How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism, page 17
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 15-6-2008 @ 07:55 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jthomas
I think Matt Taibbi said it best in his new book, "
The Great Drangement"

"At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable."


And yet I get accussed of name calling? That whole piece was one big name calling, childish IMO piece of crap.

Why do the "skeptics" have to lower themselves to name calling? Why can't they debate in a scientific manner?


You illustrated in this thread that you can't argue in a scientific manner. You just contradict yourself and don't like it pointed out to you. Why are you so surprised by an accurate description of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

And before my name calling is questioned, I said it was my opinion. So Matt can take his opinion and shove it up his ass. Because that's all it is.


No one is surprised that you are upset. You should learn why.


reply posted on 15-6-2008 @ 09:15 PM by Griff
reply to post by Seymour Butz



I agree "useless" is an extreme word that I shouldn't use. Hell, I'm trying to put it together myself. If I really felt it was useless, why I would even bother. Cheers man.

BTW, I apologize for gettin mad and saying anything about your brother. I'm sure he's quite intellegent and a good engineer.


reply posted on 15-6-2008 @ 09:24 PM by Griff
reply to post by jthomas



One, I'm going to not post in this point whore thread of yours anymore. Nice way of getting out of the negative points eh?


reply posted on 19-6-2008 @ 11:59 AM by jthomas
Originally posted by Griff
reply to
post by jthomas



One, I'm going to not post in this point whore thread of yours anymore. Nice way of getting out of the negative points eh?


The question on the table for all of you Truthers is: "So, what actions are you all going to take?"

We see that no one is willing to put their money where their Truther mouths are.


reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 09:23 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by jthomas



Amazing logic is not knowing how buildings are constructed and how they are meant to operate under extreme conditions, the real truth is there is no way in hell those three towers could have collapsed by fire alone, have you re-viewed the collapse videos? Can you not recognise that those kinetic reactions were not caused by “weakened steel” as is the excuse for their collapse, it’s just ridiculous, please just look at the overhead picture of the towers after the collapses, how on earth building 7 (WTC7) could have been taken out by those towers is beyond consideration, even if you entertain the notion that WTC7 was ¼ damaged as the official report says that still is not an excuse to explain how the building totally collapsed without restriction as seen in the multiple videos available on YouTube/Google ect, it’s just impossible, buildings don’t just give up totally like that! Only controlled demolitions can replicate what is seen that day, all the “Official Commission Report” does is put a poor excuse to explain the actual event.

Just watch & read the PowerPoint presentation set up on the “Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth” website: www.ae911truth.org...


reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 03:17 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to
post by jthomas



Amazing logic is not knowing how buildings are constructed and how they are meant to operate under extreme conditions, the real truth is there is no way in hell those three towers could have collapsed by fire alone, have you re-viewed the collapse videos?


Gosh, another no-planer.


reply posted on 28-6-2008 @ 01:09 AM by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas



I've already read it, and I contend it does not show any supporting evidence for their collapse initiation hypothesis (they didn't even analyze how the global collapses happened).

Still waiting for you to prove me wrong..... won't happen.


reply posted on 29-6-2008 @ 11:44 PM by infinityoreilly
reply to post by bsbray11



This thread is good at showing just how hard it is to prove anything on either side. Taking that to the next step, why is the description we were all fed by our government and media so full of holes you can drive a monster truck through with engineers at the wheel?

Do "We the People" not at least question the secrecy and failures surrounding 911 and the Anthrax attacks that followed.

I been doing some recollecting, that while 911 was horrible, it was the anthrax scare that was portrayed as "Islamic Extremism" that really made me into a "vengeful American". The final "Psyop" to get everyone in line after the "Shock and Awe" events of 911.

I'll never forget the look on our regular Postman's face each day as he would do his job. I'll never forget my one and half year old son running to mail box each day as the Postman came up on the front porch to deliver the "what"? Death?

Most people could probably put 911 into the "oh thats horrible, but I don't fly or go to New York City" category. But anthrax through the mail, thats every last American who receives mail.
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 13 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags