in the conspiracy, which did actually did take place on 9/11/2001.

A brief biography on Thomas Eagar. He appears to have gotten some very lucrative promotions since he wrote the "official" report for the Bush administration, and found himself a very luctrative moonlighting job, or a new profession as a privately held corporate manufacturing executive - board of directors yet.

www.fusionoptix.com...

What do Fusion Optics do?

"Fusion Optix is privately held, with funding from major international investment firms, Goldman Sachs and Prudence Capital. Our working capital and strategic partnerships enable us to provide a dedicated, rapid response, global customer support and delivery infrastructure to meet the needs of the world’s leading companies."

It all looks so benign - on the surface. Follow the money from Eagar out. Bold lettering in the citation above is mine.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I can see one person keeping quiet, but not thousands of people. Not gonna happen. We couldn't even keep the B-1 and F117A stealth programs quiet for very long let alone the most massive conspiracy on the planet in human history.

Here's a good conspiracy guideline to go by. The larger the theoretical conspiracy gets (number of individuals involved) the less likely it is true.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join