Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 3
118
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Big kudos to GoldenFleece. He is one of the last and most courageous truth fighters on ATS. I love you buddy!

One small addition: Many “debunkers” and “everything-deniers” are not Government debunkers (edit: no "paid" debunkers), but simply secret society members/"affiliates". Which isn’t basically different. Whether you support gruelling NWO agendas because you’re paid to do so or because you’re a member/"affiliate" of secret societies that secretively support those same agendas doesn’t really make a big difference.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by CoolBlackHole]




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Big kudos to Golden Fleece. He is one of the most courageous truth fighters on ATS. I love you buddy!

One small addition: Many ATS “debunkers” and “everything-deniers” are not Government debunkers, but secret society members or affiliates. Which isn’t basically different. Whether you support gruelling NWO agendas because you’re paid to do it or because you’re member/affiliate of secret societies that support the same agendas doesn’t really make a big difference.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by CoolBlackHole]


I for one would like one of you guys to provide proof that there are paid members here by the govt.

The fact that its ludicrous on its face being the main reason why there aren't any.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Yup.

Anyone who doesn't believe in any of their conspiracy theories, is part of the conspiracy.

Convenient circular logic, eh?

Where are the conspiracy theory moderates? People who believe some, and not others?

Is it possible at all to have a debate about this without the hardcore fundamentalist believers insulting everyone who disagrees with them? Do they have ANY kind of rational filter to screen out bad information? Do they really think everything they read on all these conspiracy sites is flawless? Do they have any idea how insane that is?

And hey - suppose there were really paid debunkers. Can't you beat them in a debate based on the evidence? Why do you guys even care if they are? Do they have superhuman powers? I mean, how formidable can they really be if they landed a job arguing with powerless crazy people on message boards? Why not just debate them like anybody else? Why resort to questioning people's motives? How on earth does that strengthen anybody's position, to just attack the other person?

This is madness.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
I for one would like one of you guys to provide proof that there are paid members here by the govt.


RipCurl... please U2U me for the phone number that will connect you to the NWO employment office. Sundays and Holidays pay time and a 1/2.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 




What is funny about OS believers is you actually fall for the OS nonsense that you were told and now believe it comes from your "gut instinct."

No. I believe the EVIDENCE and FACT based conclusions in the various reports based on the fact they were WRITTEN by respectable people in their fields of expertise, SPENT years researching and testing, and had their WORK peer reviewed.


Like the proven lies of NIST or the proven lies of the 911 commission report?
You mean those respectable “underhanded” people in their fields of expertise. These people have been confronted by experts in their fields and have shown them proof that they are sadly wrong. Don’t tell me you do not know about these factual reports?

Here if you really don’t I will gladly help you.

www.ae911truth.org...

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

If you want to believe in a fairytale, that is your business but, PLEASE do not defend a proven lie to me.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
–Structural engineer Dennis Kollar says, “For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.” (talking about the wind on the microphone in Hoboken)

You're way off topic, but I have to respond to the bolded part above. The part I've bolded shows how desperate debunkers are that they have to make such egregious things up out of thin air to explain away the facts and evidence so that they may remain in denial.

When watching "9/11 Eyewitness", over a period of several minutes before the south tower collapses you can hear a series of 9 to 10 large explosions. If anyone has taken the time to review the first responder oral histories, you would know that there are first responders that corroborate this fact precisely. For instance:


Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


How does "wind" explain a certain number of explosions from the south tower in the video which is also corroborated by first responders? How does the "wind" know to blow at the precise moment all 3 buildings collapse and blow for the duration of each collapse and then stop?

I would love for you to provide a source to your claim of this magical wind that knew when to blow and for exactly how long and also blow 9 or 10 times before the south tower collapsed so that first responders would somehow think the blowing wind was explosions coming from the south tower.

If you only knew how absurd and ridiculous your claims sound. All made up to explain away real facts from video evidence and witness testimony.







[edit on 29-11-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


Like the proven lies of NIST or the proven lies of the 911 commission report?



Please list them. Also link to peer reviewed articles by respectable journals that address these "lies".



You mean those respectable “underhanded” people in their fields of expertise. These people have been confronted by experts in their fields and have shown them proof that they are sadly wrong. Don’t tell me you do not know about these factual reports?



Sorry, but where in this paragraph is anything that rebuts the reports done by NIST and independent researchers who have published in peer reviewed engineering journals?





Here if you really don’t I will gladly help you.

www.ae911truth.org...


Nope. Not one "person" of Arhchitects have published anything in a respected peer Review journal. Could you link to one of the articles they have published? I've searched all through ASCE journals and found nothing by AE.
argument from authority noted.



www.pilotsfor911truth.org...


What do pilots have to do with assessing engineering questions? Oh basalmos groups consider those who are captains of "ships" as pilots.

Argument from false authority noted.


If you want to believe in a fairytale, that is your business but, PLEASE do not defend a proven lie to me.


yes go on a keep those fingers in your ears.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

When watching "9/11 Eyewitness", over a period of several minutes before the south tower collapses you can hear a series of 9 to 10 large explosions.


Post the video. I understand how upset you are, paying for snake oil from a thief like Gage.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ImAPepper
–Structural engineer Dennis Kollar says, “For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.” (talking about the wind on the microphone in Hoboken)

You're way off topic, but I have to respond to the bolded part above. The part I've bolded shows how desperate debunkers are that they have to make such egregious things up out of thin air to explain away the facts and evidence so that they may remain in denial.



actually it only proves how you pick and choose the evidence.

the hoboken mic? over 2 miles away, picked up a so called explosion (it was wind noise by the way).

yet cameras AT The scene by news crews and the like PICKED up nothing. They were less than 2 miles away.




Pick and choose all you like. It only shows you will buy in to the crap fed to you.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Post the video.

What, you don't know how to spend 5 seconds on Google?



Google Video Link



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
What, you don't know how to spend 5 seconds on Google?


Oh, I do. I have watched this video a few time. I wanted YOU to post it for others to see what you are claiming to be bombs.

Thank you Bonez. Much obliged!



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
the hoboken mic? over 2 miles away, picked up a so called explosion (it was wind noise by the way) yet cameras AT The scene by news crews and the like PICKED up nothing. They were less than 2 miles away.

Do you actually believe what you typed? How can you type purposeful disinformation and sleep at night?

What you're attempting to do is call our hero first responders liars by saying that their testimony is false. First responders heard about 10 explosions come from the south tower over a several minute period and "9/11 Eyewitness" corroborates that precisely. There is no magical wind that can do that; blow over a microphone 2 miles away and make first responders at the WTC think they are hearing explosions. Seriously?

There is also no magical wind that will blow at each of 3 tower collapses and for the exact duration of each collapse.

I noticed nobody has provided a source yet proving it was "just wind". I know you won't be able to provide a source because nobody can prove it was just wind. I've already blown that out of the water.

It really is sad how low the debunkers stoop to, like calling our hero first responders liars, just so they don't have to consider a conspiracy.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I love how people say things like "I have done a lot of research into this subject" without actually doing thier own. What they should say is..."I have read a lot of websites that are 9/11 being an inside job and have not actually done any research myself...I just believe the research of those that are for it being an inside job"..
I don't know what to believe because I can not do any of my own research.....but unlike the truthers..i refuse to be lead around on a leash by those who have websites for 9/11 being an inside job, they tell you it is an inside job and you believe...but how many of you have actually done your own research? You are what the believers always call the debunkers...SHEEP...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Aw c'mon, let the debunkers have their say.

Some of the most entertaining threads on this site are the ones started by the debunkers. Their shallow arguements, blind loyalty and willingness to believe whatever the govt tells them just makes me laugh.


The best part is when thr REAL ATS'ers tear them to pieces. They don't stand a chance on this forum.

Let them have their say. We could all use a little more humor on this site.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by RipCurl
the hoboken mic? over 2 miles away, picked up a so called explosion (it was wind noise by the way) yet cameras AT The scene by news crews and the like PICKED up nothing. They were less than 2 miles away.

Do you actually believe what you typed? How can you type purposeful disinformation and sleep at night?


there is no disinformation in anything i typed.

Can you resolve the fact that the hoboken camera recorded "an odd" noise, yet cameras closer to the WTC towers, recording at the same time, recorded nothing of that same noise?

Please resolve this.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

If you only knew how absurd and ridiculous your claims sound. All made up to explain away real facts from video evidence and witness testimony.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by _BoneZ_]


There's nothing like illustrating my point that you are quite incapable of providing any positive evidence of "explosives."

I cannot believe how sadly gullible you "Truthers" are, _BoneZ_.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I love how people say things like "I have done a lot of research into this subject" without actually doing thier own.

I am to this day still credited by CNN for some of my research. What about you?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That's not a good idea to state something like that my friend.

Now they are going to ask you to prove it, and when you don't out of obvious privacy reasons, they will call you a liar.

Opening up that door may have hurt your argument more than helped it...

Sorry mate, just saying.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I am to this day still credited by CNN for some of my research. What about you?




What research might that be... please do tell.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There's nothing like illustrating my point that you are quite incapable of providing any positive evidence of "explosives."

So then you are, in fact, calling the first responders liars, all the numerous documented by-standers and survivors liars, and calling "9/11 Eyewitness" false, just so you don't have to entertain the idea of a conspiracy, even though they all corroborate each other?

Now you're starting to sound exactly like the no-planers: "all the witnesses are liars and all the videos are fake". Excellent excuse.





top topics
 
118
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join