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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

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]



Yeah my apologies, I hate it when the Debunkers do this all the time and I debated clicking the reply button last night or just staying up a little longer to type what I feel about your questions, sleep won out.

Anyways, I really hate the fact people, especially most debunkers always like to paint truthers as all the same. I don't consider myself a truther or debunker. I'm just someone who happened to read the commission report and thought to myself something is not right here. At the time I knew nothing about the demo theories or any theories for that matter. I think that this whole debunker vs truther has turned into a circus...9/11 research should be just that, people have a right to look into the attacks with out being labeled a terrorist sympathizer.




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

I don't care to convince people or really even debate.


Fair enough. But then you should realise that the traditional view of 9/11 will persist. If you're okay with that then fine.

Personally if I thought that my government had murdered thousands of my fellow citizens I wouldn't be as relaxed as you. I also wouldn't be so quick to criticise others' opposing views.

Think about it this way - you think that the government is murderous, and yet you can't really be bothered to even formulate some idea of how they carried out their plan. It looks more like it's you who isn't serious about your conclusions.




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.


Hang on. You just now said that they - or you - don't know the truth. The "truth" would be a viable alternative theory. That's what it is by definition - a valid representation of reality. You admitted that you don't know it.




If you are honest with yourself and willingly to put in the research time the answer is extremely obvious and unavoidable.


I see this a lot. Truthers fetishising their research skills. And yet I see hardly any genuine research. Mostly it's just people reading articles on conspiracy websites.

In another current thread here a longtime Shanksville-focused Truther was given a list of names and contact details for the offices that carried out the crash investigation. As soon as he was faced with the possibility of having to do some real research - instead of the kind which involves sitting at home reading 911blogger - he refused. Presumably because that would involve real "research".




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.


I think it's the opposite. And I outline why above. I think that Truthers find the notion of a conspiracy comforting on several levels.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

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.


Again. I can't make people be critical or do research.

But most people under the age of 30 know that the official story is ridiculous on many levels.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The "truth" would be a viable alternative theory.


The truth can be the simple fact that the official story is not physically possible.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet I see hardly any genuine research.


You must not be looking very hard.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think that Truthers find the notion of a conspiracy comforting on several levels.


Cool. But this isn't about feelings, it is about the evidence.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

But most people under the age of 30 know that the official story is ridiculous on many levels.


I disagree.


The truth can be the simple fact that the official story is not physically possible.


It can be true that the "official story" is impossible. But it cannot be the truth about what happened.

"What happened on 9/11?" asks concerned citizen.

"Not what the official story tells you."

"Yeah. But what actually happened?"

Long pause.

"No idea."

Can you see that this is unlikely to move mountains?



You must not be looking very hard.


Show me some. And not sophomore-level blogs, youtube "experts" or Alex Jones. And not frigging Steven Jones either.

All I can see is a lot of frankly quite thick people leading each other in a big circle that serves to make them feel cleverer and a bit better about the world. The means they use to do this are often laughable from an academic point of view.






Cool. But this isn't about feelings, it is about the evidence.


And you have some evidence that you think makes something called the "OS" untrue, but no evidence that leads you to even the most tentative of alternative conclusions. It's not massively compelling.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

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.


You've misunderstood what I've written. What I mean is that you're the one who refuses to even have a go at an alternative theory. In that sense you acknowledge yourself, albeit tacitly, that you don't have enough evidence for one. If you did you would presumably formulate one. Or perhaps you wouldn't bother, which would be surprising at the very least.

So for you the first point is to understand that a construct which truthers call "the official story" is not possible. I'd basically concur with that, although it's a very blunt statement and not of much worth in itself.

What's the second point? Where do you go now? From your previous posts I guess the answer is "nowhere".



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's the second point? Where do you go now? From your previous posts I guess the answer is "nowhere".


The millions of young people that know that truth will get older, wiser, and more powerful as the years go by.

It takes time, but in my experience things get better and people have less and less tolerance for evil.

The future isn't "nowhere".



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Well, that's an optimistic note on which to end, I suppose. Although I don't share your enthusiasm or much like the chances of an idea that admits it has no idea.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
THERE ARE FOUR positions to adopt.

1. Govt had no idea

2. Govt has some idea and could not prevent it.

3. Govt had some idea and could have prevented it and did not.
LIHOP
4. Govt made it happen on purpose.
MIHOP

#1 impossible
#2 likely
#3 probable
#4 definite



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Well the enlightened generation of the 1960's promised that as well, got older, wiser, and look at the greater mess things are in today than they were in the 1960'S



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
They may not have undertaken Operation Northwoods but the US government killed over 10,000 US citizens during the Alcohol Prohibition by poisoning the alcohol supply.

I can't make this stuff up:
www.slate.com...

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.


en.wikipedia.org...

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]


1970s they tried to poison marijuana, during alcohol prohibition they did poison alcohol, mass murdering at least 10,000 US CITIZENS

How many died on 9/11?

Not 10,000.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
debunkers believe everything the goverment tells them.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

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?


I'm neither vague nor intellectually dishonest.

You admit in this thread that you don't have enough evidence to construct any kind of meaningful theory about what happened. The only possible alternative to what you mean is that you do have enough evidence to come up with some kind of competing model but can't be bothered.

Either way you're not going to get far.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
debunkers believe everything the goverment tells them.


What a worthless post. One line of drivel.

I suppose you would call me a debunker and I don't believe very much at all of what the government says. The notion that you can't critique the authorities without believing in 9/11 conspiracies is nonsense, terribly weak thinking.

One might as well say that all truthers are noplaners.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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.
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
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.
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.



[edit on 16-8-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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.


Point out where I admit that in this thread.

When did I say I don't have enough evidence?

That is a a complete fabrication. Why are you lying?

All I said is that it is more important to focus on the concrete provable fact that official story is not physically possible.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Again you make claims. So prove it. Make a thread or post this "evidence" here.


The evidence is easy to obtain.
If you can't find it you aren't looking hard enough.

I'm not going to debate someone that is simply trying to argue and won't do research.

If you attempting to understand the information their are plenty of resources available.

Don't be lazy...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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?


I would say yes they did do it and I would point to the Vietnam war as the proof. The Gulf of Tonkin incident launched the Vietnam war, and it is basically accepted as fact that the whole incident was indeed staged. Result was obvious with a couple million people dead in total from both sides.




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.


And just where did Iraq get these weapons of mass destruction from? Well let me help you out since you probably wont look into yourself... from the US. The US supplied these weapons to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Also using your own argument concerning Operation Northwoods, I have to point out that Iraq had and did use these weapons back in what? the 70's? Which if that is the case, why did it take approximately three decades to get upset about it and invade? Seems to be the only person who is in need of looking for facts just might be yourself.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Do you have evidence that the US provided poison gas to Iraq? It would be interesting to see that.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join