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: 14
3
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Tell it to jthomas. He's the one under some kind of conviction that somebody has some kind of definitive evidence of something.

I can't be more specific because he won't post anything to support whatever it is that he believes. In other words he's a hypocrite I guess.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I challenge any self proclaimed debunker to debunk these pages :

I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
Page 1 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
to page 11 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take your time to read all 11 pages, and follow my links to my original thesis at the Study of 911 website, and all other links I provided.

Intelligent members of JREF have tried and failed, NIST has tried to come up with explanations and failed and subsequently removed (in fact hid) all their former seismic evidence pages from all of their latest reports, and you know why?

Because I used their own facts against them, and those facts can't be refused by the same institutions who provided those facts in the first place.


First, facts from pages provided by NIST ( their extensive 9/11 time lines published, all compared to atomic clock times from NIST it self), and secondly LDEO ( their 9/11 seismic evidence published within days and weeks after 9/11 was executed).

And this proof of external energy involved in the destruction of WTC 7, the third WTC tower to collapse on 9/11, is based solely on simple basic school calculus.

No complicated science involved and no need to throw around complicated Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or whatever other specialisms.

Everyone who completed basic school, can easily comprehend my explanations, and will come to conclude what I concluded :

When the WTC 7 collapse was a definitive staged event, then WTC 2 and 1 collapses were also staged events, and subsequent strong evidence for the Twin Towers demolition is provided alongside the WTC 7 evidence, too.

Read, and wake up from the "news" media induced, artificial lethargy.
The events on 09-11-2001 were staged events.

Who pulled the strings in that tragedy, is the next tidbit to unravel.

All bets are open on that one, and it still could be that the US government and military was, and still is, so embarrassed by the fact that they couldn't prevent such an elaborate planned event, that it caused them to try to HIDE all the evidence, instead of showing it and take the blame, but at least then prevent another similar scenario to ever be completed again in the future.


NOTES :
NIST is the US institution which was ordered and paid by the US government to construct the officially accepted US explanation of the 9/11 events.
LDEO is the official US seismic institute which was profiled within days after 9/11 as the one institute which recorded the official seismic recordings of the impacts and collapses on 9/11.

When you compare the facts from both official US institutes, there are grave inconsistencies within these facts, which even lead to the inevitable conclusion that some huge external form of energy was introduced 6 seconds before any sign of global collapse was visible real-time, at New York's WTC 7 site on 9/11.
A form of energy, bigger than the total amount of energy recorded from the complete mass of that building collapsing to, and hitting the ground.
Thus, far in advance of the first visual dent in the eastern penthouse roof of WTC 7.
Which was followed 8.2 seconds later by the collapse of that penthouse, followed by the collapse of the western penthouse, and then global collapse of the whole 47 floors high building started.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
In addition to LaBTops fantastic research, I did a tiny bit of high-school math myself and demonstrated that to release the energy seen on 9/11 PER BUILDING, each building would have had to have been dropped (in its completed state) the equivalent of 47 ft (imagine a huge hand picking up the building and dropping it again). That's the kind of energy we're talking about, BEFORE it collapsed.

Debunk THAT!

My proof is in this forum, if not in the thread LaBTop linked. Anyone who completed high-school should be able to follow the math.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
thats it
the 911 truthers WIN AGAIN

ITS FACT...ITS OFFICIAL....ITS OVER..

the truth will ALWAYS win over the lies of the DEBUNKERS.

hands down ....simple.......
the debunkers are like the old forgotten wives tales...used
as a joke but NEVER taken seriously..



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Do you know what I find odd... I don't feel the need to debunk the debunkers... I've never changed my mind based on what has been said or typed on a forum or on our great old internet. I've never (100% true) changed my mind on the things I believe to be real, true and fact when someone has 'debunked' it. I always come away still believing what I thought and its probably the same for the debunkers.

Sure there are times when a UFO picture comes out and it looks real only to turn out to be fake, but it doesn't debunk UFO's it doesn't debunk the whole idea, it just debunks some sad persons attempt at fame, and I'm cool with that. The same applies to 911 etc etc, you can debunk parts but not the whole, if there is just 1 thing that doesn't add up, that's all I need to be suspicious and have reason to question.

When you've seen things with your own eyes debunkers take on a new meaning and that is they hold no sway (on certain topics at least), when you know for a fact some things ARE REAL you don't feel the need to go round in circles again and again. So in conclusion and to answer the original question in my own opinion - I dont need to.

PS - Did a "debunk" word count in my post and its 10, not bad for a few lines



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
Do you know what I find odd... I don't feel the need to debunk the debunkers... I've never changed my mind based on what has been said or typed on a forum or on our great old internet. I've never (100% true) changed my mind on the things I believe to be real, true and fact when someone has 'debunked' it. I always come away still believing what I thought and its probably the same for the debunkers.

The same applies to 911 etc etc, you can debunk parts but not the whole, if there is just 1 thing that doesn't add up, that's all I need to be suspicious and have reason to question.

Good point, but I'd still like some credit for "debunking the debunkers."

The ones around here are vicious, deceitful and not so easy to debunk!



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
The ones around here are vicious, deceitful and not so easy to debunk!


Actually the people that still believe the official story are pretty easy to debunk.

1. They cannot post official reports.

2. They cannot post physical evidence.

3. They cannot post sources for photos or videos.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

translation: --- the most "perfect storm" of fire in WTC 7 takes more of a "leap of faith" than considering the possibility of controlled demolitions.

A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up almost completely within the foundations of the building.

The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously.

Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. (like the collapse at the pentagon). By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance.

Local fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment.

The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.

it's not a real stretch to think that politicians lie when it suits them. ("read my lips, no new taxes" or "i did NOT have sexual relations with that woman") that reality is the basis for an endless stream of late-nite-comics' material. But that's rather different from entertaining the concept that our government could be capable of that which the "truthers" accuse.

The problem is, the debunkers keep changing their stories, depending on who they're trying to debunk. When 'debunking' Rosie O'donnell, they state that she misunderstood "weakening" the supports with "melting" ....
ok.... if we go with "they didn't melt, they simply weakened".... we then have to deal with the multiple testimony of "rivers" of molten metal running ... ok.... so they DID melt....

if you're looking for the science, i'd suggest checking the various articles by the engineers --
www.ae911truth.org...

rather than trying to "prove the 'conspiracy theorists' a bunch of nut-cases", you need to first entertain the thought that it's POSSIBLE for our government to orchestrate a false-flag operation... study your history - you'll find it wouldn't have been the first time.

once you acccept the fact that our government HAS orchestrated false-flag ops, and can and does lie to us, THEN look at the evidence again.
this isn't a matter of convincing yourself of evidence where none exists.... but maybe looking at information you might not have otherwised "bothered" with.

Hey, the first time i heard Alex Jones i thought he was a nut job.... unfortunately for me, as i researched ... i could corroborate 70-80% of the information presented... a small portion of what he presents is ...well... just plain misrepresented. for some claims, i simply found no evidence to support the claims. Moral of the story: research EVERYTHING - and don't immediately jump to half-baked conclusions.... but be willing to entertain everything - and not exclude info, just because the messenger is a bit of a nut. the nut is occasionally right.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
The ones around here are vicious, deceitful and not so easy to debunk!


Actually, I'm glad they're not easy to debunk. They make us think. Unlike FOX news to the rest of the country where they eat it up hook line and sinker.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
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.

The OS is easilly debunked. Debunking debunkers is redundant, and there is no need. So no CT has been proven, the OS has not been proven either.
Dubunk this: www.abovetopsecret.com...
or this
www.abovetopsecret.com...
or this
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or this
"The NIST report claims no signs of CD were found, the NIST also reports the evidence that would confirm or disprove that theory was not tested."

Talk about the debunkers debunking themselves so I dont have to...



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


I am going to start a thread in a few hours that I think may help out some. I do not claim to be an expert - but I found a book I'd like to relate some information from. There are many things the so called 'truthers' leave out of their documentaries when trying to say the 9/11 events were orchestrated by the government.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I'm an ATC'er, and I know for a fact that UAL93 was shot down. I work in the D.C. area, and I was in a place (that's all I want to say) when we got the official word.

I'm not a crazy, and I'm not a conspiracy nut bag.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I'm an ATC'er, and I know for a fact that UAL93 was shot down. I work in the D.C. area, and I was in a place (that's all I want to say) when we got the official word.

I'm not a crazy, and I'm not a conspiracy nut bag.


As soon as a get a declassified copy of a document from NSA hopefully will finally make the beleivers wake up and realize that Flight 93 was shot down.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join