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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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?


You imply throughout this thread that you have no alternative theory.

Which must mean that either you don't have the evidence to support one or you can't be bothered to formulate one. Given the gravity of the situation I'd be surprised if it was the latter.

But I'm very pleased that you do in fact have one. Let's hear it.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The DEW crowd have been proven to be disinfo artists spreading disinfo. I have other threads dedicated to that topic.


Also the thermite/thermate/nano thermite crowd have been proven to be disinfo agents, having to pay to publish their paper

The secret explosives bought down the buildings crowd have been proven to be disinfo agents also,

the planes were really holograms crowd have been proven to be disinfo agents

the hush a boom explosive crowd have been proven to be disinfo agents as well



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But I'm very pleased that you do in fact have one. Let's hear it.


Like I have said multiple times.

I would not waste my time discussing a theoretical narrative (even one supported by concrete scientific evidence) with someone that does not comprehend that the official story is physically impossible and has been sold to the public.

If you can't get the basic why would I bother discussing a complex issue?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


Like I have said multiple times.

I would not waste my time discussing a theoretical narrative (even one supported by concrete scientific evidence) with someone that does not comprehend that the official story is physically impossible and has been sold to the public.

If you can't get the basic why would I bother discussing a complex issue?



But you must have misunderstood me. I said earlier that I agree with you that the "Official Story" is incorrect. We're on the same page.

So fire away.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by MrWendal
 


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


Ask and you shall receive..... This is a pretty fair overview of US involvement during the Iran-Iraq war during the 80's. If this does not qualify as "proof" for you, it at the very least will provide you with the dates needed to find other sources that would be more to your liking in order to verify the information. Please take note of the dates between November of 1983 when the US begins funneling money to Iraq which they used to advance their Chemical Weapons program. July 1984 when the CIA provides Intel to Iraq to "calibrate its Mustard Gas attacks on Iranian troops".

Also please take note of May 1986 when the US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq and also licensing for 70 biological exports which included 21 batches of lethal anthrax strains.


The US Government of course was not the only one.... one major supplier was also Dow Chemical which you can find more info on HERE

but just for grins and giggles, allow me to highlight the relevant section...


1981-1993: Western Businesses Sell Iraq WMD Materials US and British companies are among several Western firms that sell Iraq materials that can be used to develop nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons. [Associated Press, 12/21/2002; New York Times, 12/21/2002; Washington Post, 12/30/2002; San Francisco Chronicle, 1/26/2003; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 2/23/2003]



United States - bullet Biological: American Type Culture Collection, several biological precursor agents for diseases like anthrax, gangrene, and the West Nile virus; Alcolac International, Thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor; Al Haddad, 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin; Dow Chemical, $1.5 million of pesticides (see December 1988). [Die Tageszeitung (Berlin), 10/18/2002; New York Times, 12/21/2002; Washington Post, 12/30/2002] bullet



Nuclear: TI Coating; UNISYS; Tektronix; Leybold Vacuum Systems; Finnigan-MAT-US; Hewlett Packard; Dupont; Consarc; Cerberus (LTD) ; Canberra Industries; Axel Electronics Inc. [Die Tageszeitung (Berlin), 10/18/2002; Z Magazine, 10/29/2002]




December 1988:
Dow Chemical sells $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq. An Export-Import Bank official says in a memorandum that he can find “no reason” to prevent the sale. Pesticide components can be used to make chemical weapons. [Washington Post, 12/30/2002]




[edit on 16-8-2010 by MrWendal]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:19 AM
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?


You mean the monsters of that degree that falsely stated that the Soviet Union was amassing weapons of mass destruction 30 years ago?


And exactly what is it that they have been dismantling these last 20 years in the former Soviet Union? Water balloons?


And those same exact monsters falsely stated that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction.


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.


You either are in serious denial, lack basic research, or have another agenda in mind.


Back at ya.



the weapons you speak of are, i assume, the gas used on the Kurds, yes?

where did that gas come from?

i know, but do you?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 54v!0r531f
 


Most of Saddams biological weapons came from EU countries, France and Germany for example. When it came to the international communities attention he had massacred the kurds, the American senate wrote up a bill to stop selling him arms, it was thrown out...

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
I have always wondered if 9/11 demolition theory debunkers were skeptical in regards to other aspects of 9/11, but simply didn't adhere to the demolition theory proposed by CT'ers. It seems that being a 'truther' is synonymous with thinking the world trade centers were brought down via demolition. I do not believe in the demolition theory, yet i would call myself a truther as i do believe it was know about and allowed to happen...nudged in the right direction here and there through the ISI. Basically what i want to know is if being a debunker on here means you believe the official story 100%, or if it is only in regards to the demolition theory. I would also like to know if being a truther means that you have to believe in the demolition theory, or if you can be skeptical about parts of 9/11 not regarding that while still being a truther?
It's all so complicated.


Cheers


Hi. I am the resident debunker here. I started out as a truther but I quickly saw it had no future. So then I focused my attention on debunking the official story.

I have not been seriously challenged yet.

I hope this helps.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You didn't answer my question though, are you simply a debunker regarding the demolition theory or do you think there are still many conspiracies regarding 9/11 and hence don't believe the OS is 100% true?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You didn't answer my question though, are you simply a debunker regarding the demolition theory or do you think there are still many conspiracies regarding 9/11 and hence don't believe the OS is 100% true?


I thought I made that clear. I dont bother debunking CT's, its a waste of time. All you have to do is debunk the OS, which everyone should do for themselves IMHO.

And for the record I believe the OS is less than 33% true.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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...
If it's so easy to obtain, then it should be no problem for you to show us (Plus, if it's so easy to obtain, then we would've had another investigation at this point, it being 9 years after the tragedy). Truthers tend to reply with the "oh the evidence is there, you just aren't looking for it hard enough" nonsense. Seriously, just show us this "evidence", or admit that you have no evidence. And while you're at it, show us all of these inconsistencies in the Official Story that you claim to be there.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Jezus

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...
If it's so easy to obtain, then it should be no problem for you to show us (Plus, if it's so easy to obtain, then we would've had another investigation at this point, it being 9 years after the tragedy). Truthers tend to reply with the "oh the evidence is there, you just aren't looking for it hard enough" nonsense. Seriously, just show us this "evidence", or admit that you have no evidence. And while you're at it, show us all of these inconsistencies in the Official Story that you claim to be there.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by technical difficulties]


You are correct, there isnt enough evidence to prove anything, which proves conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I thought I made that clear. I dont bother debunking CT's, its a waste of time. All you have to do is debunk the OS, which everyone should do for themselves IMHO.


Thus, the reason for the runaway lunacy fueling all these conspiracy theories- outright favoritism. Their proponents will bicker over every nut, bult, and door hinge in the commission report but their own screwball claims can have such glaring holes that you can drive a truck through. Planes hijacked by terrorists are far fetched and yet controlled demolitions, nukes in the basement, lasers form outer space, etc are supposed to make perfect sense. To them this is research, btu to the rest of us it's blatant dishonesty.

I said this many times before and noone has ever showm this to be incorrect- if these conspiracy theorists would only hold their own conspiracy claims up to the same exacting high standard of critical analysis that they do the commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420
I thought I made that clear. I dont bother debunking CT's, its a waste of time. All you have to do is debunk the OS, which everyone should do for themselves IMHO.


Thus, the reason for the runaway lunacy fueling all these conspiracy theories- outright favoritism. Their proponents will bicker over every nut, bult, and door hinge in the commission report but their own screwball claims can have such glaring holes that you can drive a truck through. Planes hijacked by terrorists are far fetched and yet controlled demolitions, nukes in the basement, lasers form outer space, etc are supposed to make perfect sense. To them this is research, btu to the rest of us it's blatant dishonesty.

I said this many times before and noone has ever showm this to be incorrect- if these conspiracy theorists would only hold their own conspiracy claims up to the same exacting high standard of critical analysis that they do the commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long.


Conversely I held the OS to the same standard as debunkers do for CT's and came to the conclusion that it was utter bull#. Stalemate at best, crime not solved, investigation incomplete. In that case it is OBVIOUS we need a new investigation.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You are correct, there isnt enough evidence to prove anything, which proves conspiracy.


Wonderful!

Of course, in the absence of any evidence one can simply indulge whatever fantasy one chooses. So set about creating a ludicrously high bar for any proof of anything, and there you go: no evidence, so conspiracy proven.

I don't think I've ever seen such an explicitly worded encapsulation of the paranoid technique. Bravo.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by jprophet420

You are correct, there isnt enough evidence to prove anything, which proves conspiracy.


Wonderful!

Of course, in the absence of any evidence one can simply indulge whatever fantasy one chooses. So set about creating a ludicrously high bar for any proof of anything, and there you go: no evidence, so conspiracy proven.

I don't think I've ever seen such an explicitly worded encapsulation of the paranoid technique. Bravo.


If you think what the government released via the media is proven and that I would have to "set a ludicrously high bar for proof" to supersede that I can go to sleep tonite with a smile on my face knowing that PT Barnum was right.

Also, if you could prove the OS even to the meager requirements of a court of law in the US, you would be be the first, and should write a book about it. You could retire ASAP and never have to worry about anything again for the rest of your life.

And the reason no one has accomplished this in 9 years is?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Sorry, but there's no such thing as an "OS". It's a construct by people who want to perform the little trick you pull on yourself above.

What do exist are a lot of complex and interweaving narratives from different authorities. I don't believe any of them in their entirety. But does that mean there was definitely a conspiracy? No. Unless, like you, one has already made one's mind up.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Sorry, but there's no such thing as an "OS". It's a construct by people who want to perform the little trick you pull on yourself above.

What do exist are a lot of complex and interweaving narratives from different authorities. I don't believe any of them in their entirety. But does that mean there was definitely a conspiracy? No. Unless, like you, one has already made one's mind up.


I qualified "the OS" as "the story the government released via the media."

I need to wrap this up quickly so I will simply and quickly explain this:

the OS, or whatever you want to call the story presented by the media on behalf of and including the US government, is still in fact a conspiracy theory. Since September 11th, 2001, the definitions of both "conspiracy theory" and "terrorism" have literally been changed on the internet to justify Americas reaction to 911. It STILL fits the definition.


Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]



# the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


911 was terrorism.
The conclusion by our own government was that it was a conspiracy against us. The conclusion has never been proven and is therefore a theory.
Our retaliation was also terrorism.

All war is terrorism, period. There is no getting around it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons I would also like to know if being a truther means that you have to believe in the demolition theory, or if you can be skeptical about parts of 9/11 not regarding that while still being a truther?
It's all so complicated.


I admit that a lot of my attitudes about science came from reading science fiction books in the 60s. Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, etc.

So as far as I am concerned SCIENCE is supposed to be a TRUTH MOVEMENT.

So either NORMAL AIRLINERS DESTROYED WTC 1 & 2 or Something Else did.

I expect that if normal airliners could do that in less than 2 hours than it should be possible to give a detailed SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION in fewer the 500 pages and those pages should include accurate information on the quantity of steel and concrete on every level of the towers. Skyscrapers must sway in the wind. The designers must analyze that oscillation. The models of the WTC were tested in wind tunnels with the wind from 16 different directions.

The NCSTAR1 report is 10,000 pages and has a graph of the oscillation of the south tower. But it doesn't have a 2D analysis which would require knowing the distribution of mass even though they mention the need for that information. They don't even specify the total for the concrete but they have it for the steel in three places.

I think a lot of people claiming to know physics have spent 9 years making fools of themselves over a something that should have been settled in SIX MONTHS. Normal airliners could not cause that much destruction in TWO HOURS.

I am not making any claims about what did it and at this point I don't care about any conspiracies.

This is a blot on SCIENCE in general. 9/11 ia the Piltdown Man Incident or the 21st century.

Why should we listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs if they cannot build a physical model that can support its own weigh but completely collapse due to the top 15% falling on the rest?

www.youtube.com...

It is like most people don't comprehend eliminating a negative. You don't have to know what did do it in order to know what could not do it.


"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes


psik



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Conversely I held the OS to the same standard as debunkers do for CT's and came to the conclusion that it was utter bull#. Stalemate at best, crime not solved, investigation incomplete. In that case it is OBVIOUS we need a new investigation.


I have no objections to that. In fact there should be several investigations. After all, they researched the sinking of the Titanic left right up and down, and even after ninety somethign years we're still finding out new things about the sinking. They recently estimated that it was less a problem with the iceberg hitting it and more of a problem with the crappy quality of steel they built it out of, which puts the sinking into a whole new light. The question isn't whether we need further investigations, but rather, what type of investigation could there be that would actually be acceptable to you?

Here's the rub- everyone who has even the remotest qualifications to do any investigation necessarily has gov't connections of some way shape or form. People with crash site forensics and expertise to read black box information are almost necessarily with the FAA, people familiar with air defense systems are almost certainly with NORAD, anyone who knows the inner working of Al Qaida are going to be with the CIA or FBI, and anyone who can make forensic analysis on the remains of the WTC are going to be with NIST or FEMA. As you know, ever single one of these have been ruled out by the truthers as being "tainted with gov't connections" and therefore suspect.

So, who's left?




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join