Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 5
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jthomas
 


You are avoiding the subject.


You are confused.


There are PLENTY of folk, including first responders who heard explosions. Regardless of whether they prove the existence of explosives in the towers, they heard them.

Are they all liars according to you?


No, according to you.

They didn't hear or see explosives. Lots of things sounded like "explosions" but NO ONE claimed to hear or see "explosives." _BoneZ_ lied about first responders. Apparently, you need to also.

It's the nature of 9/11 "Truth."


Well that' doesn't make any sense.;

If they heard something that sounded like an explosion, and said it was an explosion, is that not them saying it was an explosion?

How is this wrong?

When somebody says. I heard an explosion. How do you turn around and say, they never said that.

It's right there.

HOW CAN I LIE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I GAVE YOU SOURCE FOR?

~Keeper

[edit on 11/29/2009 by tothetenthpower]




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't hear or see explosives. Lots of things sounded like "explosions" but NO ONE claimed to hear or see "explosives." _BoneZ_ lied about first responders.

I just went back and looked at my posts and I used "explosions" in every one of them, not "explosives". That means you are lying about what I said.

Any questions?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:23 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.

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


I'm with you. If anyone is a government sponsored debunker, I'd love to get in on some of that sweet coin. I mean, Christmas is coming up and I know I could use some extra cash for the holidays.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The obvious question is "why would the government engage professional debunkers when there are so many idiots willing to try to do it for free?"

As for the internet: if or when the balloon goes up the net will go down, and also, the highway system will be closed as well. No commo and no ability to travel... what's the plan then?

I suspect that there are professional disinfo agents busily at work but I doubt that the US is the government that employs them.





[edit on 29-11-2009 by Brown Bear]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't hear or see explosives. Lots of things sounded like "explosions" but NO ONE claimed to hear or see "explosives." _BoneZ_ lied about first responders.

I just went back and looked at my posts and I used "explosions" in every one of them, not "explosives". That means you are lying about what I said.


You wouldn't have had to "go back" to check unless you weren't sure if you used "explosives" or "explosion", now would you?


In fact, I caught you in the classic 9/11 Denier use of "explosion" as a result of "explosives" of what people thought they heard before they later found out that they were sounds "like explosions." The inherent dishonesty of that attempt of yours is as old as your 9/11 Denial Movement and we call you deniers on it every time.

And, of course, you have the perfect opportunity to state for the record right here that you have no positive evidence of "explosives." Let's see you state it right here, _BoneZ_.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
without skeptics/debunkers God knows what we'd buy into. There has to be a balance and I think that skeptics provide the balance. I'm not ashamed to admit that there were more than a few times I've been enlightened by a skeptic.
I believe a lot of skeptics are really believers it's just that they need to be sure and being sure and thorough is better than falling into the clutches of delusion. If it weren't for rational analysis how many fake UFO vids would be considered authentics?
I sympathize with your frustration but not every ATS member who debunks something is a paid government agent. On the othr hand, it's very clear that we've been infiltrated. Look for the one post wonders and then wait for another to pop up an compare the writing styles.
The truth is in their grammer. Look for consistencies.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I thought this was about debunkers. Oh well, 've put in my two cents into the 9/11 bit. Some of you may have read it but it doesn't matter.
Inside job or not- the government knew that a terrorist attack with planes and an attack on the WTC was due. Read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor or wiki the darned plot and research the author. You'll be surprised.
Don't know if I debunked any theories but I just finished reading the book when it happened and was shocked.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And, of course, you have the perfect opportunity to state for the record right here that you have no positive evidence of "explosives." Let's see you state it right here, _BoneZ_.

I can't do that because that would be false. There is positive evidence and it has been shown tirelessly. Just because you deny it doesn't mean there is none.

And before you say "show it", that's not for this thread. You can see the evidence in any number of my posts in other threads by going to my profile and looking at my posts. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
And, of course, you have the perfect opportunity to state for the record right here that you have no positive evidence of "explosives." Let's see you state it right here, _BoneZ_.

I can't do that because that would be false. There is positive evidence and it has been shown tirelessly. Just because you deny it doesn't mean there is none.


As I have shown quite clearly in this thread you cannot produce any positive evidence for explosives.


And before you say "show it", that's not for this thread.


Who cares? You and we know you don't have a stitch of evidence you can show. You can claim you do but you can never produce any when asked. We have known for 8 years that neither you nor anyone has a single piece of positive evidence of explosives or explosive demolition. Eight full years and you still make the same claims, most of them repeatedly debunked. You don't fool anyone, _BoneZ_, and you know it.


You can see the evidence in any number of my posts in other threads by going to my profile and looking at my posts.


I repeat, neither you nor anyone has produced any positive evidence for explosives in the 8 years since 9/11. It's the nature of the inherent intellectual dishonesty behind ALL denial movements from Holocaust Denial to 9/11 Denial.

Keep blowing hot air into the wind, _BoneZ_.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Please everyone who may have a question concerning 911 stop acknowledging the people that use the word "truther". Using the word "truther" does not stregthen their arguement and it's a lame attempt at belittlement. Don't give these people the respect that they don't give you, especially this jthomas character.

If he can't acknowledge that through the act of sound by defintion explosions took place on that day he's obviously not mentally stable and any further discussion with this guy would be cruel and unusual punishment even on a internet forum with someone who is delusional.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Not to worry. Just look back over the thread.
The same panty waist puppets of their masters, just friggin lie because those panties have slipped down around their ankles and they have no help from their masters. When you are tethered to a post and feed only cow dung you say anything to get some more.
The life of a disinfo agent is not pleasant. Hold their head under water they squeal like a waterborded puppet.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
For anyone who doubts the premise of this thread, read Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system."


Fighting the Net

"We Must Fight the Net. DoD [Department of Defense] is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to "fight the net."

"DoD's "Defense in Depth" strategy should operate on the premise that the Department will "fight the net" as it would a weapons system."

It should come as no surprise that the Pentagon would aggressively attack the "information highway" in their attempt to achieve dominance in information warfare. Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in the Project for a New American Century sheds more light on the need and desire to control information.

BTW, thanks to everyone who flagged this thread, which put it on the front page.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul

Please everyone who may have a question concerning 911 stop acknowledging the people that use the word "truther". Using the word "truther" does not stregthen their arguement and it's a lame attempt at belittlement.


Too bad that ""Truthers" call themselves "Truthers." Actually, I prefer using the correct term: "9/11 Deniers."

And what about your term: "official story believer?"

You must be new at this.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

BTW, thanks to everyone who flagged this thread, which put it on the front page.


Always happy to help expose 9/11 "Truthers."



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Why would the government have to pay people to set the 911 "truthers" straight? Heck, I do it for free because I enjoy it. Maybe when you guys can come up with one theory of the events that happened on 911 and stick to it then you might get some credibiity.

I just think you all jumped the shark with the whole missles hit the buildings and the planes were a hologram thing you got going and the whole nano thermite theory that you have reduced yourselves down to. Hell, you might as well say teh government used nano termites that weakened the steel by chewing through it. It would be about as believable and based in reality as nano thermite.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

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.

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


I'm with you. If anyone is a government sponsored debunker, I'd love to get in on some of that sweet coin. I mean, Christmas is coming up and I know I could use some extra cash for the holidays.


Darn NWO did not mail my check last week



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
First of all, there probably aren't any "professional debunkers". Who'd pay? "The government"? The government doesn't care what the citizens believe. There are so many different conspiracy theories out there that even if the government told the absolute truth, no one would believe them.

Bu let's say there really are "professional debunkers". So what? If what they say is true, then it doesn't matter if they're "professionals". And i what they say is false, it *still* doesn't matter. What matters is whether their facts are accurate, not what their motivation is.

Finally, the fact that someone doesn't agree with a particular theory, doesn't make them a "professional debunker". It is entirely possible for someone to disagree with you, without being crazy, stupid, or evil.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Thanks for your obsessive interest, jthomas. Without you, there wouldn't be any protagonists to get the truth out.

BTW, I see you're still yammering about a lack of witnesses who heard "secondary explosions" (not to mention the FDNY firefighter who said, "CLEAR OUT -- there's a bomb in the building!")

Have you watched this compilation of 9/11 news stories yet? After 9/11, they were never seen or mentioned again (surprise, surprise.)




[edit on 29-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 



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".


Try and do some reading you might learn something. I have not seen you produce anything but your “opinions”, and nothing else. You claim you have read creditable peer review papers that supports the government OS. *So let’s see them? *


Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

www.sealane.org...




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?


Wrong


Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum


www.sealane.org...




Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11


www.911truth.org...



Former Reagan Deputy and Colonel Says 9/11 "Dog That Doesn't Hunt"

The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it "the dog that doesn't hunt."


www.propagandamatrix.com...



Leading 9/11 Widows Declare 9/11 Commission A Whitewash

September 11 Victim Families who Fought to Create the 9/11 Commission Declare it a Failure on the First Anniversary of the 9/11 Report.
- 9/11 families join researchers to ask independent media and foreign press for help


www.911truth.org...




They don't believe it. Why do you?

The 9/11 Commission co-chairs don't believe the 9/11 Commission Report:

* The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

* The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

* Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says “I’m upset that [the government] didn’t tell us the truth.”

* Co-chair Hamilton says of the CIA's cover up and destruction of tapes of interrogation of people allegedly connected with 9/11:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

* Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Many of the other 9/11 Commissioners don't buy it:

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . .

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

And many other key players in generating the Report don't believe it:

* One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005, "We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources."

* And the high-level attorney who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

They don't believe it. Why do you?

www.maya12-21-2012.com...





Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commission Cover-Up



archive.newsmax.com...




9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon



www.washingtonpost.com...



The 9/11 deniers



salon.com...




9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony



www.cnn.com...



"The president ought to be ashamed"


dir.salon.com...



9/11 panel to get access to withheld data



www.boston.com...



“The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush


www.democracynow.org...



There Will Be No Patrick Fitzgerald for the 9/11 Attacks



www.buzzflash.com...



Classified Letters Regarding FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds



www.thememoryhole.org...



Our Broken System

by Sibel Edmonds



antiwar.com...




Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI



www.counterpunch.org...



Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed



www.nytimes.com...:search?



How Osama Cracked FBI's Top 10



www.wired.com...



Crooked Cops and 9-11



georgewashington.blogspot.com...



Press Conference of Rep Curt Weldon: 9/11 Commission and Operation "Able Danger"
9/11 Commission suppressed the evidence



www.globalresearch.ca...



Former 6-year Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation and former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation says "the [9/11] commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything .... Huge discrepancies persist in basic facts .... when we heard the carriers and governments alike saying, “Oh, no one could have foreseen this. No one knew that this was coming. No one knew that there was any risk like this in the world,” is absolutely false....



patriotsquestion911.com...



Legal Scholars Question 9/11



georgewashington.blogspot.com...


yes go on a keep those fingers in your ears.


Looks to me not only are you keeping your fingers in your ears but you forgot to take off your blinders as well.

With all of these “creditable sources,” that I have provided you, you should realized that YOU have been lied to. If do not want to know the truth then just say so, and we can just ignore you.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 




Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

www.911blogger.com...



Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers


911research.wtc7.net...



The Open Chemical Physics Journal



www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM



Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence
for energetic materials
Kevin R. Ryan Æ James R. Gourley Æ
Steven E. Jones
Published online:



www.springerlink.com...




The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis



www.journalof911studies.com...




Propping Up the War on Terror
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
KEVIN RYAN
March 28, 2006



www.911review.com...



Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-
Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur
System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center
Buildings on 9/11/2001
By
Jerry Lobdill
June 15, 2007



www.journalof911studies.com...




Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method



www.journalof911studies.com...




Jones v. Robertson
A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center



journalof911studies.com...



Can Physics Rewrite History?



www.truememes.com...




PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01
By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University



www.journalof911studies.com...



Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'



winterpatriot.blogspot.com...



High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007




www.journalof911studies.com...



Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics



www.informationclearinghouse.info...



9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was
Impossible



www.journalof911studies.com...



CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY TWIN TOWERS THEORY DEBUNKED

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008
Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous


rinf.com...



The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites



www.journalof911studies.com...



Discussion of ”Progressive Collapse of theWorld Trade Center:
A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen



www.ae911truth.org...






top topics



 
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join