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.

 

Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Okay so a lot of people on this site believe there is a conspiracy for the 9/11 tragedy. Well I am open minded and i have looked at both sides and have read many topics on this forum. It always is the people trying to debunk the conspiracies. Whether it be controlled demolition of the buildings, planes not hiting the trade center or pentagon, etc. Well lets flip it. go to www.debunking911.com... and debunk them. I was looking at the wtc7 in particular. Why is it all the videos that say it is a controlled demo edit the video and do not show the whole thing. just the last 6.5 seconds. it leaves out 7 or 8 seconds more. Which I beleive is the most important. It shows the first 8 seconds when the penthouse collapses into the building. So people debunk the debunkers. Because it sure seems to me that they can debunk any theory of any kind of conspiracy.




posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
What makes you think that everyone on here knows what they are talking about?They aren't all experts.Some people don't even have a clue what they need to look for to debunk.This is why 9/11 is a conspiracy in the first place.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
My point is they cannot. They act like they have facts, but in actuality they are taking little bits of info and making conclusions from it. I am simply asking if anyone can debunk that site. I am guessing they cannot. But the way most people act on this site they should easily be able to do it.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Thats why there is this site.Some of believe and some of us not.Ask me about 9/11.It is what it is.I love how we have this site as a community,we have to right to express how we feel about societies nicks.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
911 can be proven an inside job without even grazing the WTC/ pentagon attacks.
You posted a link to a site asking if it could be debunked. Can it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Yes. Stop being lazy and do your own research if you are really "open minded".



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
scholars for 911

there are thousands and thousands of them.

the ones who don`t have the technical skills to asses
it all rely on the expert statements to make a decision.

and in my opinion there is MORE THAN ENOUGH EXPERT
statements that are made to easily convince me
that the official story is a joke.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
And the band plays on....

9/11 will be around for a long time from people making money on selling the conspiracy to (fill in the blank _____) people who have no desire to learn about structural engineering and money to waste.

Internet experts are a dime a dozen. You see them here all the time. Pick a conspiracy and you'll have your "experts" with youtube video and wiki info to back it up. A very sorry state of education our technology driven society has become.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
911, doesn't need to be debunked. As long as the powers that be, keep information from the US taxpayers about the event; then the onus is on them, not on the truthseekers.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky

Internet experts are a dime a dozen.


I was not talking about alleged INTERNET EXPERTS...

why would you suggest this?

I am strictly talking about outside of the internet Scholars.

please do not put words in my mouth...they are not mine...but yours



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
So who should we believe? Internet driveby posters, more influenced by ideology than evidence, or these guys?


www.patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Can you debunk the debunkers that debunk the debunking of the debunkers while they were debunking the debunk effect?
911 forum is dead the brainwashed won hats down.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
scholars for 911

there are thousands and thousands of them.

the ones who don`t have the technical skills to asses
it all rely on the expert statements to make a decision.

and in my opinion there is MORE THAN ENOUGH EXPERT
statements that are made to easily convince me
that the official story is a joke.



Well, you know, I'm hardly a structural engineer myself, so I'm relying on the words of others on the subject, too.

However.

If practically the entire structural engineering community says, "This is what almost certainly happened," I trust them. They would know; I do not. I have no reason to trust people without training in the relevant field unless they somehow show that they are truly equipped to answer questions, and I've not seen anyone from the CT side who can. At least, not that can answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner, including providing evidence.

We are trying to teach critical thinking skills here, I think. Don't just take someone's word for it, in other words, but know whether their word is worth taking. (Hint: the No Plane people are not worth trusting.) Big Friggin' Planes plus Big Friggin' Fire equals Big Friggin' Collapse. What's so unbelievable about that?

Gillian
www.bautforum.com...



Bottom line, if you're going to do it with explosives, you need tons of explosives. There is no alternative. You cannot possibly anticipate the structure's behavior with enough accuracy to get it done reliably with less. This is one of many reasons why the very idea of "controlled demolition" is, and always has been, absolutely insane.

Read the whole thing: forums.randi.org...



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
911, doesn't need to be debunked. As long as the powers that be, keep information from the US taxpayers about the event; then the onus is on them, not on the truthseekers.


Red herring. The evidence presented and in the public domain is substantial and more than enough that the onus of proof is on you 9/11 Truthers to disprove it.

Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean you get to ignore it.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by whaaa
911, doesn't need to be debunked. As long as the powers that be, keep information from the US taxpayers about the event; then the onus is on them, not on the truthseekers.


Red herring. The evidence presented and in the public domain is substantial and more than enough


Not for me it isn't. When and if the tapes from the pentagon are released and if it shows a 757 I will more than gladly admit my conspiritorial error.
Untill then....

I'd rather believe these guys.

www.patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
yes release the info and I too would be more than happy to
except it...
and be proven wrong..

my being proven wrong is not even part of the subject.
who cares who is wrong....

we just want the truth.....I we are pretty damn sure that we
are not getting it.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by whaaa
911, doesn't need to be debunked. As long as the powers that be, keep information from the US taxpayers about the event; then the onus is on them, not on the truthseekers.


Red herring. The evidence presented and in the public domain is substantial and more than enough


Not for me it isn't. When and if the tapes from the pentagon are released and if it shows a 757 I will more than gladly admit my conspiritorial error.


All you are doing is repeating the illogical canard that none of the other evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon counts. It is such an illogical statement.

What you are saying is that none of the physical evidence counts. None of the eyewitnesses counts. None of the implications of claiming AA77 did not hit the Pentagon counts!

You're just saying that until and unless a video showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon surfaces, that the rest of the evidence does not count.

I think you need to think through exactly what the implications of your statement are and will soon realize that any video is meaningless in establishing that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

But then, the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe you need that video. That way, it gets to ignore the evidence it can't refute. And if it turns out that NO video actually shows the crash, the "movement" gets to continue to claim that there is "no" evidence that it hit.

Do you really want to believe what the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasI think you need to think through exactly what the implications of your statement are and will soon realize that any video is meaningless in establishing that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Do you really want to believe what the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe?










Actually I can think for myself and evaluate the evidence. And that entrance hole in the pentagon doesn't look like an airliner caused it.
Just release the tapes. Why is that to much to ask?

And your strident insulting manner isn't doing anything for your side.
In fact it's the "you're a fool if you question authority" attitude that is a profound detriment to the official story.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
All you are doing is repeating the illogical canard that none of the other evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon counts. It is such an illogical statement.

[snip] blah, blah, "evidence", blah, blah, "witnesses", blah, blah.

Do you really want to believe what the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe?

No, I'd rather believe the nonsensical government lies and what some loquacious smooth-talker with -50 ATS points tells me to believe. We can evaluate the "evidence" or lack thereof just fine by ourselves, thank you very much. I suggest starting with CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon and saying, "after my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." From there, it only gets worse.

Why won't the government show us just one of those 90+ confiscated video tapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? [cough] missile. What are they hiding after nearly 7 years?

Yeah Tide88, you're open-minded all right -- as long as the script doesn't deviate from your silly debunking911 website, which is most likely more government psy-ops.

I like how you went from admitting that WTC 7 looked exactly like a controlled demolition to declaring that the tape had been "edited" and the collapse of this "penthouse" was somehow a significant factor in a steel-framed building that was undamaged except for a couple of small fires. How ridiculous!

I also like how you went from thinking that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment really meant "pull the firefighters", as if Larry Friggin' Silverstein had anything to do with the firefighting efforts on 9/11 or that "pull it" actually meant "pull them" or that there were any firefighters to "pull", which there weren't. Now you say it was the FDNY Fire Chief who gave the order. So I guess we should just ignore what Silverstein said on PBS. The only "it" that's being pulled is your leg.

You've got such a convoluted government story running through your head, you must feel dizzy!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Red herring. The evidence presented and in the public domain is substantial and more than enough that the onus of proof is on you 9/11 Truthers to disprove it.


Rofl, here you are spouting this bullcrap in a new thread.

Are you going to show us what evidence you're talking about yet, jthomas?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Bottom line, if you're going to do it with explosives, you need tons of explosives. There is no alternative. You cannot possibly anticipate the structure's behavior with enough accuracy to get it done reliably with less. This is one of many reasons why the very idea of "controlled demolition" is, and always has been, absolutely insane.

Read the whole thing: forums.randi.org...



This is total BS.

First, you people believe it took ZERO...repeat...ZERO explosives or whatever to bring down the towers.

If there was even ONE bomb, it would have aided your ZERO.

Logic like the quote from jref is so BS it's funny.

And you people quote them as if they have something to say.


Let's break it down:

You people....planes + impact damage=collapse.

CT.....planes + impact damage + any amount of help = collapse.

If it can be done with ZERO, just one would aid it.


It's not rocket science.

It's funny how the above quote mentions that there is no way to reliably do it with less than tons of explosives, yet they believe that ZERO does the job.


[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join