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: 18
118
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

Does this answer your question? 31 minutes after I posted, the "F-16 fixer" who monitors every 9/11 thread 24/7 has responded to my "crap".

Right now, it's almost 2:00am in Baghdad. I guess F-16 mechanics don't have to get up early. Since there are so few F-16s that need maintenance and repair, they must have unlimited free time to post on ATS, tirelessly defending the government's absurd official story. Maybe it never occurred to him that the reason we're even in Iraq is the Bush administration's "weapons of mass destruction" lie. But I'm sure he can justify that too.

[edit] Swampy was online when I wrote this. But I guess he decided to retire for the night when I mentioned that it was 2:00am in Baghdad.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

that buildings designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707s wouldn't neatly collapse on their footprint at near free-fall speeds,


This is what I love about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are devoid of facts. Exactly which buildings were designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707's, and can you provide a source for that claim from the builder/architect?

Also, simply by watching the video's of the WTC falling you can see the debris coming off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, and travelling faster than the collapsing buildings www.debunking911.com...




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Right now, it's almost 2:00am in Baghdad. I guess F-16 mechanics don't have to get up early. Since there are so few F-16s that need maintenance and repair, they must have unlimited free time to post on ATS, tirelessly defending the government's absurd official story. Maybe it never occurred to him that the reason we're even in Iraq is the Bush administration's "weapons of mass destruction" lie. But I'm sure he can justify that too.


Hey, Ace. Obviously you didn't get the memo, but Ops at Balad are 24/7, and unless I'm mistake, the MX shop is probably on 12 hour shifts, 6 days on, 1 day off. If they're lucky.

Most shops have some sort of internet access. Crude, but workable. And they are allowed to have a break now and again.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Exactly which buildings were designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707's, and can you provide a source for that claim from the builder/architect?


How about a construction manager from the project?






Originally posted by dereks
This is what I love about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are devoid of facts. ... www.debunking911.com...


And this is what I love about "debunkers" like you. You get your stuff off a site that has no credibility and take it like Holy Scripture from Jesus Christ himself without doing any of your own research first.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I have a challenge to all the debunkers here if you all feel that the witnesses who heard explosions are liars then say so.Instead of hiding behind semantics and attacks against the 9/11 movement.Do you guys really believe those first responders are lying?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
if you all feel that the witnesses who heard explosions are liars then say so.


I don't even think they've yet internalized the fact that so many people DID hear and record explosions.

They're just now starting to leave the confused haze of "but why didn't we hear explosions then?"




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

that buildings designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707s wouldn't neatly collapse on their footprint at near free-fall speeds,


This is what I love about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are devoid of facts. Exactly which buildings were designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707's, and can you provide a source for that claim from the builder/architect?


Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

Devoid of facts, huh? How would you like your crow served, cold or heated up?


[edit on 2-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
And this:

January 25, 2001, Frank A. DeMartini, World Trade Center Construction & Project Manager, had this to say about a plane impact into one of the towers:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the musquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting."



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
Guess,your right bsbray11 they still have to get over that before we move onto wither they think the firefighters are lying or not.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
That's weak. You have to take into consideration the other possibilities. I described a few in my previous post. Besides, why pay people to do something as simple as posting a bunch of nonsense on a forum (other than for the purpose of advertising their cheap knockoff of Air Jordans for the price of $5.99 or Male Enhancement Pills)? Seems ridiculous.

reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
So what? He's just an internet tough guy, that's all.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
Fleece,those were some good articles and I find it telling that you have not gotten a response from any OS supporters at all.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

You should read Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system" if you want a better understanding of how seriously the internet is viewed.

Another 'Wired' article:


Military Report: Secretly ‘Recruit or Hire Bloggers’

By Noah Shachtman

A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."

Since the start of the Iraq war, there’s been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs — and the service members who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops’ time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach — co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report’s co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning...

www.wired.com...

Internet CoIntelPro: What You Should Know:




[edit on 2-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Again I say:

What difference does it make what a debunkers motive is?

What difference does it make if they are paid to do what they do, or do it for fun?

What is added to the discussion by making these kinds of unverifiable accusations? It comes off exactly like any other ad-hominum response to any other point in a debate - as a dodge.

Are paid blogger superhuman? Can their arguments not be debated like any other?

All this does is make us look silly and more paranoid, since it's a fair assumption, just based on numbers, that the vast majority of debunkers are just regular folks with a closed mind who get off on being snarky.

We're talking tens of thousands of alleged secret agents here. Does this really sounds plausible?

Again - all this kind of speculation does is make us look ridiculous.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The fact is, I have seen more immature OS believers who could not debunk themselves out of a paper bag. In a real debate, one has to leave out one “emotions,” and stick only to the facts and present creditable sources to back their claims the moment the ridiculing starts all credibility is toss out the window. So, most of you OS supporters are not very credible.

A real professional show no anger and will not insult or ridiculed.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Eh, not worth the effort.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by jerico65]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 

Is that what's happening in this thread, e.g. the poster who said,


This is what I love about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are devoid of facts. Exactly which buildings were designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707's, and can you provide a source for that claim from the builder/architect?

What I see is them quietly slinking away with their tail between their legs.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Nope, not in the least. Nothing to worry your pretty little head about.

But I did read your sources for that. I even think I saw something on Discovery about them being built to handle a 707 strike.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Just though id point out a construction manager is the person that hires and schedules workers to build they no nothing of architecture so you proved nothing.Oh and by the way check out the size of a 707 this was the first passenger jet and isn't very big at all about half the size of a 747 so id have to say you were wrong and proved him right.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
I have a challenge to all the debunkers here if you all feel that the witnesses who heard explosions are liars then say so.Instead of hiding behind semantics and attacks against the 9/11 movement.Do you guys really believe those first responders are lying?


Im trying to debunk the event at all mate i genuinly feel the truth will never be known but i suspect it to be somewhere in the middle of both arguments all i've got say is let the dead rest in peace all the emergency workers who helped should be knighted and for the poor people that are still sick and suffering from the toxic fumes they inhaled i sincerely hope their conditiions improve im not heartless i just honestly dont see the point in arguing about somrething that'll never be solved and yes you could say that about all conspiracies but no other conspiracy attracts as much attention as this one



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Even so, they have nothing to lose, because they have no goal.

The truth movement does - and it begins with trying to establish credibility, a prerequisite to which is a reliable set of facts we can agree on.

If THEY act foolish, nothing changes, and that's fine by them.

If WE act foolish, nothing changes - and that's us losing.

And trust me - when we play the 'professional debunker' game, it automatically tunes people out.


This isn't just an argument about who's the most right, is it? Or who's the most foolish?

I'm talking about the prerequisites for expanding the message.

If we care more about actual progress as opposed to 'winning' on a message board, it behooves us to avoid such behaviors.



[edit on 3-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join