Are you a "Debunker" that denies the existence of an Official Story? Here's your sign

Originally posted by Snarf
See? It goes both ways.

When was the last time a plane flew into a high rise building in New York City?

no, it was not 9 11 01

but, if you write that date on a piece of paper, and turn it upside down, you will have the last date a plane flew into a high rise bulding in NYC.

10-11-06
www.cnn.com...
___________________________________

Originally posted by Snarf
See? It goes both ways.

yes, it goes both ways, where "it" = words....

boots [mirror] stood
*yes, boots have been known to have stood.

eden [reversed & spelled phonetically] nude
*yes, they were reportedly nude in the garden of eden.

trophy [reversed & spelled phonetically] effort
*yes, a trophy is nothing more than proof of an effort.

shower [reversed & spelled phonetically] rewosh=rewash
*yes, i re-wash the same parts as i did last time i took a shower.

STAY [reversed & spelled phonetically] ATS
*yes, we have been known to stay on ATS as much as we can.

Originally posted by Snarf
See? It goes both ways.

yes, just like Pavlov's dog with the bells, we are conditioned not with bells, but with the encoding and encrypting of words.

Originally posted by Snarf
See? It goes both ways.

yes, "it" goes both ways. and, yes, conspiracies do exist.....

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by pteridine

 

Alright, after this post will be time for me to stop feeding the trolls again because your convolution of the topic is already totally outweighing any substance in your post.

The definitions are open to interpretation like Bill Clinton's word "is", is open to interpretation. Unless you are denying that government agencies are authorities, or denying that they have described a series of events in their reports, either of which would be so asinine that it wouldn't even deserve a serious response. Just go ahead and say that government agencies aren't authorities, or that the reports don't describe a series of events. I'll let those statements stand without a rebuttal. That's fine. They don't even need one.

And with that, like I said, I'm going to have to starve the troll again.

As you said "the definitions are open to interpretation" which leads us back to my question. What constitutes the "official story?" Does it include MSM reports or not? What Government reports does it include? Does it include internet postings of "disinfo" agents or not? This doesn't deny an official story, it asks YOU to define the limits.
The troll excuse is just that; an excuse. The posts are convoluted in your mind because you hadn't considered all of this before you started on your latest rant and can't answer the question.
As I posted previously, this likely has as many interpretations as people interpreting it. As Ginny is unable to come to grips with the possibility of multiple interpretations, does anyone else want to try to answer this?

"What is included in the official story?"

reply to post by hooper


see snarf? He actually answered the questions,even if some of them weren't the greatest answers.2 And BTW, I NEVER said 9/11 was an "Inside Job" which automatically turns it into people believing that the ENTIRE government had something to do with it. I believe private interests had something to do with it that happens to had some people high up in government and just like you have a belief on what happened that day, I do too so lets leave it at that without getting into personal attacks

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


The guy narrating in those videos makes some very interesting and accurate observations. The part where he starts referring to hand gestures having some meaning is where I believe he might be going too far. Otherwise I think he is a very intelligent person who is good at reading body language.

[edit on 26/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by pteridine
As you said "the definitions are open to interpretation" which leads us back to my question. What constitutes the "official story?" Does it include MSM reports or not? What Government reports does it include? Does it include internet postings of "disinfo" agents or not? This doesn't deny an official story, it asks YOU to define the limits.
The troll excuse is just that; an excuse. The posts are convoluted in your mind because you hadn't considered all of this before you started on your latest rant and can't answer the question.
As I posted previously, this likely has as many interpretations as people interpreting it. As Ginny is unable to come to grips with the possibility of multiple interpretations, does anyone else want to try to answer this?

"What is included in the official story?"

To be concise:
- 9/11 Commission report
- The Bush Administration's statements in relation to events of 9/11
- MSM reports that immediately followed the events of 9/11

[edit on 26/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

You are done with him because he beat you. You can't admit it and so you are running. Anyone who doesn't know the basics about the burden of proof,and you obviously don't,should not start a thread like this. Grow up and do some reading on burden of proof.

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


Oh i see, now, you're my master, and I must do as you say? Good luck with that.



If you want answers to your ad hominem questions, why don't you look around this forum? Thousands of people have come before you and asked the exact same questions, you're not exactly inventing the wheel here, bud.

And if you want answers from me, then you get to go search out all my unanswered questions and answer those. I'm not doing the footwork for you.

And as to the other guy who thinks everything is some how connected and related...it's easy to play games with numbers. Hell, Jim Carrey stared in a movie where they did nothing but that...for the entire...freaking....movie.

It's all non sense. I truthfully am remorseful for you that you can't see it any other way

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

You are done with him because he beat you. You can't admit it and so you are running. Anyone who doesn't know the basics about the burden of proof,and you obviously don't,should not start a thread like this. Grow up and do some reading on burden of proof.

again, I would like to point out that the purden of proof is on the side of the accuser(the OS of the US governemt)

we(the jury) have found reasonable doubt...

you are not thinking about this in the correct perspective

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


It does go both ways. Im the one admitting it, you're the one trying to bury it.

I agree, conspiracies exist...but not everything is a conspiracy...no matter how hard to try to be clever.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

So I guess all I have to do is say there is no evidence in anything the truthers have written and then I'll be right just like you huh?
Wow I didn't realize it was that easy.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

What a sheer act of desperation .

Contrary to your opinion , you are the one who is confused . You and yours are accusing the government of lies and cover-ups and crimes . As I have already told one of your bedfellows , it is YOU and YOURS that are bringing the case against the government , therefore , the burden of proof is YOUR responsibility .

And , I notice that you still refuse to address my last post to you in the other thread . What's wrong , you just can't argue with facts and choose to ignore it instead ?

This is pathetic .

This is double-think to a level i've never seen....

The ORIGIONAL story aka the OFFICIAL story has the burden of proof because they are making the ORIGIONAL claims and making them OFFICIAL.

The alternative theories although jumping to some assumptions are mostly outlying the blatant faults in the "proof" and "facts" of the ORIGIONAL story.

-The government is claiming men in robes in caves thousands of miles away learned how to fly sesnas then somehow applied that to mass commuter jetliners and hit 75% of their targets.
-They are claiming that 2 planes took out 3 huge building and fire for the first time in the history of skycrapers caused uniform collapse and catestrophic failure of 3 buildings.

Those claims are far more outlandish than almost any alternative theory.

Now the problem debunkers are having is they can't for whatever reason FATHOM that the OS is a lie.

SO if you think the OS is 100% factual truth then of course you would also think that all alternative theories have the burden to prove the OS WRONG! It's known you cannot prove a negative which is essentially what you are asking alternative theories to do.

You are asking alternative theoriests to prove that something DIDN'T HAPPEN!

PROVE that terrorists DIDNT do it.
PROVE that fire DIDNT cause those buildings to collapse to neatly.

You only have the burden to prove something happened. Alternative theorsts have the burden to PROVE what DID bring the buildings down, who DID attack the towers, and WHO was behind it all.

Most alternative theorists are just pointing out the faults in the OS and shooting down the OS claims. Ignore all the accusations and claims of alternative theories and you STILL have one huge freaking problem. The OS is at the best so far half assed for an event of that magnitute any conclusion made from that investigation is extremely questionable.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by Sly1one]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


How about the NIST report? Other Government reports? Websites? What MSM journalism applies? How long after the events?

As you can see, without a precise definition, the "Official Story" can be almost anything anyone wants it to be. Ginny hadn't considered this and can't provide a definition for everyone else. Why would they accept his version of reality when they have their own?

Think about what should be included in an "Official Story"

reply to post by kalisdad

The Truthers are the accusers. Therefore they hold the burden of proof.

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by kalisdad

 

The Truthers are the accusers. Therefore they hold the burden of proof.

that's not correct...

the accusers are the people telling us what happened...
they present their case and tell us the conclussions we are supposed to be having


we are looking at their evidence, and we are seeing flaws

we are the jury and there is reasonable doubt


how is this an untrue statement??

edit - I am not making any claim on how it did happen...

I'm just saying that their account of the events is very flawed, and that it can't be correct

there are to many unanswered question in the OS

why is the pentegon damage so small compared to the size of the plane that supposed to have hit there?

how do you account for Pre-9/11 Put Options on companies hurt by this event?

this is not about me having to prove anything... its about me saying that the OS is in doubt, so there MIGHT be other explanations

[edit on 26-8-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by kalisdad]

reply to post by kalisdad

But now you have accused then of a cover up. now you have the burden of proof also.

One man's truth,
is another man's lie.
When a house of cards tumbles,
neither man can fly.
When the Screensmoke clears,
as it often does. . .
To whom must it matter,
what's believed or what was?

Whoa! That's deep.

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by kalisdad

 

But now you have accused then of a cover up. now you have the burden of proof also.

thats not how the judicial system works

does the jury have to prove that the district attorney is wrong?? no

all it takes is reasonable doubt and the DA loses the case

there is plenty of doubt in the OS

Originally posted by pteridine
How about the NIST report? Other Government reports? Websites? What MSM journalism applies? How long after the events?

- NIST report was conducted to establish how the buildings fell and what contributed to their collapse (it is a more specific examination of what was already mentioned in the Commission report).
- Government reports made by subsequent Governments would not be considered the OS because it was the Bush Administration in office at the time of the 9/11 attacks (the story given is the same now as it was on the day it happened anyway)
- MSM journalism is based on the MSM coverage of the event which makes it biased in support of the Official Story. (What was reported mirrors what was mentioned in the Commission Report).

As you can see, without a precise definition, the "Official Story" can be almost anything anyone wants it to be. Ginny hadn't considered this and can't provide a definition for everyone else. Why would they accept his version of reality when they have their own?

It is one of the very few things in our world that does constitute a rigid definition. We were informed by the media what happened and who was responsible. These comments were mirrored by the Government which was mirrored in the Commission report. In the first few years following 9/11, this was the "view of events" shared by most of the general public.

If you believe the OS is too hard to define, can you please explain what the War on Terror is? The War in Afghanistan? Who Osama Bin Laden is? (These terms might help refresh your memory about what the OS is and how it has been presented.)

[edit on 26/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

we all know the US official history or histories cant be verified, and we all know all the side theories cant be completely verified too

so, we have a fact that happened and nobody can explain what happened, and thats another fact

we dont know ... and if anyone tells u that they know, they are lying ...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Hi there, excellent summary and a real good read, but you know you will just be classed as either a disinfo agent or a sheep believing the MSM version don't you? As it happens, I agree totally with your points based in the information available...... but many people won't, it's too straightforward, there has to be someone to take the blame and most people like to blame their own usual target.