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.

 

9/11 demolition theory debunkers

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Jezus
 


What original research have you done as you claimed to have done? Please post a link or list what you have done.


I made it abundantly clear several times why I will not do that.

The contradiction is bizarre but it is obvious that nothing can change your mind.


It is apparent that you have done no original research and are evading answering the question. Changing my mind about your original research claim can easily be done by posting what you have done, bizarre contradictions notwithstanding.




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It is apparent that you have done no original research and are evading answering the question. Changing my mind about your original research claim can easily be done by posting what you have done, bizarre contradictions notwithstanding.


1. You should read threads before posting in them. I already made it VERY clear MANY times why I don't care to prove anything to you or change your mind. You are already familiar with the information but some how still believe the official story. I'm sorry but I can't help you with this personal issue.

2. Taking comments out of context is a childish debating strategy.


Originally posted by Jezus
You should read the thread before you post.

I made it abundantly clear several times why I will not do that.

You are a perfect example of someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they are familiar with the information but STILL some how believe the official story.

The contradiction is bizarre but it is obvious that nothing can change your mind.


The bizarre contradiction I was referring to is the fact that you are surrounded by the information but some how ignore it all.

I'm not going to debate someone that isn't trying to learn, I'm sorry if this is frustrating for you.


[edit on 4-9-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

I understand that you overstated your case and now need a way out. Your attempt at evasion is obvious as anyone can easily say what you say. One could say that the evidence for the collapse due to fire and impact is all around you if you would just open your mind. It is so obvious but you refuse to learn. One can say this without providing specifics because when one uses this "childish tactic" one doesn't have to.
Then, to pretend to take the high road, one can pretend to be above the fray and say "I'm not going to debate someone that isn't trying to learn, I'm sorry if this is frustrating for you."
Of course this means that the author is trying to gracefully disengage before losing the argument. As you can see, the problem with arguing with these tactics is that it doesn't work very well and is transparent to all.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
One could say that the evidence for the collapse due to fire and impact is all around you if you would just open your mind. It is so obvious but you refuse to learn.


This is really the interesting issue.

We both think that if one does the research and is capable of critical thinking the conclusion is extremely obvious.

Isn't this interesting?

I personally know that even a small amount of research shows the official story to be completely ridiculous.

You claim that this evidence does not exist because you believe that everything that has already been shown is "debunked".

You claim that the reason I won't get into a debate of the details is because I haven't done any research.

I claim it is because I have seen that you are not interested in the truth and don't respond logically to the evidence.

One of us must be a liar or delusional.

So why do you spend so much time attempting to "debunk" people who are simply liars or delusional?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
I claim it is because I have seen that you are not interested in the truth and don't respond logically to the evidence.


I believe that the real problem is that you have a predetermined "truth" so that your standards for evidence are much lower than they should be when you think that your conclusions are supported.

What actual evidence do you think you have?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I believe that the real problem is that you have a predetermined "truth" so that your standards for evidence are much lower than they should be when you think that your conclusions are supported.


I would direct that exact sentiment towards anyone that believes the official story. I originally looked into this topic to prove to some kids that the "9/11 Truth Movement" was ridiculous. What I found out was that the official story was not substantiated by any evidence.

And again you aren't really dealing with the main issue here.

I think the evidence is overwhelming.

I don't believe that any intelligent person could (objectively) look at the available information and STILL believe the official story.

I really can't explain your existence.

Only two possibilities seem reasonable.

1. You never considered the possibility that the official story was false and are in serious denial. (This still doesn't explain how you rationalize all the evidence away)

2. You know the truth and are not representing your true thoughts.


Originally posted by pteridine
What actual evidence do you think you have?


I don't have any additional evidence beside what you already consider "debunked" and that is exactly my point; we both have access to the exact same information but you don't believe any of it constitutes as conclusive evidence while I think it is much MORE than enough evidence.

Even a small fraction of the available information is enough to prove to any objective and reasonable person that the official story is ridiculous and impossible.

It is painfully obvious.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I believe that the real problem is that you have a predetermined "truth" so that your standards for evidence are much lower than they should be when you think that your conclusions are supported.

What actual evidence do you think you have?


We can ask the same for you, as well.

I also believe that the real problem is that you have a predetermined "truth."
Perhaps, you think your standards for evidence are much lower than they should be especially when you think that your conclusions are supported by your “opinions.”



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

I don't have any additional evidence beside what you already consider "debunked" and that is exactly my point; we both have access to the exact same information but you don't believe any of it constitutes as conclusive evidence while I think it is much MORE than enough evidence.

Even a small fraction of the available information is enough to prove to any objective and reasonable person that the official story is ridiculous and impossible.

It is painfully obvious.


There is no physical evidence of demolition. The entire theory is based on videos of the collapse that are said to look "wrong" by those that have no idea of how a collapse of buildings that size shoud look like. The available information is sadly lacking in any conclusive evidence and that should be "painfully obvious" to any objective and reasonable person.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no physical evidence of demolition. The entire theory is based on videos of the collapse that are said to look "wrong" by those that have no idea of how a collapse of buildings that size shoud look like. The available information is sadly lacking in any conclusive evidence and that should be "painfully obvious" to any objective and reasonable person.


Exactly my point.

You think a conspiracy is "lacking in any conclusive evidence"

While I think the official story is lacking in any conclusive evidence.

I think it is so undeniably obvious that the official story is illogical and absurd that you must be rationalizing the evidence away because you are in denial.

Of course this is only a theory to explain how someone could be so familiar with the information but ignore the obvious conclusion.

--

Also, controlled demolition is only a possible theory to explain what is otherwise an unexplained phenomenon.

I don't need to prove an alternative theory to comprehend that the official story is ridiculous and physically impossible.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


You have assumed that the explanations of NIST are incorrect but you have not posed an alternate theory. This is a common failing that leads to directional nuclear weapons and death rays from space having equal status with more plausable theories.
If your only evidence is that the collapses "didn't look right" then you have nothing. If your only theory is that it didn't happen as claimed, then you have nothing.
Where are all the independent thinkers?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

You have assumed that the explanations of NIST are incorrect but you have not posed an alternate theory.


No assumptions, just observations and logical reasoning.

The explanations simply do not exist; at best you could call them incomplete.

No evidence has been provided to give anyone any reason to believe the official story. It is simply unsubstantiated.


Originally posted by pteridine
This is a common failing that leads to directional nuclear weapons and death rays from space having equal status with more plausable theories.

If your only evidence is that the collapses "didn't look right" then you have nothing. If your only theory is that it didn't happen as claimed, then you have nothing.
Where are all the independent thinkers?


...now you're just rambling...

This issue is that the official story is not plausible.

The fact that it "didn't happen as claimed" is not at all a theory; it as an undeniable, observable fact.

But this is a good first step, you admit the official story is idiotic and unsubstantiated?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

This issue is that the official story is not plausible.

The fact that it "didn't happen as claimed" is not at all a theory; it as an undeniable, observable fact.

On what basis is the NIST report not plausible? On what basis did the NIST explanation not reflect the events and is an "undeniable, observable fact?"
There is only the tenuous position that "it didn't look right" and no physical evidence of any demolition.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You realise that you're answering a different question to the one I'm posing?[


I "realise" that you are not trying to learn but instead trying to argue.

This is exactly why, as I have made abundantly clear numerous times, I am NOT going to try to prove anything to you, try to comprehend that. I don't care what you think because you are not at all interested in the truth.

How do I know that?

You took this post...


Originally posted by Jezus
Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.

Research and critical thinking is about challenging the information and finding out what checks out.


And responded with this.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you see that when you write "Research isn't about looking at sources you think are credible" the logic is that it involves looking at sources you think lack credibility?


This only leave two possibilities.

1. You seriously do have trouble with reading comprehension, because only an extremely ignorant person would make the leap of "logic". This might explain your reluctance or lack of ability to do your own research and critical thinking.

2. You are just trying to argue and derail from the main point. This might explain why you just keeping going in circles.

What is the main point?

The truth of September 11th is extremely, painfully, insanely obvious to anyone that is willing to do a little reading and critical thinking.

Think for yourself and PROVE it to yourself instead of trusting other people...



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jezus]


I don't have a problem with comprehension. I'm afraid you have a problem with clarity. Specifically you don't know what the word "credible" means. Only this can explain why you would write what you did.

Time and again I've pointed out that I don't need you to prove anything to me about 9/11. I'm not looking for a list of links or an argument. All I'd like is for you to substantiate the claim you made earlier, which, if it was true would take seconds.

It's abundantly clear that it's not true. And by accusing me of not being interested in the truth, and grabbing on to some (incorrectly) perceived misunderstanding to substantiate this, as an excuse not to provide evidence of your "original research" you're making yourself look deceitful.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And by accusing me of not being interested in the truth


It is abundantly clear you are trying to argue instead of comprehend what happened on 9/11,


Originally posted by Jezus
Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.

Research and critical thinking is about challenging the information and finding out what checks out.


You used the above quote to suggest I was claiming that we should look at sources we think lack credibility.

I obviously meant you should look at both and do more than just look, but THINK

You are either being willfully ignorant or simply unable to comprehend basic concepts, either way I feel no need to continue talking to you...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

It is abundantly clear you are trying to argue instead of comprehend what happened on 9/11,


I'm conversing with someone who claims to have researched 9/11, and yet cannot point to one piece of original investigation they have done. It's a bit rich that they feel able to accuse me of not trying to find things out.


Originally posted by Jezus

You used the above quote to suggest I was claiming that we should look at sources we think lack credibility.

I obviously meant you should look at both and do more than just look, but THINK


This may be obvious to you. Unfortunately when one reads that "You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source" and that one ought to "Stop just believing whatever you think is credible" - as if such a thing were not tautological - then what the writer means is not immediately obvious.

All this is a sideshow anyway. You're castigating us for not employing original thought or research and yet you can show none of your own.



You are either being willfully ignorant or simply unable to comprehend basic concepts, either way I feel no need to continue talking to you...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Jezus]


That's not the impression I get.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Now you're just rambling...

The fact remains, if you objectively look at the available evidence it is extremely obvious that the official story is ridiculous.

If you have not figured this out in 9 years, I can't help you.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


We're not discussing that. It's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, even though it's abundantly clear to almost everybody that you're completely wrong.

What we are discussing - and you're attempting to dodge - is your failure to provide any evidence that you have done any research of your own.

Do you see: we're not discussing whether I believe "The OS", or whether the evidence suggests one thing or another with regard to 9/11. That doesn't matter. I'm asking you a direct question about something you boasted about doing and which you cannot substantiate.

As I say, this speaks volumes.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What we are discussing - and you're attempting to dodge - is your failure to provide any evidence that you have done any research of your own.


I have responded to this many times already you just have decided to ignore it and keep repeating yourself over and over again...


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
whether the evidence suggests one thing or another with regard to 9/11. That doesn't matter.


What the evidence suggests does not matter?



I would say it matters very much...but at least you finally admit that you are not concerned with the dealing with the evidence.

This is exactly why I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the details, you simply don't care enough to think for yourself.

Do some critical thinking, the truth is extremely obvious...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

I have responded to this many times already you just have decided to ignore it and keep repeating yourself over and over again...


Where?

I've seen you "respond" by refusing to answer. That's not really sufficient to prove your assertions.




What the evidence suggests does not matter?



For the purposes of this discussion, no.




I would say it matters very much...but at least you finally admit that you are not concerned with the dealing with the evidence.


You're being facetious. I didn't say I'm not concerned with it. I said that it's not germane to this discussion.


This is exactly why I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the details, you simply don't care enough to think for yourself.


I don't want to debate you about the details. How many times can I write this before you understand it? I want you to provide me with some indication that you have done what you claimed to do.

But I suppose your idea of critical thinking is reading a bit of 911blogger and nodding along.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Solomons
 


The controlled demolition of 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 has NOT been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt and is ONLY accepted as the most plausible and possible theory of 9/11 amongst truthers .

Otherwise , there would have been a new investigation already .


thousands of Americans did not believe warren commission report on Kennedy death.

It took 13 years to get the congress off their dead ends to re-investigate and the found out it was not Oswald.
there were in fact 4-7 shots fired in delay plaza that day. not three.




top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join