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: 12
118
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I wear my t-shirt proudly.

I thought this aprpos--

The Free Dictionary by Farlex
de·bunker n.
Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Come on people, leave the debunkers alone. Can't you see they have a very difficult and unenviable job? They have to defend an indefensible story with very limited resources.

With such a tall task at hand and very little to work with, of course they have to resort to insults, stereotypes, generalizations, distractions and turn all discussions into a urinating contest. Just put yourself in their shoes. If you are unable to be objective and debate a topic using evidence, wouldn't you resort to the same time honored predictable tactics out of frustration and desperation? So let's cut them some slack, OK?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
wow everyone, seems to be a lot of wasting server space. uh maybe we can all shut up and stop arguing and debating over nothing here? please... maybe?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It seems the FBI does hire people to blog and stir up emotions so that people will say things that can get them in trouble. Hal Turner just got arrested supposedly for being a domestic terrorist.

FBI doublecross

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"Turner said he felt betrayed by the FBI over his arrest because agents encouraged him to make make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements to get this audience talking.

"Imagine my surprise when agents from the very FBI that trained and paid me came to my house to arrest me," Turner told the newspaper.

An FBI memo obtained by The Record said Turner "has proven highly reliable and is in a unique position to provide vital information on multiple subversive domestic organizations."



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Of course I've heard of it.

But 2 things:

First of all, he's talking about me. He started this thread, because he got all mad at me in a different thread, where I essentially used his own source to debunk his own point.

Second of all, it's a paranoid delusion to believe that the tens of thousands of people on message boards across the web who try to 'debunk' things, are all on some secret NWO payroll.

Third, it's just plain weak. As I said above, who cares? What if people are here being paid to do what others are doing for free? It all comes back to the same debate, about the same stuff, right?

When people cry 'debunker!' or, 'nwo shill!', it's just a cheap way of short circuiting an argument, primarily to avoid having to answer questions people really aren't able to.



Besides. If it were me who got to decide how to run an effective 'debunking' campaign, I'd do it by discrediting the other side - which I would do by teaching them to act like the OP who started this thread. Surest way to make sure that nobody ever takes the real questions seriously, is to let ridiculous people ask them.

Seriously. In what academic field of inquiry do people get credit for trying to pretend that people who don't agree with them are secret agents?

And what kind of pills do you have to be on to think that you're such a super duper sleuth, that the CIA has sent secret keyboard assassins out to discredit you? And not just you, but the thousands and thousands of 'truthers' out there who aaaallll seem to think that there are no REAL people who could agree with them, just secret government agents.

I believe in ufo's, ghosts, fey creatures, miraculous healing, and all manner of outlandish thing - but THIS, is truly nuts.









[edit on 30-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Right, they need ten thousand pages to explain something that is not terribly complicated to begin with.


Proves that you've never read it or had any education in engineering and/or architecture.

If it were that simple, could you provide in your own words, exactly what happened.

Otherwise, you're telling all these engineers that their years of education in college and graduate school was all a waste, if someone who doesn't have a an education can simply wave it all away and say "it wasn't that complicated".

The NIST report wasn't just to explain what happene,d IT ALSO provided ADVICE to future engineers and construction and architecturers of steps to make sure FUTURE buildings can be further protected should an incident LIKE the WTC towers happen again.

Several buildings, INCLUDING the new WTC 7 are being built and were built with many of the recommendations that the NIST reports have offered.


IF architects and engineers the world over are using the reports as a foundation for their future project and buildings, why haven't a single one of them come forward to say "I can't do this to my building!"



I am not going to say they got everything wrong because that would be false but why the need for an entire tome, probably larger than encyclopedia britanica?


EB is over 100,000 pages over several volumes. Why the need for being THOROUGH in their report? Because if it was only 100 pages, NO scientist, no engineer in the world would believe what it said.

Which shows, that YOU've never ever read an engineering report or journal in your life. 10,000 pages is long, but there have been journals bordering on 30,000 pages for an engineering report. Engineering reports for building dams are lot longer.




Could the objective be TO CONFUSE rather than inform? Besides all it takes is one or two major errors to make the entire report IRRELLAVENT!


no it doesn't which shows that you do not understand the entire reporting and research process.

Which is why the NIST report isn't the only report done on the towers. Purdue University, ASCE and other orgnizations have done their own reports and come ot the same conclusions, though slightly different causes. Greening believes that NIST overstated the effect of the impacts to the fire proofing on the steel trusses (he doesn't believe that they were knocked off in the impact), but he does agree that the combination of unfought fires over several floors lead the weakening and the bowing effect found in the towers that day, which lead the global collapse of the buildings.

nitpicking little details doesn't invalidate an entire report.


Self explanatory, you don't even need to be an engineer to understand this.


Which didn't answer my question. Shows that you dont understand the construction of the towers and FAILURE to understsand high school physics. YOU need a lateral force to cause a "lean" to happen.


Please provide how a tower is going to "lean" without any lateral force acting on it.

Gravity pulls straight down. So, the lateral force would have to be stronger than the gravity that is pulling down the building.




The planes crashed in the mid to upper levels of each respective tower, which means columns and truces below that level should not be affected at all.



Which proves you never read the reports in their entirety. Tell us what happens when you take out 50% of your supporting structure, off centered from the core, and open up to the exposed areas to uncontrollable fire and heat? Steel looses its integrity at half of its melting point, of whic the fires within building did reach. Bowing was detected, which pulled the outher steel skin and aluminum skin toward teh center of the building. Bowing means the steel no longer can stustain the weight that is above it, and a cascade effect happened, causing the collapse.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
continued


Yes there was an uncontrollable fire raging for about an hour burning jet fuel and office furniture, but the damage would be LIMITED LOCALLY and only that section would collapse.



to exposed STEEL jolts and trusses, where fires reached temperatures that affected the stability of those trusses. The ONLY things that HELD the buildings up! YOU fail to even understand the BASIC construction of the buidings. 47 interior columns which formed the core and 236 OUTER columns (refered to the STEEL skin) of the towers. Steel strusses that ran from the outer columns to the inner columns were the only things that held concrete slab floors. The steel trusses running between the columns are what kept the building standing. The weight of the buildings were supported on these outer and inner columns.



You really need to educate yourself; you show that you dont even know the WTC towers construction, how weight was distributed, how trusses affected the stability and how temperatures affected their strength



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 

Of course I've heard of it.

But 2 things:

First of all, he's talking about me. He started this thread, because he got all mad at me in a different thread, where I essentially used his own source to debunk his own point.

Don't flatter yourself. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with you or your so-called "debunking" of the dancing Israelis involvement in 9/11. For some bizarre and inexplicable reason, you can't stand the thought that Israel and Mossad had anything to do with 9/11, despite significant evidence to the contrary and statements from arresting New Jersey police detectives.

But that's your problem, not mine.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 

Of course I've heard of it.

But 2 things:

First of all, he's talking about me. He started this thread, because he got all mad at me in a different thread, where I essentially used his own source to debunk his own point.

Don't flatter yourself. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with you or your so-called "debunking" of the dancing Israelis involvement in 9/11. For some bizarre and inexplicable reason, you can't stand the thought that Israel and Mossad had anything to do with 9/11, despite significant evidence to the contrary and statements from arresting New Jersey police detectives.

But that's your problem, not mine.


fleece, it's bad enough that you're a condescending jerk, but you don't have to add liar to that list, do you? you started this thread up right after you ran away from the one where I debunked you with your own source, and everybody else there was calling you on it.

you're the person who's inexplicably hung up on israel - not me. i debunked your argument using YOUR OWN SOURCE. i mean, who's got the hangup - the one who follows the evidence, or the one who rails on, evidence be damned?

think about.

posture all you want - between you and me, we know what the real truth is.



[edit on 30-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Right, they need ten thousand pages to explain something that is not terribly complicated to begin with.


Proves that you've never read it or had any education in engineering and/or architecture.

If it were that simple, could you provide in your own words, exactly what happened.


I just did! If you disagree with my opinion(s) that is a different issue but I fail to see why I need to keep repeating myself. Either take it or leave it.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Otherwise, you're telling all these engineers that their years of education in college and graduate school was all a waste, if someone who doesn't have a an education can simply wave it all away and say "it wasn't that complicated".


There are many engineers that agree with my hypothesis so clearly there must be merit. Are you calling them crazy?


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The NIST report wasn't just to explain what happene,d IT ALSO provided ADVICE to future engineers and construction and architecturers of steps to make sure FUTURE buildings can be further protected should an incident LIKE the WTC towers happen again.


Indeed, its more of a future reference than an actual investigation into what exactly brought down the towers, at least thats what I think. Feel free to disagree all you want...

And yes governments have been known to cover-up ferry disasters, airline disasters, building collapses, etc in the past.


Originally posted by RipCurl
Which didn't answer my question. Shows that you dont understand the construction of the towers and FAILURE to understsand high school physics. YOU need a lateral force to cause a "lean" to happen.


The lateral force was created from the frame's inability to evenly support the towers weight, thus causing a leaning effect to the weak side. In turn that would cause a dislodge.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


I just did! If you disagree with my opinion(s) that is a different issue but I fail to see why I need to keep repeating myself. Either take it or leave it.


Opinions are worth nothing without support. Since you only provided an opinion of why it should be not complicated, I will throw it aside since you can't support why it should not be complicated.



There are many engineers that agree with my hypothesis so clearly there must be merit. Are you calling them crazy?


Can they back up your claims they support you with RESEARCH of their own? Oh and that they were published to respected peer review engineering journals.

Im still waiting to see a peer reviewed article written by these engineers who disagree with NIST to be published.

8 years. and nothing.



Indeed, its more of a future reference than an actual investigation into what exactly brought down the towers, at least thats what I think. Feel free to disagree all you want...


Yes I disagree. BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ THE REPORT.



And yes governments have been known to cover-up ferry disasters, airline disasters, building collapses, etc in the past.
irrelavant to the events on 9/11. What does past deeds by past governemtns have to do with a report on the collapse of the towers.

These are reports that will be used from here on, on how to approach building construction and DESIGN. If engineers feel that there was a coverup, they wouldn't be using the reports to help them BUILD their buildings.


The lateral force was created from the frame's inability to evenly support the towers weight, thus causing a leaning effect to the weak side. In turn that would cause a dislodge.


Wrong. High School physics course would teach you what lateral force is, and why it would not happen on these buildings and why you are using that term in the wrong way.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueTruth
 

Blah, blah, blah. You debunked this and you debunked that. Whatever. BTW, since you're new here, your entire post violates ATS terms of use.

Hey RipCurl, have you seen this short compilation of news stories from 9/11? I can't get jthomas to comment on it. Tell me, where did these "secondary explosions" come from? How about the "bomb in the building" that the FDNY firefighter is referring to? And why did 1500-degree fires burn for months in the WTC sublevels, despite a "lake full of water" being poured on them?






[edit on 1-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


See architects and engineers for 9-11 truth!

Also I would appreciate if you stop insulting me.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Ya know, I've noticed in a number of threads on your member's page that you have a habit of tattling on people, and asking for folks you don't like to be banned.


You treat people like they're stupid if they disagree with you, and then you ask for them to be banned it they return the favor.


Have you ever considered how infantile that is?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by RipCurl
 


See architects and engineers for 9-11 truth!

Also I would appreciate if you stop insulting me.


Insulting? That you can't even bother to provide proof of your claims and I calling you on it is insulting? wow, you have a weird definition there

I would appreciate that you wouldn't use that site as its nothing more than a HUGE Argument from Authority.

Please link to a peer reviewed published ARTICLE that at least one member from that fraud group has published in an Engineering or Architectural journal.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Hey RipCurl, have you seen this short compilation of news stories from 9/11? I can't get jthomas to comment on it. Tell me, where did these "secondary explosions" come from? How about the "bomb in the building" that the FDNY firefighter is referring to? And why did 1500-degree fires burn for months in the WTC sublevels, despite a "lake full of water" being poured on them?




The video you have requested is not available.

If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process.


Explosision does not mean explosives..
As stated earlier, many thought that those who were jumping to their deaths, as they hit the ground sounded liked explosions.
Generators near the impact areas of the towers
Cars on the streets hit by debris.
Computers, chemicals, carpeting, cabling, cleaning supplies, fax machines, electrical conduits being severed, transformers (there were many of them in the buildings)

Nice that you also have a hard time with similes. Something the 911 truth movement has had a hard time with.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I think it is equally fair to say that both sides do not have the best evidence as many cry out for almost on every post. The OS is obvisouly flawed and that is a fact stated by not only "conspiracy theorists" but the sentiments of Congressmen, Senators, Architects and other professionals as well.

For those who think 911 was an act of government terrorism designed, plotted & planned to be a means for other purposes there are just as many websites that have the same half baked notions & ideas that are presented falsely as "fact" when they are not. Many of these websites I find totally useless when trying to get actual facts and documented real evidence regarding 911. Because the majority of them are presented within a preconcieved idea that 911 was a conspiracy and with that, they fail largely to be able to provide any intelligent proof of such conspiracy beyond a resonible doubt. The majority of their work is centered around spectacularism whihc plays into the emotion factor.

A genuine website that is objective and balanced with the presenatation of real evidence is where many of you need to turn to because some of the theories and notions many people have posted sound like they all work for a Hollywood movie studio tossing around movie plots ideas.

EXAMPLE: I find the half-assed notion of a "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" totally incorrect and only demonstrates one's ability to follow another as in a herd of cattle to the proverbial cliff's edge and subsequently, over the top.

A plane hit the Pentagon. There are multiple witnesses who say the thing fly into the side of it. Anyone in my opinion who cannot accept that fact then move on to investigate other, more notable inconsistancies within the OS is simply in the way of everyone else trying to perform legitimate investigation into this national tragedy.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
You know what would be a SICK twist on all of this?
The OP is really a paid psy-op agent...gauging our knowledge and observance of supposed paid, "professional debunkers".
Oh and somehow 9/11 got thrown into the mix just for some extra fire and psy-op counter intelligence.


(edit: spelling)

[edit on 1-12-2009 by GlossomBoodchild]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
As an outsider (Not from USA)... I must say that I have seen a lot of strong arguments for foul play during the 911 attacks. Over all the US government is definately keeping stuff about it secret and I think it is unfair. It creates doubt and more conspiracies (some which are not very true) about that day.
I do however find it difficult to grasp that the USA government would have paid debunkers to try and sway the public opinion. I think they would rather do a T.V show or movie to remove doubt or debunk theories.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
he OS is obvisouly flawed and that is a fact stated by not only "conspiracy theorists" but the sentiments of Congressmen, Senators, Architects and other professionals as well.


Agreed. We will never know the entire truth of why 911 happened, simply because those who DO have the answers are still hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But based on available evidence, past declarations by leaders of Al Quaeda, and their previous attempts on the WTC complex (1993 bombing) and of course OBL admitting that he financed and taking responsibility for 9/11 - we have the best constructed story that fits the available information and evidence.

If more information arises, then the story will change to accommodate that information.




....Anyone in my opinion who cannot accept that fact then move on to investigate other, more notable inconsistancies within the OS is simply in the way of everyone else trying to perform legitimate investigation into this national tragedy.



Instead of nitpicking the details of 9/11, these truthers who claim that our govt "did it" should be picketing the NYC courts to free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ; after all Truthers are the ones that are basically stating that he is innocent.

Nearly a million people protested against the way African Americans were treated in the 60's.

And truthers can only get 5 people to show up for 9/11 anniversaries in NYC.

we have an idea of where their priorities lie.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join