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.
Would you mind terribly explaining that to me?
Originally posted by jprophet420
One of the greatest fallacies I see here on ATS 911 forums is that the OLD model of collapse was pancake collapse and the final NIST paper cites global structural failure. A lot of people still refer to this as having "debunked" many things. Whenever you get into a debate with someone it's a good idea to do your homework on people. For example; If someone used to cite popular mechanics pancake theory but stopped citing it after NIST final and start citing that instead....
The NIST report stops asking questions at the moment of global collapse. This does not mean there was NO CD whatsoever. It means they didn't find any, and they directly state that they didn't look. Don't ask "how did the collapse initiate on 911?", ask "what brought 3 skyscrapers down on that day?"
Don't ask "what happened to the passengers on flight 77 if there was a conspiracy?", ask "where is evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon?"
Don't ask any questions about "no planes" on towers 1 and 2, ask about no planes on WTC7. We KNOW there were no planes there.
Don't ask "why does the flight 93 crash site look like no plane hit?", ask "why were the standing orders to shoot down hijacked planes disregarded?" (IMHO they probably weren't).
Don't ask "why the flight 77 video was doctored before release?", ask "why we cant see the other videos that clearly depict flight 77 hitting the pentagon?"
Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't work. How many times must you be reminded?
After 8 years, the world is still waiting for you to do so Uncle Sam.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't work. How many times must you be reminded?
The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
You cannot, for instance, continue to pretend that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.
9:40am September 11th 2001 cnn reports "Reports of Fire at Pentagon"
this was a banner on the screen, after about 2 minutes they get a call from producer Chris Plan (sp). He was at the scene. He didn't see a plane and reported an explosion.
They paused and went to go back to Chris, and a correspondent name Gretchen (didn't catch last name) came on. She was also on the scene, and heard the explosion but didn't see a plane.
They then (10:47) made the first report that it was a plane, citing AP as the source.They went back to Chris, and he spoke to "A senior enlisted man" saw a helicoptor go over the building, and then saw a fireball. He was aware of the AP report, and the witnesses there on the scene told him it was a helicopter.
Initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was, ah, in fact a helicopter circling the building contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses that I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion.
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Yes, because you're not being serious. Every question I asked related directly to evidence and every question you ask is related to conspiracy. Amazing that I am the 'tin foiler twoofer'. Looks like you're a conspiracy theorist to me Dave.
On the contrary, I am being very serious when I ask this. In their zeal to "prove" conspiracy by proxy the truthers keep telling us to read the Northwoods report. Well, I did, and what do I see? -harrassing civilian airlines with fighters mocked up in Cuban air force markings -a mock invasion of Guantanamo by cuban exiles dressed in Cuban army uniforms -Destroying a remote controlled plane near Cuban waters.
The pattern of behavior is obvious: they wanted to frame Cuba and make them look like aggressors, so the US could invade. On the other hand, there is NO pattern of behavior whasoever with these 9/11 conspiracies, becuase what do I see?
-They wanted to stage an attack to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan.
-They had a fleet of (probably) remote controlled passenger aircraft to crash into buildings...and yet they shot a cruise missile at the Pentagon and planted all sorts of disinformation to make it look like a passenger jet.
-they went through the trouble of making a fake crash site in Shanksville, which they went out of the way not to tell anyone about
-...and despite invading Iraq over the excuse to look for WMD, they made the conscious decision to NOT plant any WMD there, and therefore embarass the hell out of ourselves.
Not only is there no pattern of behavior, they even contradict each other and usurp the whole reason why they'd go through the effort to do them, to begin with. These secret conspiracies sound like they're being orchestrated by a bunch of stoned college kids, than they do anythign else. Simple logic states that one or more of your conspiracy claims must therefore be incorrect, regardless of what you interpret the evidence to be saying.
Originally posted by jthomas
Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't work. How many times must you be reminded?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I absolutely agree, we *should* be asking the right questions. The ones that come to mind are...
-If the master plan behind all these conspiracies is a false flag operation for a war in Iraq then why the heck did they frame that toilet of a country of Afghanistan rather than Iraq?
-Why would the conspriators waste their time using an aircraft to cover up bombs when everyone knows bombs were used back in 1993?
-Why would the conspirators waste their time using a cruise missile against the Pentagon and manufacture all sorts of fake evidence when they already had one or more passenger jets at their command? Simply send another passenger jet into the Pentagon and create real wreckage.
-Why would they go through such great lengths to frame Iraq and accuse them of having WMD, and *not* secretly plant WMD in Iraq to give the world justification for invading?. How does the planned failure of finding any WMD in Iraq and the planned embarassment from not finding WMD advance the conspirators' master plan?
-And why the heck would the conspirators go though the lengths of staging a crash site in shanksville, only to cover up all the work they did in staging a crash site in shanksville?
Would you mind terribly explaining that to me?
Originally posted by jprophet420
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
Just so any newcomers to the forum will see that you misrepresent constantly.
"The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet."
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Ignorant by choice then, its your choice not mine.
Notice not a single debunker has made their way into the thread asking us to question evidence or facts.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Ignorant by choice then, its your choice not mine.
Notice not a single debunker has made their way into the thread asking us to question evidence or facts.
Notice how your OP is fallacious reasoning and how you avoid admitting it.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders, jprophet420. Enough of your evasions.
Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
Originally posted by Seventh
Accepting how governments act and the steps they`ll take to achieve this is a damn good eye opener as to why CT`s start in the 1st place after any incidents like this.
Imagine a huge red herring here and it`s had the desired affect - false flag for sole purpose of invading Afghanistan, but what if there was an ulterior motive?, I stumbled across this a good few weeks ago when researching put options etc and it involves the government stock portfolio, short options, derivatives.
They framed Bin Laden, it was common knowledge that he was with his Taliban friends, it was always going to be Afghanistan, I really don`t know how Iraq and Afghanistan are linked Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.
-They had a fleet of (probably) remote controlled passenger aircraft to crash into buildings...and yet they shot a cruise missile at the Pentagon and planted all sorts of disinformation to make it look like a passenger jet.
There is undoubtedly an anomaly seen clearly with the belly and tube looking things on the Jet that hit WTC2 the South Tower as like military planes, also to back this up are the many witnesses stating the planes colour and lack of windows,
The missile at the Pentagon, as we all know that to make this work then a lot of debris, burnt bodies etc had to be placed inside, workmen and a virtually closed wing just another coincidence?,
I`m with you all the way on this one, God knows what happened here.
Scenario time here, you go round a friends who has a parrot in the cage, you poke your finger in and he gives it a nasty bite, next time you go round do you offer your finger again?, once bitten twice shy, learn from your mistakes.
Like I quoted earlier Dave there is plenty of evidence there, but notice that the hardcore evidence is blocked when you get to a certain rung on the ladder, government false flags protected by government legislature, we know nearly 100% that every false flag that America committed thus ensuring CT`s where not CT`s but fact, Pearl Harbour = fact, Operation Northwoods = fact,