Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATTN: Everyone

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

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.


i just want to commend you on your informative avatar, i learned some interesting new things today to say the least.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Journal of the Whills]




posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


I agree with the premise behind this post, but I also think your example could have been much better. If person A didn't provide any evidence to begin with, I agree with Person B. I think Person A should have provided evidence in your example. That's all I'm sayin'.


Cheers,
Strype



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Completely agree, and even more so. I hold great hope that the true 9/11 perps (yes Mossad, CIA etc) will be exposed shortly.

The level of activity by the Professional debunkers (professional==paid for those who cant figure it out) is to the point of apparent desparation.

Sometimes I feel like I am watching the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

My life is so much more pleasant since discovering the 'ignore' feature. I suggest all the legit 9/11 truthers use it so that we may have a reasonable discussion.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Agree with the post.

I think in this electronic age, let's not forget eye witness evidence from those who were actually there - especially when it is caught on camera. May not be as relevant in 9/11 but certainly very relevant in 7/7.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
excuse me?!

I read it in a book as a child, do not insult me and call me a truther.

infact screw it, here's your thread, enjoy. *watches 100 idiots complain about nothing with no contribution*

SUCK PROOF

dated september 12th 2001. deny my middle finger you pitiful troll.

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


The "its been disproven" argument is a line of nonsense for a losing argument, UNLESS the exact source is supplied (referencing a whole book doesn't cut it either).

I posted about nano-thermite found at the world trade center complex, and the conversation was as follows:


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.


Really? Because it looks to me like TrickoftheShade was on the losing side of an argument and he didn't really have any evidence for his side of the coin. The "its already been discussed" argument is a very poor excuse for sloppy argumentation.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

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.


The ignore button!
Almost as much a friend as google is.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

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


Why cant U take it to a new level and REALY DEBUNK THIS HEADACHE TOPIC OF YOURS.

Peace



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
hello, mods?! trolls gallore, sick of coming up with new arguments to stump their 4 line insults, DO SOMETHING PLEASE

for the LAST TIME, ONE, IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION BACK IT UP DO NOT SIMPLY INSULT PEOPLE, IT IS THE POINT OF OP'S POST!!!

"stop covering the same topics and sitting in your safe havens"

NOT MY JOB, I LIVE IN THE UK, why don't you americans fricking do something for once huh? thats it im out mods get in here america your on your own from now on.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


some people here are activists for 911 truth online and on the streets.

some sit at home and just rant about it.

its one thing to talk about it...

and another to do something.

I don't know about you, but i have been taking it to the next level. Some of us went to see senator Lautenberg, and senator Menendez in NJ. (we talked to their staff though. lautenberg is in the hospital, and Menendez was not there.) I kind of tagged along with AE911 truth, and we are change NJ.

all i am hoping is that more people do the same thing. write their congressmen, and reps. keep reminding them of the unanswered questions, and the false NIST/commission report. remind them of witnesses hearing explosions, and show them video of this.

Question...

Have you done anything to help the cause?



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
What I always see is name calling and labeling by the people who oppose 9/11 truth or investigations. They never have any real reason or evidence just people shouldn't investigate and you are a jerk and it is bad to do so. Glenn Beck for example attacks 9/11 truth movement and makes up lies about them saying they are crazy and evil, while he is the one that is crazy and evil.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by crusaderiam]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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.




I'm just going to agree with you just because u are 100% right! i became a member here after a while looking at my friend 'debunk battle" in many threads that have been posted here at ATS 'god i love this webpage!'

And #! there so many dubunkers here or the think they are, many are light but so many are so #ing proud to use words that only make us angry and focus our shiz to be timeconsumed in anger instead. xD if u know what im meaning.

but hey
i just wanna say that im glad that i see foulks standing up and ridicule debunkers.

peace



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Might be a bit off Topic but your handle Tsuki no Hikari? means "light trust"?
Just wondering.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 


And it beats the pointless silly commentary fluff that the poster you responded to illustrated.
Bad second line. Just horrible.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 





If you claim to have evidence, show it. Otherwise, you're no better than the person you're arguing against.


This bothers me.
I try not to believe a proof someone has provided, makes them better than
the person they are debating. We need not add anymore competition to
these 911 debates than what already exists. I at first thought this to be a
small fopah on the part of the OP. After thinking on it I realised some
potential as a thought directive. Wheather or not OP intended. Yes I do
believe people are this clever. No judgement of the OP. It does open the door to the possibilty you are trying to influence the open minded reader.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

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.



First of all-Why are you guys even posting this? 9\11 has been proven to be an inside job for a LONG time now-with facts facts facts,you cannot argue with facts. What planet do you guys live on?

THERE IS NO MYTH.THERE IS NO THEORY-THE FACT IS PROVEN. END OF STORY.

if you cant take facts for an answer,then you probably can see why we human beings are so dangerous. We are the trash of the galaxy.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


Interesting point. Are you making a God reference or are you making a John Lear reference?





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join