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.

 

Does it make any sense to try to convince the believer of the official tale (OT)?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666
 


But, you see, most people DO support the NIST's report. People like you just chalk all them up in the same group. Just because they agree with their findings, you say they're being paid or that they're crazy.

If I told you that I believed the sky didn't exist because I had found 2000 scientists who all questioned the existence of the sky, would that make me reasonable when the rest of the scientific community does think the sky exists? And would it be reasonable to believe them if these 2000 scientists were made up of guys that also believed the world was flat, that the devil is trying to make people deviate from God, and that John Stuart reports real news?
edit on 18-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo


Well no, maybe where you are at most people believe in the NIST report, or that is what you think, but if I would go around saying I believe in the NIST report I might as well yell that I saw bigfoot. The people who produced the NIST report are not the scientific community. I am sorry, but you are the moonhauxer in this setup, along with a wild tale of rich saudis (arent they suppsedly allies of America) attacking America because they hate your freedom.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I think you're confusing NIST with the 9/11 Commission report. Very few people believe THAT one. NIST, however, was just describing the engineering involved in the collapse.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I think you're confusing NIST with the 9/11 Commission report. Very few people believe THAT one. NIST, however, was just describing the engineering involved in the collapse.


No I am not confusing the 2. I am not going to run around and scream NIST REPORT any more than I would go around screaming ALIENS !!



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Of, course. Anyone screaming anything like that is going to get looked at funny. I have talked to a LOT of people, and none of them so far have objected to me referencing NIST. I guess these people who think it is similar to bigfoot and aliens are just in a different area, eh?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Of, course. Anyone screaming anything like that is going to get looked at funny. I have talked to a LOT of people, and none of them so far have objected to me referencing NIST. I guess these people who think it is similar to bigfoot and aliens are just in a different area, eh?


Yes I dont live in Indiana. That is the us, right? I live in Germany. Maybe I should have filled out my details, but I was like who is gonna read those anyway. If you live in America I can see how the official NIST report might be the mainstream there in some areas, although even there many people doubt it, from what I hear. I guess if I would drive to certain areas of the US and say I believe in UFOs from outer space in certain areas people wouldnt think I am some kind of nut either.

Well here the NIST report is the exact opposite of the mainstream and not just because I personally talked to people with experise on the field.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Just curious, which part or claim exactly in the NIST report makes it so far fetched for you?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Just curious, which part or claim exactly in the NIST report makes it so far fetched for you?


The part that enough load was transferred for the building to collapse for starters. Then there is the simulation for which the source code was not released, at which point it was just a nice animation. However I am not sure who produced that. But like I said. It isnt me you must convince. I trust people with more experitse on the field, who think the NIST is a bad joke, like errors, contradictions and exageration of actual data. Untill they have not been convinced I am not going to venture on the fringe end of society, by embracing the NIST. Then there is the fact that they must have used the NFPA manual for toilet paper.


edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am sorry but the NIST report is trying to push a fantastic tale of special and unique events, which did not occour again since, even in relation with building 7 which was not hit by an airliner and supposedly collapsed due to fire, a fire that did not look that bad looking on, unlike that appartment building that burned in China 3 days ago which was a lot cheaper exposed to a fire far worse and did not collapse. Or the building that burned in china on new years eve and was ablaze. And before you say it was more modern, what the f*c* were the standards for buildings that were built in 1985 anyway? We are not talking about a structure errected in 1885, keep that in mind.


To determine what truly happened to WTC 7, we need to analyze what specifically happened to WTC 7. Basing your viewpoint entirely on what you imagine should or should not have happened, or basing it upon what happened to some other building over in China, is poor methodology and intellectually lazy. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

I myself am going by the testimony of Deputy NYFD chief Peter Hayden, who was physically there at WTC 7 on 9/11, and he specifically says the collapse of the north tower destroyed the water supply to the fire suppression systems in WTC 7, that the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control, and that it was causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure. This on-site eyewitness account shows the fires were doing at least something nasty to the structure and therefore gives the NIST report at least some credibility. Your claim that "WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane" is an irrelevent red herring and your claim the "fires didn't look that bad" is a certified false statement by those who were there.


Then there is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 30 min before it actually collapsed, giving detailed reason for the collapse.


If you are going to quote this factoid then quote it correctly. The BBC reporters never announced it was WTC 7 that had collapsed before it did. They reported the Salomon brother building had collapsed, and it's obvious they just didn't know the Salomon bother's building was another name for WTC 7. I certainly didn't know WTC 7 was also known as the Salomon brother's building until you conspiracy characters started griping about it, so if *you* didn't know another name for WTC 7 was the Salomon brothers building then it's a dishonest double standard for you to demand that a British reporter should have known.


Believing in that video of the alien autopsy you are trying to push takes a lot of faith, is all I am trying to say.


Whatever you meant to say is immaterial. What you actually wound up saying is that you will stoop to outright dihonestly to advance what you yourself prefer to believe. Circulating false statements, demanding unreasonable expectations from others, and irrelevent comparisons to some *other* building tells me you're going out of your way NOT to find out what really happened to WTC 7.

Whatever actually did or did happen on 9/11, one thing is certain- you truthers are thoroughly unbelievable.
edit on 19-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...so at what point of seeing conspircies first hand do they start suspecting hologram planes and lasers from outer space?


Where did i say that?????

I am talking about the fact that if and when people see first hand police corruption and gov, they see that people in authority abuse that power, and it means they are open to understand things like 911 may have questions over it, like it was let happen.


All right, fair enough. If you experience such corruption first hand then I agree that you may suspect there may be further corruption that you're not seeing...but that's not the point. The point is, you've become so overly sensitized to said corruption that you're now starting to attribute unreasonable expectations from it almost to the point where it resembles the supernatural. I don't need to tell you that these conspiracies of secret controlled demelitions, lasers from outer space, hologram planes, are way, WAY over and above what we would expect from corrupt people. Come on, now, seriously, orbital lasers that destroy buildings but *not* people?

It's akin to a woman so afraid of being raped she's allowing irrational thought to override common sense. I mention this becuase not too long ago a woman sent an email to everyone in our company warning that even in an empty parking lot, rapists can even hide underneath cars, grab women as they open the door, and drag them underneath to rape them. Seriously, how much clearance is there underneath a car, anyway? Nine inches? A foot?

Just becuase there's corrution as well as rapists in the world, that doesn't mean they're magical.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Cassius666
 


My experience is that humans need to see first hand that conspiracies happen from gov and police before they question authority.

If they see corruption in police and gov they may listen, but if they do not and never see it, they seem to think all is well.


...so at what point of seeing conspircies first hand do they start suspecting hologram planes and lasers from outer space?


Every thread you do the same thing...YOU bring up all the BS theories YOU complain about...
Frikkin lasers from space and holograms are brought up by YOU more than any one else...
In fact I can't remember the last time anyone but YOU said anything stupid like that...
Care to show me the last time these silly theories were posted by anyone other that YOU ??

lol, not hard to see your tactics Dave....



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Its called shaming.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Every thread you do the same thing...YOU bring up all the BS theories YOU complain about...
Frikkin lasers from space and holograms are brought up by YOU more than any one else...
In fact I can't remember the last time anyone but YOU said anything stupid like that...
Care to show me the last time these silly theories were posted by anyone other that YOU ??

lol, not hard to see your tactics Dave....


...then you have not been reading the posts here with any frequency, as there are more proponents of these preposterous, "secret controlled demelitions" claims here than I can count. They're easy to find because they're all but getting into fist fights with each other over whether they were planted by the gov't, the Jews, or secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by backinblack
 


Its called shaming.


No, it's called, "evasion". You tried to justify your conspiracy stories with poor information and I corrected you. Instead of addressing this you just start making up reasons why you don't need to believe it like "I'm trying to shame you". Telling a woman that her dress makes her look fat may be insensitive, granted, but telling her has less to do with wanting to shame her and more to do with the fact that her dress is still making her look fat.

If you don't appreciate that we're pointing out why your claims are hogwash, then don't put out hogwash claims. It's not a trick question.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I didnt reply to you. I was not making any conspiracy theory. I merely got my information on why the tower collapsed from educated sources and no offense to you, I am going to believe them over the NIST report, which is not accepted in the mainstream any more than moonhauxer literature is, over some guy on the internet posting with profanity in his avatar picture writing on a conspiracy site. If you want to keep on wearing your tinfoil hat and keep pushing your wild theories of never before never again events, the NIST report, bigfoot UFOs and what else you are on this conspiracy site to discuss, by all means, do it. But there is no reason for you to get hostile with people who refuse to wear the tinfoil hat you offer them.
edit on 19-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Seriously, are you trying to be a troll? You're just being ridiculous now.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world, they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Seriously, are you trying to be a troll? You're just being ridiculous now.


Yep, I'll admit I haven't read *every* report concerning the 9/11 attack, but I haven't yet seen or heard of one that involved tinfoil hats or Big Foot.

What makes me laugh is that I'm actually trying to warn them from refraining from these childish antics becuase it only makes them look foolish, not anyone else, and they still don't get it. The truthers own worst enemy is themselves, not any secret gov't plot to take over the world.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world, they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?


"People with expertise in the field"? You mean like a New York City deputy fire chief who was physically there at WTC 7 and saw with his own eyes what damage the fires were doing? The same one I'm quoting and the same one you're slandering by saying he wears a tinfoil hat?

I will waste no more of my time on your foolishness.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world, they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?


"People with expertise in the field"? You mean like a New York City deputy fire chief who was physically there at WTC 7 and saw with his own eyes what damage the fires were doing? The same one I'm quoting and the same one you're slandering by saying he wears a tinfoil hat?

I will waste no more of my time on your foolishness.


Yes I trust people with expertise on the field over somebody who knows how to put out fires. But if you put more trust in these people.

firefightersfor911truth.org/

I am sure moonhauxers can quote "an expert on the insdide" too, I am still going to stick with the majority who says we did land on the moon.

Then there is the eyewitness accounts of firefighters who saw molten steele. The NIST report is not accepted in the mainstream. I admit to not being an expert, but I wont believe "aww not this crap again" posting on a conspiracy site either.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If you are going to quote this factoid then quote it correctly. The BBC reporters never announced it was WTC 7 that had collapsed before it did. They reported the Salomon brother building had collapsed, and it's obvious they just didn't know the Salomon bother's building was another name for WTC 7. I certainly didn't know WTC 7 was also known as the Salomon brother's building until you conspiracy characters started griping about it, so if *you* didn't know another name for WTC 7 was the Salomon brothers building then it's a dishonest double standard for you to demand that a British reporter should have known.


How does this fit into the discussion at all?
The reporter stated the Saloman Brother Building had collapsed.
At the EXACT same moment she said that and for 25-30 minutes later, the Saloman Brothers Building stood behind her on camera in full view.
Whether or not she referenced it as WTC7 makes no difference.
The building was STILL STANDING.

This is what you're so good at Dave. Nitpicking a certain comment, and derailing the discussion.
SO Dave, what is your point regarding this?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join