Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 01:55 PM by Hazelnut
reply to post by jthomas


UHM, muslim hijackers in a coordinated conspiracy boarded planes with box cutters intent upon crashing said planes into multiple locations within hours of one another to wreak jihad on evil americans?


reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 02:37 PM by Hazelnut
reply to post by jthomas


Ah...now I see why you are so belligerent. Well, if that is the source you have taken under your wing then it stands to reason why you are combative about the issue.

My friend, I worked on the 25th floor of a high rise on 9/11. I continued to work there for five years with the excrutiating knowledge that it could happen again. From that sense of strong emotion, I began to question. So far, from what I can gather, neither side can win this debate. And that is what has happened. The tragedy is not a tragedy any longer. It is nothing more than a debate of emotions, perceptions and belief. All of the facts have been compromised, neither "side" willing or able to concede a single point to the other without losing the entire debate. So?

I don't believe that the official story is the whole story. I don't believe the skeptic version is the whole story. I have enough common sense and years under my belt to realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The fact that policy has been created, implemented and enforced stemming from the tragedy of 9/11 creates room for criticism and doubt. If you don't think so, then more power to you.



reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 04:37 PM by tezzajw
Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is an interesting insight into your psyche.

Thanks for your praise, weedwhacker. However, I wasn't after a shrink session from anyone. You probably read far too many emotions in typed text, rather than concentrating on the words that were typed.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Because some of YOUR comments seem downright caustic towards people who point out simple logical errors in those sorts of "ridiculous" claims --- ones that even you would label as 'ridiculous'. As you said, it makes some of them look foolish. Why do you feel the need to defend them?

Please, quote a specific example and we'll discuss it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What's your angle? Because, darned if I can see it.

I have questions about 911 that I feel the official government story does not properly address. Therefore, I am a truther, as I do not believe some of the government story.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Questioning" a story is really just a way of fact-checking. As more facts are checked, and maybe new ones discovered, then that elusive thing we call "truth" draws nearer.

Exactly my point, weedwhacker. If you are asking questions, then you are seeking the truth. Imagine if people didn't ask questions and just believed what was told to them.

You wouldn't be asking questions if you believed the story that was given to you.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or, the best defense (defence) is a goot offence? Making direct, unspecified threats? And, YOU never make 'assumptions' about what others believe??

Oh, weedwhacker. Where have I threatened anyone? Please, point it out to the Moderators.

If you can't handle my 'caustic', 'sarcastic' nature, then look past it and just read the words that I type.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, TJ.


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 05:30 AM by pieman
Originally posted by tezzajw
Those people are illogical. Plain and simple. To accept a cover-up of any nature is not logical.


so what? what's your point, that some people aren't logical? if that's your issue your in for a bumpy old ride in life, let me just fill you in on something, there isn't a single person on this planet that's 100% logical. i suggest you get over it for your own sake.

seeing as you seem such a big fan of utter nonsense, (those people aren't logical ) let me quote the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, updated 569th edition.

welcome to the planet earth, strange and unusual in the galaxy in no way except that all 6.4 billion of it's sentient inhabitants are completely illogical, so much so that the emissary of the klu'yons, widely felt to be a very patient and reserved race, was heard to comment, as he was led away to the intergalactic hilarity farm in a strait jacket, "they're all f***king nuts"."


Originally posted by pieman
Being a truther does not mean that you think a holograph hit the WTC.

The fact that you think otherwise is quite telling.


not as telling as your inability to comprehend a simple point. let me try again in simple words, see if it helps you.

it does not matter if it is actually true in your head, it only matters that most people think it is true in their heads. you do not own the word.

Tell me, pieman, do you believe the government story? If not, which parts do you doubt?


very little of it, but your damned if i'll align myself with raving nutjobs who seem to have invested so much of their personality in the truth movement that they can't see the wood for the trees and think their very life depends on not giving a single inch.


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 06:29 AM by tezzajw
Originally posted by pieman
so what? what's your point, that some people aren't logical?

Yes, that's exactly my point.

Particularly suspect are some government believers who willingly accept that some elements of 9/11 may have been covered-up, like it's ok to do so!

Originally posted by pieman
not as telling as your inability to comprehend a simple point. let me try again in simple words, see if it helps you.

Perhaps the simple notion of a person seeking the truth is lost on you?

A person either believes the government story, or they don't. Ask them why they don't believe it (or aspects of it) and you'll discover their particular doubts about the story. You'll see that person is seeking a truth that they believe has not been told.

I don't care how mainstream pop-culture has hijacked the word truther to mean nut-job, crackpot, etc... That's completely twisting what it means to seek the truth.

Originally posted by pieman
very little of it, but your damned if i'll align myself with raving nutjobs who seem to have invested so much of their personality in the truth movement that they can't see the wood for the trees and think their very life depends on not giving a single inch.

If, as you state, you believe very little of the government story, then you're after the truth. You are a truther in the proper definition of the word.

Note that I'm not stating that you think space-beams destroyed the WTC or that nano-thermite destroyed WTC 7 or that Flight 93 was shot down or that there was a Pentagon flyover. None of that might apply to you and I don't care if it does or doesn't.

All I am stating is that you're not satisfied with the government report. You believe little of it, so you're a truther.

I don't see the problem with admitting that you're after the truth about 9/11. It doesn't mean that you have to align yourself with any crackpot theory. You can ask your own questions and research your own answers, independently of other truthers.

Which parts of the official story do you find most suspect?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by tezzajw]


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 07:42 AM by jthomas
Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by jthomas


Ah...now I see why you are so belligerent. Well, if that is the source you have taken under your wing then it stands to reason why you are combative about the issue.


No, it illustrates the lack of logic and reason of the 9/11 Truth Movement and how easy it is the declare an "Official Theory." Sorry, you didn't catch the irony nor the point.

My friend, I worked on the 25th floor of a high rise on 9/11. I continued to work there for five years with the excrutiating knowledge that it could happen again. From that sense of strong emotion, I began to question.

An appeal to emotion is a fallacy not a basis for rational thinking.

So far, from what I can gather, neither side can win this debate.


There is no debate and that, my friend, is the point, just as there is no debate that the earth is round, the moon landings happened, the earth is not 6,000 years old, and the Holocaust happened. Despite the fact that there are those ignorant and arrogant enough to state that those issues are "debatable", they are not by any rational standard. And so it is with the claim that there is a "debate" about how the WTC Towers fell, whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, or if Bush knew about or caused the 9/11 attacks. Just because they are "claimed" as debatable by 9/11 Deniers doesn't mean they are valid. And that arrogance by those who give themselves unearned status is precisely WHY the 9/11 Denial Movement gets the derision it earned.


And that is what has happened. The tragedy is not a tragedy any longer. It is nothing more than a debate of emotions, perceptions and belief. All of the facts have been compromised, neither "side" willing or able to concede a single point to the other without losing the entire debate. So?


So 9/11 Deniers should stop their nonsense. NO facts have been "compromised." NO rational person will ever concede that which is true to anyone who turns reason and facts on their heads. The 9/11 Denial Movement has demonstrated consistently that it has no valid claims or evidence. That they pretend it does is irrelevant.

I don't believe that the official story is the whole story. I don't believe the skeptic version is the whole story. I have enough common sense and years under my belt to realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle.


The appeal to common sense is a fallacy also. There is no "story"; there is only the massive evidence that 9/11 Deniers cannot refute.

The fact that policy has been created, implemented and enforced stemming from the tragedy of 9/11 creates room for criticism and doubt. If you don't think so, then more power to you.


The fact that we learn from tragedies is quite seperate from the claims of 9/11 deniers.


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 10:57 AM by pieman
reply to post by jthomas


you two are as bad as each other, you're sitting there saying that there is no official version of events and asking other people to prove that there is. when people explain what they're referring to, you just state "that's not good enough".

what exactly do you want? all the different strands and statements that various officials put forward in various places between 9/11/2001 and now compiled into one neat post? give it up.

if that's what you want, go start a thread and stop trying to de-rail this one.

[edit on 31/7/09 by pieman]


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 12:12 PM by Xtrozero
reply to post by tezzajw


So here is the deal , as you put it either you believe in the official line 100%, or you are a truther. I would then put forth that everyone is a truther and it is to what level you deviate from the official report as the difference between each truther. The problem is there is an endless number of theories and only one is 100% correct with a few maybe be close to even more that are far in left field. (Or even out of the ballpark)

Let’s say I believe in official account of 911 except for the motivation of the terrorist and who might be the puppet masters behind them, and so In this cast I would debate all differences of the physical account of the incident, such as missles or explosives used instead of aircraft, and so I‘m sure I would be labeled a government story (report) believer.

This leads to my point that I would bet that there is not a single “government story believer” since every one of us understands that there are always further facts that have not come to light. Now whether those facts are un-news worthy but important or something along the lines as John Lear’s advance alien holograph technology puts everyone of us basically in the truther category.

I can see that you also harbor a lot of bias just in the words you use, but the only truth is that there is only one correct account of 911 and so 99.9% of you are wrong if the official report is incorrect or 100% of you are wrong if the official report is correct…hehe


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 12:37 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by jthomas


you two are as bad as each other, you're sitting there saying that there is no official version of events and asking other people to prove that there is. when people explain what they're referring to, you just state "that's not good enough".


You missed that 9/11 Truthers claims of a so-called "official story" are used as substitute and evasion of the actual evidence that are actually from thousands of independent sources that neither originated with, nor were in control of, the government.

You all have been evading that fact for 8 years

You still have to learn that the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders to refute that evidence and support your claims. We will continue to remind you that evading the evidence by pretending it is simply an "official story" will get you nowhere in the real world. It is, after all, why your movement is still stuck in forums preaching to the choir and accomplishing nothing.


[edit on 31-7-2009 by jthomas]



reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 01:59 PM by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tezzajw


Geez Tezz,
You threw out the bait and they gobbled it like a bunch of bottom feeding suckers.
Good op for the people.
I am going to have to find you those flags and star thingies.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Donny 4 million]


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 03:18 PM by Xtrozero
Originally posted by tezzajw

I don't see the problem with admitting that you're after the truth about 9/11. It doesn't mean that you have to align yourself with any crackpot theory. You can ask your own questions and research your own answers, independently of other truthers.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by tezzajw]


The problem is that the theories outside the official report don’t add up either and so if I take the official report at face value in that it is an accurate account for the actual events, but with the understanding that there could be much more to it all then where does that put me?

It is just like the idea that on paper the moon landings have been proved time and time again that they were faked even when they were not. This is very easy to do by just leaning towards facts to support their cause, and dismissing those that do not.

Where all this starts to unravel for me is when people add additional parts to a theory while the mechanics to accomplish those new parts get over looked. We start to end up with a situation where 1000s if not 10,000s of people were involved and years of flawless planning in creating the conspiracy. When other much simpler and more effective methods would have been better off done if a conspiracy was the case.

Hell a tactical nuke from the Russian inventory would have been much easier to get and set off with a very limited number of people involved. Then the actual account would be 100% correct and the doers could point fingers at who ever they liked, simple, efficient, clean and quick, and not something that turns into a sloppy mess if the official account was not true.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags