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.

 

25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
When do we really get to make the decisions that effect us and the future of our children and planet?


This is the nub of so many problems since the assassination of JFK. Someone has disconnected the levers of power from the electorate.

The whole system is still there but it has been re-wired to take control away from the voters and place it in the hands of special interest groups through their lobbyists. This is the number one source of America's ills in my opinion. It runs like a thread of rot through every troubling situation since 1963.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Yep I couldn't agree more, except I believe it goes past '63. But that was a huge turning point for sure.

It's really hard to say if any one point in time was when the gov was taken over. I think it's been a slow deliberate agenda from day one for the elite to take total control of the government as I believe it was set up by them in the first place.
They've learned lessons from Hitler and the like since WWII, it's better to use time and patience to get what they want than use force, except when they feel it necessary of course (ME). Why hurry, they have all they need, but to further their agenda is a responsibility they feel obligated to do. It's their dream to have us all under complete control, but they don't see it as something they might see in their own lifetime. I'm just being hypothetical btw, I don't claim to know for sure, but I would bet I'm pretty close.

But having said that they do have total control now, it seems they might be getting close to completion.

Edit:post didn't make sense, still not sure it does lol but there you go...

Also I just thought of this, I've been saying this same crap since I was a teenager but it seems more people agree with me now than ever. Not that it boosts my ego, but that people are finally seeing the reality around them. Probably because it becomes more obvious as time goes on? People do tend to get a little lax about what they're doing when a project is nearing its conclusion? So close nothing can stop them now? What does our future hold? Or is it already here?

[edit on 24/3/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


What an exciting year folks... This year you will see the official story crumble.'

Dont believe the government anymore, they are proven liars. Dont believe the NIST, they have been proven to be corrupted and paid off.

Wtc 1,2,7 Destroyed by controlled demolitions to anger people to go to whatever country Bush/Cheney wanted and conquer them for the oil and to support the arms industry which Bush's father is CEO at.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
If all of the oil that is under iraq and afganistan was under darfur im sure we would be in darfur "liberating" its peoples from the horrible atrocities that they are enduring every day.

Buuut its not, so its not in anyones interest to help those people because there is no profit in it.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by zerocd
 
I guess that settles that. The page could not be found. So I'm guessing there is no paper destroying Griffins work. I'd still like to know how a one hundred ton aircraft could be vaporized, and yet, dna was able to be extracted. Doesn't seem plausible to me.


And THAT is typical truther logic. It couldn't be a broken link.
It must not exist. Therefore 9-11 was an inside job.

I don't have even a cursory knowledge of DNA sampling, but I am completely comfortable drawing conclusions and asserting them as fact based on my lack of knowledge. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.

The planes were not actually vaporized but, that's not going to stop my belief that they were. There are volumes of information that explain, in detail, what was recovered but, I don't care. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.

Don't weigh me down with facts, I am fine with half-truths, suppositions, pseudo-science and drawing conclusions from some evidence, not all of the evidence. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Haven't truthers claimed this for, oh.......I don't know........six years and counting?


Lets talk next year when the same claim is made. Deal?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



It couldn't be a broken link. It must not exist.


Are we to simply believe what we are told yet again?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Haven't truthers claimed this for, oh.......I don't know........six years and counting?


Lets talk next year when the same claim is made. Deal?


You could apply the six year rule to NIST and the WTC7 report too. Six years and counting......

Hows about tackling the topic and the facts contained within the OP and the following ON TOPIC posts rather than offering some random third person comedy on the "twoofers.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   


You could apply the six year rule to NIST and the WTC7 report too. Six years and counting......

Hows about tackling the topic and the facts contained within the OP and the following ON TOPIC posts rather than offering some random third person comedy on the "twoofers.


No comedy here. I was quite serious and the points I made are most certainly on topic. I don't know who used the term "toofer" but, it wasn't me. I would suggest knowing who and what your responding to might be a good place to start.

The fact is, the person I was responding to – IMO – does exhibit basic truther logic. The link was, in fact, broken but, the paper does exist and it’s easily found. The poster I was responding to made the assertion (quite seriously) that it must not exist because the link is broken. Not true. He (assumption) also made the assertion that the planes were “…vaporized…”. Again, not true. Words mean things. Detail, sometimes, does matter. A plane being “vaporized” versus smashed into a bunch of small pieces makes a huge difference to the facts of the matter. One of my points is thus: truthers tend to fly very loose with the truth and more importantly their understanding of it. I am not claiming they are stupid, or ignorant or anything like that. I am making the charge that almost all truthers, IMO, made their mind up long before they ever saw a single bit of evidence….either way. In most truthers minds, they don’t need evidence because they just know it was an inside job. Thus, they easily make connections where there is none, see every political move they don’t agree with as “proof”, ignore volumes and volumes of evidence simply because they don’t feel they need to understand it because, after all, they know 9-11 was an inside job. No matter what the preponderance of evidence dictates.

One more thing: if my "commentary" prevents just one person from falling prey to the 9-11 "truth" scam, it's worth it.


P.S. Claiming the NIST and WTC7 report(s) are incomplete is the only card truthers have to play. They don't have a single shred of peer-reviewed evidence (not one thing) to present, six years and counting. So, they are left to make charges of incompleteness. Which, of course, is an always moving target. Conspiracies live in voids. In the things that can't be explained. However, this lack of explanation does not equal proof of anything. This is where the reasonable and unreasonable part ways.


[edit on 28-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Sure. You do it with Alex Jones, why not here?


But seriously, of course not.

Conversely, making the assertion that the document does not exist because a link is broken is laughable. Notice the poster didn't even attempt to find the document himself. He simply declared it non-existent because he didn’t personally see it.

That’s not a truth seeker. That’s someone who has made their mind up, and doesn’t care what else might be out there.

My basic premise is truthers aren’t at all interested in the truth, as the preponderance of evidence dictates. IMO, they are interested in reinforcing their (politically based) view of the world and nothing more.

The most obvious evidence for this is the notion that no matter how absurd (controlled demolitions, holograms, Doppler sound devices, MOSAD, off-loading passengers and marching them to their death, switching planes, etc, etc, etc) the claim, it must be true.

And my examples, are but a few of some of the absolute wacky examples that are supposedly discussed by “serious” individuals.

The 9-11 “truth” movement, in it’s current state, IMO, is a total sham. There is nothing wrong with articulating my opinions and views. If the “truth” movement is so rock-solid, why worry about what my observations are?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
P.S. Claiming the NIST and WTC7 report(s) are incomplete is the only card truthers have to play. They don't have a single shred of peer-reviewed evidence (not one thing) to present, six years and counting.


Please show me where, how and by whom the FEMA, Silverstein, NIST, ASCE, 9/11 Commission reports have been peer reviewed.

By the very definition of peer review, it is impossible. Unless they make ALL evidence available to their peers to reproduce.

Has this happened? If so, I'd love a copy of the construction documents. Thanks.

So much for "peer review" huh?

BTW, peer review doesn't always work either. There have been documented cases of "peer reviewed" papers and conclusions that were shown erroneous AFTER they had been peer reviewed and published.

It's called reproducibility. And if it can't be done, then there can be NO peer review.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
If the “truth” movement is so rock-solid, why worry about what my observations are?


If the "official story" is so rock solid, why are you here arguing with us? Why worry about what our observations are? Especially since you think we are a bunch of nut cases.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Your argument has an implicit implication that that the reports you cite were works by single persons and aren't available for review, by anyone. In fact, they are. The peer review process is ongoing 24/7.

And again, why is it my burden to prove the collected reports are true? Is it not your responsibility to prove they aren't, as the person(s) making the assertions they aren't correct/complete/written by the NWO? Before you attempt to play another semantic card, please go back an re-read the initial exchange so at least you know what you’re talking about. Hint: I am not the one making any assertions. I state my opinions and clearly label them as such.

I appreciate your semantic gymnastics although it doesn't change the fact that you guys haven't presented one iota of evidence that supports your conclusions that is widely accepted by experts in their fields.

BTW experts are not self-identified. They are identified by their peers.

I also appreciate the only way you can overcome the sheer volume of evidence against your side is to dismiss it in a systemic way. That is, you can't possibly argue with the thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence that contradict your conspiracy notions. So, you dismiss the reports outright in an attempt to avoid the discussion and give the appearance that we are on equal footing. We aren't.

And who called anyone a nut job?

Again, if you want to play semantic gymnastics games in an attempt to subvert the argument into something it’s not, have at it.

EDIT: forgot to answer one of your questions. Why do I post in threads like this? Because I believe the so-called "truth" movement to be an utter sham. It's own methods of seeking so-called "truth" and forming conclusions highlights the "movement" is neither interested in 9-11 nor truth. It's a far left political movement, run by kook ringleaders who profit off of conjecture, suppositions and outright lies, that brings otherwise disparate, fringe, political groups together under one unifying banner.

The so-called “movement” makes a mockery of the pain and suffering of those that lost their lives on that horrible day. They will make any disgusting allegation – (faked cell phone calls to loved ones!!) – in an effort to promote their conspiracy ideas.

IMO, most truthers care less about truth and more about how they see themselves as part of the “inside” group that has the secret truth that everyone else is too stupid realize.

That's why.

(oh and according to some paranoid posters I am a paid dis-info agent)


[edit on 28-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Your argument has an implicit implication that that the reports you cite were works by single persons and aren't available for review, by anyone. In fact, they are. The peer review process is ongoing 24/7.


Then show me where ALL the evidence is that these peers can review. Simple as that.


And again, why is it my burden to prove the collected reports are true?


It's not. It's the report makers job. Unfortunately they have failed to do so.


Is it not your responsibility to prove they aren't, as the person(s) making the assertions they aren't correct/complete/written by the NWO?


There have been many who have voiced this and given a plethora of evidence.


Before you attempt to play another semantic card, please go back an re-read the initial exchange so at least you know what you’re talking about.


Why does it ALWAYS come to this. "Go re-read. You don't understand." I say blah. I understood the initial exchange clearly.


Hint: I am not the one making any assertions. I state my opinions and clearly label them as such.


So, it is only your opinion that the reports are true and have been peer reviewed?


I appreciate your semantic gymnastics although it doesn't change the fact that you guys haven't presented one iota of evidence that supports your conclusions that is widely accepted by experts in their fields.


That "widely excepted" experts are growing narrower and narrower every day. I wonder why that is?


BTW experts are not self-identified. They are identified by their peers.


No. They have been appointed by the government and in a lot of cases...NIST...they are directly appointed by the president.


I also appreciate the only way you can overcome the sheer volume of evidence against your side is to dismiss it in a systemic way. That is, you can't possibly argue with the thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence that contradict your conspiracy notions.


Please. Where are these thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence? NIST didn't even test or obtain A SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL from WTC 7.


So, you dismiss the reports outright in an attempt to avoid the discussion and give the appearance that we are on equal footing. We aren't.


Definitely right that we are not on level playing fields. Some get their information spoon fed them without having to see the actually evidence while others question the what, how, when and who of the TOTAL evidence and lack there of.


Again, if you want to play semantic gymnastics games in an attempt to subvert the argument into something it’s not, have at it.


I'm not the one who brought up peer review. You would be that person. So who is subverting here?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
EDIT: forgot to answer one of your questions. Why do I post in threads like this? Because I believe the so-called "truth" movement to be an utter sham. It's own methods of seeking so-called "truth" and forming conclusions highlights the "movement" is neither interested in 9-11 nor truth. It's a far left political movement, run by kook ringleaders who profit off of conjecture, suppositions and outright lies, that brings otherwise disparate, fringe, political groups together under one unifying banner.

The so-called “movement” makes a mockery of the pain and suffering of those that lost their lives on that horrible day. They will make any disgusting allegation – (faked cell phone calls to loved ones!!) – in an effort to promote their conspiracy ideas.

IMO, most truthers care less about truth and more about how they see themselves as part of the “inside” group that has the secret truth that everyone else is too stupid realize.

That's why.

(oh and according to some paranoid posters I am a paid dis-info agent)


Such blanket statements. [sarcasm]And I believe that all debunkers are right wing nut jobs out to take the US down so they can build a NWO.[/sarcasm]

See how blanket statements are really just showing people's biasness. You have clearly shown your biasness here. You think we are all left wing political hacks. Well, I'll tell you what. I actually voted for GW. How's that for your "left-wing" crap?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I almost fell for it. You're getting better


Since you missed it, and are now arguing with yourself as well as me, allow me to help you out.

This is my origonal post (the one you are so familiar with):


Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by zerocd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that settles that. The page could not be found. So I'm guessing there is no paper destroying Griffins work. I'd still like to know how a one hundred ton aircraft could be vaporized, and yet, dna was able to be extracted. Doesn't seem plausible to me.




And THAT is typical truther logic. It couldn't be a broken link.
It must not exist. Therefore 9-11 was an inside job.

I don't have even a cursory knowledge of DNA sampling, but I am completely comfortable drawing conclusions and asserting them as fact based on my lack of knowledge. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.

The planes were not actually vaporized but, that's not going to stop my belief that they were. There are volumes of information that explain, in detail, what was recovered but, I don't care. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.

Don't weigh me down with facts, I am fine with half-truths, suppositions, pseudo-science and drawing conclusions from some evidence, not all of the evidence. Therefore, 9-11 was an inside job.
.

Now, what is it you were saying? What does any of what your talking about have to do with what I am talking about, as it relates to my origonal post?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Now, what is it you were saying? What does any of what your talking about have to do with what I am talking about, as it relates to my origonal post?


Maybe it is you who needs to re-read and see where the conversation between me and you started.

Here, I'll give you a hint.



Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
P.S. Claiming the NIST and WTC7 report(s) are incomplete is the only card truthers have to play. They don't have a single shred of peer-reviewed evidence (not one thing) to present, six years and counting.


Please show me where, how and by whom the FEMA, Silverstein, NIST, ASCE, 9/11 Commission reports have been peer reviewed.

By the very definition of peer review, it is impossible. Unless they make ALL evidence available to their peers to reproduce.

Has this happened? If so, I'd love a copy of the construction documents. Thanks.

So much for "peer review" huh?

BTW, peer review doesn't always work either. There have been documented cases of "peer reviewed" papers and conclusions that were shown erroneous AFTER they had been peer reviewed and published.

It's called reproducibility. And if it can't be done, then there can be NO peer review.


Where in any of that am I addressing your off topic banter about the broken link and "truther" logic?




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


You pulled out the Fabled "Off Topic" charge!

Interesting that you have no hesitation perpetuating what you consider to be a problem. That is, right up until you are done talking.

The basis on which "truthers" form conclusions is completely on-topic.

I just realized you're making the claim that if you can't physically handle the aquired evidence then it should all be dismissed. At first, I thought you were talking about the body of work that is contained within the commission report.

How, exactly, would you recreate the events of 9-11? You don't find this an untenable position by virtue that doing so is impossible?

Now that I understand you a little better: you're flat out wrong on peer review. Peer review means your peers, experts in their fields, look at your methodology, your evidence, your conclusions, etc. Peer review does not typically involve actually recreating the experiment.

You're claiming that because we haven't reconstructed the twin towers and flown a couple of fuel laden airliners into them, it's all bunk? All the conclusions drawn based on the preponderance of evidence is invalid because it hasn't been repeated?

Is that your argument?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Your argument has an implicit implication that that the reports you cite were works by single persons and aren't available for review, by anyone. In fact, they are. The peer review process is ongoing 24/7.


You're telling this to people who aren't allowed to see the buildings' structural documentation. Who are you joking?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You pulled out the Fabled "Off Topic" charge!


As it was.


I just realized you're making the claim that if you can't physically handle the aquired evidence then it should all be dismissed. At first, I thought you were talking about the body of work that is contained within the commission report.


No. I'm making the claim that "how can anyone peer review that which is hidden". That is my stance.


How, exactly, would you recreate the events of 9-11? You don't find this an untenable position by virtue that doing so is impossible?


It is not impossible. How hard is it to recreate the steel on the impact floors and put it under the same conditions? Oh, that's right, NIST tried and failed.


Now that I understand you a little better: you're flat out wrong on peer review. Peer review means your peers, experts in their fields, look at your methodology, your evidence, your conclusions, etc. Peer review does not typically involve actually recreating the experiment.


Really? So, nothing that we have deemed as fact doesn't need to be reproduced? And THAT is debunker logic.


Most federal regulatory agencies in the United States government must comply with specific peer review requirements before the agencies publicly disseminate certain scientific information. These requirements were published in a Peer Review Bulletin issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), which establishes "government-wide standards concerning when peer review is required and, if required, what type of per review processes are appropriate."

OMB’s peer review bulletin requires that US federal regulatory agencies submit all "influential scientific information" to peer review before the information is publicly disseminated. The Bulletin defines "scientific information" as:

"factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information, or scientific assessments related to such disciplines as the behavioral and social sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, or physical sciences."


Strike one for the so-called peer reviewed reports.


While the peer review Bulletin's specific guidelines will not be discussed here in detail, one should note that the guidelines differ in several respects from traditional peer review practices at most journals. For example, the Bulletin requires public disclosure of peer reviewers' identities when they are reviewing highly influential scientific assessments. The Bulletin's summary of some of these requirements is set forth below:

"In general, an agency conducting a peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment must ensure that the peer review process is transparent by making available to the public the written charge to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s). ... This Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies[2] employed by the National Academy of Sciences(NAS)."


Strike two.


"Publication in a refereed scientific journal may mean that adequate peer review has been performed. However, the intensity of peer review is highly variable across journals. There will be cases in which an agency determines that a more rigorous or transparent review process is necessary. For instance, an agency may determine a particular journal review process did not address questions (e.g., the extent of uncertainty inherent in a finding) that the agency determines should be addressed before disseminating that information. As such, prior "peer review and publication is not by itself sufficient grounds for determining that no further review is necessary."


Strike three...you're out.

en.wikipedia.org...


You're claiming that because we haven't reconstructed the twin towers and flown a couple of fuel laden airliners into them, it's all bunk?


That is not my claim. You people claiming that the reports were peer reviewed is what is bunk.


All the conclusions drawn based on the preponderance of evidence is invalid because it hasn't been repeated?


Exactly. EVERY SINGLE THING in this world that we hold as fact has to be reproducible.

And then there is this:


The number and proportion of articles which are detected as fraudulent at review stage is unknown. Some instances of outright scientific fraud and scientific misconduct have gone through review and were detected only after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. An example is the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, in which a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals Nature and Science following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper.


en.wikipedia.org...

Again. Reproducibility.

[edit on 3/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/28/2008 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join