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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Rather obvious you're not interested in facts at this point. You're interested in defaming 7. Again NO questions about actual evidence.




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:27 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.


It's perfectly rational to start with one hypothesis and end up with a different conclusion. That's how science works.


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.


FALSE - A classic 9/11 Denial Movement Red Herring. NIST was quite clear in their stated mission to determine the cause(s) of the global collapses of ALL three WTC buildings. It is quite clear they established those causes which, as you well know, jprophet420, no one has refuted. It is quite clear that once the causes were established and the physics and structural engineering established beyond doubt that it would be impossible for the structures to survive, that the causes of the global collapses have been established.

The Red Herring you 9/11 Deniers insist on repeating is that the actual collapses have to be modeled themselves. Bunk. There is not even enough computer power to do so even if one found a necessary reason to do so.


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.


It means no CD was necessary. Apart from the fact that none of the independent studies done of the dust to determine their chemical compositions so as to ascertain to what workers at Ground Zero were being exposed ever found any chemical traces of explosives. Why do you think Steven Jones had to propose the silly Thermite/Thermate theory since those studies conclusively show NO sign of any explosives?


Don't ask "how did the collapse initiate on 911?", ask "what brought 3 skyscrapers down on that day?"


A few hundred investigators in the necessary disciplines, the majority of whom were independent, non-government specialists in the fields of structural engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, and forensic science, gave you the collected evidence from hundreds of independent sources, the methodology of their investigations, and their conclusions. Anyone can step up to the plate and attempt to refute the conclusions and the methodology, including you. Anyone can object on a factual basis. And anyone can affirm their methodology and conclusions.

But to render it all invalid with the fallacious reasoning that those investigators had to model the actual collapses is beyond the pale.


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?"


That would be stupid since the evidence and the ability to get it is available to everyone. That is the one question that makes people laugh at you 9/11 Deniers and your refusal to do your homework.


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.


Ditto. Read again. There is no relevance.


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?"


Irrelevant. And this fallacious reasoning you have been educated about already. NO video is needed to know AA77 hit the Pentagon. Period. You know that.

Plus the fact that it has already been stated that none of the videos show AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Plus the fact that the government cannot release videos confiscated from private property without the owners' permission.

So much for 9/11 "Truth."



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

It's perfectly rational to start with one hypothesis and end up with a different conclusion. That's how science works.


Right. And to start with one hypothesis and end up with a different conclusion requires that the original hypotheses be false.


FALSE - A classic 9/11 Denial Movement Red Herring. NIST was quite clear in their stated mission to determine the cause(s) of the global collapses of ALL three WTC buildings. It is quite clear they established those causes which, as you well know, jprophet420, no one has refuted. It is quite clear that once the causes were established and the physics and structural engineering established beyond doubt that it would be impossible for the structures to survive, that the causes of the global collapses have been established.


Now show the math or go home. If you don't show your work in college you FAIL. If you don't show your evidence in court you LOSE. Show me NIST's calculations that have PROVEN this.



It means no CD was necessary. Apart from the fact that none of the independent studies done of the dust to determine their chemical compositions so as to ascertain to what workers at Ground Zero were being exposed ever found any chemical traces of explosives. Why do you think Steven Jones had to propose the silly Thermite/Thermate theory since those studies conclusively show NO sign of any explosives?


They found an incendiary however.



A few hundred investigators in the necessary disciplines, the majority of whom were independent, non-government specialists in the fields of structural engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, and forensic science, gave you the collected evidence from hundreds of independent sources, the methodology of their investigations, and their conclusions. Anyone can step up to the plate and attempt to refute the conclusions and the methodology, including you. Anyone can object on a factual basis. And anyone can affirm their methodology and conclusions.


Whom also failed to show the math.

As you do.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Rather obvious you're not interested in facts at this point. You're interested in defaming 7. Again NO questions about actual evidence.


How on earth can you say I'm tryign to defame you when all I'm doing is repeating the very things your conspiracy theorist compatriots are posting here? It's the CTs who claim the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation to instigate a war in Iraq, not me, and it's the CTs who insist that we should use Northwoods as a model of what the gov't is capable of, not me. I'm merely pointing out the obvious- framing Bin Laden and the Taliban is an absurd way of instigating war in Iraq, and it's the exact opposite of the model of behavior that Northwoods shows. After all, it doesn't say that to instige war with Cuba we need to frame Haiti.

In cae you don't realize it...and it's apparent that you don't...that if the evidence leads to an answer which is unlikely if not outright impossible, the problem isn't with the answer, the problem has to be with the evidence you're using. Two plus two still equals four, regardless of how many impressive looking equations you have that say it's really five, you know.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

How on earth can you say I'm tryign to defame you when all I'm doing is repeating the very things your conspiracy theorist compatriots are posting here?


Rather easily as you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Rather easily as you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist.


So are you saying that the mere act of a non-conspiracy theorist talking to a conspiracy theorist is, by default, defamation?

That's being rather tribalistic, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
You know exactly what I'm saying good sir. I am saying that one should look at facts and not conspiracy theories. It is very easy to debunk conspiracy theories but very hard to look at the facts in an unbiased light. The facts that one can obtain from the videos, pictures, testimonies, and hard evidence do not match the story presented by the US government. The story told on the news by the MSM on 911 does not match the story told post 911. Investigators look at facts, collect them, process them and come to a conclusion. Conspiracy theorists look at conspiracy theories and come to predetermined conclusions. If you're serious about debunking you use facts.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
You know exactly what I'm saying good sir. I am saying that one should look at facts and not conspiracy theories. It is very easy to debunk conspiracy theories but very hard to look at the facts in an unbiased light. The facts that one can obtain from the videos, pictures, testimonies, and hard evidence do not match the story presented by the US government.


On the contrary, the debunking of the conspiracy theories goes hand in hand with discussing the facts becuase the interpretation of the facts with an intentional pro-conspiracy bias is pandemic amogn the conspiracy theorists.

For one thing, there IS no "story presented by the US gov't". The 9/11 commission report interviewed I don't know how many people to produce the timeline of events they put out, from FAA communications operators to firefighters to even one of the hijacker's girlfriend, so it's not "the gov'ts story" it's the eyewitnesses story. Calling the 9/11 commission report a pack of lies is literally calling the eyewitnesses who reported those events a pack of liars. Are they liars becuase they are providing false information, or are they liars becuase they're saying things their critics do not want to hear?

For another thing, just what constitutes a credible fact among the conspiracy proponents? From what I've seen, credibility has absolutely nothign to do with the validity of the source, but simply whether or not the information happens to agree with what they themselves want to believe. Thus, taxi drivers driving by the Pentagon just have to be secret disinformation agents while college kids making internet flicks in their dorm room just have to be unimpeachable information.

The relationship between the desire for these conspiracy claims to be true, and how they influence the way the facts are interpreted to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, should be self evident.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
On the contrary, the debunking of the conspiracy theories goes hand in hand with discussing the facts becuase the interpretation of the facts with an intentional pro-conspiracy bias is pandemic amogn the conspiracy theorists.

Thats blatantly false. The facts will show the conspiracy. Thats how investigation works

For one thing, there IS no "story presented by the US gov't".

They certainly presented one on my television post 911.

The 9/11 commission report interviewed I don't know how many people to produce the timeline of events they put out, from FAA communications operators to firefighters to even one of the hijacker's girlfriend, so it's not "the gov'ts story" it's the eyewitnesses story. Calling the 9/11 commission report a pack of lies is literally calling the eyewitnesses who reported those events a pack of liars. Are they liars becuase they are providing false information, or are they liars becuase they're saying things their critics do not want to hear?

Thats not my inference, and I have never stated that.

For another thing, just what constitutes a credible fact among the conspiracy proponents? From what I've seen, credibility has absolutely nothign to do with the validity of the source, but simply whether or not the information happens to agree with what they themselves want to believe. Thus, taxi drivers driving by the Pentagon just have to be secret disinformation agents while college kids making internet flicks in their dorm room just have to be unimpeachable information.

Thats not my inference, and I have never stated that.

The relationship between the desire for these conspiracy claims to be true, and how they influence the way the facts are interpreted to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, should be self evident.

So the only way a new investigation would be biased is if it was undertaken by conspiracy theorists



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Thats blatantly false. The facts will show the conspiracy. Thats how investigation works


True, that is how investigation works, but that's not how the conspiracy is being investigated. There is a plethora of examples of how the available facts are being deliberately massaged and/or excluded to appear as if they support whatever the particular conspiracy theory is that the investigator subscribes to. Witness the laser beams from outer space premise by Judy Wood.


They certainly presented one on my television post 911.


...and yet there is a very discernable trail left by the hijackers as reported by myriad independent sources, as well as reports of their atypical social mindsets. When, for example, Mohammed Atta's girlfriend reports that the guy was so vicious that he dismembered her kittens during an argument, how should we not see this as evidence of the sociopathic behavior of a primary participant of the attack?



Thats not my inference, and I have never stated that.


...so you do agree that the 9/11 commission report is a credible study, then...? If so, then much of your remaining argument becomes moot.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

True, that is how investigation works, but that's not how the conspiracy is being investigated.


Which is why we need an unbiased new investigation good sir. Sometimes making the right statements is good too.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

True, that is how investigation works, but that's not how the conspiracy is being investigated.


Which is why we need an unbiased new investigation good sir. Sometimes making the right statements is good too.


...which of course begs the question, just WHO could ever be on any unbiased investigation who'd be truly unbiased AND still have the qualifications to do any such research?

It's a given that every expert on crash site forensics is involved with the gov't somehow I.E. FAA, USAF, while people with intimate knowledge of airline procedures are almost certainly airline personnel I.E. United Airlines, and every person with expertise on military explosives will obviously have a military background. Structural engineers will naturally have connections in some form or another to major universirties that have military research grants I.E. MIT, and I don't have to tell you that insiders privy to counterterrorism intelligence won't be releasing any sensitive information to the public. Anyone even remotely connected to the NYPA is obviously right out, regardless of what they know.

So who is left, exactly? I am not against having further investigations of the events of 9/11, but further investigations ought to actually be investigating the events of 9/11, not simply rubber stamping some conspiracy theory or another before the committee members even come in the door.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


FALSE - A classic 9/11 Denial Movement Red Herring. NIST was quite clear in their stated mission to determine the cause(s) of the global collapses of ALL three WTC buildings. It is quite clear they established those causes which, as you well know, jprophet420, no one has refuted. It is quite clear that once the causes were established and the physics and structural engineering established beyond doubt that it would be impossible for the structures to survive, that the causes of the global collapses have been established.


Now show the math or go home. If you don't show your work in college you FAIL. If you don't show your evidence in court you LOSE. Show me NIST's calculations that have PROVEN this.


Maybe in your fantasy world of 9/11 "Truth", but not on Planet Earth. I don't have to show you anything. You know that.

The responsibility remains on your shoulders to support your claims. Entirely. YOU have to refute the evidence, as much as you hate taking responsibility.

I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you 9/11 "Truthers", should I?

P.S. 9/11 "Truth" has the same ring to it as "Patriot" Act. It's just another way of cloaking nonsense in nice sounding, but diversionary, phrases.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Maybe in your fantasy world of 9/11 "Truth", but not on Planet Earth. I don't have to show you anything. You know that.

Correct. You don't have to at all. However if you cannot then you shouldn't be trying to debate it.

The responsibility remains on your shoulders to support your claims. Entirely. YOU have to refute the evidence, as much as you hate taking responsibility.

I have no problem doing so.

I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you 9/11 "Truthers", should I?

P.S. 9/11 "Truth" has the same ring to it as "Patriot" Act. It's just another way of cloaking nonsense in nice sounding, but diversionary, phrases.

Much as you accomplish the task of arranging words in a virtually meaningless fashion.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


Maybe in your fantasy world of 9/11 "Truth", but not on Planet Earth. I don't have to show you anything. You know that.

Correct. You don't have to at all. However if you cannot then you shouldn't be trying to debate it.


There is no debate. Either you support your claims or withdraw them. I keep reminding you that you can't weasel out of the fact that you are the one making the claims and are obligated to support them when asked.

And you won't support them when asked to do so. So, stick to the rules and withdraw your claims or support them.

The choice is entirely yours to do one or the other, but you will be called on the carpet when you continue to weasel out of your responsibility.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


We get into this quite often and you have failed to prove me wrong yet, you have lost every single time. I have not made any claim I cannot back up and I challenge you directly to present anything to the contrary. If you're not going to debunk the thread quit bumping it.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


We get into this quite often and you have failed to prove me wrong yet, you have lost every single time. I have not made any claim I cannot back up and I challenge you directly to present anything to the contrary.


Amongst other claims you have made without supporting, you still haven't supported this claim you made in this thread:


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


You can't even tell us why.

I'm waiting.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

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


You can't even tell us why.

I'm waiting.


I'm rather curious about that myself. I asked so many times that I've lost count- if the material in the 9/11 report is wrong, then how is it wrong? Every single person here who claimed it was a pack of lies...and I do mean EVERY person...never even read the thing. They simply say, "why would I want to read it if I know it's a pack of lies", in perfect circular logic.

It's akin to the religious people saying, "The Bible must be perfect becuase it says right here in the Bible that the Bible is perfect." You know as well as I do that if this kind of train of thought were applied to any other discipline outside of their conspiracies, they'd be the first ones to be pointing out that it doesn't sound right. So why is there a double standard?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


We get into this quite often and you have failed to prove me wrong yet, you have lost every single time. I have not made any claim I cannot back up and I challenge you directly to present anything to the contrary.


Amongst other claims you have made without supporting, you still haven't supported this claim you made in this thread:


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


You can't even tell us why.

I'm waiting.


Ill answer the question simply first. Because the US government invaded Afghanistan on the premise that the Saudi hijackers were trained there.


Onus Probandi is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There were hundreds of testimonies that were suppressed by the New York Times before the investigation that were not released until a court order was issued after the fact but didn't make the ex post factos cut.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join