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 Solomons
Not to be a spoil sport people, but i did make this topic to mainly address what defines a truther and a debunker, and if the widely held beliefs of what define them are valid or invalid eg a truther has to believe in the demolition conspiracy and the debunker has to believe the OS 100%. It seems only one poster replied to this, now we are talking about NIST, steven jones and thermite...
[edit on 14-8-2010 by Solomons]
Originally posted by Jezus
I don't care to convince people or really even debate.
I can't change a person's mind who is not willingly to think critically.
Anyone that wants to comprehend the truth has all the available information.
If you are honest with yourself and willingly to put in the research time the answer is extremely obvious and unavoidable.
Anyone that spends so much time with the evidence but has not come to the extremely obvious conclusion must have some kind of personal issue.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Fair enough. But then you should realise that the traditional view of 9/11 will persist. If you're okay with that then fine.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The "truth" would be a viable alternative theory.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet I see hardly any genuine research.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think that Truthers find the notion of a conspiracy comforting on several levels.
Originally posted by Jezus
But most people under the age of 30 know that the official story is ridiculous on many levels.
The truth can be the simple fact that the official story is not physically possible.
You must not be looking very hard.
Cool. But this isn't about feelings, it is about the evidence.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
but no evidence that leads you to even the most tentative of alternative conclusions
Originally posted by Jezus
That statement is very obviously intellectually dishonest.
There are two possibilities.
1. You can't mentally deal with the evidence because it is disturbing to you.
2. You are not representing your true thoughts about the evidence and have ulterior motives.
I don't care which.
The fact of the matter remains that alternative theories have evidence but are ultimately not necessary to understand that a conspiracy took place and information was manipulated.
The first point to understand is that the "official story" is not possible and was sold to public.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's the second point? Where do you go now? From your previous posts I guess the answer is "nowhere".
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
much like the chances of an idea that admits it has no idea.
I did, however, remember the U.S. government's controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they'd brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn't really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.
During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee.
To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols. In response, bootleggers hired chemists who successfully renatured the alcohol to make it drinkable. As a response, the Treasury Department required manufacturers to add more deadly poisons, including the particularly deadly methyl alcohol. New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.[21]
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
much like the chances of an idea that admits it has no idea.
It is interesting that you add these vague and intellectually dishonest statements to the end of every post.
You continually pretend that "no evidence" exists.
Why bother spending so much time defending the truth against nothing?
Why spend so much time telling delusional people they are delusional?
Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
debunkers believe everything the goverment tells them.
Feel free to list all of these anomalies and contradictions in this thread. Or make a thread yourself and do it. Truthers often make claims of the Official Story having holes in it, and yet never mention any actual holes.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by hooper
but really there are no monsters of that degree serving in government.
Are you really that stupid?
That is the most hilariously naive and insanely idiotic things I have ever read.
You are either an uninformed child or a seriously delusional moron.
9/11 would require a lot of monsters though, wouldn't it?
That is an assumptions based on personal speculation.
It is more important to focus on the fact that the official story is filled with anomalies and contradictions.
It is not necessary to have an alternate theory to understand that the official story is not possible.
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
but no evidence that leads you to even the most tentative of alternative conclusions
That statement is very obviously intellectually dishonest.
There are two possibilities.
1. You can't mentally deal with the evidence because it is disturbing to you.
2. You are not representing your true thoughts about the evidence and have ulterior motives.
I don't care which.
The fact of the matter remains that alternative theories have evidence but are ultimately not necessary to understand that a conspiracy took place and information was manipulated.
The first point to understand is that the "official story" is not possible and was sold to public.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You admit in this thread that you don't have enough evidence to construct any kind of meaningful theory about what happened.
Originally posted by technical difficulties
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_
No monsters of that degree? You mean the monsters of that degree that concocted "Operation Northwoods"?
Wow, what was that 1962, 60? Did they do it? Did it involve killing tens of thousands of innocent Americans?
Apples and oranges. Iraq did have and had used, weapons of mass destruction. That is a fact confirmed by thousands of dead bodies. GEt your monsters straight.