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.

 

**New 9/11 docs destroy official story**

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So you don't subscribe to any theory?


As stated hundreds of times, i am looking for the truth.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron Finding of fault by individuals or organizations...


Yes, it means they do not have the authority that the FBI and NTSB does, you know the real investigating agencies.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Is the FBI qualified to evaluate a buildings safety and structural integrity?

Yes or no?

I think we all know the answer to that one, silly ULTIMA1!

Why not leave it to the experts from an agency of the U.S. Dept of Commerce Technology Admin!

wtc.nist.gov...


NIST is a nonregulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Administration. The purpose of NIST investigations is to improve safety and structural integrity of buildings in the United States, and the focus is on fact finding.NIST investigative teams are authorized to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substatntial loss of life.


Seems like they are more authorized than the FBI for that.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Is the FBI qualified to evaluate a buildings safety and structural integrity?


I guess you never head of the special teams the FBI has or can call in to help them on a an investigation, you know like the NTSB.


www.fbi.gov...

Is there a law that states NIST has to be an investigating agency, YES or NO?


[edit on 15-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That link shows information about the ERT, which helps gather information and such.

it does not say they are qualified to do a structural analysis of the building or anything. That is where the NIST comes in. To do the proper investigation.

Unless you can show me on your link where it says the ERT is more qualified than the NIST, please.

Please, ULTIMA1, show me.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
That link shows information about the ERT, which helps gather information and such.


If you would have read the whole link the left side shows all the other special units.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I have seen them all. Cept, I kinda dozed off during Final-cut,

2nd edition of Loose change was more "thumpin'" although still ridiculously WRONG, heh.


Typical PseudoSkeptic... focus on things that are highly controversial and debatable... but then dodge that which is not. And even when the makers of one film distance themselves from old materials and take the focus into more concrete areas you still revert back to the old stuff as if debunking that debunks any and all possibilities of a conspiracy.

You have commited the 'Pseudo-Skeptic Fallacy' that I call "Argumentum ad Loose Changium":


Argumentum ad Loose Changium: This is the flawed mentality driven position that our “Skeptics” have been employing for a good couple years now. Its a mainstream sort of perception, also. You see the old “Loose Change 2nd Edition” had quite a few flaws, some rather drastic. Back in the day LC2E was a sort of phenomenon. In those days Google Video still showed how many views a video had and they had a Top 100 listing. I think at one point I had noticed something around 10,000,000 views. So that film naturally got much of the attention. So it didn’t take too long before there were tons of pages and threads refuting it every way they could. Thats fine, if something has flaws of course, but it should be noted that these types paint everything as a one sided argument. That is, the opposition is 99% wrong without a leg to stand on, and they’re 99.5% right.

Back on point, the entire world of 9/11 discussion has devolved into a LC2E is the entire 9/11 conspiracy universe. That is, mentioning something 9/11 related that isn’t even in that film results in red herring discussions related to LC2E.

The entire mindset boils down to this: “LC2E had been debunked, therefore there can be no 9/11 Conspiracy”.
List of other Pseudo-Skeptic Fallacies



[edit on 15-9-2008 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarielDCLXVI

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
What if I have already watched all of those videos and find them to be erronious, sophmoric webjunk of the highest order?

Does that make me a sheep...or a shill?

What does your propagandist say I should be categorized as?


I say then grab a camera and go make one better proving your side. get the witnesses, the news footage, the documents, do the research. It is great to sit there and bash the truthers and the films they claim support them, but where is the evidence from the other side?


Yawn..I HAVE done the research... BOTH SIDES. That is kinda what the first page of this thread was talking about.. The OP even asked I post such evidence from the ~ahem~ "other side." Which I did, promptly and willingly, as the material stands on its own merit.


All I ever see or hear is 'believers' calling 'truthers' idiots or crazy or coming back with something irrelevant altogether. How about you show the opposing viewpoint as eloquently as those films show their side.


One man's eloquent, is another man's erronious, sophmoric webjunk.

Sorry, I really tried to believe this stuff... it is just re-hashed non-sense. Hackeneyed and lame, just repackaged speculation set for the dramatic.


I believe that was the point of the OP. If you disagree, show why, if you think they lie, show why, if you just think this is nonsense and have nothing to add, perhaps you should shy from the reply buttons.


Well thanks, Mr.helper... Paraphrased: "If I don't agree with this non-sense in lockstep precision, I should just zip my yapper!" Riiight. I'll get right on that.

Look, I did show why I disagreed, even supplied links to further my contention. It doesn't take a genius to figure this scam out.

If the point is to raise youth's awareness about politics and the government's role in American society.. Ok. great.

If it's to spread anti-American propaganda worldwide, knowing that the information is twisted and deceptive -- I will voice my opinion LOUDLY.

Simple as that. Enough with the repackaged lies already.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I have seen them all. Cept, I kinda dozed off during Final-cut,

2nd edition of Loose change was more "thumpin'" although still ridiculously WRONG, heh.


Typical PseudoSkeptic... focus on things that are highly controversial and debatable... but then dodge that which is not. And even when the makers of one film distance themselves from old materials and take the focus into more concrete areas you still revert back to the old stuff as if debunking that debunks any and all possibilities of a conspiracy.

You have commited the 'Pseudo-Skeptic Fallacy' that I call "Argumentum ad Loose Changium":


I am not dodging jack, man. I find it funny that you jump all over one statement when I am supplying a list of ALL the youtube "shockdoc's" I have wasted my time watching-- ~~ TOO MANY of them-- Get it?~~

THEN have the ridiculous audacity to state that I am basing my beliefs around the WRONGNESS of just one of those films.. Laughable.

(actually I think you just wanted to narcissistically web-stroke by slapping down some goofy definition you cooked up about loose change)

Too bad it is not applicable-- at all.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Perhaps you should review your own post, which was a listing of 9/11 debunker pages that almost wholeheartedly focus on LC2E material.

Other than 911 mysteries, the others barely touch WTC Demo's. And your links sure like to talk about F77 & F93.

I havent seen Fabled Enemies just yet, but its my understanding it focuses entirely on intelligence community type stuff. I know that WKJO does.

LCFC hardly even scrapes across the materials in LC2E, yet you focus entirely on those materials.

Case closed, youre convinced there wasn't a no plane at Pentagon, no F93 fake story, and no WTC demo job. There can be no 9/11 conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Stich2306
So just for me. How does this make any sense? The investigation can not be official because they failed to recover any steel. Strange enough, but ok. So why do you want a new investigation?


1. The NIST report on building is not a proper investaigation for many reasons, such as becasue they are not an official investigating agency with authority and they did not recover steel for testing.

2. I do not want a new investigation unless the FBI and NTSB official crime scene reports are proven wrong or are debunked.


So according to you. Because the steel is gone and it’s impossible to test it. A proper investigation will never be possible.

So it’s impossible to ever give you the exact right answer. If you know this. Why are you still looking for the truth when you know it’s impossible to find?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I don't get it.

You all watched every video there is. You all read every book there is. You all did your homework and know this case in and out. Why don’t you respect the opinion of the other.

When you work that hard to gather information and others don’t believe you, you get offended. But you are doing it to each other.

If you want to be right, proof it without a doubt. If you can’t, learn from anyone that disagrees whit you.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stich2306
So according to you. Because the steel is gone and it’s impossible to test it. A proper investigation will never be possible.


NO, if you did any research you would know that FEMA did do testing on the steel.

NIST failed to recover any steel for testing, which means they did not do a proper investigation as stated.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join