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.

 

How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Ok, I kinda cocked that one up, LOL.

The pieces that they id'd - from the paint markings - as being from just above and/or below the impact zone, didn't reach 250C. The paint survived.

And their sims showed the same thing. Less than 250C.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I guess theres a lot of US military Officers who disagree with the official account and who even flew the flights in question and don't believe what was done was even possible.
www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


That makes more sense. I'm starting to like you more and more. A person who can admit his mistakes (however small they may be) is a person whom I enjoy conversing with. Cheers.


Now, time for a beer.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Folks, this is not about 911, it's about how 911 plays in the myth of America.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, John Ray's article contends that "they" Have won the information campaign about 911,"They", being of course, THE Skeptics.
But Factually, no such thing has occurred, they are merely manipulating the information as they please.
That being,..
1 What happened?
2 How did it happen?
3 Who is responsible?
4 And more.

And in every aspect, in every way, they agree with the government story.
How convenient. how mundane, "It's juz like eh told us"...
Interestingly, when they use the term "skeptic", they fail to complete the term.
They left out the term "professional", as in, "professional skeptic".
You see, now it begins to make sense.
These are not people who are skeptical of something, rather, they take their skepticism to heart.
These are not truth seekers in any way, they are more like corporate shills, government "yes" men and the like.
Still they have their place here and so be it.
But don't for one minute believe that they are fair and balanced.
Most of what they have to say is sham anyway!
yes it's fun to deflate them with logic, seeing how they're so mainstream and presumptuous, but I feel sorry for

them and their time trapped petty arguments and fallacious reasoning, it's all so much blather.
They know exactly what they are doing in maintaining their redundant theories, and they (and by "they" I am not

speaking of people who just disagree with me) are professional in method and circumstance.
Their methodology speaks volumes about their training in disinformation and talking points.
To release one's self from a conversation of this sort one must skewer them with their own petard.
Keep them on subject, no straying to other theories or topics, no mention of JFK, UFO's and so on.
Have them answer one question succinctly.
If they stray, point out to them their flawed and circular reasoning, keep on point.
Don't be drawn in to their web of fantasies and delusions, puncture their supposed logic.
Above all. don't waste your time trying to convince these type of people of anything they refuse to consider, it's like talking to a wall.
I will not name names, I don't have to, you are hoist on your own petard!
A reasonable argument can be made that some of them do this for fun, pity them.
I hearby christian them "skreptics" as in scurrilous and skanky.
Peace.
HeHe



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by jthomas
 


This is a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of having an intelligent article or anything placed down in a respectful manner the 'official' believers resort to name calling and ridicule. This alone tells me that they are full of BS themselves.

You should consider entering into the real world my friend. We simply want an independant investigation. One where there are NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST like the pathetic commission that was put together had. We don't want pertinent testimony left out and we DON'T want evidence left out.

Go ahead, come back with the 'who'll pay for it' argument of the tax payer dollars. Just look at how much money was actually spent on this investigation and what was spent on other major crisis of our past. It is insulting. If the truth is actually revealed I think the people would be very happy to hear it. It would mean a serious overhaul of this corrupted government which is long past due. No one can argue that.

Just to clarify, I'm NOT a liberal or conservative. I am an American that usually votes with the Republican party that has become sickened by the criminal actions perpetuated by this administration.

You guys keep acting like Bush and company are saints and great American Patriots when they are continuosly called out on seriously felony style lies. Here is my argument. If they were willing to lie about Iraq just to get into the country then what is to say they weren't lying about the events leading up to 911?

It's a moot argument because the 'believers' will continue to believe and the 'truther's' will continue to question. You also have to question a government when they make it an offense to actually question their actions. That is NOT America and it's people like you that are supporting this action.

We just want answers to the valid questions.


It's always amazing to me that you truthers so easily fall for the canard that this is some kind of debate between Bushies and anti-Bushies, pro-government versus anti-government. This is, of course, what leaders of the Truth Movement want you to believe but it is a fallacious premise. It follows along with the hopeless canard that there is some mystical "official story" that is supposed to be the evidence of what happened on 9/11.

Let's make this clear so you can see the fallacy of your position.

The 9/11 attacks happened. The evidence of what happened on that day, physical, forensic, eyewitness, and otherwise, was not in control of the government, did not originate with the government, and did not depend on the government. It was physically impossible for the government in any form or fashion to prevent that evidence from being known by thousands of people before the day was up.

The FEMA, ASCE, and NIST investigations relied on that very same evidence. NIST was made up of a majority of independent, non-government structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects. The NIST investigation's methodology, evidence, and conclusions are fully open to any expert in the world.

And the 9/11 Truth Movement goes around wanting you and us to believe that the government was behind 9/11, had possession of all the evidence from the moment events happened, and made up an "official story."

Do you not understand how fallacious that logic is? Are you going to continue to go around believing what your truthie leaders tell you instead of thinking critically?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

You forget that I am not trying to prove anything to you. You know very well what I mean when I say "the official story."


No, there is none, Explain what you it's supposed to mean.


You're just trying to play a game with words. You want to drag me into and endless argument over this, but there's no point because you're not interested. It would be a waste of my time. I stand by my assertion that all theories regarding what happened that day are conspiracy theories because they all involve conspiracies to take down the towers.


Irrelevant. We're only concerned with what actually transpired. It's fallacious to think you can claim all conspiracy theories are equally valid.



Originally posted by jthomas
Just because truthers "think" something is fishy is not evidence that anything IS fishy. As truthers have demonstrated for the last 6 1/2 years, they just make claims and announce they are legitimate claims without being able to demonstrate it.



Being someone who was not involved in the events that transpired that day I do not hold the burden of proof. I have no access to the evidence that was with held from the general public.


Withheld by whom? Be specific.

The available evidence, none of which could possibly be withheld from us by anyone, all converges on the conclusion of what happened on that day.


If someone wants to tell me a fairytale they are the ones that have to prove it is true. I don't have to prove it's not true.


What "fairytale?" Told by whom? Please be clear and specific.


It doesn't matter as much as you think it does, because awareness leads curious people to seek out information for themselves. Personally, I don't like other people dictating to me what to think.


But you're happy to accept what Truthers are dictating that you think? Why?


Originally posted by jthomas
You might consider getting out into the real world.



That is a low dig, and is dependent on a big assumption about me personally. FYI, I do get out and live in the real world. I don't let idiots on tv tell me what to think. I think for myself. Your "real world" is basically the mainstream media.


So you're telling me what you think my "real world" is by repeating a canard your Truth Movement leaders told you to think - that all of our information comes from the mainstream media and the government.

So much for your real world.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You may as well give it up. It's turned into a he said she said argument and the believers of the 'official' story and the 'truthers' will never meet in the middle.


Could you explain how it's possible to believe in the something that doesn't exist, i.e., a so-called "official story?" Could you explain to all of us why you truthers keep evading that we are talking about evidence? Are you afraid of the evidence?


There HAS been plenty of evidence presented to the contrary yet there is the simple ploy that has been deployed by the government for decades. Keep feeding them lies and half truths and eventually they will believe it.


You haven't presented evidence at all. You have made unsupported claims and assertions.

And tell us exactly what you claim the "government" is feeding you?


Sorry, I have seen too much evidence to where there should AT LEAST be a new investigation done.


You all have been saying that for years. But nothing happens.


Yet that will not happen as long as these people are in power. They block any attempts by calling these people asking the questions names like conspiracy nuts and freaks.


Who in the government is preventing you from presenting your evidence that there is evidence requiring another investigation?


That's their best defense right now. They get mad when confronted by the questions that MORE AND MORE people are asking.


Confronted? People only get upset when you don't listen to the answers and repeat six-year old questions that have been repeatedly answered. It would be better if you looked at yourself for the reasons the 9/11 Truth Movement is going nowhere rather than blame unnamed people for unspecified power over you.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Wrong. We have nothing to prove. YOU do.


Nothing to prove eh? What's the official stance and where is the proof of it all?


What does anyone "official" have to do with it?


Quite false. You have not demonstrated that your so-called "unanswered questions" are even legitimate. And, as you well know, the vast majority of any legitimate "questions" truthers asked were answered long ago.



Please tell me the answers and proof there of to the following questions.

Was Bin-Laden involved in the 9/11 attacks.


On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”


www.globalresearch.ca...

What stopped WTC 2's tilting momentum?

NIST: Chirp, Chirp.

What was the cause of the global collapses?

NIST: They were inevitable.

Unanswered questions. There's my proof.


Looks like you missed the conclusions of the NIST investigators, a majority of whom were independent, non-government investigators? What are the conclusions?

And the FBI wanted poster is still up. No mention of 9/11. So do you want us to beleive that the FBI does not think bin Laden is responsible for 9/11?


Not on your life. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that a) there is anything at all the government has to prove,



Well, if the government agencies don't have an onus of proof on them, I want my taxpaying money back for their investigation that they were taxed with. The government doesn't have to prove anything? Give me my freeking money back then if they weren't taxed with proving anything.



In fact, the onus is not even on the government to prove anything. Remember, FEMA did WTC 1 & 2, ASCE did the Pentagon investigations. It was only by taxpayer request that NIST and the 9/11 Commission were formed. Through Truther wired twists of logic, you think the investigations mean the government is supposed to prove it is not behind 9/11. Your claim that the government has the onus to prove anything is demonstrably false. The onus of proof still remains on YOU to prove YOUR claims.

Sorry, that is the way it is.


and b) you have to provide evidence for YOUR claims.



And what part of "there are unanswered questions" don't you understand? How do I prove that there are unanswered questions? All I have to do is show that there are unanswered questions. Duh.


Just imagine if I hauled you into court for YOU to prove your innocence? Is that the standard you really want to adhere to?



What guilt, what innocence?


You stated unequivocally: "The burden of proof is on the "official" side to prove what they are telling us is true."

It doesn't work that way. Your prove guilt. No one has to prove innocence. YOU have to prove the governnent is guilty of anything. YOU have to prove that the government has anything to "prove."



It is important for 9/11 truthers to drop the false claim that the onus of proof is on anyone other than themselves. Will you now do that, please, Griff, or do you want to keep evading your responsibility?



So, we have to prove what happened? Even though 90% of the evidence is not for our eyes? Please.


No, you have to demonstrate that the government has anything IT has to prove. YOU have to refute the evidence.


The government was taxed and paid to find out all the answers. They have failed. Period. There is no more need to prove anything until the original theory is proven correct.


That is your opinion only. YOU have to prove the evidence of what happened is wrong.

Unfortunately, you can't make a case. Until you recognize that the onus of proof is on you, nothing will happen. You have to make a case for your claims and you haven't.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonyo1
Folks, this is not about 911, it's about how 911 plays in the myth of America.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, John Ray's article contends that "they" Have won the information campaign about 911,"They", being of course, THE Skeptics.
But Factually, no such thing has occurred, they are merely manipulating the information as they please.
That being,..
1 What happened?
2 How did it happen?
3 Who is responsible?
4 And more.

And in every aspect, in every way, they agree with the government story.


There is no "government story." Skeptics believe what the evidence leads to and the evidence of what happened on 9/11 converges on the conclusion that bin Laden was behind the attacks.

You're welcome to refute the evidence whenever you finally face the reality that your canard of the "official story" doesn't work with intelligent people. We've been waiting for you to present evidence for 6 1/2 years. How much longer before you get around to it?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonyo1
Folks, this is not about 911, it's about how 911 plays in the myth of America.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, John Ray's article contends that "they" Have won the information campaign about 911,"They", being of course, THE Skeptics.
But Factually, no such thing has occurred, they are merely manipulating the information as they please.


You can’t be serious? The battle is over.

You, the royal you, can keep deluding yourself that there is some raging debate over 9-11. Then again, that does fit within the mindset of most truthers. Almost seven years and what has the truth club produced? Nothing. Thousands of internet posts to various forums does not equal a movement. Alex Jones yelling through a bullhorn, does not equal a movement. Protesting at ground zero every Saturday (all 5 of you) does not equal a movement. Starting web sites, posting videos and talking back and forth to a handful of people does not equal a movement. 000004 of one (1) percent of the US population signing an internet petition does not equal a movement. Claiming holograms were used does not equal a movement.

The Civil Rights movement, was a movement.

The time for talk is over and has been for quite some time. For goodness sake: the truth club has so little material, so few ideas that have been so thoroughly debunked for more than half a decade that even the skeptics are loosing interest. The current state of the truth club involves the last few diehards repeating the same charges over and over and over again to an ever decreasing audience. The notion that truthers can’t even accurately gauge public perception of the club is very, very telling.

So, what’s it going to be? Is the truth club going to start producing action, or are you going to continue to slip into obscurity?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
OK jthomas and others. Prove what happened to the steel to make it corrode. As found by FEMA who says that more investigation needs to be done. And who investigated this further?

www.fema.gov...

I'm not talking about the government had to set out to prove it's innocence from day one. I'm talking about that they need to prove what they say happened actually happened. Like why some of the hijackers were on Able Danger but still left to get on the planes with box cutter knives. That doesn't mean they (the government) are automatically guilty by default. So, the onus is on them to prove their conclusions first.

I will admit that someone who screams "9/11 was an inside job" does have the onus of proof on them to back up their claims.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with those people. What I'm saying is that there are unanswered questions. Doesn't mean I'm accussing anyone of anything other than not answering those questions. How do I prove there are unanswered questions other than to keep asking them?

[edit on 6/7/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
What I'm saying is that there are unanswered questions. Doesn't mean I'm accussing anyone of anything other than not answering those questions. How do I prove there are unanswered questions other than to keep asking them?

[edit on 6/7/2008 by Griff]


OK, let the record show that you have "unanswered" questions.

Next?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
OK, let the record show that you have "unanswered" questions.

Next?


Well, since my taxpaying money was used to supossedly find out those answers, I suggest you ask NIST, et al that question. NOT ME.

You're such a broken record it's kinda funny.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Here's what I would mean if I ever say "official story"


official(uh-fish-uhl)
1. a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties

SEC. 603. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be APPOINTED by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be APPOINTED by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the
case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be APPOINTED by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be APPOINTED by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be APPOINTED by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be APPOINTED by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.


2. appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity (i.e. authorized by Congress and the President)


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Intelligence
AUTHORIZATION Act for Fiscal Year 2003''.



Story(stawr-ee, stohr-ee) a report or account of a matter

SEC. 602. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Commission are to--
(1) examine and REPORT upon the facts and causes relating to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the
World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
(2) ascertain, evaluate, and REPORT on the evidence
developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of--
(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred
to as the ``Joint Inquiry''); and
(B) other executive branch, congressional, or
independent commission investigations into the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks,
and terrorism generally;
(4) make a full and complete ACCOUNTING of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States'
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
(5) investigate and REPORT to the President and Congress on
its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

So, to me, the "911 Commission" report is the "official story."

Taken from dicitionary.com... and govinfo.library.unt.edu...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
OK, let the record show that you have "unanswered" questions.


Anyone who doesn't still has questions is either apathetic or ignorant of what officials have said thus far.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
OK, let the record show that you have "unanswered" questions.

Next?


Well, since my taxpaying money was used to supossedly find out those answers, I suggest you ask NIST, et al that question. NOT ME.


You're confused. I don't have any "unanswered" questions. You just told us YOU have unanswered questions. If you want want to pose all of your "unanswered" questions you supposedly have, go right ahead. Go to NIST and ask them.


You're such a broken record it's kinda funny.


It is funny that we skeptics have to keep reminding you truthers to either put up or stop whining. We've been doing it for 6 1/2 years and you STILL don't get it.

By the way, just so we ALL are clear on this matter, we skeptics are completely satisfied with the NIST investigation even though it was an extra taxpayer expense requested by many, particularly the families of the victims. To date, no one has yet come up with any evidence that would refute any of the evidence, the NIST investigation, or the ASCE investigation, the claims-without-evidence from 9/11 truthers, notwithstanding.

So, if you want to waste MY taxpayer money by claiming you have "unanswered questions", I will suggest you pay for it yourself.

Is that a deal, Griff?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
OK, let the record show that you have "unanswered" questions.


Anyone who doesn't still has questions is either apathetic or ignorant of what officials have said thus far.


As if "officials" are on trial for something?

Don't you like evidence?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't have any "unanswered" questions.


Again, because you are either apathetic or don't fully understand the problems with the given explanations thus far.

I wouldn't have any questions either, if I didn't give half a #, and just believed whatever I wanted. And you obviously don't have all the answers because you can't give them!

This conversation with you, jthomas, goes nowhere fast. Because you don't want to go anywhere with it. You are content with not knowing.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Col. George Nelson: “In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident,” wrote Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret), a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.

“The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view,” continued Col. Nelson, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force War College and a 34-year Air Force veteran.


The truth may be self-evident, but the true crime begins with the lack of investigation by the government of this day and the pretence that the book is closed. "Truth, justice and the American way" are a myth, the total absence of these qualities in a patriotic nation where people actually believe the American way includes "truth and justice" is the real conspiracy at work.

It's a great sign of the power of online social networking that shills and "9/11 Debunking for Dummies" graduates can garner the level of debate and distraction that exists on a forums such as this one.

Is it in the public interest that you empower yourself, waste less time and energy on self-appointed "skeptics" here, learn how to express your voice to this government and to the next one, and see to it that the truth is correctly expressed, and justice is brought upon those who have escaped it so far? Or is it in the public interest to shut up, or to hide away from where your voice will make a difference?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


A) I can't believe you're still chatting sh^t in this thread.

B) You state "The available evidence, none of which could possibly be withheld from us by anyone...". So what are the videos of the "plane" crashing into the Pentagon that the FBI conviscated and has refused to release then, if not withheld by the government?


[edit on 7-6-2008 by Alethia]




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join