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

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta


If you're going to stare yourself blind on Loose Change and at the same time put all investigators in one collection by tagging them as Loose Change followers whilst attempting to take precautions to the typical replies a typical post like this one triggers, you're not going to get very far.

You're also claiming that LC is the best source of information when it isn't. There's much more out there then just Youtube. LC certainly wasn't the first or best movie on 911 and surely won't be the last - and definitely has some valid arguments but it's made by a bunch of KIDS, what do you want. There's books out there that have a much deeper and better analysis, did you care to read any of those?

I've got a question for all of you.
How many of you actually read the reports, did your own investigation to try and clear out all the issues you have with 911? My estimate: about 1%. I tried to read them but some parts are so technical I'm not going to put myself in a position where I can say I fully understand them and as a result I'm unable to fully question the official explanations. I have to use other people's explanations to understand parts of it which is dangerous because everything I find is rather subjective. I guess most of you did understand all of it and are in a better position to draw conclusions then I am.

I think that in order to find common ground it's going back to the basics. It is so easy to slip into prejudice and subjectivity with all the circumstantial evidence and distortions of truth. We need to erase the tablet, look at what is worth investigating and then come to some REAL results TOGETHER.

Investigators: you need to have corroborating evidence at least. Without that, don't bother.
Debunkers: if there are holes in the official explanation it is your duty to either recognize these or try to give further explanations and evidence supporting the issue under investigation. If you are unable to do this, you are not a debunker.

In a nutshell: we need to have a load more humility. We won't see clearly without it. I hope you will interpret this as a constructive message.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


All intresting points.. Little advice, and take it for what its worth. You defeat your purpose by asking people to respond, then ridiculing them for not having your view on things.

Did planes hit the WTC? Yes
Did a plane hit the Pnetagon? - Yes (all of those non military witnesses cant be lying and giving the exact same story without a conspiracy forming).

As i stated before, what happened that day cannot be repeated in any lab / controlled test. You dont like the Government investigation, thats fine. Submit your evidence to the courts using the argument the government has failed to protect its citizens well being and go from there.

As far as the comments about the 1st world trade centr attack not being relevant, it very much is. A lot of the conpsiracies usrrounding the 2nd attack is there was no such thing as al queida before the Bush administration. The conspiracy theories have developed a thought process that it was all an inside job, and that Bin Laden is a fiment of peoples imagination, conjured up by the very Government that is being accused of murdering 3000 people.

A conspiracy of the magnitude you are suggesting can not be kept quiet. Obama would have flung the doors wide open on it, as well as both house of Congress, who have agency reports coming directly to them.

For every person who saiys this is not possible, there is a person who can show you it is possible. People are looking to make a cospiracy of the millenium by arguing the government investigation is a lie. The evidence used to support this argument however, is the evidence the government used. The Government said A and B happened, which resulted in C. Someone with a theory takes the same and says it cant be done this way because of facter x, y and Z.

The sheer number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy this large would be massive. You have foriegn citizens who were killed, mauinly from very close allied countries, who would pound the war drums if they event smelled coverup in the air with the chances it might be internal.

Keep asking questions, and someday you may find your answers that you want. It has been almost 10 years, with enough changes in the Federal Government, where if it were an inside job, it would have been disclosed by now to the public. We are a few months from the midterms.. who knows, it might come out then.

While I would like to thank you for inviting me to partake, then acting like an arrogant ass in your reponses, I think I will pass and move onto a thread that has a bit more open mindedness to the debate and questions posed.

As an afterthought, the theory you are suggesting is not your theory, but many other peoples theories wrapped into one. You can twist information any way you, or even the Government, sees fit. The only way you are going to get people to take it serisouly though is to be open minded enough to accept that a theory might have flaws. It doesnt discount the theory out of hand though.

The more debunkers run the Custer Defense, the more it looks like the Government coering stuff up all over again.

Also, I did not leave anything out of my response to yours. I was demonstrating that Al Queida does exist, and has always existed. That BinLaden exists, and has always existed. Demonstrating that the theory the government is behind the attacks completely disregards the fact their is enough evidence available to show otherwise. The Government has shown this, and people refuse to beleive it.

Why is that? Politics? Someone needing to feel special? Hatred for the Government, Hatred of Republicans? Americans tend to overcomplicate things, and often refuse to believe it when a resolution i spresented to them that is clear cut and concise.

America spent 2 million dollars devloping a pen that can write in space.
The soviets used a pencil.

Eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



He just mentioned all the police and firemen who reported that the fires were almost out, and how they heard explosions all over the place just prior to the building's collapse, and he wonders what ever happened to thier testionomy in the OS investigation.


from my above post summerizing from the father of the guy who was in the building when it was pulled.
Just for starters.

On another thread one of the ususal debunkers told me no one was killed in WTC building seven...guess he was uninformed about that. I wonder what else the debunkers here are uninformed about.

So, you haven't heard the testimony of those police and firemen?
now why is that?
I wonder why some of them complain about being on the no fly list ?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I don't know if this is the the thread on which to post this type of responce, but here it is.


The FDNY officers describe a situation with only two pockets of fire, and they express confidence that they will be able to fight the fire successfully with two hose lines. Two officials who are mentioned by name on the tape are Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom died when the South Tower collapsed. “Once they got there,” the Times says, “they had a coherent plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.”

According to the New York Times summary, the two officers “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control…. At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them…. The limited transcripts made available on the internet were as follows: Battalion Seven…Ladder Fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous Code Ones. The audio tape has never been released to the public. The Justice Department claims that it is evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussawi in Alexandria, Virginia. (New York Times, August 4, 2002) Christopher Bollyn, already cited, commented: “The fact that veteran firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of fire’ indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39) Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus the highest- ranking uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save everybody below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first tower.” (Giuliani 8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day


educate-yourself.org...


[edit on 26-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 54v!0r531f
wow you are dense. by saying what he said about clintons definition of 'is', he means it is stupid and worthy of ridicule to openly interpret the meaning of 'official story'.


"Wow," I know what he tried to say. Of course, he is avoiding answering a question that he can't answer. Ginny can't define the "Official Story" for everyone, he can only define it for himself. I asked him his definition and he hand waved a bit. Maybe he hadn't thought it through. Each person decides what is included and what isn't included and often this is a moving target. Ginny hasn't a clue how anyone other than he defines "official story" and I'm wondering about him.

How's your personal density?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
All intresting points.. Little advice, and take it for what its worth. You defeat your purpose by asking people to respond, then ridiculing them for not having your view on things.


I don't ridicule them for not sharing my views. I ridicule them for making stupid arguments.

Next you'll be telling me stupidity doesn't exist and everything is a matter of opinion. There is such a thing as being wrong.

People not being able to accept their own burden of proof is one such form of stupidity. Or denial, or some kind of problem. When it was the government's job to prove something, but no one wants to even accept this common sense fact, proven by the fact that they even took it upon themselves to issue official reports, something is obviously seriously wrong. And then you see the desperation of people trying their damnedest to justify this stupidity, of claiming the government had no such burden and they in turn have no burden to prove that the government ever proved anything. It doesn't work that way. That is WRONG. All of these people can't just cry about it until it goes away like a baby wanting to be spoon-fed. Not a single damned one of them have refuted the dictionary's definitions. Not a single damned one of ANY of you have posted any evidence to prove your own opinions on 9/11 are as justified as you all want to think they are. You just gloss over it, typical of the ignorance and arrogance of someone who is already convinced that their nonsense is irrefutable.

There are also logical fallacies. Yes, they exist. They are just what they say: fallacies of reasoning. That means, they are statements that don't make a damned bit of sense. Why do you people keep using them?! Are you blind to the fact that you're doing it or do you think they actually make some kind of sense, despite being logical fallacies?


Did planes hit the WTC? Yes
Did a plane hit the Pnetagon? - Yes (all of those non military witnesses cant be lying and giving the exact same story without a conspiracy forming).


Did I say planes didn't hit the WTC, or anything at all about the Pentagon?

NO. You have just committed the straw-man fallacy.

Here's more advice: look up what a logical fallacy is. You obviously aren't very keen on them. There is such a thing, as being WRONG!


www.logicalfallacies.info...

Read that link.

Every single time you post a logical fallacy, ANY of the many forms of fallacy, you are saying the equivalent of 1+1=6. There is no way around not making sense, including posting MORE garbage that doesn't make sense and just making a big steaming pile out of it.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Ginny can't define the "Official Story" for everyone


The dictionary did it for you, Squirrely.

If you can't even interpret a dictionary definition then what are you competent enough to interpret? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. I learned how to use a dictionary when I was in elementary school. Maybe what you really need here is a Kindergarten teacher to explain things gently and maybe take an hour or two out to explain common sense to you. Or a girlfriend, or some form of getting attention besides making a fool of yourself on internet forums.

I posed questions to YOU that YOU can't answer:

How are the agencies and committees that released these reports NOT official government agencies?!?!

How does the information presented in these reports NOT constitute a series of events?!?

Those are open to interpretation like 1+1=2 is open to interpretation. If you want to dance around stupidity then at least be a man about it and say outright that you disagree with the dictionary's definitions. Don't drive-by post skirting around the nonsense at the heart of all your "reasoning." It's a truther dictionary isn't it? That's what you want to say. Or maybe truthers are the only ones that know how to use a dictionary anymore! It's what it looks like to me.

Maybe you have just evolved beyond the use of a dictionary and can make up your own definitions as you see fit. That's apparently exactly what you're trying to argue here. Well that's unfortunate because I tend to think of someone who spins words to mean things other than their actual definitions, as either intentionally dishonest or else dim as hell. If words didn't already have agreed-upon definitions (in the dictionary) then I could put together a sentence of total nonsense and just say I'm "interpreting" all the words differently than the dictionary. What if I told you "Dog tree ass yard scapegoat" and then told you that according to my "interpretation" of this "sentence" it means that I'm the King of England? According to your principle of "interpreting" the dictionary, that's perfectly acceptable. Why don't we just all make up new personal definitions for all words, or go back to grunting at each other and poking each other with sticks in caves? Then you'd never have to worry about the meaning of the phrase "official story."



I asked him his definition and he hand waved a bit.


Why in the HELL would you ask ME for a definition when I just posted the DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS? And you want to call someone else dense?

If people have definitions other than what the dictionary says for these words, then those people are IGNORANT, and I don't give a damn about what any of them think about it! Oh and by the way, "ignorant" means "pretty and smells like flowers" now, so I actually just complemented you, despite what you want to think.
Good God, there is no helping you.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Double post.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by pteridine
Ginny can't define the "Official Story" for everyone


The dictionary did it for you, Squirrely.

If you can't even interpret a dictionary definition then what are you competent enough to interpret? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. I learned how to use a dictionary when I was in elementary school. I posed questions to YOU that YOU can't answer:

How are the agencies and committees that released these reports NOT official government agencies?!?!

How does the information presented in these reports NOT constitute a series of events?!?

Or maybe truthers are the only ones that know how to use a dictionary anymore! It's what it looks like to me.

Well that's unfortunate because I tend to think of someone who spins words to mean things other than their actual definitions, as either intentionally dishonest or else dim as hell. If words didn't already have agreed-upon definitions (in the dictionary) then I could put together a sentence of total nonsense and just say I'm "interpreting" all the words differently than the dictionary. What if I told you "Dog tree ass yard scapegoat" and then told you that according to my "interpretation" of this "sentence" it means that I'm the King of England? According to your principle of "interpreting" the dictionary, that's perfectly acceptable. Why don't we just all make up new personal definitions for all words, or go back to grunting at each other and poking each other with sticks in caves? Then you'd never have to worry about the meaning of the phrase "official story."



I asked him his definition and he hand waved a bit.


Why in the HELL would you ask ME for a definition when I just posted the DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS? And you want to call someone else dense?

If people have definitions other than what the dictionary says for these words, then those people are IGNORANT, and I don't give a damn about what any of them think about it!
Good God, there is no helping you.


I can see that when you find yourself in an uncomfortable position, you argue points that were not made and hurl petty insults. The exasperated tone helps convince some of your outrage at my questions.
I never stated that the entities who wrote reports were not sponsored by the Federal Government or were made up of federal employees. I never stated that what was in the reports was not a recounting of events.
I asked for a list of what documents, videos, reports, interviews, statements, etc. that you thought made up the "Official Story" as there is no single document labelled "Official Story." Possibly, you didn't realize this. Others may have different views than you do, so a precise definition would be helpful.
Thanks so much for the cut and paste defintions. They show a depth of understanding and serious "research" that I have come to expect from you.
I also appreciated your reference, on another thread, to General Lee [not the Dodge from Hazzard] going to the rear. Lee was the third best General that fought for the confederacy, right behind Longstreet and Jackson, so I can understand your affinity for him.
As to the dense comment, that particular poster told me how dense I was for not understanding your implication. I just asked after his personal density as a matter of politeness. I'll ask after yours, too, if you'd like.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Interesting post. I'll star it.

I believe the Bush administration was fully aware of the attacks. But instead of taking the warnings seriously, W. needed to enjoy his vacation a bit more.

After the attacks happened, it was a perfect excuse to go into Afghanistan. After that, Republicans played the 9/11 game. What's the 9/11 game you ask? It's when someone mentions 9/11 over and over and over to justify something. In this case, it was war with Iraq. Of course, WMD was a "concern" but 9/11 reached home to many Americans and only a select few agreed to an illegal invasion of a country that never attacked us.

The result: over 500,000 dead Iraqis.

That's the 9/11 game and it's sickening that the SAME (and new) people are playing the game again when it comes to the Mosque near Ground Zero. 9/11 shouldn't justify removing the freedom of religion from citizens of the United States and it's a damn shame it's being exploited by sick individuals such as Palin and her crew of morons.


Anywho, sorry for the long post, just felt the need to share.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by SeventhSeal]



Thanks for sharing;


Yes, exactly that. They wield 9/11 like the Zionists wield 'holocaust' - and like you say, that too is the same game.

If the Government can't prove that at the time it invaded Afghanistan it had hard evidence of the existence of Al-Qaeda and that Al-Qaeda was responsible, then a full investigation to ascertain who did it is a absolute legal requirement. Absence of proof also makes the Afghan invasion illegal.

As you say, 9/11 provided the perfect excuse for invading Afghanistan and Iraq...and for so many repressive measures in US and abroad too.
In a court of law, that would constitute 'motive'.

As far as I am aware, the Afghanistan invasion took place on the basis of statements by the Government that muslim extremists carried out the attacks, but statements aren't proof. And information which was suppressed at the time provided evidence for reasonable suspicion of Zionist culpablilty. I have never seen anything which constitutes proof that Al-Qaeda did this, and that to me is supremely significant in terms of the need for a huge investigation.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I don't ridicule them for not sharing my views. I ridicule them for making stupid arguments. Next you'll be telling me stupidity doesn't exist and everything is a matter of opinion. There is such a thing as being wrong.


Thank you for proving my point. Asking people for debate, then calling their answers stupid, uninformed, falacy etc contradicts what you are trying to do. You want difinitive proof of something that you will most likely never get.

Food for thought to people. The attacks were also a criminal act, and is still an open investigation as to who is going to be held accountible for them. Based on this its understandable that not all of the information is going to come out. You do that, you just jeopradized any court case, since the evidence is now tainted.

Anyways, quest away with your theory man. More power to you and good luck hunting your white whale.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Thank you for proving my point. Asking people for debate, then calling their answers stupid, uninformed, falacy etc contradicts what you are trying to do. You want difinitive proof of something that you will most likely never get.


You might benefit from learning to use a dictionary too.

What am I supposed to say when someone posts something incomprehensibly stupid?

Let's look at just a few of the arguments I'm talking about, from this thread alone, and you pick which ones you think are intelligent:

1) It was never the government's burden to prove anything about 9/11.

2) The US government was not the "accuser" after 9/11. (Apparently they never accused al Qaeda. No -- wait, let's just debate the meaning of the word "accuse.")

3) Dictionary definitions are just "cut and paste jobs" (I guess I'm actually supposed to paraphrase or just make them up like these trolls do) so we can alter the definitions of words at will.

4) WTC7 was "completely" on fire. Another total abuse of the definition of a word.


So go ahead and pick one or more of those arguments and we'll debate whether or not it's stupid and why. Instead of you just crying about me using the word. I call it like I see it and you're not even going near any of these specific claims, not with a 10 foot pole. Why not? Your feelings are just hurt by the word "stupid" but you don't want to defend the arguments I'm actually calling stupid? Do you know what I think that is?....




Originally posted by hawaiinguy12
I cannot help but laugh to myself every time I hear someone believe the official story of 9/11. I,myself use to be in that camp but then I eventually found something that never existed when I was younger, LOGIC AND A BRAIN.


At least this guy is honest about it.


You have my respect sir.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As to the dense comment, that particular poster told me how dense I was for not understanding your implication.


And he was quite correct.


I just asked after his personal density as a matter of politeness. I'll ask after yours, too, if you'd like.


You certainly may. The density is all yours, Squirrely.


And you think you actually know something about our Civil War. ROFL



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Nah there is no point in attempting to talk to you about this topic since you are right and everyone else is wrong, or you are smart and everyone else is dumb.

Out of curiosity what part did you play in the investigation? I mean with your expert explanations I am guessing that you had some type of investigatory role to know you are right, while everyone else is wrong. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Not other peoples evidence, but your own?

At least it was placed into the rant forum. When you get done learning about criminal statutes, investigatory jurisdiction, rules of evidence, and criminal procedures come talk to me (9/11 is still an active criminal investigation, as I stated before that you chose to ignore).

Until then you can go back to calling people stupid inbetween posting evidence / theories other people developed. Or did they steal these theories from you? Actually I guess it doesnt matter since the more you open your mouth in this forum, the less credible you become.

Good luck hunting your white whale Ahab.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


You seem to have got your panties in a twist, Ginny. By your last post, I see that you don't have any personal definition of the "Official Story" and can only churn your non-points and toss petty insults at those who disagree with you. It is no wonder your thread was demoted to BTS.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 

You are not the jury. You have accused government officials of certain crimes one being the perpetrators of 9/11 and another being a cover up of that crime. Now if you want them brought to justice you must prove your case.





top topics
 
54
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join