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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain.

Even the Wikipedia page featuring all of the 9/11 polls tells you that lack of exposure to information does NOT make a significant difference on peoples' 9/11 views.



Er, yes. Exactly.

The poster above is trying to push the notion that exposure to information re 9/11 automatically makes one a truther. This is, as you say, untrue.




Ie, the less educated people are NOT the "truthers." So your theory that we're all just ignorant has already been debunked, if you had the insight to realize it.


I'm not suggesting anyone is ignorant. Just unable to evaluate information correctly and frankly biased.

And let's face it, there isn't great support for the Truth Movement among the intelligentsia. I suppose you might think this is because they're all in on it. Clever people are always in a little group aren't they? Running the media, spewing their junk science... thatnk god for the little guy.





Then you admit you've never done any real research either?


I haven't, for example, phoned the crash investigators who carried out the Shanksville study. But then, neither has anyone here. They prefer to pore over a few photos, imagining inconsistencies.

Show me a genuine piece of research on 9/11, done by someone on this forum. Plenty of people here trumpet their "research" capabilities. It should be simple to find an original piece of work.


You don't read technical papers and even if you did you wouldn't understand them. I'd always love to see a technical paper that proves how the WTC collapsed, and that a "debunker" was willing to debate with me. Just make the thread and I'll be there. All you probably watch is YouTube videos and read JREF forums.


I've never been to Jref. Indeed I'm only dimly aware of what it is.

Show me a "technical paper" on 9/11 and I'll read it. And I'll be able to understand it as well.




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I've done lots of research. It's not true that investigating automatically puts you in the Truther camp.


If you have done the research and still believe the "official story" there are only two possibilities.

1. You are rationalizing the evidence away because you are in denial.

2. You are not being honest.


Nonsense. The Truth Movement's 'research' is laughable to anyone with a discerning thought in their head. And there is no compulsion to believe something called the "OS" anyway - one can believe that the US government probably spun their take on 9/11 to the public (who could believe they wouldn't?) and still consider the Truth Movement to be a bad joke.

The denial is the preserve of Truthers. The constant inability to engage with the implications of their arguments, the total lack of a cogent alternative theory - indeed, the basic lack of desire to come up with one. The fetishising of tiny inconsistencies in an invented strawman called "The OS".

All this hardly speaks of intellectual rigour. Indeed it looks more like the fumblings of a group of people for whom 9/11 was a terrifying event. Any rationalisation will do.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Bones, I agree with you and support your endeavor, however you are just wasting your time with some of the kids in here. They are here to play. Another good topic turned against good decent people who are on a continue journey in searching for the truth. In my opinion, some of you so call debunkers are not debunkers and do not know how to debunk. Many of you enjoy using ATS to play games and attack Truthers. This is what I see from most debunkers in the 911 forums; don’t believe me, just read some of the outrages statements from some of you. Many of you debunkers actually believe your opinions are above science, and physics as many of you have just demonstrated here today, on this thread. In my opinions, some of you are “hecklers,” not debunkers.

There are some debunkers that post in the 911 forums that are real debunkers most people have no trouble distinguishing the different from the “hecklers,” to serious debunkers.
A good debunker does not put himself above everyone.
A good debunker post credible sources to back his claims.
A good debunker does not demand his opinions are the truth.
A good debunker does not tell lies.
A good debunker does not twist the facts.
A good debunker is not emotional.
A good debunker respects the person he is having a debate with.
A good debunker does not need to insult his opponent.
A good debunker researches his topic before debating.

To be a Truther one must always keep an open mind.
To be a Truther one must research all sides of the topic.
To be a Truther one does not tell lies.
To be a Truther one does not distort the facts.
To be a Truther one doesn’t need to make up insane garbage as space beings, laser weapons, or invisible creatures from the under world pulled off 911.
To be a Truther one doesn’t need to insult and attack anyone.
To be a Truther one must respect his opponent.
To be a Truther one must show his sources to back their claims.
To be a Truther one, cannot believe in fairytales.
Once the truth is established it stands on it own, it cannot be torn down.






Yes I agree. I suspect that much. It cause pain to real intellectual debates. For those debunker, please by all mean, examine any theories carefully before you come straight and kill a thread with your careless 'homework'.

Thanks



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I can say that there seems to be no reasonable alternative to the story that is more or less accepted as factual.


1. The official story is not reasonable regardless of any alternatives.

2. "Accept" ?

You don't accept claims in the scientific world, regardless of who they come from.

Even if Eisenstein comes back to life and say the "official story" is true, you still need to be critical of his claims.

The problem is that you are "accepting" a story rather than analyzing all the evidence objectively.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
I can say that there seems to be no reasonable alternative to the story that is more or less accepted as factual.


1. The official story is not reasonable regardless of any alternatives.

2. "Accept" ?

You don't accept claims in the scientific world, regardless of who they come from.

Even if Eisenstein comes back to life and say the "official story" is true, you still need to be critical of his claims.

The problem is that you are "accepting" a story rather than analyzing all the evidence objectively.


The exposition of events is not science, it is history. Science can be used to support or negate historical record.
I have rebutted Jones' paper again and again, and the true believers who have no discriminatory capabilities keep saying thermite was proved because of Jones' "science."

If "Eisenstein" comes back to life, I'll be critical of his claims and his bagels.

You should consider analyzing the evidence objectively.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The exposition of events is not science, it is history. Science can be used to support or negate historical record.


But this doesn't mean you instantly accept the science that supports the "historical record" you like best.

Isn't it strange that I claim that the evidence that proves the official story is impossible is extremely obvious and irrefutable.

While you claim this evidence does not even exist...

One of us must be a liar.

Why do you spend so much time arguing with delusional people about evidence that doesn't even exist?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
The exposition of events is not science, it is history. Science can be used to support or negate historical record.


But this doesn't mean you instantly accept the science that supports the "historical record" you like best.

Isn't it strange that I claim that the evidence that proves the official story is impossible is extremely obvious and irrefutable.

While you claim this evidence does not even exist...

One of us must be a liar.

Why do you spend so much time arguing with delusional people about evidence that doesn't even exist?


"Liar" implies intent to deceive. I don't intend to deceive, do you? I think your standards for evidence are just more flexible than most.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't intend to deceive


That would be believable if you would admit that you never considered the possibility that the "official story" is not true.

Otherwise this just doesn't make any sense.

A little research makes it obvious that the official story is untrue.
A lot of research makes it irrefutable that the official story is impossible.

So isn't it strange that both of us claim the truth is so obvious?

Again, why do you spend so much time debating with delusional people?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


A little research makes it obvious that the official story is untrue.
A lot of research makes it irrefutable that the official story is impossible.


You keep saying this, and yet there's very little evidence for it.

I'll tell you what, why don't you tell me what research you've done yourself, and it might give me some ideas of lines to explore. Perhaps you'll win me over.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

That would be believable if you would admit that you never considered the possibility that the "official story" is not true.

Again, why do you spend so much time debating with delusional people?


You want me to admit that I never considered the possibility that the official story is not true. Are there one too many negatives in that statement?

I think debate is theraputic for all.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Jezus

That would be believable if you would admit that you never considered the possibility that the "official story" is not true.

Again, why do you spend so much time debating with delusional people?


You want me to admit that I never considered the possibility that the official story is not true. Are there one too many negatives in that statement?


Are you being serious or just changing the subject?

I want you to admit that you never considered the possibility that something besides the official story happened...

In other words, you never did any research to prove to yourself that the official story was true because you assumed it was.

If you had been even slightly critical of the "official story" it would become extremely obvious extremely quickly how ridiculous it is.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Are you being serious or just changing the subject?

I want you to admit that you never considered the possibility that something besides the official story happened...

In other words, you never did any research to prove to yourself that the official story was true because you assumed it was.

If you had been even slightly critical of the "official story" it would become extremely obvious extremely quickly how ridiculous it is.



If you can define the official story in all its glory, I will be able to answer you. There doesn't seem to be just one comprehensive official story but rather many reports from many sources. Which obviously ridiculous part do you refer to? That planes struck buildings? That buildings burned? That buildings collapsed?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by pteridine
I think debate is theraputic for all.


Especially when you think it determines how big of a man you are, and you get a rush from doing it everyday just like a real junkie, right pteridine? How much do you actually learn here on a daily basis? I would wager, not much, if anything.

The sharper your opponents seem, the bigger the rush, though.

Well maybe it's a good thing you were never turned loose on the streets...


You sound like you are frustrated and angry. I actually learn quite a bit on ATS. In the 911 threads, however, I only learn that those desperate for conspiracy will believe anything that reinforces their view and reject anything that questions it. Without new material to select from, they continually resurrect theories that have been killed and act as though they are novel. It is a study in human nature.

I get no rush from you or your amateur psychoanalysis.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You sound like you are frustrated and angry.


Wrong again.


I actually learn quite a bit on ATS.


Sounds defensive to me.


In the 911 threads, however, I only learn that those desperate for conspiracy will believe anything


Now the truth comes out. Yet you continue to come here every day. To re-learn this same thing over and over? Yeah, right.

Remember what I said about having to feel like the big man? That's why you come here. You know it. I know it. Everyone who's been there and done that in their lives knows it.


It is a study in human nature.


Now that I can agree with. But what you're really studying is a mirror, and I'm trying to show it to you, but you keep staring straight into it. And I know more than a little about psychology. Jung called what you're doing "projection."

So you sign on here and post all this crap every single day to "learn that those desperate for conspiracy will believe anything." Yeahhhh right.

Keep telling yourself that.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If you can define the official story in all its glory, I will be able to answer you. There doesn't seem to be just one comprehensive official story but rather many reports from many sources.


You actually did answer the question.

You believe the "official story" so blindly that you refuse to call in that and instead call it the "true" story.

Your way of saying this is claiming that the "official story" matches up with "many reports and many sources".

This is false, but the question remains.

Are you lying or do you really just assume it to be true without doing the research?

Like I said, if you want to believe the "official story" without being critical of the evidence, that is your right, but to pretend that you actually considered the possibility that it was not true is dishonest.

You still haven't really explained why you spend such a large amount of your time telling delusional people they are delusional.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So why don't we have a table from the OFFICIAL SOURCES specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? We don't even know the number of beams that connected the 47 core columns.


Again, why? Do you believe that there is a distribution model that would facilitate the collapse as shown by the NIST? If so, what is that model?

If you do not believe that the NIST model is possible than why do you need any more data?


There are THREE different reasons why the distributions of steel and other masses matter to the analysis. People the just BELIEVE don't need to ask obvious questions.

The NIST admits that the distribution of mass matters to the analysis of the impact. But then they don't do it.

This entire business is about people thinking what they are told and not analyzing a simple problem for themselves. If people won't put their brains in gear and figure out some grade school physics that is not my fault.

psik



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


In the 911 threads, however, I only learn that those desperate for conspiracy will believe anything


Now the truth comes out. Yet you continue to come here every day. To re-learn this same thing over and over? Yeah, right.

Remember what I said about having to feel like the big man? That's why you come here. You know it. I know it. Everyone who's been there and done that in their lives knows it.

So you sign on here and post all this crap every single day to "learn that those desperate for conspiracy will believe anything." Yeahhhh right.


For some reason I suspected that you were big into philosophy or psychology. You try to analyze my motivation and do not come close. Your logic fails you when you confuse my reason for posting with the result of my posting.
Go back and read what Jung has to say about feelings of inadequacy in his "Red Book."




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join