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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:54 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.

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


First, we are NOT ignoring the evidence. We are asking for the total unbiased and disclosed evidence. There's a huge difference that you seem to not be able to grasp.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
my being proven wrong is not even part of the subject.
who cares who is wrong....


The debunkers do. Because if they are the ones who are wrong, we are all in deep sh*t.


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


The 9/11 Commission didn't get it either. I wonder why?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:02 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.


Actually, ALL the evidence should count and be released. I wonder why it continues to be hiden?


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!


I love how you put words in other's mouths.

Yes, all that counts. But, to have the COMPLETE picture, we need the COMPLETE evidence. Which we are not getting. Only spoon fed evidence.


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


Do you really want to believe that all the evidence is forthcomming? Even the 9/11 commission feels they were lyed to. How obvious does it have to be until it slaps you in the face?

ONLY CRIMINALS HIDE EVIDENCE.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you going to show us what evidence you're talking about yet, jthomas?


He can't. It isn't in the public domain as he so insists. So, he can't present said evidence, so all he does is parrot that it's there.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Ok how about this:


Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

www.structuremag.org...


www.debunking911.com...

Ok. Even debunking9/11 and structure magazine say that one critical column was enough to globally collapse WTC 7.

But, we have jthomas quoting people from jref who claim it would take thousands of tons of explosives.

Does anyone see the contradiction here?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Actually I can think for myself and evaluate the evidence.


You just revealed in your last post that you don't know how to evaluate evidence


And that entrance hole in the pentagon doesn't look like an airliner caused it.


Which demonstrates further that you don't know how to evaluate evidence. That canard was debunked years ago. But you repeat it and ignore the evidence again.


Just release the tapes. Why is that to much to ask?


C'mon. Tell us just what that has to do with the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


And your strident insulting manner isn't doing anything for your side.


When you insult us, the families of the victims of 9/11, and the American people by knowingly repeating known nonsense and debunked claims for your political cause, are you surprised that you will be called on it?.


In fact it's the "you're a fool if you question authority" attitude that is a profound detriment to the official story.


Don't insult me anymore with your evasions and canards. There is no "official story." There is only the evidence from hundreds of independent sources that converges on the conclusion of what happened on 9/11. The government was not the source of that evidence and neither did it have control of it from the very start.

It's time for you to stop foisting "The Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale" on us that you pray to every day.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Even I didn't think you were that illogical, Griff.



[Mod Edit - Removed excessive quote]
Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point! There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response.

Mod Note Please Review: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote


[edit on 16/6/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Ok. Even debunking9/11 and structure magazine say that one critical column was enough to globally collapse WTC 7.

But, we have jthomas quoting people from jref who claim it would take thousands of tons of explosives.

Does anyone see the contradiction here?


Yes.

It's pretty obvious that you didn't actually click the link provided, cuz your analysis of the entire post, as seen in the last few of your posts, is so far off base that it's pathetic.

No where does it say 1000's of tons.

And in that post he's talking about 1 and 2, not 7.

So the contradiction lies with you.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hey jthomas, I think you missed my post where I called you out for not being able to post any real evidence for the "official story" in the first place.


(Just kidding, I know you can't do it anyway.)


Btw, can you explain what's so illogical about thinking even 1 explosive could help bring them down when you think 0 did?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

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.


I have a serious question for you Golden Fleece. Where did you get that Jamie McIntyre quote and what does the quote actually tell you?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


So, you agree that WTC 7 could have been taken down very easily then? Without having to load the structure with explosives. Just one column needed severed. Right?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

Ok. Even debunking9/11 and structure magazine say that one critical column was enough to globally collapse WTC 7.

But, we have jthomas quoting people from jref who claim it would take thousands of tons of explosives.

Does anyone see the contradiction here?


Yes.

It's pretty obvious that you didn't actually click the link provided, cuz your analysis of the entire post, as seen in the last few of your posts, is so far off base that it's pathetic.


The only thing pathetic around here are you guys with your "evidence" that doesn't exist.


No where does it say 1000's of tons.


So, we're going to play semantic games again today? Figures.


And in that post he's talking about 1 and 2, not 7.

So the contradiction lies with you.


It doesn't say one way or the other. It actually says:


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...


Where does it say 1 & 2 and not 7?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Even I didn't think you were that illogical, Griff.


You can actually think? News to me.

Anyway, where's this evidence we have been asking you for for months and months now?

The only illogical thing about my post is you guys believe zero explosives did it but yet refuse to acknowledge that even one would aid your already globally collapsing building.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, you agree that WTC 7 could have been taken down very easily then? Without having to load the structure with explosives. Just one column needed severed. Right?



Right. We agree there.

However, since it could be brought down so easily, fire weakening could also do it. Right?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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.


Actually, ALL the evidence should count and be released. I wonder why it continues to be hiden?



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!



I love how you put words in other's mouths.


Sorry, that's what the poster is claiming. Without a video, he won't believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



Yes, all that counts. But, to have the COMPLETE picture, we need the COMPLETE evidence. Which we are not getting. Only spoon fed evidence.


Demonstrably false. The evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon is independent of the government and was beyond its ability to control. Don't keep using "The Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale" in order to keep avoiding the evidence.


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



Do you really want to believe that all the evidence is forthcomming? Even the 9/11 commission feels they were lyed to. How obvious does it have to be until it slaps you in the face?

ONLY CRIMINALS HIDE EVIDENCE.


You agree with me that we do not need any videos whether they exist or not to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. THAT is the subject matter.

And you haven't shown that any evidence about AA77 is being "hidden."



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you going to show us what evidence you're talking about yet, jthomas?


He can't. It isn't in the public domain as he so insists. So, he can't present said evidence, so all he does is parrot that it's there.


No, he means he believes the evidence is far too inconvenient. So do you.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You agree with me that we do not need any videos whether they exist or not to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. THAT is the subject matter.

And you haven't shown that any evidence about AA77 is being "hidden."


You are so set in your argumentative ways it's pathetic. How many times do I have to post that I believe Flight 77 hit the pentagon? Take your blinders off would you?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, we're going to play semantic games again today? Figures.

Where does it say 1 & 2 and not 7?


1- you're the one playing semantic games. You're always talking about how as an engineer, things need to be precise, and yet an error on your part of this magnitude is ok with you? Very telling.

2- in the 4th para of the post in that link.

Why don't you just admit that you didn't read the post that was linked, just the posted para, and that your analysis of his post is wrong? it ain't such a bad thing to admit when you're wrong, especially when it's such a glaring error.

To continue to defend your analysis is totally illogical. Just because you didn't read the post and got something wrong, and then got called on it doesn't mean that anyone's attacking you personally.

Just trying to keep things real, and avoid the bs.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No, he means he believes the evidence is far too inconvenient. So do you.


What evidence?

FEMA said further investigation was needed, NIST never "showed their work," released critical structural information or verified their hypotheses in the lab, and no one else has even had access to the evidence in the first place!

So where in the HELL is this "evidence" you keep talking about? Am I missing something in any of the above?

Griff was on the right track. I think your new nickname is going to be "Parrot."



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And you haven't shown that any evidence about AA77 is being "hidden."



Sources said in 2002 that the FBI confiscated a hotel security camera video that showed the attack on the Pentagon. It's not known if that tape is being released.


www.cnn.com...

Where's the video? It hasn't been released as far as I'm aware. This is evidence whether you want to believe it or not. If it's not being released then it is hiden. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew I shouldn't have come into this semantic game thread were people with blinders will be able to post lies and get away with it. YES JTHOMAS YOU ARE A LIAR AND SHOULD BE DELT WITH. Yet here you are allowed to continue with your lies. WHY ATS MODS?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join