Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

Originally posted by jthomas

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.

No, i'm not new at this and you constantly being cute about the facts of 3,000 people who were murdered is repugnant.

If you got something to add that's significant that's fine, but your constant butting into these threads and causing nothing but trouble is getting old, real old, and you should be banned imo for instigating meaningless arguements and making unsubstantiated acquasitions towards other posters like you did in this thread by insuatiting that people were liars.

There is a truth movement and the MSM came up with the word "truthers" to describe them. I don't think i've seen one person use the term "OS believer." The term OS, yes.

I don't know what happened on that day but I do know that the "official story" isn't the whole truth. If you believe what your told by the government then I have a bridge to sell you as well. Our government and I guess all governments are corrupt at all levels. If you step out of line they will put in back in place or your gone. Believe what you want but we don't know the whole story that is for sure. I still can't believe the government spent more money on the Monica Lewinsky scandal than the 911 commission...What a joke and we will continue to be played like a joke until either the government goes too far or we get fed up with the lies. We were sold this change thing and from what I'm seeing it was just another lie...and the hits just keep on coming...
America wake up...we're being lied to and I'm afraid for our future!

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 summed up.

OP, if you may please, can you make a list of these "professional debunkers" and show proof where it is obvious that they are government operatives?

Removing the sugar from this thread, all I see is this "If you do not agree with me, you are working for the government and therefore instantly wrong. Good bye."

LL - Lovely Logic!

reply to post by GoldenFleece


GoldenFleece, I know just what you are talking about......I have seen it and commented on it on a few threads....

The 'paid government shills' and 'dis-info' agents have been hitting hard on the 9-11 threads...it's obvious ....

And you're right, tptb are running scared and trying every trick in the book to keep the fake 'war on terror' going.....but it is not working...

The jig is up.....the game is over....the people are awake...it's only a matter of time before the tptb are locked up and the truth is revealed.....

PEACE and LOVE...

I'm more concerned about the subversive COINTELPRO disinfo agents. Like those who come in wave after wave arguing non-stop for No Planes, CGI, Micronuke, Space Beams, and so on.

But when you combinre them in with government shills what a mess. To me these people are the proof of the conspiracy. Most would admit that the coverup becomes the ultimate proof. Someone innocent would have nothing to coverup or divert people from.

While I initially found the planted explosives theory hard to swallow, I now believe there is a lot of merit to it. Yes 2 planes crashed into the towers but it probably would not be enough to bring them down, especially with the fire retardant coating each floor had, so to be absolutely sure they went with explosives. But how come nobody saw them plant explosives; No office workers during the day or late night cleaning crews? Were they paid to keep silent?

Its all very confusing and I am sure the government wanted it that way. Much like the plane that flew over the pentagon before a missle struck it. To be perfectly honest, the pentagon attack was the smoking gun not the wtc. There is a video circulating on youtube that shows mr rumsfeld stating *a missle* prior to correcting himself and saying it was *a plane*!
Yet I've seen debunkers to this day claim that he actually meant "a plane was used as a missle". That is too convienent of an excuse for me to be credible. Not to mention mr. rumsfeld saying 2.3 trillion dollars of the pentagon budget were unaccounted for *1 day prior to the attacks*. 1+1=2 but I am sure some die-hard, "mindless" skeptics will misinterpret this to their advantage. Its called DENIAL SYNDROME!

They ask for evidence, we give it to them only to have it revoked as "non-credible". What is credible? What kind of evidence and how much of it constitutes proof? Proof is a vague concept and subject to interpretation. Some judges have sent people to death-row with only minor circumstantial evidence and yet here we have multiple(too many to list)sources more-or-less agreeing that not only does the official version not add up, but there is also enough highely circumstational evidence to conclude 9-11 was indeed AN INSIDE JOB! I realise groups have gotten together and collectively sued the government for various reasons which I do not remember off-hand; can someone inform me of the verdict(s)?

Thanks!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
While I initially found the planted explosives theory hard to swallow, I now believe there is a lot of merit to it. Yes 2 planes crashed into the towers but it probably would not be enough to bring them down, especially with the fire retardant coating each floor had, so to be absolutely sure they went with explosives. But how come nobody saw them plant explosives; No office workers during the day or late night cleaning crews? Were they paid to keep silent?

Please read the NIST report in its entirety, since it obvious that you didn't.

reply to post by jthomas


jthomas, Bonez threw back at you EXACTLY what you did to the TS. Don't try to spin what you did holds any water. The fact is you believe the OS because you choose to.

Truthers don't believe it because logically, scientifically and rationally it does not make sense. The truth is, many people from all walks of life don't believe it from local and foreign government reps, scientists, researchers, pilots, and architects just to name a few. Oh and celebrities too! (sarcasm).

To call Truther's ignorant is pretty foolish. People that are vastly superior to you in terms of credibility regarding just the pure physics and science of the whole event are calling the OS impossible. You're jthomas on ATS. It's you vs. them. Who do you think wins that debate?

If you can't even call the events of 9/11 at the VERY LEAST debatable, then I'm sorry you are extremely delusional and cut off from reality if you can't see the big picture and the world 9/11 ushered in and who benefited from it.

That being said...What are you doing here?

I agree, there must be at least a couple of pro debunkers. There's also just other people who like to debunk. I don't get what's so difficult about this. Not ALL debunkers are government operatives, but that doesn't mean there isn't a couple here and there.

Some are so brainwashed the gubmint doesnt even need to pay 'em!
They do it all for free!
Best money never spent!
Give it to the elite instead!

Ya see gubmints have think tanks where they sit and
think of ways to pull the wool over the sheeps eyes!
Thats all they do! See?

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."

Funny how some people are ignorant enough to think 9/11 was pulled off by some barely competent arabs who could not possibly have done it.

jthomas, you're a joke to have posted that nonsense here, let alone anywhere else visited by any thinking person.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
While I initially found the planted explosives theory hard to swallow, I now believe there is a lot of merit to it. Yes 2 planes crashed into the towers but it probably would not be enough to bring them down, especially with the fire retardant coating each floor had, so to be absolutely sure they went with explosives. But how come nobody saw them plant explosives; No office workers during the day or late night cleaning crews? Were they paid to keep silent?

Please read the NIST report in its entirety, since it obvious that you didn't.

I have read enough of the nist report to conclude its bogus!

For example, even if the steel girders did not melt and instead buckled that would mean the tower would lean over and fall to either side. It would not come down on its own signature; this fact alone points to a highely-skilled, controlled demoltion.

And how can wtc-7 come down, also in a near vertical fashion, with such minimal damage? A little debris catching on fire and escalating enough to cause a total collapse is almost laughable.

We are all free to believe as we like. However, the evidence that I've seen indicates that the "so-called" official version is an incorrect analysis of what actually happened.

First of all, those that laugh at the suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job seem to have forgotten or to have never known that the first attack on the WTC in 1993 was a False Flag Operation. An insider working with the FBI was given ingredients to make explosives by THE FBI and recruited others to make bombs. This informer alerted the FBI that the other individuals, that were apparently the actual target of this sting operation, were moving ahead and planning on carrying out the bombing. Despite the informers countless attempts to alert the FBI: Hey guys, these folks are really going to try to bring down the towers. The FBI let the attack occur.


Then we are supposed to believe that TWO AIRPLANES completely brought down THREE SEPARATE buildings. This apparently sounds reasonable to people that believe the official version. 1+1=3. But wait, we are then told the reason building 7 really fell and was actually leveled around eight hours after the planes hit because there had been a fire burning on one side. So now it only takes a fire burning on one side to bring down a whole skyscraper. Who new? And even though that fire was only on one side; when building 7 finally fell, it fell STRAIGHT DOWN at free-fall speed. Hey 1+1=3. Sure, why not?

So feel free to believe "the official version." Many people do. We simply disagree, and that isn't a problem.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I have read enough of the nist report to conclude its bogus!

reading the table of contents will not give you what the Entire report stated.

Of course, you can list here all the things that NIST got wrong..

Here I'll start a list for you :

1) Nist got _____ wrong for this reason:


There.. now please fill in the blanks and provide proof for your reason to believe its wrong.


10,000 pages is very easy to get through. Better start reading.

For example, even if the steel girders did not melt and instead buckled that would mean the tower would lean over and fall to either side.

what lateral force would cause the tower to lean?

Please provided you reasoning to believe that the tower (well, the top sections of each building) would lean?

It would not come down on its own signature; this fact alone points to a highely-skilled, controlled demoltion.

Sorry, but please provide a reason why it wouldn't come down on its own?

1) planes crashed into the buildings.
2) Caused UNFOUGHT fires to rage through out nearly 10 floors in each tower; fire protection was only rated for a 2 hour protection, but NIST believes that the fire protection on the steel trusses and joints was knocked off by the impact. However, they did not take into account that the protection might have been deteriorated (thereby not giving its full protection) or certain steel components was not adequately covered in protection. Sepculation on my part, but Steel has been shown that without protection and subjected to heat at half its melting temperature can cause the trusses and joints to weaken to the point where they can no longer sustain the weight and STRESS being pushed on them.

And because of the unique way the buildings were designed (the weight of the building was sustained by the interior columns and the outer steel skin), it created a "bowing" effect on the steel beams holding the floors up; which pulled in the outer exterior columns inward. Combine that with the heat, it led to the cascade failure amongst the effected floors. Since gravity pulls thing downs, the only thing that could happen is the full on collapse.

And how can wtc-7 come down, also in a near vertical fashion, with such minimal damage?

Minimal? nearly all the floors within WTC 7 was on fire. As described by several firefighters on scene, they called the building Fully engulfed in fire. Without any water (the collapses of wtc 1 and 2 severed water manes), firefighters could not fight fires, so the fires spread to nearly every floor.

7 hours of fires not being fought, along with a cantilever design (nearly 7 floors within the building was "open" with no support in the center), there was nothing to prevent collapse. Like the WTC towers, fires, along with severe structural damage (caused by the collapse of WTC 1), caused WTC7 to become fully involved in fire, and subsquently, like WTC 1 and 2, collapsed due to weakened steel.

A little debris catching on fire and escalating enough to cause a total collapse is almost laughable.

little debris catching on fire? YOu really need to read the nISt report in its entirety. You are misrepresenting what happened.

Originally posted by dubiousone


Funny how some people are ignorant enough to think 9/11 was pulled off by some barely competent arabs who could not possibly have done it.

nice racist remark. Barely competent? You do realize that the some of the 19 were highly educated who attended collage. Several were trained soldiers (top ranked).


Mohamed Atta - an Egyptian (educated in Germany and majored in Architecture)
Waleed M. al-Shehri ( studied to become a teacher)
Wail al-Shehri ( was a teacher)
Abdulaziz al-Omari ( attained a degree at Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University - but went off to train for war)
Satam M. A. al-Suqami ( was a law student at King Saud University)

Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi (enrolled in a language institute in Germany)
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan al-Qadi Banihammad , Ahmed Salah al-Ghamdi , Hamza al-Ghamdi , Mohand al-Shehri - were religious soldier, who formed a group and attended a camp dedicated to training soldiers to fight on behalf of hteir religious ideals.

Khalid al-Mihdhar - a soldier who fought in the bosnian war.
Majed Mashaan Gh. Moqed ( studied at King Fahd University's Faculty of Administration and Economics)
Nawaf al-Hazmi - fought as a soldier in the Bosnian War, then later on the side of the Taliban. Helped to plan the attacks on 9/11/2001.
Salem al-Hazmi - fough along side with his brother in the Bosnian war.

Ziad Samir Jarrah - Lebanese ( studied Aerospace engineering at Fachhochschule in Hamburg)
Ahmed bin Abdullah al-Nami ( Studied Sharia at King Khaled University)
Saeed al-Ghamdi ( A soldier who was involved in fighting against hte Russians)

So the OP doesn't like people who offered reasoned debate. If you're feeling pressured that you can't keep up in debates with "debunkers" ... maybe you're theories have to many holes?

Just a thought..

(PS, threads like this are getting really old.. maybe ATS can do something about THAT?)

reply to post by GoldenFleece


The government wouldn't pay debunker's.They would pay truthers to disseminate false truths that could be disproved.Its far easier to make someone look crazy then prove them wrong. Truth be known however if and thats a big if there was a cover up there not concerned with a conspiracy sight when they could influence the media.

My guess is you keep floating half baked theories and losing debate after debate.

Originally posted by RipCurl
nice racist remark. Barely competent? You do realize that the some of the 19 were highly educated who attended collage. Several were trained soldiers (top ranked).

And six or seven of the "hijackers" are so talented, they're "alive and well"!


[edit on 30-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Why is it that if you're a motorist running a red light where there's a camera you get not only a ticket but a photograph showing this


BUT yet they can't produce 1 picture of a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon?

Why do people like to just sit there denying political conspiracies without substance?

If the government was not involved with 9/11, then why do they prefer to prove that the towers did not collapse because of explosions and controlled demolition?

They want to tell us how it happened, but refuse to accept the possibility of controlled demolition. If the government was not at all involved with the attacks, then why do they sound like they are trying to deny rather than understand?

The Gulf of Tonkin and Pearl Harbor attacks were already used to fight wars. The US planned on a regime change in Iraq before 9/11. The problem is they didn't know how to make the American people support the war, so 9/11 was very convenient for not only accusing Al Quaida (created by Brzezinski), but also lying about their connections to Saddam Hussein. Then came the lies about Hussein's WMDs!

That was reason enough to also invade Iraq! And then Pakistan because the Taliban (Bush's good old friends) also infiltrated Pakistan. And why all this kerfuffle? Oh yeah, that's Pipelinistan. How can they pass the gas pipeline across the Middle East if Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the way?

9/11 was definitely worth it for being able to invade the Middle East one country after another. It's worth much more than those decaying towers.

I remember after 9/11 (I lived in PA at the time), I supported the disappearance of Afghanistan. That's how brainwashed we are by the government. That's how they encouraged the people to go for it. Where is bin Laden? If they could find Chemical Ali, then why not also bin Laden?