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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 8
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Holy crap, this again?

It's more of the same, name-calling and ignoring the real arguments in an effort to further their "crusade" against original and critical thought.

All of these people seem to have the same mission; to deny that they could ever be lied to by their government. They don't care what questions remain unanswered, they just want to be tucked in at night and told nice little stories that make complete sense, even if there are holes in the plot and the narrative is completely wrong.
They are completely incapable of actually thinking for themselves and admitting that there are plenty of things about 9/11 that just DO NOT MAKE SENSE!

That doesn't mean you have to believe in a conspiracy, it just means that you are educated enough to see inconsistencies in the official account.

The blogger fails to even mention many of the facts that Truthers state and pose as questions to the official account. Again, blatant ignorance of the facts to support your opinion does not make you any more enlightened.

Fact: there's plenty that doesn't make sense about the official account. And any person who states otherwise is an ignorant fool who doesn't deserve consideration.

I don't care if you think the CIA did it, Al-Qaida, Mossad or even Bush himself! If you resolutely refuse to accept that there are a lot of things that throw the official account into question, then you are as idiotic as the people who think holograms were used instead of planes!

That blogger is just another of those idiotic fools.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Holy crap, this again?

It's more of the same, name-calling and ignoring the real arguments in an effort to further their "crusade" against original and critical thought.

All of these people seem to have the same mission; to deny that they could ever be lied to by their government. They don't care what questions remain unanswered, they just want to be tucked in at night and told nice little stories that make complete sense, even if there are holes in the plot and the narrative is completely wrong.
They are completely incapable of actually thinking for themselves and admitting that there are plenty of things about 9/11 that just DO NOT MAKE SENSE!

That doesn't mean you have to believe in a conspiracy, it just means that you are educated enough to see inconsistencies in the official account.

The blogger fails to even mention many of the facts that Truthers state and pose as questions to the official account. Again, blatant ignorance of the facts to support your opinion does not make you any more enlightened.

Fact: there's plenty that doesn't make sense about the official account. And any person who states otherwise is an ignorant fool who doesn't deserve consideration.

I don't care if you think the CIA did it, Al-Qaida, Mossad or even Bush himself! If you resolutely refuse to accept that there are a lot of things that throw the official account into question, then you are as idiotic as the people who think holograms were used instead of planes!

That blogger is just another of those idiotic fools.


OK, so we can believe anything we like so long as it doesn't include 9/11 being a terrorist attack by muslim fanatics. Why have we got to exclude that bit when everything points to that being true ?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I don't care if you think the CIA did it, Al-Qaida, Mossad or even Bush himself! If you resolutely refuse to accept that there are a lot of things that throw the official account into question, then you are as idiotic as the people who think holograms were used instead of planes!

That blogger is just another of those idiotic fools.


OK, so we can believe anything we like so long as it doesn't include 9/11 being a terrorist attack by muslim fanatics. Why have we got to exclude that bit when everything points to that being true ?


Read my post again. I stated Al-Qaida didn't I?

I don't care what you believe, and I didn't make any assumption over what happened.

Stop putting words in my mouth to try to discredit me. It's a lame tactic used by people with weak opinions.

You can believe what you like, and I can believe what I like. Both of us have to agree on one thing; there is a lot that MAKES NO SENSE when reading the official report.
And if you refuse to admit that then you are more deluded than those who think lizard people brought those towers down.

It could have been Muslim fanatics, or the CIA, for all I know. But what I DO DEFINITELY KNOW, AND WHAT YOU KNOW TOO, is that the official report is full of holes and inconcistencies.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1e]
Why have we got to exclude that bit when everything points to that being true ?


Can you list all the things you mean when you say "everything"?

There are many things on 9/11 that don't point to "that" being true.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
they just want to be tucked in at night and told nice little stories that make complete sense, even if there are holes in the plot and the narrative is completely wrong.


That actually strikes me as quite a good description of most in the Truth Movement.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
"It's more of the same, name-calling and ignoring the real arguments in an effort to further their "crusade" against original and critical thought."

Below are the Top Five claims used by the OS Support Team again and again to counter any honest and open discussion about 9/11:

1. Evidence please (Ask the "investigators" who conveniently withheld, destroyed and discarded it).

2. You're believing those damn fool conspiracy interwebs again (Yep, sure beats believing Government and Media).

3. So you believe reptilian space aliens with beam laser weapons took down the Towers (Yes, that's exactly what I believe, although I never said that).

4. What happened to the passengers (You mean passengers from a flight that never existed)?

5. You're disrespecting the victims by using your brain and theorizing (you may not know this, but that is one consequence of using your brain).


[edit on 20-4-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Holy crap, this again?

It's more of the same, name-calling and ignoring the real arguments in an effort to further their "crusade" against original and critical thought.

All of these people seem to have the same mission; to deny that they could ever be lied to by their government.


Critical thinkers never deny that anyone could lie to them. We are in the habit of questioning claims and assertions, including those of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Critical thinkers do not make blanket assumptions either. We don't go around treating the definition of "government" as a monolithic entity. Critical thinkers do not make the fallacious assumption that because individuals in government can and do lie, that they always lie. We need evidence.


They don't care what questions remain unanswered, they just want to be tucked in at night and told nice little stories that make complete sense, even if there are holes in the plot and the narrative is completely wrong.


The experience with the 9/11 Truth Movement during the last 9 years shows us the complete opposite. Critical thinkers see the movement's members' fallacious reasoning, invalid assumptions, and unwillingness to admit when they are wrong as the overriding characteristic of Truthers, completely contrary to reason and critical thinking. You ignore answers to your "unanswered questions" when they are shown to be wrong, based on fallacious assumptions and claims, and illogical.


They are completely incapable of actually thinking for themselves and admitting that there are plenty of things about 9/11 that just DO NOT MAKE SENSE!


Critical thinkers are in the habit of questioning claims and recognize appeals to ignorance and incredulity as common fallacious reasoning among 9/11 Truthers. I rarely see Truthers admit they are wrong when shown repeatedly why. Those who go around saying "9/11 Was An Inside Job!" have made up their minds while claiming "they are just asking questions."


That doesn't mean you have to believe in a conspiracy, it just means that you are educated enough to see inconsistencies in the official account.


Critical thinkers recognize your use of the term "official account" or "official story" is a red herring and one of the biggest weaknesses behind "9/11 Truth." We recognize that what we know about 9/11 comes directly from hundreds of lines of independent evidence and thousands of individuals - government employees and non-government individuals - that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, the government and that converge on the conclusions of what happened on 9/11.


The blogger fails to even mention many of the facts that Truthers state and pose as questions to the official account.


Critical thinkers recognize that Truther claims have not stood up to evidence and logic. They remain what they have always been: unsupported claims. I've yet to see die-hard Truthers admit the possibility that they are wrong or understand why. And the 9/11 Truth Movement remains where it has always been: convinced that it "knows the truth" and everyone else is "blind to the truth." Truthers can endlessly state they have "unanswered questions", that they "deserve" to be answered, and that "we need a new investigation." It's a "safe" stand to take; as long as it doesn't happen Truthers can keep demanding it, comforted by their belief that the world is "blind to the truth." We see no cohesive movement or actions to actually get a new investigation which is why I keep asking those here: how are you going to get one? What and when will you actually start doing something towards that goal?


[edit on 20-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Does popping your head back into these threads mean you're finally ready to back up your claims and show us how and where NIST conclusively proves the collapses resulted from fire and impacts alone?

My guess is "no."



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Magnificent post. Over the years it has increasingly occured to me that the 'truther' movement has little to do with truth seeking, it is instead a fanaticism where balanced reasoning is always shunned, the modus operandi being to push government complicity no matter what facts are being presented.

You make some vital distinctions in your post about the 'official story'. It has become the most abused red herring in the movement and on this board. I suspect most of the truthers don't even realize what they are doing when they use this, they are simply parroting what tricks they have learnt from others.

A genuine truth seeker keeps his thoughts accountable and questions them. How many truthers do you see doing that? They are the antithesis to their own professed cause.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
/i started the thread on the collapse of building 7 and in there are alot of facts. ok fire alone we all know is not possible i say maybe explosives maybe something else there is one thing about the whole 9/11 issue is that we may never know the truth and those who do have kept their mouths shut due to the fact that either they mysterously end up dead in a "accident" or imprisoned for the rest of their lives so here is what i have to say right or wrong or somewhere inbetween lets stick to the facts and not all the name calling and childish things that waste space in a thread if you can disprove it with facts then do it if not shut the hell up!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by killer4281
I started the thread on the collapse of building 7 and in there are alot of facts. ok fire alone we all know is not possible i say maybe explosives maybe something else...


The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been refuted. No evidence of explosives has been found. The collapse mechanism has not been shown to be wrong.

That's where one needs to start when discussing the facts.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I notice you are ignoring me.

So I suppose you are never going to show us where in these reports anything is proven. Because we all know the reports, we have seen the computer simulations, and I still don't see where anything about any of the collapses is proven.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


well jtthomas as is aw on my thread you were not real in there with the facts and as far as building 7 goes what made it collspase? i see you have alot to say but no evidence to back it up



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by killer4281
reply to post by jthomas
 


well jtthomas as is aw on my thread you were not real in there with the facts and as far as building 7 goes what made it collspase? i see you have alot to say but no evidence to back it up


As I've said to others, feel free to refute the NIST report on WTC 7 anytime. Nothing will happen unless you can demonstrate NIST is wrong and why. So far, claims about "explosives" remain undemonstrated speculation after almost 9 years.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So far, claims about "explosives" remain undemonstrated speculation after almost 9 years.


The problem is that no one has conclusively proved that what was observed is physically possible WITHOUT explosives or some other unknown variable.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by killer4281
well jtthomas as is aw on my thread you were not real in there with the facts and as far as building 7 goes what made it collspase? i see you have alot to say but no evidence to back it up



Originally posted by bsbray11
So I suppose you are never going to show us where in these reports anything is proven.



Originally posted by jthomas
As I've said to others, feel free to refute the NIST report on WTC 7 anytime. Nothing will happen unless you can demonstrate NIST is wrong and why.



You can see, he either knows there is no evidence in these reports already, or he is too lazy to even bother trying to figure out what it might be. Instead of showing where they prove anything, he always asks everyone to prove a negative (that there IS no evidence) instead. Completely ass-backwards and intentionally and dishonestly so...

There is nothing to even refute.


This is why we want a better investigation.



I notice no one is defending NIST's computer simulations either.

Man you "debunkers" are just mopping up this thread, let me tell you.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
So far, claims about "explosives" remain undemonstrated speculation after almost 9 years.


The problem is that no one has conclusively proved that what was observed is physically possible WITHOUT explosives or some other unknown variable.


You are welcome to refute NIST also.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I guess you missed seeing this...




NIST is already refuted.

They never proved anything to start with. That's what happens when you don't prove anything. There is nothing to refute.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been refuted. No evidence of explosives has been found. The collapse mechanism has not been shown to be wrong.


So lets stick to the facts.

The fact is that NIST never tested for explosives.

They also never recovered any steel from building 7 to test.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been refuted. No evidence of explosives has been found. The collapse mechanism has not been shown to be wrong.


So lets stick to the facts.

The fact is that NIST never tested for explosives.


Red Herring. The fact is NIST didn't have to repeat tests already done of the chemical composition of the dust.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join