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.

 

Gosh, History Channel... you forgot to mention the nano-thermite!!

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
The fact is no one has debunked anything in here much less to even know how to debate.


No, the fact is that you are so much in love with your conspiracy stories that you will refuse to accept anything which refutes them, even to the point where you have to employ blatant double standards to keep them alive.

Case in point- you are quite famous for using the "witnesses heard explosions" card to support the idea there were bombs in the WTC, but when we likewise point out that "witnesses saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon" you continuously run away from the point the same way vampires run away from sunlight. The reason why eyewitnesses reports in one location are "legitimate information" while eyewitness reports in another location, "cannot be believed" is obvious- it depends entirely on whether the evidence happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe. You want to believe there were bombs in the WTC = witnesses are credible, you want to believe a missile hit the Pentagon = witnesses cannot be believed.

The intellectually dishonest bias you have in your belief that the History Channel is a "propaganda tool" is therefore self evident.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by impressme
The fact is no one has debunked anything in here much less to even know how to debate.


No, the fact is that you are so much in love with your conspiracy stories that you will refuse to accept anything which refutes them, even to the point where you have to employ blatant double standards to keep them alive.

Case in point- you are quite famous for using the "witnesses heard explosions" card to support the idea there were bombs in the WTC, but when we likewise point out that "witnesses saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon" you continuously run away from the point the same way vampires run away from sunlight. The reason why eyewitnesses reports in one location are "legitimate information" while eyewitness reports in another location, "cannot be believed" is obvious- it depends entirely on whether the evidence happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe. You want to believe there were bombs in the WTC = witnesses are credible, you want to believe a missile hit the Pentagon = witnesses cannot be believed.

The intellectually dishonest bias you have in your belief that the History Channel is a "propaganda tool" is therefore self evident.


Or like when he says that former professor steven jones finding high energy chips in the dust. SO a retired professor is a credible source.

Then here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

when presented with three seperate teams of professors that support some of the OS theories he dismisses them as not credible, liars, or part of the conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
when presented with three seperate teams of professors that support some of the OS theories he dismisses them as not credible, liars, or part of the conspiracy.


Yep, I try to remain on topic and concentrate on exposing the phoniness of these ridiculous conspiracy stories, rather than talk about any of the posters here, but Jeez Louise, I've even seen this guy argue for AND against the exact same web site.

Here is the ultimate example of what happens when circular logic turns into a nonstop runaway train. An event must be a conspiracy, so therefore all evidence which says anything to the contrary must be part of the conspiracy, and the people who refute the conspiracy must be active disinformation agents pushing the conspiracy. And so on and so forth. An entire environment is built, defined, and fleshed out, all without anything backing it up except the desire for the conspiracy to be real.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if these conspiracy theorists would only hold their own claims up to the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do the commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long. They're certainly not stupid, they're simply being raped by these damned fool conspiracy web sites and being raped badly.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



when presented with three seperate teams of professors that support some of the OS theories he dismisses them as not credible, liars, or part of the conspiracy.


Wow! And you have dismiss every single piece of credible science that proves the OS is all hogwash. Looks, like the pot-calling kettle again, if you ask me.

As I have stated before no one has proved the OS fairytale true and no one in here has debated it either. Given your opinions on the thread topic is not debating anything. Since opinions are being used as facts, here is mine.

The History channel left out Thermite because they probably were told to. We cannot have the mass populations mad at our government for committing a false flag operation using na-no Thermite can we.

For some of you in here who do not understand what being a Truther is?

People who support the truth do not need to ignore evidences.
People looking for the truth do not need to dismiss sciences.
People looking for the truth do not need to lie.
People looking for the truth do not need to support lies.
People looking for the truth do not need to make up lies.
People looking for the truth do not need to dismiss facts.
People looking for the truth do not need to ware a tin foil hat.
People looking for the truth do not need to play on other people’s intelligent.
People looking for the truth do not need to make fun of others.
People looking for the truth do not need to play mind games.
People looking for the truth do not need to push disinformation or use their websites.
People looking for the truth do not need to twist facts.
People looking for the truth do not need to insult and ridicule.
People looking for the truth do not need to ignore logic.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I'm not sure what you're trying to say there Iam.

Can you elaborate a bit further?

Cheers

Krusty



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 



when presented with three seperate teams of professors that support some of the OS theories he dismisses them as not credible, liars, or part of the conspiracy.


Wow! And you have dismiss every single piece of credible science that proves the OS is all hogwash. Looks, like the pot-calling kettle again, if you ask me.



Here is the difference between me and you.

Me: I don't know what caused the collapse of the WTC towers. The experts disagree. There are credible science that present evidence both for and against the OS.

You: I know what caused the collapse of the WTC towers. The experts don't disagree. There is no evidence that supports the OS lies.

So more like pot meet iamcpc who knows, after his research, there are evidence that support both truther theories and the OS.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
The History channel left out Thermite because they probably were told to. We cannot have the mass populations mad at our government for committing a false flag operation using na-no Thermite can we.


There are worthwhile scenarios to look into as defined by the available legitimate evidence, and there are absurd scenarios which are a complete waste of anyone's time to examine becuase it requires too much speculation and make believe. A non-peer reviewed report written by someone who has zero expertise in explosives and who has a blatant pro-conspiracy agenda is not legitimate evidence.

Since thermite would most definitely leave blatant residual marks on the steel, and since none of the steel recovered at ground zero showed legitimate signs of thermite destruction, and since the only way the truthers can explain this is by making up accusations of hordes of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life acting as disinformation agents, the thermite scenario can safely be ruled out, so the History Channel can safely discard it for the same reason they can safely discard lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, hack saws, and leprechauns from the 56th dimension.

Unless you genuinely wanted the History Channel to examine claims of sabotage by leprechauns from the 56th demension just for the sake of ruling out the possibility of sabotage by leprechauns from the 56th demension, you have to see the logic in this.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Not sure why everyone missed this inconsistency in YOUR claims....I don't think I have to go back and re-hash the 'claims' of explosives, which were made by observation of the debris that was "blasted" laterally, do I? I think everyone remembers WHO made that claim....

...but, then:


The History channel left out Thermite because they probably were told to. We cannot have the mass populations mad at our government for committing a false flag operation using na-no Thermite can we...


OK...so, now the 'destruction' of the WTC Towers was accomplished with 'thermite'?? Does 'thermite' explode?? With force? Does 'thermite' cause concussive effects, so as to throw debris laterally??

(I thought 'thermite' was just a compound that burned really, really hot. Oh, I know...next is the mysterious, and dubious "nano-thermate"...does THAT material 'explode'??? Which is it, can't the story be kept straight???)

But...the most laughable part of this entire 'denial' mentality is to suggest that the History Channel were "told to" omit something!! Truly, paranoia exhibited at its finest.

OH, and referencing an earlier post, upthread...wow. The diatribe about what "truthers" look for---simply stunning in its irony.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by impressme
 


Not sure why everyone missed this inconsistency in YOUR claims....I don't think I have to go back and re-hash the 'claims' of explosives, which were made by observation of the debris that was "blasted" laterally, do I? I think everyone remembers WHO made that claim....


You're talking to someone who thinks that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities (northwestern and Perdue) engineering staffs are not not credible sources for science or information regarding the collapse of the WTC towers.

If you don't believe me read it for yourself:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join