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: 20
5
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


You must be kidding. Or have no idea how debate actually works or the final purpose of same. Both sides want to win, and do not care if both sides have a meeting of the minds/consensus. They both intend to sway others to their side not each side to the other's side. Why do you think there is so much circular argument in these discussions and others across the Internet?




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Why do you think there is so much circular argument in these discussions and others across the Internet?



I think it is because people like you, state something as fact and then provide zero evidence to back it up.

Using quantum physics and the laws of nature, prove that an airplane can not crash at an angle perpendicular to the ground.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Oh, that's right. Your motto is you are not always right but you are never wrong. So it automatically has to be someone else doing all that circular argument but never yourself. We got it. We got it a very long time ago. You told often enough that is your motto.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


As far a proving a plane can crash at the angles you desire it to crash, then prove it with physical evidence of any such case, and the science and math takes care of itself when proved with actual physical events.

Then it just becomes a case of working out the math on known variables involved in actual physical events. You know. Physical science (physics of physical matter) working off variable energy forces (quantum mechanics). Now go ye forth and prove it with physical events, or accept what you want is the impossible to fit the "official" reports.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
A reply to orion,

You seem to have a problem with a number of people posting here.

How about if we all agree to do something like this:
If anyone posts something, they either:
1. Back up what they say with factual, verifiable evidence.
or
2. Say, "This is just my OPINION".

I have found this same problem in MANY, MANY threads. People make statements as fact but do not show the facts to support the statement.

AS EXAMPLE:
If person A makes a statement, person A should back that statement up with factual, verifiable evidence.
If person B disagrees with person A, after person A has provided verifiable evidence, person B should show some verifiable contradictory evidence.

Does anyone else think this may help defuse some confrontations? Any other suggestions?

It would be nice to actually have a civil debate at ATS.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
Sorry Orion, I never said that it was possible for an airliner to crash at an angle perpendicular to the ground. You said that it was impossible. Prove it or admit that you're wrong.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You still do not get it. You believe it to be possible. You prove it. No one can prove the impossible. Whatever made you think anyone could?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


That's a wonderful ideal.

Some of us are trying to have a civil debate. Some member states something as fact and then wants other members to prove it for them.

Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You still do not get it. You believe it to be possible. You prove it. No one can prove the impossible. Whatever made you think anyone could?


Just curious but who made the statement first? Who said it was not possible?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


With who? One another of the choir? The facts of the final purpose of actual debate are bothersome to you or what?

Who was it taking this discussion off on tangent leaving the topic of the discussion blowing in the winds? Was not me. It was you. The subject is the "official" story of the Bush administration, and I managed to keep bringing back to topic several times, and you managed to keep deflecting it off topic, as you did in the post to which I am responding.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



No one can prove the impossible.


If no one can prove the impossible, why are you using it as evidence in this debate?

You said that it was impossible for an airplane to impact at an angle perpendicular to the ground. You're using impossible evidence as evidence. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I did. My opponent refuses to prove the impossible angles he desires a plane to follow are possible. He refuses to provide physical evidence it is possible in anything besides virtual reality.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Oh, gawd, you do twist and turn into oblivion. Now either prove your contention or drop it. You are so far off tangent the topic is lost in your red herring arguments.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I did. My opponent refuses to prove the impossible angles he desires a plane to follow are possible. He refuses to provide physical evidence it is possible in anything besides virtual reality.


Since you started the topic by making the statement, I would have to say the burden of proof to be on you. That is how a typical debate is run.
It would give the debates a nice step by step approach without clouding who said what, when, where and how.
Please understand I am not taking sides, had boone said he/she started it, I would have said the same thing to him/her.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 
Orion did in this paragraph:

I can easily see you missed the entire message of what a pilot was explaining should happen in jetliner crashes, with or without the engines running on nose dive. No airplane comes down perpendicular to the ground. It is impossible to have happen, particularly in commercial jetliners. Physics and quantum mechanics (laws of nature) are why.


I never said that the aircraft crashed at a perpendicular angle. Neither does the official story. For whatever reason, Orion is saying that the official story is impossible because no airplane can crash at a perpendicular angle.

I asked him to prove that it was impossible, obviously he can't so he switched the burden of proof to me and expects me to prove that it was possible.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

I never said that the aircraft crashed at a perpendicular angle. Neither does the official story. For whatever reason, Orion is saying that the official story is impossible because no airplane can crash at a perpendicular angle.

I asked him to prove that it was impossible, obviously he can't so he switched the burden of proof to me and expects me to prove that it was possible.



It's looks to me as if you are asking him to simply back up his initial statement which does seem like a reasonable request.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


You must be kidding. Or have no idea how debate actually works or the final purpose of same. Both sides want to win, and do not care if both sides have a meeting of the minds/consensus. They both intend to sway others to their side not each side to the other's side. Why do you think there is so much circular argument in these discussions and others across the Internet?



Rrrrriiiiigggghhhhhhttttttttt
Even when evidence is presented against your claim it's ok to simply ignore it and continue on.
Yea thats debate.
They must have went and changed the rules on me again.
Guess I need to look it up again.

Cause I always thought that was preaching.
Silly me.




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I have been reading this thread on and off, and you are doing a great job of explaining why 9/11 was an inside job.

Even though this thread was for the believers of the official story, and to ask them if they had any doubts on those official explainations, it was sure to happen that this would turn into a debate on the matter.

The reason for this I think is due to the fact we who know 9/11 was an inside job, feel those that don't are misguided, or simply cannot believe the FACTS that are on record for that day, such as an EXACT training scenerio on the SAME day, with the results taking place on that horrible day. These people (the believers) seem oblivious to the coincedences of this day in particulair, and how a national AIR DEFEN$E could simply let this happen.

You don't have to convice me or i'm sure the majority on this board OrionStars, you have not only explained things at great length and detail, but you have stood firm against (last count) 4 other posters at the same time. How you do this is amazing to me, as the same posters have yet to convince me other. Congratulations on not been baited, and sticking to to points you make.

To the other posters that have been at OrionStars, I ask you, what is your objective, as it is obvious OrionStars has no plan to ditch his conclusions on the matter? And once again I ask, what are the chances of what I mentioned earlier, happening on the exact same day? Got any statistics on that one?


watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


What? To prove the impossible? No one, no even you, can do that. Now back to the regularly scheduled program "To all believers in the Official Story". I believe that means you and not us.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Depends on what you call evidence. You side is losing big time on that one.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join