Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATTN: Everyone

page: 1
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+36 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I'm sorry if the topic title sounds a bit inflammatory, but that's how it needs to be.

I've been lurking on ATS for a while and have read many threats about 9/11. I've been watching people make the same stupid mistake over and over, and it's getting really annoying. It goes something like this:

Person A: (statement about 9/11)
Person B: You didn't supply any evidence, and therefore your viewpoint is invalid.
Person A: Well where's the evidence for YOUR side of the story?
Person B: I don't need to give any evidence because it's all been posted before. Do your own research.


Do people here honestly expect that they can make a valid argument for or against the OS if they refuse to cite evidence just because it has supposedly been posted elsewhere? This is not how it works. If you claim to have evidence, show it. Otherwise, you're no better than the person you're arguing against.

On a related note, don't claim someone's source of evidence to be invalid without giving a reason for it, such as a history of inaccuracy or fake stories. Quite frankly, it's just rude to just say "Your source sucks and therefore your argument is invalid" without backing it up.

Finally, I think this board needs to start giving supplementary sources if a link to a YouTube video is being used as a source. Why? Because YouTube videos often don't cite sources themselves, and thus it's now better than the scenario above.

In summary:

1. If you claim to have evidence, state it and provide a link (or if a book/magazine article, cite it). You're not convincing anyone by claiming to have evidence and then refusing to give it out.

2. If you want to attack someone's source, back up your argument. If we disregarded all sources just because someone said it was bad, we wouldn't have any sources to begin with.

3. Cite additional evidence if you give a YouTube video as evidence, because these videos rarely include citations of sources.


If people actually started doing this, we might be able to pull this board out of its rut. If not, then it'll just continue to be a playground full of kids that are more concerned with name-calling than what they were supposed to be talking about to begin with.




posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
S&F

I too am tired of how these arguments seem to work

It's like how a playground works "I won't play with you because your hair looks funny"

Thanks for this post. I think a few of us really appreciate it.


+26 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I'm convinced that there are some (Professional official story supporters) on here who are employed to throw a wrench into the works.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
A valiant effort, OP, but many debaters here won't care about your suggestions and there will still continue to be children running around here like this is a playground.

Star and Flag anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I agree with the premise of the OP. Regardless of stance on this issue, logic dictates more hard facts and verification and less name calling and ridicule be used. Let's also remember the term 'truther' is a semantics game and always depends on a subjective point of view. Both sides assume they argue from the position of truth.

In fact, this should apply to any topic on these boards.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 

I am convinced that a members screen name says a lot about their mental state.But I can't prove it.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
But you also have to understand that it gets really annoying when someone is too lazy to go and search about how 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyone who simply believes the official story without doing their own research is ignorant, and won't care no matter how much evidence is presented.

It is NOT a person's job to supply all the evidence for why 9/11 was an inside job. The person who believes in the "official story" NEEDS to go and do his own research.

There's thousands of websites that show you how the "official story" makes no sense such as how could they magically find a terrorists passport in all that rubble which shows that there were Al Qaeda members behind it?

In all that rubble, HOW would ONE passport be found from ONE of the hijackers?

Makes no sense.

Of course, that's just one of many flaws in the "official story".



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oneolddude
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 

I am convinced that a members screen name says a lot about their mental state.But I can't prove it.



Theres alot of stuff that someone can know and yet not be able to prove, isn't there.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm
 


When one presents a side of an argument, and the opposing side asks for proof, it is not only courteous, but your duty to show them why you believe what you do.

All you have to do is post the link and say, go there, and you will find your info. You could be extra nice and pinpoint it exactly for them, but that would depend on how you feel that day.

It may get tiring, it may annoy you, but if you take a stance publicly and are asked to support it, you must



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm

Anyone who simply believes the official story without doing their own research is ignorant, and won't care no matter how much evidence is presented.






posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


Great post, I agree with you, however the OS believers or Trusters do not feel they need to give sources.
I believe most people know there is a serious problem with the OS and that most of the information the government gave us dose not stand up to scrutiny, or credible sciences.

I have seen a growing number of posters coming on these 911 threads just to trash talk and insult every poster who does not believe in the OS.
These posters are not ignorant they are trolls, why I say this? Is because I have asked most of the OS believers, why do you believe in the OS and what creditable scientific evidences convinced you the OS is one hundred percent true?
None of them will answer the question.

I love debating people who have different ideas, but when it comes to debating the facts, I believe you must present credible sources to verify your statements.
Opinions are not facts.

These trolls are in here for many reasons; I think we can all agree on one thing here, and that is, these trolls are in here to disrupt our forum conversations to play their immature games, of upsetting as many posters they can and to shut down the 911 topics.

These disruptive posters do not offer a different side of the 911 topic; if anything, they expose their idiocy in their word game of twist, which in the long run, ends up blowing up in their faces, because most Truthers are on to those silly old games, of distractions.

In “all debates,” it is a must to bring credible sources to back your claims, without your credible sources the poster claims are worthless they mean absolutely nothing.

I will not be discussing anymore 911 issues with any more disruptive trash-talking trolls who want to disrupt our 911 forums, hopefully, if we all will just ignore these obtrusive posters they will go away.

Let them insult us.
Let them call us names.
Let them make fun.

Just don’t feed them.

I always say if you got evidences, bring it to the table, let’s examine what you have.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
"I'm convinced that there are some (Professional official story supporters) on here who are employed to throw a wrench into the works."

Let me play stupid for a second. I wonder who these people could be protecting and defending? Why else would they be posting the same redundant moronic garbage time and time again on the 9/11 conspiracy forums when they do not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Not only do they not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, they show no interest in debating the issue with any level of maturity. You're talking apples and they're talking crocodiles. Like on another thread, where some Official Fairy Tale junky compared engineers who did not believe the OS to elections and then to Starbucks.


For example, a sane person who does not believe in aliens is not going to spend every waking hour debating that aliens do not exist unless they have an agenda, or a minimum wage job doing it, at least.


Shouldn't these closed minded people be busy watching and digesting the crap that FOX or CNN dishes out, instead of poisoning open and frank conspiracy discussions? If we wanted to hear this mindless media propaganda crap, we'd turn on the TV or buy a newspaper. I thought this was a place where you could escape the extensive rubbish being fed to the masses on a daily basis.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
"In “all debates,” it is a must to bring credible sources to back your claims, without your credible sources the poster claims are worthless they mean absolutely nothing."

For some of these OS believers, it is a "must" to bring a trash talking mouth which you can find on any Government funded schoolyard. I cannot blame them though, since their extremely low level of intellect precludes them from engaging in a debate with some semblance of competence or professionalism.

To be fair, there are a few OS believers on this site who do show respect and are intelligent and mature enough to debate the topic without resorting to childish outbursts and hypocrisies. Unfortunately, these individuals are in the minority and often end up getting dragged through the mud by the OS juvenile delinquents.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari
It goes something like this:

Person A: (statement about 9/11)
Person B: You didn't supply any evidence, and therefore your viewpoint is invalid.
Person A: Well where's the evidence for YOUR side of the story?


This sounds like every single thread ever made asking people who believe the official story to post their evidence. They simply state something as if it's already a fact, and when I ask for the actual evidence to prove that statement, they ask me to prove it wrong. Which is absolutely not how science works, or else we would all be believing every idea we heard until they were all proven wrong. I could name at least 2 members off the top of my head who post EXACTLY like this and think it's acceptable reasoning.

I am careful that if I ever make a positive statement, I can back it up with sources and/or evidence. But most of the time I'm just calling out other people who are making positive statements, to post THEIR evidence or sources, and 99% of the time it doesn't happen. And lately, 100% of the time it doesn't happen. This latest batch of trolls are the most hard-headed of them all. Hopefully those are the only kinds of people left arguing such futile positions anyway?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I simply cite the thermite and the pictures of the horizontally snapped aprox foot thick steel as my evidence that it was blown up.



thank you "In nothing we trust"


[edit on 28-2-2010 by KKinsane2009]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by KKinsane2009]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


i'm not sure disinfos people and volunteer trolls will sign your proposal



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


So what about the people who keep bring up the same topics over and over and over and over and over and over?



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


So what about the people who keep bring up the same topics over and over and over and over and over and over?


who cares, shut up and contrubute something. i've done my part today, what have you done but moan?

@everyone else aswell. don't post something unless its evidence for or against.

I will stick by my own rules and post yet more evidence.

"DESIGNED" TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE PLANES



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by KKinsane2009
who cares, shut up and contrubute something. i've done my part today, what have you done but moan?


OOoooh.. Did I touch a likkle nerve with that one? Are you in love with your likkle thermite theory about how your government raped you by blowing up your biggest buildings and taking away a load of your rights.. Ill shed a likkle tear for you later when I start to care.

Even though I wasn't actually talking to you in the first place


The question was to the OP and it still stands.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KKinsane2009
"DESIGNED" TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE PLANES


pity nowhere did one of the tower designers state what you claimed.... but that is so typical for "truthers" - they just make garbage up to try and bolster their conspiracy theory!





new topics

top topics



 
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join