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.

 

Ask the right questions....

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
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?"




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Good post, but I think in many threads etc that those questions are asked, but the debunkers slightly derail them to a more unprovable part of the question from a Truthers PoV.

I made a thread ages ago about overlooked evidence the first example of this was the 5 frames from the Pentagon tape, I brought up not only the obvious mis-dated time stamp but the seconds discrepancy....

Frame 1 = 19 seconds
Frame 2 = 19 seconds (edited frame)
Frame 3 = 21 seconds
Frame 4 = 22 seconds
Frame 5 = 23 seconds

To this day it has never been answered, nor the 3 fireballs on impact 2 WTC2 the South Tower, identical conditions for all 3 fireballs, but the rear fireball is completely different to the other two in colour of flames, colour of smoke, and overall composite.

I hear exactly what you`re saying, but the smaller parts of the whole event that cannot be explained are the most important, the main factors like proving Thermite, CD, etc, etc, although would prove 100% inside job, imho will be impossible to prove now, hence lost cause, as all the evidence that can ever be is in circulation, and the rest is long gone, apart from the people involved turning on the others, the only way ever now to stand a good chance are the smaller parts that remain unsolved
.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Right, I agree that they "debunk" things, but I like to look at the big picture. For example, a poster makes a post "debunking" NPT and another debunking CD. The NPT post makes him look like a good debunker (because there were planes) and he uses the "dust found was not (military grade) thermate" argument. Both arguments are true, this makes the CT look like a tinfoiler and the debunker look like he's smart. If you simply "ask what was an incendiary doing in the rubble?" The answers become hard to find. What needs to happen is the right questions need to be presented to enough people and the right people.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Good point again, I do see where you are going with this, there are some very good questions asked and in some cases to many asked at the same time and not enough research done on maybe 1 or 2 of them (I raise my hand to being guilty of this), which get debunked thus demeaning the entire thread which contains questions that had good probabilities being completely ignored.

One such case was me and part of my post depicted the C.I.A. and monitoring the stock market for irregularities, to which I provided a graph clearly showing an adverse rise in put options on UAA and AA (to name but two), the reply regarding this was `Absolute garbage`, I replied with 3 links of which at least two went into great detail even including the name of the software they use when monitoring the market.

It`s a well known fact that any country that is part of NATO etc or has counter terrorist agencies constantly monitor the stock market, hell it`s no big secret that the America govt., has vested interest in the market in general anyway, if their portfolio on short options derivatives was made public and exactly how much was made from 9/11, peoples hair would fall out, but that`s a completely different story
.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Would you mind terribly explaining that to me?


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.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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?

You already know that fallacious reasoning has been tried for the last 8 years and doesn't work. You cannot, for instance, continue to pretend that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. What you have to do is refute the evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.

After 8 years, the world is still waiting for you to do so.

To continue to claim that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon is why the world laughs at you 9/11 "Truthers." The only question on the table is when will you finally get it?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

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.


After 8 years, the world is still waiting for you to do so Uncle Sam.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

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.


Classic strawman argument.

You can't even tell us why. We're still waiting.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

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.

For example:


You cannot, for instance, continue to pretend that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


I have cited evidence both for and against and called for a re-investigation.

Start here: www.archive.org...


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.


and again:


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.





Source

The right question to ask in this case is how the engine got inside the pentagon without penetrating the wall.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
OOriginally posted by GoodOlDave



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.


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.




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?


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.

In the nutshell these stock options thrive and thrive exceptionally well with an erratic market, so well in fact that within in a few weeks of the market re-opening and settling down these stocks made trillions of dollars, the international derivative market made 80 trillion dollars, American government was running on empty, cash was needed, derivatives and short options prosper with an erratic market, you can control the market, then make it erratic, they did, food for thought
.





-They wanted to stage an attack to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan.


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, not in any of the videos available can we see windows, look at any videos of planes taken from the same range and you will see windows, plus the spark like explosions seen near the nose cone on both the impacts, seen here around the 43 minute mark, bear with it for 7-10 minutes.....

video.google.com...

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?, anyway this wing had to be the target, but it incorporated a very tricky manoeuvre to hit it, so instead of a jet, some type of guided missile to ensure 100% chance was used, that`s my theory and it kind of covers why to your question.



-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


I`m with you all the way on this one, God knows what happened here.




-...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.


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.



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.


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, J.F.K. not quite fact, but recent video experts analysis have ripped the Zapruder film to bits, the most scariest part of this whole event are the mysterious deaths associated with people closely linked to it Jesus. F. Christ.

But you kind of get my point, the ones that have been proved to be false flags etc, have changed what exactly? - nothing, in another 50 years or so this will be proved a false flag, but, by then, whom knows what the underlying dark secret all these are a part of will have procured?

/cheers.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't work. How many times must you be reminded?


jthomas, no one cares what YOU think. When was it EVER random civilians' job to investigate 9/11 with absolutely no resources whatsoever?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well quit being a conspiracy theorist and look for facts instead of conspiracies.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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?


Good Questions!

I will add : What was the motivation for destroying WTC7? The risk involved in "rigging" that innocuous building could have jepordized the whole (completely hypothetical) plan... stupid, no logic.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

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.


For example, your claim:


"The burden of proof lies on the US government and they have not met it yet."


Read. Learn. Understand.

Now stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders, jprophet420. It does not work.

Period.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
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.

Simply amazing how true colors BLAZE through.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

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.

What is the fallacy? What did I state in the original post or since that is a fallacy?


Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.


Also I notice you accuse me of "evading" yet you didn't answer my question either.


Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

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.


No, I think it is a given that the CT people would naturally be conjuring up all sorts of sexy sounding and yet meaningless conspiracies, from planting secret CDs to lasers from outer space. This is because I have yet to meet a single 9/11 CT that didn't subscribe to one or more *other* secret gov't conspiracy (I.E. the CIA murdered JFK, the moon landing is fa, etc.), so it's more of a case of "if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail", than it is anything else.

Perhaps you'll be the first to show me wrong?




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.


All right, I'll bite. How the heck does buying stocks in airlines have even the remotest thing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan?




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.


Of course you don't know, because there is no actual connection. It's trying to determine a pattern out of randomly occurring events and it doesn't always work.



-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,


That is of course true, there are differences among the eyewitness accounts of what the aircraft that hit the Pentagon looked like, but to my knowledge there is NO discrepency whatsoever among them that it was in fact a large passenger jet that they saw hit the Pentagon.

All this of course doesn't answer the question- why on earth would the consprators waste their time sending a cruise missile into the Pentagon when they already were flinging passenger jets into other buildings? It'd just be adding extra layers of complexity to the operation that return no appreciable gain.



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?,


If you are honestly, genuinely, suggesting that the object that hit the Pentagon deliberately was filled with the chopped up remains of passengers who were murdered elsewhere specifically to plant human remains at the scene as it crashed, then you are most certainly a sick in the head [censored] without even a microbe of credibility. Such rubbish would be coming entirely from the demented imagination of those who subscribe to it, not from any review of the available evidence. Jeez, talk about adding extra layers of complexity to the operation that return no appreciable gain.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't what you meant to say. I humbly ask that you please rephrase this.



I`m with you all the way on this one, God knows what happened here.


So does everyone else- an aircraft actually crashed there. Why they don't release photos of the wreckage has perfectly non-conspiracy reasons- they never release *any* photos of plane crashes with human remains scattered around.




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.


You just contradicted yourself. Up until now, the CTs have accused everyone from the FAA to NORAD to Popular Mechanics to even Taxi Drivers of being secret disinformation agents telling us what the conspirators want us to hear, so whatever these "mistakes" you're referring to are, the conspirators have immense resources that will make sure we never find out about them. If anything, the staged 9/11 attack would have taught them how to make the operation of planting WMD in Iraq even more successful.



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,



The only "facts" involved in those are that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and that someone came up with a plan to frame acts of aggression on Cuba to justify invasion. That's all. Everythign else is entirely a figment of the conspiracy theorists imagination, and actually only proves my point that real conspiracies have actual, clear cut motives. Claiming that FDR let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor in order to get us into a war with *Germany* leaves us scratching our heads trying to make sense out of it just as much as it does claiming that the gov't framed Bin Laden/the Taliban for the 9/11 attack in order to get us into a war with *Iraq*.

Talk about trying to determine patterns out of randomly occurring events.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join