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.
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
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 by truthquest
There was a match for nano-thermite in both ignition temperature characteristics of the combusted material according to the paper. Also, regardless of which explosive it matches, the paper seems pretty clear about the substance having characteristics of high explosive.
Do you disagree that the explosive substance found by the researchers was nano-thermite? If so, why?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think it's paint, for reasons covered at great length here before. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rehash all those arguments again.
The fact is, if you really want to believe it's nano-thermite nothing will change your mind.
posted by truthquest
I created this thread for the purpose of finding reasons to believe what these researchers found was not nanothermite, therefore, I want to change my mind. All you have to do is offer evidence that what was found was paint chips or something else and I'll believe you.
Please tell me which of the tests they used to determine whether the chips were paint was faulty.
posted by TrickoftheShade
Sorry, no. I can't be bothered. The debate rattled on here for some time and I don't feel like going back over it now.
Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
I agree, I've recently stopped reading 9/11 threads because of the regular trolls who's soul purpose seems to be to derail anyones views which doesn't fit the os. They use every pathetic trick in the book and I've just got so weary of it that I've given up with the 9/11 threads all together. I'm not the kind of person to think this but I sometimes wonder if these people are paid to do this because it always seems to be the same people and as soon as they get a sniff of a 9/11 thread they're all over it like a rash.
Originally posted by captiva
I have a suggestion to the truthers and the OS brigade....First the Truthers, and yes I am logical and clever enough to be one. Stop covering the same topics over and over while sitting in your safe haven...get up off your ass and go do something about it !!
To the OS believers...whether a paid derailer or someone who chooses to follow the OS, please realise that your time for affecting any change in truther beliefs has long gone. Every bit of evidence creates doubt in the logical, open minded brain. Hense the truther movement will one day help show that there are US murderers who need to be brought to justice.
I am personally fed up with 9/11 threads and I bet Im not alone.
Truthers...take it to a new level !
OS...........you are wasting your time.
Respects
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?
Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
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?
My impression is that many people only ask for sources as a tactic, not because they have any intention to read them. If a person actually goes looking for sources, that's time spent away from the thread that can be used to spam the thread with more mindless retorts. And if they don't supply a source, they use that as an argument against.
I've even seen people ask for sources when responding to a post that provided sources.
Consider this thread. The first post contains a video, somebody quotes the video, and then two posters derail the thread for five pages insisting that the quote is obviously invalid because it wasn't cited. Even after they were provided with exact timeframes within the video to find the quote, they kept at for for several more pages.
It's a deliberate tactic.
If you claim to have evidence, show it. Otherwise, you're no better than the person you're arguing against.
Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari
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.