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.

 

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 10
118
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




what we know is that no one has refuted the massive evidence from hundreds of independent sources and thousands of individuals that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.


No one has proved it to my satisfaction either, though. Knowing that no one has refuted the official story successfully does not make the official story fact. That is neither skeptical nor scientific. That is a conclusion lacking proof. That's why I can say that I don't know one way or the other. I'm an open-minded skeptic who has not seen absolute, iron-clad proof either way. There's evidence - much of it good, seemingly credible evidence - but evidence alone isn't proof.


And no one has been able after eight years to demonstrate anything to the contrary or that the "government" was behind 9/11.


This is also true, in my opinion. That's why I can't say that I believe in or am convinced by any of the conspiracy theories either, including my own. There simply isn't any iron-clad proof.

Basically, as I said. I. Don't. Know.

I am accepting of the limits of my knowledge for the time being. I don't know everything.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Take a look at my thread 911Tort Liars (lawyers)
There is not much there because all cases are usually just swept away.
I think there are more Birther suits.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kcfusion
J Thomas,

I have been following your posts and replies on ATS for a while now and I have to say, they reveal quite a lot about your character and intelligence. Every time you reply in one of these threads, you completely ignore the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, ...


You don't read very well. Just because you and others claim there are "unanswered questions" neither means there are, that they are based on facts, or that they are valid.

I easily showed that in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The fact remains: the burden of proof remains entirely on your shoulders to support your claims, including demonstrating that your so-called "unanswered questions" are even valid. Eight years of "Truther" evasions, debunked claims, and faulty assertions shows they aren't valid.

I suggest you get to work.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I think it's extremely naive to think that professional debunker's or shills don't exist on the more popular or dare I say 'influential' online communities, ATS being one of them of course.

Shills are usually an obvious breed to spot. They'll commonly spout off words like 'illogical', 'science' and 'fear-mongering' and on the whole their systematic approach towards rebuttal is generally highly repetitive and highly systematic.

S&F for the OP for having the reverence and courage for his submissions. Personally, I lose a little more faith in mankinds ability to resists the globalists each time I'm told that 911 wasn't an inside job.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by rexusdiablos]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Let me guess; you lost an argument recently and you're trying to make yourself feel better about it by convincing yourself it was a paid government operative.


Calling someone a paid agent of the government, is like comparing something to Nazism or someone to Hitler; it concedes that you have nothing of substance to say.


Well, someone didn't have their coffee this morning. It is possible that your observation has merit, but, in the end...is it really about winning or losing? I'd like to think if this as an exchange of ideas. There are a few people who do not hold their arguments well, and quite frankly, yes...they lose. But, for the most part, I always see it as a gridlock situation. For me, it is good to hear the "other side of the argument," that way I know how the opposing side thinks and how they put their arguments together. And just so you know, there are actually paid government disinformation agents. In the end, neither side really wins because most people continue to believe what their schema tells them to believe.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by redoubt
You sound like someone out on thin ice. You don't know me from any other stranger you have never met nor or ever likely to in your lifetime.

Care to walk out any further?

Ooh, that sounds like an e-threat. Some people think they're so tough behind their keyboards...



Funny enough, some people are ignorant enough to think "9/11 was an inside job."




Yeah...right. Because an inside job has never happened before...right???



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Are you kidding me? Professional debunkers?

This is how you respond to getting debunked? Slandering people who disagree with you, and urging people to go with their 'gut' as opposed to evidence?


Bravo. Your answer to having one conspiracy theory disproven is to invent another.


Have fun in la-la land.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by TrueTruth]


You've never heard of a professional debunker before? If this concept is too abstract and remains a conspiracy to you, then you're the one in la la land.

Anyway, it doesn't much matter. You'll answer this post with one that is more condescending than the one you posted before and then the battle will go round and round. Unless of course, one of us is more adult than the other. That person will be me. C-YA!!!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I din't there are enough people on ATS to warrent professional debunkers
Plus some of the posts here are so wild , why add to their credibility



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I think your post is really just an excuse to be narrow minded and dismissive. Not everybody believes in the NWO conspiracy, not everybody is readily behind the 9/11 truther community. Firstly, where'd this notion come from where proffesional government agents would waste their time with conspiracy posters on ATS? I mean I like being on ATS but I doubt the stuff being posted on here would be that much of a concern if the PTB really existed. I mean jewiz, anybody who is remotely objective to the 9/11 conspiracy or the NWO conspiracy is often enough shot down... so long as you post anything in favour of the 9/11 or NWO conspiracies, you'll get plenty of support and pats on the back.... and being this fact wouldnt it be more effective for these supposed NWO agents online to pose as conspiracy theorists only to dilute these theories with more lies??

Secondly, what are you on about "proffessional debunkers"? Even if there were disinfo agents on here, at the end of the day they are still members participating in discussion. Instead of aiming for them personally, why not address their arguments? If an NWO agent were to post a comment against an NWO thread with their views and points, what good would it do to your cause to automatically dismiss them as agents as opposed to actually addressing their points? I mean at the end of the day, regardless of whether their NWO agents, conspiracy theorists or Tom Hanks, isnt this forum really about addressing points and arguments? What good does it do to automatically dismiss somebody for who they supposedly are, not what their argument is? This isnt what ATS is about in my opinion.

SG

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Southern Guardian]




Actually, I think they would be very interested in a forum like this... *wink*



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


So, let's start with the assumption that there are not professional debunkers here working on behalf of the conspiraters.

What are you hoping to accomplish then?

If you aren't being paid to debunk, and you are not here to further CT research then you are spending vast amounts of your own time in a conversation that you'd have no logical reason to care about.

So that's my question. Why do the CIA's job for them if they're not even compensating you for your time?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The idea that the govt would never pay anyone to spread a point of view is something I find impossible to believe. For instance, the Bush administration paid this guy, Armstrong Williams, to push their agenda on the radio. The story is found on the link. Scroll to the bottom of the Wiki page and you will see that Williams isn't the only the one that the Bush admin paid to spread BS.

en.wikipedia.org...

But they would never do this in any other form of media? They can keep selling that if they like, I'm not buying it.

The Truth movement or whatever someone cares to label it, is easy to discredit, because it's easy to post baloney while masquerading as part of the Truth movement.

Then the debunker comes along, makes mincemeat out of the nutty "Truther" baloney and viola, the discredited theory is used to smear anyone and everyone who expresses doubt about the OS.

This is what it's about, getting people to stop theorizing, stop looking, stop asking questions, otherwise, sooner or later the truth is going to be uncovered. Perhaps it has been already.

One thing is certain, anyone who questions the govt's version is a nut or dishonest or hates America, this is the message being sent out all the time. The govt version is true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Do not question the govt, do not question the OS.
















[edit on 30-11-2009 by Aircow]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bodhisattva420
reply to post by RipCurl
 


So, let's start with the assumption that there are not professional debunkers here working on behalf of the conspiraters.

What are you hoping to accomplish then?

If you aren't being paid to debunk, and you are not here to further CT research then you are spending vast amounts of your own time in a conversation that you'd have no logical reason to care about.

So that's my question. Why do the CIA's job for them if they're not even compensating you for your time?


This is totally correct. Just take a look at these bozos.
They post for their master 20 and more times per thread.
They blabber spin like drunk monkeys, on and on about NOTHING.
They deny the posts of the truly intelligent un paid members with nothing but insults (and not even real good ones).
It is so cool to see all the STARS and FLAGS. This is the measure I find extreme joy in, right here on this thread. The best thing about them is they can't opt out as a normal person can. Just look at their profiles. Count their post and see when they have off and when they are allowed to take breaks.
Can't really see how they make a living. They also suck at their job IMO.
Go Fleese.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
I think it's extremely naive to think that professional debunker's or shills don't exist on the more popular or dare I say 'influential' online communities, ATS being one of them of course.

Shills are usually an obvious breed to spot. They'll commonly spout off words like 'illogical', 'science' and 'fear-mongering' and on the whole their systematic approach towards rebuttal is generally highly repetitive and highly systematic.

S&F for the OP for having the reverence and courage for his submissions. Personally, I lose a little more faith in mankinds ability to resists the globalists each time I'm told that 911 wasn't an inside job.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by rexusdiablos]


Indeed.

I am actually glad to see folks waking up to this modus operandi.

It is RIFE, on literally every forum here.

And as you have stated, anyone can spot who the culprits are---They rifle all up and down the first page of each particular forum, ridiculing the subject, the people trying to discuss the subject, and any sources which may lend relevance to the subject at hand.

People need to ask the question, "If this individual truly thinks there is no merit to a particular subject, and it is "silly" (another painfully common term leveled constantly) and the people discussing its possibilities are "whacko's" and "nutjobs" (more commonalities), then why are these individuals spending SO MUCH TIME on that particular forum?

It is quite easy to SEE why...They are there to DISRUPT the flow of information and discussion, through intimidation (usually by attempting to make those discussing said subject appear "stupid", or "crazy", which often times causes the person to "clam up" and stop posting, which is PRECISELY why they are continually using this method).

Keep your eyes open people. They are easy to spot.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
heres were i disagree with you,unfortunately i don'y think the majority of the people would go rioting in the streets,I think only the people who would now would do that,the rest would just watch.

And i think give it ten years people would trust the elected again,they would just say we got rid of that ot we are different and that would be the end of it



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Not saying people don't care just they don't want to have to deal with it,that is why they people bury their heads in the sand now



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

Agree. They can have it for the most part. The deeds done.
To find anything good, you have to wade through alot of bs.
Usually it smells so bad you have to hop off and hurl awhile.

They are helping in doing the ruining we see everyday.
Disheartening to say the least.
Siding with the very ones trying to do us all in. Smart.

Why I dont post much.
You dont know whos listening and guiding things along...
they hide in the bushes waiting for you to post, then pounce.
There are a million other places for regular news.
They manipulate or stifle the regular news, why wouldn't they try here?
This seems like one of the places where these theory's would originate.

Btw, is this another 9/11 thread now?
We don't quite have enough of them yet?
That party's dead, it worked, they won, we're toast.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by jthomas

Funny enough, some people are ignorant enough to think "9/11 was an inside job."




Yeah...right. Because an inside job has never happened before...right???


Obviously because none of you can demonstrate it.

Duh.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
\






smoke covers every floor of the building later in the day.

Listen very carefully to the audio. the firefighters on scene were very clued in and believe the building would collapse.


Well yeah, controlled demolition would cause this kind of smoke before the building collapses...you didn't mention explosions? Can you be more precise on your claims?



Southeast and southwest face of "fully-engulfed" WTC 7: (upper right)




this photo doesn't show what you are claiming.


In contrast, here's a high-rise fire in Madrid, Spain that burned for 10 hours and never collapsed:






yes, a photo taken of a raging fire at NIGHT will definitely be more dramatic that one TAKEN during the day.


I didn't see any such dramatic fire in the WTC buildings during the day even. The only fire that appeared was as a result from the planes. The WTC buildings were mostly only shooting out smoke...I don't see fire in controlled demolitions either...



apples and oranges dear. WTC 7 fully constructed STEEL high rise building with a cantilever design for the first 6 floors (due to the CONED station it was built right over) - so unlike the CONCRETE CORE supported structure of the MADRID tower, the two buildings had nothing in common. YOU however, omit that the STEEL PORTIONS of the Mardrid Tower DID collapse due to the fire. Why do you omit that? Why are you leaving out this information? Also, the MAdrid tower, despite efforts of the firefighters, was able to fight the fire, but unable to save the portions that collapse.


You think 6 floors of cantilever design are going to protect the following 100 floors whose steel was infested? It was also interesting watching the hotel in Beijing burn, but not collapse..why do we leave out certain information? Because we have no reason to deny unlike you...why do you deny? I can't be bothered denying. There's nothing to deny, that's the problem.



Care to explain where the Madrid tower is today?
Oh sorry deary, it doesn't exist. it was so heavily damaged that they government CONDEMNED the building at it was subsequenlty torn down.



Does your statement here prove anything? If the WTC buildings were still standing but unusable, the government would also decide to tear them down, but they did it as part of the operation, not just after.



First 17 floors of the Madrid tower was supported by a concrete core. The top floors were steel only. The floors affected by the fire collapsed.

Why do you truthers continue to misrepresent the events of MAdrid tower, when NOTHING in that fire even SUPPORTS anything you claim.

If the Madrid fire wasn't so "bad" as you are trying to make it out to be, why was the building deemed unsafe and then demolished?


I would be satisfied with your statement if also the WTC buildings had been demolished at some point after the attacks, and not immediately after the attacks. Obviously the Madrid building was no longer able to be used, but it was still standing.



As a matter of fact, no steel-framed high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire.




still trotting out this false choice fallacy? So, i guess you dont believe that we can fly? go to the moon? invented the wheel? First time for everything, however the EVENTS of 9/11 to all three buildings are based on a set of unique circumstances.


What a pathetic argument.



NO time in history has a nearly fully fueled aircraft used as a missile to take out two of the largest buildings in the New York skyline. Yet that is what happened on 9/11/2001. Guess that didn't happen by your logic.

You conveniently forget that wTC7 was hit by the collapse of WTC 1 causing sever damage to the building. And the fact that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were hit by giant aircrafts that had the equivalent energy of an atomic bomb.why do you denier continue to misrepresent the facts?


with the equivalent energy of an atomic bomb, but 99% of NYC still survived. That's what I call misrepresentation of facts.


So much for your honesty and credibility.


sorry, but im not the one who is being dishonest. YOu used Madrid to support your claims when it did nothing of the sort (you left out pertinent information). Simple research would have shown you that you were wrong to use it as a means to support your factless claims


Factless claims...don't accuse others before verifying your own claims...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Bush and Cheney will be very proud of you. Well done! They've convinced you!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Yeah...right. Because an inside job has never happened before...right???


Obviously because none of you can demonstrate it.

Duh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jthomas,

Respectfully, would you like to rephrase your previous statement? Are you suggesting that the United States has never been involved in any type of inside job? Or are you suggesting that no inside jobs have ever occurred anywhere?



new topics




 
118
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join