It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:29 PM

conspiracy frraks

Hello, you have arrived at, Pop. 77,000. Please enjoy your stay, and remember, what happens at ATS, was caused by ET's from Area 51 trying to brainwash you into becoming a sheep.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:30 PM
OldMedic & SuperViking:

You guys dont know how to orchestrate a proper cover-up

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:42 PM
Good post.

I'd like to add a specific example: The government conducted "simulations" of the collapse of the WTC Towers.

In all of the modeling, they claim that fires fanned by jet fuel either weakened the steel, or caused connection points to weaken, leading to the collapse of the towers.

Yet, I wonder: How do these "experts" KNOW how much FUEL was left after the HUGE fireballs witnessed by EVERYONE upon the planes impacting the towers??? How do they model the unknown??

That is the standard retort from the "there is no evidence of C.D. on the towers": jet fuel fires weakened the towers, causing collapse.

I mean, they (the government experts and the "Truthers") say 10,000 gals (approx.) were left in the planes when they reached NYC.

Ok, I'll go with that.

But then, knowing as I do that 10,000 gals of jet fuel weigh @ 30+ tons, and knowing from experience that when you impact something like a building with a plane EVERYTHING aft flies FORWARD (you have braked your car suddenly, and had everything in the rear window ledge fly into the front seat, or had the passengers jerk forward??? same same). This is EXACTLY what MY EYES see happening with the fireballs: 10,000 gallons of fuel igniting OUTSIDE the towers, being thrown forward upon impact. So, I have to ask:

WHAT FUEL are these "experts" modeling their conclusions upon? Looked to me like it ALL ignited and burned up OUTSIDE the towers.

Certainly, with 10,000 gallons fitting into a space the size of one small office, no one is claiming there was enough left to WEAKEN these HUGE SKYSCRAPERS, are there??? More likely you could melt a locomotive with a spoonful of kerosene, same proportion.

Or, were all the TV news services showing FAKE fireballs? I don't think so.

Also, in the government sponsored Purdue University "simulation", they made a video (on youtube, btw) showing the computer simulated impact of the jet into the tower: The nose, or cockpit, shatters into a million pieces immediately upon entry into tower. Like anyone with a modicum of intelligence might expect.

YET, the REAL LIFE VIDEO of the impact SHOWS an UNDAMAGED nose emerge from the other side of the tower....then "explodes."

But, googling "bird damage on Boeing jets" photos will show you photo after photo of HOLES in Boeing jets caused by BIRDS....yet they will pass through aluminum and steel UNHARMED? Those must be some tough ol' birds.....How did the nose pass through undamaged in the VIDEOS???

Answer: it couldn't have. Yet SOMETHING is on video. I call that an AS YET unexplained event.

I need answers I am not hearing from the "experts", so I question WHAT I SEE on video.

All I see is quite consistent with guilty people covering their tracks....with msm complicity. In fact, at times, they are much less convincing then OJ was with his "Columbian Hitmen" BS.

Like this great post states.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:22 PM
There are countless conspiracies on this site, which have quite alot of evidence, most of it circumstantial, some not, problem is, this doesn't really account for any proof.

As the poster above said, the WTC:

-Was bought and insured by Rockefeller against terrorist attack 18 months(?) before the attack.

-The WTC's where designed to withstand a plane crashing into them.

-Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough degree to melt steel.

-Some of the damage shows clean 'cuts' through metal and concrete.

-Held all the evidence from the investigation into missing funds from the DoD budget ($3.5 trillion), announced September 10th, 2001.

Then we have the pentagon:

-Impact zone was nowhere near big enough for the plane that hit, nor the was the debris field left strewn. (not exactly evidence, but interesting none the less.)

-The wing that got hit, stored all the data from the DoD accounting 'books', involved in the investigation.

And with recent events, I don't think anyone can deny that our governments have at least thought about a One world government.

So I guess it all depends on what you class as 'evidence' and 'proof', I've seen plenty on this site to at least make me question some of the official stories, then others make me think that they are capable of literally anything, that pleases them.


[edit on 2-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:44 PM
By simply looking at everything that is happening, the EVIDENCE, in the form scientific studies on Aspartame for example, you kinda have a good idea that there is something VERY wrong, & it is not natural.

... To even judge someone for having an interest in life elsewhere in the universe is an insult to our very intelligence, for it is amazing that we can even contemplate such a thing; We are not singular-celled organisms.

The main reason to question the government & if these 'conspiracy theories' (more like realities) are real or not is the fact that they are openly announcing that they are putting in internet 2, & you will not even be able to access this site, nor any other site that is not on their list...

So are you going to continue 'thinking' that they don't have anything to hide???

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Time=Now]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:38 PM
Part of the culture of paranoia that I love is something that Time=Now just exhibited: The government is 'Them' and the readers here are 'Us' and there is no in between.

I work for the NSA, btw.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

"If you ignore people, you have nobody to blame but yourself for not being able to respond to their rhetoric....When you put someone on ignore, you risk the fact that they will use your choice of pretending they don't exist against you in an argument."

You are wrong.

When I place someone on ignore I send them the following message via u2u:

"Ive placed you on my ignore list. Please do not respond or reply to me or my posts:
I will no longer be able to see your contributions and thus will be unable to offer a rebuttal or refute any claims you make against me.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Refusal to comply with my request will be considered harassment. "

*Members should not be allowed to continue attacking those who CANNOT fight back because they chose to use the Ignore function to shield themselves.

*It is ironic that the ignore function actually allows for more vicious personal attacks to go unreported - the victim does not even know when they are being attacked.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:53 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:08 PM
To the OP:

What a ridiculously poor argument.

You are doing nothing but replacing bad, unsupported logic with more bad, unsupported logic.

Any time you find yourself rationalizing and justifying your initial claim with another claim that is just as unproven, and unjustified as the first, you should know you're off to a very poor start, indeed.

We see this all the time here on ATS. Skeptics ask us for proof? Well, the proof was magically whisked away by the powers that be. There is plenty of evidence, but of course no one can vouch for it because the powers that be took it all in the name of a cover up.

And so on. You can't prove your initial claim A because your supposed claim B counteracts the proof for A. Of course it does. And can you prove claim B? To even remotely justify why we should entertain claim A in the first place? What evidence do you provide to believe claim B is even true?

Well, none whatsoever. What you get then is a logical fallacy called special pleading...."of course it makes sense that such information would be covered up and hidden by the government. Forget facts, forget are just supposed to believe that the big bad government would default in a position of hiding such truth from you.

And maybe they would. But that hardly proves A, much less B, now does it?

But you aren't supposed to worry about those details.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:00 PM
Most people are sheeple...

And most believe Ocum's Razor to hold true, in that when dealing with complex systems, the simplest solution is most likely...

Funny thing is that they relate Ocum's Razor to mean that a "conspiracy" is
a complex system (which it is) and that the "simplest solution" is the one that the government or MSM feeds us, and most people believe...

Ironically, IMHO, the simplest solution is that a person, or persons conspired to hide the evidence...

When people mention, during discussion, that I am a Conspiracy Theorist, and that people don't conspire, I mention that not everyone "conspires," as "conspiring takes more than one person, but almost anyone in power will do whatever is possible to conceal any evidence or knowledge of an act which would damage their chances of maintaining their power...

An example of a horrific event, in which a person attempted to "cover-up" an illful act includes the wife of a Philadelphia Eagle's VP, who struck a man on Route 42, while intoxicated, smashing him into the side of his car as he changed a tire...His wife was in the passenger seat and saw her husband die...The VP's wife pulled over to the side of the road ahead and called her husband...He apparently told her to call their attorney and get the hell out of there...Later, because a lineman (phone guy) noticed the damaged SUV in the VP's driveway, and had seen the news report, the wife was charged...By the way...they found the SUV at the dealership...It had been repaired, thus erasing the damage...

Her husband's position was far from the top levels of government...But, it was a conspiracy...

Two or more were involved...Whoops...the attorney can claim client/attorney priviledge....and the husband? Hmmm...I don't think he is required to testify against his wife...

This was a horrific event and only goes to show that some people have absolutely "NO" conscious whatsoever...

So those who say "conspiracies" are for "those people," should perhaps take a look at day to day events and realize that there are mean people out there...And they are the one's with "very, very little" power or much to lose, so what about those who have a heck of a lot to lose????

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:23 PM

"I did not tell a lie"....Nixon

"I didn't inhale"....Clinton

"I didn't have sex with that woman"....Clinton

Those were blatant lies from president's of the U.S.

How many other lies are out there that have not been uncovered?

Are you aware that the Navy has canvas, water resistant bags which have a concrete weighted bottom located next to every classified container on a ship (i.e. safes, etc...)? It is the sailor's responsiblity, if assigned to one of these areas, to fill these bags with the classified material and throw them over the side in case of sinking, so that the material did not fall into another's hands? Well, they were thrown over the side if the sailor's couldn't burn it first...

So, guess what? The evidence (i.e. the stuff that needed to be hidden) was purposely destroyed...But, the sailor's didn't conspire...They followed orders...Just like government employees would follow orders when asked to shred, burn, destroy, etc... evidence...

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by TruthTellist

And just as mentioned by another poster, you telling people not to respond to you is you saying "You need to shut up when I talk, because I'm not listening to you and you have no right to rebutt my arguments because I have you on ignore." It invites people to ignore your pedantic demand and do the opposite.

You put someone on ignore, you have only yourself to blame when they respond to you and you look like an idiot to other people in the thread. Using ignore is admitting a personal failure of communication, that or a total lack of willingness in tolerating people who irritate you.

Use ignore if you like, but I am fully supportive of people tearing your arguments apart while you blissfully trudge on with nary a clue that you're being responded to. In fact, I find it amusing.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

There will soon be an amendment to the T&C's that disallows people from continuing to attack those who have decided to shield themselves using the ignore function. It is ironic that the ignore function actually allows for more vicious personal attacks to go unreported - the victim does not even know when they are being attacked.

There will soon be penalties for those who do not refrain from doing this - as it is harassment.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by TruthTellist

There have been many occassions in my life where I have bore witness to individuals who were robbed of their voice. Outcast and unwelcome because of their thoughts, their ideas.

They were different, and thusly not welcome in the groups I observed. On most occasions, people would be encouraged to ignore them. To disdain them, and to treat them with suspicion, derision and at times outright hatred.

Whether you like a person or not, whether you agree with their sentiments or not... when you make the decision to ignore a person, you are embracing ignorance. You are embracing shutting your eyes, your ears, your soul to another person. There can never be understanding reached, and the act of ignoring encourages reciprocal animosity. You make yourself a target by turning your back on a person.

Using ignore on someone whose views you may find appalling or irritating lessens you as a person, and increases your own lack of awareness to the world. Inward looking, you wish to be given a bastion of protection from those who moderate from those whose views you reject.

I do not know why you are here, and why you come to talk unless you wish only to hear the sound of your own voice. The master says he who speaks loudest says the least... and he with his eyes closed and his ears shut cannot find his way in the dark.

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves. While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?" One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind." "Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:37 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:43 AM
reply to post by TruthTellist

Sir, if you feel so righteous, I encourage you to please do so. If you feel I have done something to warrant their attention, by all means contact them.

More is the pity that you take my words as an attack rather than an attempt to help you question your own insights and justifications. It is unfortunate that you ignore people, quite tragic. Yet those people you ignore have a right to respond to any arguments or postulates you put forward. No-one should have carte blanche in a discussion... if they wish to criticize your approach or debate the points of your arguments, that is what discussion is.

Considering the topic of this thread, it seems an odd stance to take.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

Why are you targeting me? What did I do that was 'so bad' that I now deserve this sort of treatment from you?

You seem to be a bit too involved with the online world. Don't be.

I want to be friends:

[edit on 3-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by TruthTellist

Perhaps my words are wasted on you. You just essentially claimed you'd get me in trouble with the teacher by telling on me.

You voiced that you were upset that people you informed that you were ignoring were responding to your posts when you told them not to.

Do you not want people to respond to your thoughts if they get on your nerves?

In which case, are you not just wishing to surround yourself with pleasantness? I do not believe you have a right to that, nor do I believe that the forum moderators will indulge such pedantry. Though I am sure it is a nice wish to have for you, as you have stated it is a desire of yours to punish people who unwantedly respond to your posts.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

Please calm down, I will now use this picture as a representation fo the over one thousand words I was going type up as a rebuttal

Don't be so serious. I'm a Veteran(Korea).

* also, please stop over-using the words 'carte blanche'.... there is not any need to use it in every post, there never was...

[edit on 3-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:23 AM
Why is it you feel it necessary to add images to your posts? Do you feel this is funny, or are you attempting to amuse yourself in this fashion?

I do not believe you have a rebuttal to the fact that your request is a request for carte blanche treatment in an argument whereas it relates to people on your ignore list, so you are deflecting using juvenile webforum tactics of posting images in response rather than responding.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in